[187796] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Thank you, Comcast.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Maxwell Cole)
Fri Feb 26 11:08:43 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Maxwell Cole <mcole.mailinglists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <19A51CD2-67DC-4724-88AE-361BC33FDB16@egon.cc>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:00:59 -0500
To: James Downs <egon@egon.cc>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Thats not really a fair comparison, I think a lot of people have issues =
with people censoring/controlling/prioritizing internet access to make =
money. Its a somewhat more nuanced conversation when you are talking =
about doing the same thing to prevent abuse.=20
Cheers,
Max
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:32 AM, James Downs <egon@egon.cc> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 06:31, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> ISP's should block nothing, to or from the customer, unless they make =
it clear *before* selling the service (and include it in the Terms and =
Conditions of Service Contract), that they are not selling an Internet =
connection but are selling a partially functional Internet connection =
(or a limited Internet Service), and specifying exactly what the =
built-in deficiencies are.
>=20
> Absolutely. It=E2=80=99s funny that a group that worries about about =
net neutrality and whinges about T-Mobile=E2=80=99s zero-rating certain =
video sources is perfectly fine with blindly blocking *ports*, without =
even understanding if it=E2=80=99s legitimate traffic.
>=20
>> Deficiencies may include:
>> port/protocol blockage toward the customer (destination blocks)
>> port/protocol blockage toward the internet (source blocks)
>> DNS diddling (filtering of responses, NXDOMAIN redirection/wildcards, =
etc)
>=20
> This would be a big reason to point to a different DNS...
>=20
>> Traffic Shaping/Policing/Congestion policies, inbound and outbound
>>=20
>> Some ISPs are good at this and provide opt-in/out methods for at =
least the first three on the list. Others not so much.
>=20
