Comcast and SORBS

[Don Levey]

discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0500, Don Levey wrote:
>> Well, do the ISPs permit commercial use of non-commercial accounts?
>
> Why do I care if they do?  I'm not a business, and I'm not using it
> commercially...
>

Keep in mind that the post to which I was responding specifically mentioned
"Joe Tech" as a small business.  Thus, the business-related discussion here.
If the business portion does not apply to you, then clearly neither do the
comments.

>> business relationship between you and the ISP, which is bound by the
>> terms of the contract.  If the contract does not specify it, they're
>> under no obligation to provide it.  What you're saying is that
>> there's a need for an ISP which will provide a raw connection and
>> leave you alone.  IIRC, SpeakEasy is like that - and they charge a
>> little more than the big ISPs.
>
> And when I return to the US permanently, I'll do my darndest to make
> sure I live in their service area.
>
Good - that's the market at work.

>> But you can't complain that if a suitable partner isn't there, that
>> the unsuitable partner must conform to your business needs and not
>> theirs.
>
> Yes, you can, and you should.  Businesses exist to provide YOU with
> services and products.  If they're not offering what you want, you
> should complain.
>

Sure, complain - but don't demand that they conform to your way of doing
business, to the point of using their product in ways not originally
intended when sold and then raising a fuss when, big surprise, they aren't
interested in accommodating you.


> As for comcast, even if their TOS prohibit running servers, they
> tacitly allow it (at least until you become a problem for them).  So
> all those arguments about blocking mail based on my TOS are
> ridiculous...  What my service provider does and does not allow me to
> do is between me and them, and is no one else's business.
>
Um, no.  Just because they look the other way when competent people run
servers is absolutely no reason to conclude that their TOS is ridiculous.
They have the right to enforce that TOS, and in some cases the legal
obligation to do so.  If you are doing something which is against the TOS,
even if it worked today they are under no obligation to make sure it works
tomorrow.  They are well within their rights to shut down that service, as
technically you're not even paying for it - it's just a byproduct of the
service you ARE paying for.

> Arguments based on blocking spam from abusing parties are more valid,
> but this is still the wrong solution, and needlessly penalizes many
> legitimate users.
>
This has been examined many times by many people in other fora.  Basically,
the only way an ISP will clean up their own yard is if they see a financial
interest in it.  Losing customers is a financial interest.  There are
occasional de facto monopolies, but providers are not prohibited from moving
into an area.  Thus, it's not the same as a utility or common carrier.  And
even with utilities, you now often have a choice if you don't like the
practices of one.

>> And by the way - the additional $$ for a statis IP for RCN (on a
>> residential account) is $20/month.  That's $240 a year.  If your
>> business is so close to the line that you must not only commit fraud
>> (run a business on a home line, in violation of the contract) but
>> also cannot afford the additional $240/year, perhaps the more
>> important thing is to review your business plan and not rail against
>> your provider.
>
> I have said repeatedly that I am not a business.  I have no business.
> I don't want a business, and I'm not using my service to run a
> business.  It is for my own personal use.  If I had a business that
> generated money, I would have no problem paying for business-class
> service.  That's not what we're talking about here.  I send maybe a
> couple hundred messages per month from my personal server to
> communicate with my personal friends, and mailing lists for my
> personal interests.  There is no business matter involved in any way.
>
Then why are you responding to a post which was in itself a response to
business concerns?

>>> Idealistically speaking, it shouldn't be that way.
>>>
>> Sure, I'll agree with that 100%.  Ideally, we should also be able to
>> have open relays,
>
> No, we shouldn't.  This is a relic of a day when this was neccessary
> due to the Internet being poorly connected.  That's no longer the
> case, and site-to-site mail delivery is basically universally
> available.  Under such conditions, open relays provide no benefit, but
> do provide lots of opportunity for abuse.
>
But we should be ABLE to have them.  It's only the abuse which makes closing
them necessary.  Likewise, we should be ABLE to have unrestricted port 25
access from residential lines.  It's only the abuse which makes closing them
necessary.

>> truly anonymous FTP, etc.
>
> To the extent that the IP protocols allow it, we do.  Use a computer
> that can't be traced back to you, and it's as anonymous as you can
> get.  Not sure what your point is.
>
Other people have made the point that anonymous FTP has for the most part
gone by the wayside.  I'm simply referencing it here; I can't claim
ownership to that one.

>> People abuse networks - either purposefully, or by proxy.  If a
>> specific provider chooses not to keep their part of the neighborhood
>> clean, I'll make sure that they don't pollute my end of the
>> neighborhood.
>
> Most of the computers on comcast's networks which send out spam are
> compromised, working on the behalf of criminals.  I'm sure there is a
> solution here, but blocking EVERYBODY is the wrong one.
>
But you're NOT blocked - you can run your mailserver and smarthost through
Comcast's server.  You can receive mail directly.  You're not impeded at
all, except in those things which have the potential for severe abuse and
are also against the TOS.

>> It is not the *only* solution, but it is a very real, and effective,
>> one.
>
> It might be effective now, but if it becomes effective enough, the
> spammers will just move onto other networks in other localities that
> are more spam-friendly.  Ultimately, this is not a real solution.
>
This is not *THE* real solution, but it is part of the solution.  Or do you
seriously think that abusing, say, 80% of the network is not worse than
abusing 25%?  The rest of the solution may include making sure that the
remaining 25% becomes less spam-friendly.

> Please see Rich Braun's excellent post about business monopoly
> interests and the responsibilities the public can and should be able
> to place on businesses to meet their needs.  I'm signing off this
> thread, as it has already consumed far too much of my time.  =8^)

I did.  I don't think it says what you think it says.
Unlike in the days when AT&T ruled all the phone lines, there are no real
monopolies in this business, except to the extent that competing companies
do not choose to move into an area.  Basically, they don't see a compelling
business reason to do so.  That's the market.  Sucks not to be a socialist
country, doesn't it?

 -Don