Monday, February 28, 2005
Another attack on Freedom to Connect
Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing points to this account, remarkably similar to my own experience, of how Canadian company Telus,
began blocking selected Internet connection to home computers. The blocking is invisible to most users, but all it takes is a cruise around message boards frequented by tech-savvy users–or a chat with a local geek–to know that Telus high-speed service isn’t what it used to be . . . Blocked ports include those used to listen for incoming email, FTP (file transfer), Telnet (remote login), and Internet Relay Chat client traffic, as well as incoming World Wide Web connections. Users can access other servers providing those services, but cannot provide them from their own computers. In other words, a Telus customer can be a client, but not a server.*snip*
Incoming Internet connections are not the only ones being blocked. Telus customers who use an outgoing email server other than Telus’s–usually because they are using a different email provider–are also finding their connections blocked. According to Telus’s technical bulletins, this is done “to reduce the amount of spam created on our network which prevents service degradation and possible outages as well as to reduce the amount of spam you receive in your e-mail.”*snip*
Telus customers who want to run servers at home have to upgrade to a business Internet package offering static Internet addresses. The cheapest of those packages is $84.95 per month, compared to the $29.95 that most residential users pay. The premium service does not, however, buy extra security—all it means is that the ports become unblocked.BoingBoing correspondent "Simon" comments
. . . if home users upgrade to a business account (for $84.95 a month, rather than $29.95) the blocked ports magically become unstuck. There's no mention, however, of increased security measures in the upgraded business accounts. Interpret this how you like.The best interpretation I can muster is, "a clumsy paternalistic kowtow in the general direction of network security that ensures that those who are motivated to attack the network pay their $50 while all of us end users who might have a newsletter or some other innocuous, maybe even innovative, but non-mainstream use for the network, are penalized."
Comments:
Telus was one of the first on the block port 25 bandwagon so it was inevitable they would go this route too. I've fought them for years with my work for community networks in rural BC (I can't even begin to describe the utter delight I had in telling a rather senior Telus management type to either put up or shut up a few years ago when I was handling an RFP for a local group and he was trying to intimidate me)and they are ruthlessly pursuing a strategy of give no quarter, take no prisoners, lock the customers in as much as possible.
If Telus is going this way then anyone connected to an ILEC (and probably the Cablecos as well) in North america had better be prepared for this to happen to then as well. They see the stupid network as their enemy and they will fight its arrival to their dying breath (may that come soon).
If Telus is going this way then anyone connected to an ILEC (and probably the Cablecos as well) in North america had better be prepared for this to happen to then as well. They see the stupid network as their enemy and they will fight its arrival to their dying breath (may that come soon).
<--late to this party but pioneer in fighting port blockers...-->
The last mile is something that even tech editors don't seem to grasp. Read (http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,99853,00.html)
to see what Computerworld Sr. Editor Bob Mitchell has to say about muni WiMAX.
AFAIK, David I. is a proponent of muni WiMAX since it will tend to provide a near-agnostic last-mile for many people, assuming two things: a) the muni bids out the setup and infrastructure retaining all rights, much like hiring a road crew to patch Rt.80; and b) the muni allows anyone to hook into the last mile, and reap some licensing fees accordingly to (presumably) pay for (a).
Post a Comment
The last mile is something that even tech editors don't seem to grasp. Read (http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,99853,00.html)
to see what Computerworld Sr. Editor Bob Mitchell has to say about muni WiMAX.
AFAIK, David I. is a proponent of muni WiMAX since it will tend to provide a near-agnostic last-mile for many people, assuming two things: a) the muni bids out the setup and infrastructure retaining all rights, much like hiring a road crew to patch Rt.80; and b) the muni allows anyone to hook into the last mile, and reap some licensing fees accordingly to (presumably) pay for (a).
