* unfair limitations and practices by ISPs

Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

Hello:

I am pissed because my ISP (Bell's Sympatico.ca) does the following:

1. On one end, they block port 25 so I cannot access my own mail server,
for which I am paying together with my web domain.

2. Second, they don't allow emails being sent by a sender that is not a
sympatico.ca email address.

So, even though I pay for hosting a domain to have some internet presence, I
am still
forced to send email using hotmail (I am NOT using sysmpatico's email
address).

Is there any way around this? I've tried to setup my own local SMTP server,
using alternative
ports, but my mail wouldn't go out. Are there free SMTP servers out there
that accept connections on
ports other than 25? I know this could be truly abused, but isn't everything
that way?

Joey
9 answers Last reply
More about unfair limitations practices isps
  1. Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

    In article <WjWAd.37625$Tn1.1489280@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    Joe <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >I am pissed because my ISP (Bell's Sympatico.ca) does the following:
    > ...

    >Is there any way around this?

    Fire the ISP that does not do what you want and hire one that provides
    the services you need or prefer. However, do not whine about the
    unfairness of it all, including the prices of ISPs that offer the
    services you want. Also do not blather about the impossibility of
    using distant ISPs. You can service providers on the other side of
    the world. You might be able to use services of your local or current
    ISP for transit, perhaps using a VPN, to reach computers or services
    elsewhere. If not, you can almost always use dial-up modems or even
    satellite links to bypass local providers. If thugs with guns prevent
    bypassing the local provider, then you have far bigger problems than
    which TCP ports are blocked.

    Contrary to years and megabytes of whining from the spoiled rich,
    Internet service is not a fundamental human right. The whiners claim
    that paying a low price that happens to be more than the total per
    capita income of most of the world for the frill that is Internet
    service is among their fundamental rights.


    Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com
  2. Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

    >Are there free SMTP servers out there
    >that accept connections on
    >ports other than 25? I know this could be truly abused, but isn't everything
    >that way?

    Joey,

    IMHO dyndns offers such a relay service. It's not free, but if memory
    serves also not that expensive. I doubth that you find a "free" one
    cause as you said it quickly would be abused hell, be an open relay
    and as such blocked to hell.

    HTH

    Markus
  3. Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

    "Vernon Schryver" <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> wrote :

    >>I am pissed because my ISP (Bell's Sympatico.ca) does the following: ...
    >>[snip]
    >> ... Is there any way around this?

    > Fire the ISP that does not do what you want and hire one that provides
    > the services you need or prefer. However, do not whine about the
    > unfairness of it all, including the prices of ISPs that offer the
    > services you want.

    I'm not complainoing about ISPs in general. I complained about Bell Canada.
    It all comes down to the monopoly in the infrastructure. Emerging ISPs
    depend on how Bell
    manages that infrastructure (which is theirs), and the former can be subject
    to unfair practices from the latter (the old
    communications dinosaur). I experienced such a scenario when trying to sign
    up with a new ISP
    4 months ago.

    > If thugs with guns prevent
    > bypassing the local provider, then you have far bigger problems than
    > which TCP ports are blocked.

    I fail to remember mentioning gangters in this thread, but I find the
    subject interesting...
    What do you mean? Please, elaborate.

    > Contrary to years and megabytes of whining from the spoiled rich,
    > Internet service is not a fundamental human right.

    But still is sad to see that what once involved paying a single fee for all
    the basics
    (unblocked SMTP included) now involves paying various fees for separate
    services
    (like internet access on one end, email relaying on the other, etc.)

    All because of the "spammers". Does anyone ever stop to think that the
    spammers are
    mostly advertising? And who is the people who has stuff to advertise? The
    big corporations,
    and they also own the networks, and the porn industry, and the
    pharmaceuticals.
    Do I feel a feedback loop here? The snake biting its tail?
    Spam the world, them blame the innocent and establish controls and blocks.
    That way you get rid of
    the little guy and ensure that only your spam runs through your networks and
    reaches your clients.
    The keywors is again: Monopoly.

    Did I whine a lot this time? Sorry.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

    In article <UXBBd.69975$Tn1.2209706@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    Joe <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >> Fire the ISP that does not do what you want and hire one that provides
    >> the services you need or prefer. However, do not whine about the
    >> unfairness of it all, including the prices of ISPs that offer the
    >> services you want.
    >
    >I'm not complainoing about ISPs in general. I complained about Bell Canada.
    >It all comes down to the monopoly in the infrastructure. Emerging ISPs
    >depend on how Bell
    >manages that infrastructure (which is theirs), and the former can be subject
    >to unfair practices from the latter (the old
    >communications dinosaur). I experienced such a scenario when trying to sign
    >up with a new ISP
    >4 months ago.

    The original complaint wasn't bad, but this one is the special pleading
    that I warned against. I suspect Bell Canada has no more or less of
    a monopoly on any Internet infrastructure today than it did 80 years
    ago. Bell Canada may have monopolies on local loops, leased lines,
    plain ol' telephone service, but those are not are Internet services.
    Bell Canada may also have a de facto monopoly on below cost consumer
    grade IP transit or access services, but that is also not Internet
    service.


    >> If thugs with guns prevent
    >> bypassing the local provider, then you have far bigger problems than
    >> which TCP ports are blocked.
    >
    >I fail to remember mentioning gangters in this thread, but I find the
    >subject interesting...
    >What do you mean? Please, elaborate.

    The thugs I meant often wear uniforms and carry badges. They are the
    people who would enforce Bell Canadas' monopoly in Internet services,
    if Bell Canada in fact has such a monopoly. I suspect that Bell Canada
    has no such monopoly, unless you define Internet service as something
    costing less than 50 $US per month that you can buy from Bell Canada.


    >> Contrary to years and megabytes of whining from the spoiled rich,
    >> Internet service is not a fundamental human right.
    >
    >But still is sad to see that what once involved paying a single fee for all
    >the basics
    >(unblocked SMTP included) now involves paying various fees for separate
    >services
    >(like internet access on one end, email relaying on the other, etc.)

    It is even sadder or something that more basic basics including food,
    water, clothing, and housing now involving paying various fees for
    separate services and so forth and so on.

    I think only those who have never paid for and probably never used
    real Intenret service are likely to confuse it with the consumer-grade
    services offered by the telephants, but maybe I'm too old, biased, or
    something. In the old days, you might have rented wires from telcos,
    but that had (and has) as much to do with buying real Internet services
    as buying electricity.

    Providers like Bell Canada must choose between charging what it costs
    to maintain their networks including policing their users or treating
    their networks like tenements and their customers like drug dealers
    and spammers. They all seem to choosing to be slumlords, and that
    implies minimizing opportunities for maintenance by removing glass
    from windows and blocking TCP port 25.


    >All because of the "spammers". Does anyone ever stop to think that the
    >spammers are
    >mostly advertising? And who is the people who has stuff to advertise? The
    >big corporations,
    >and they also own the networks, and the porn industry, and the
    >pharmaceuticals.

    I don't understand how any informed person could say that big
    corporations provide the goods and services advertised by most
    current spam or are other than distressed about most current spam.
    Members of the Fortune 5,000,000 would love to use "mainsleaze"
    spam to contact new and prospective customers. They generally
    cannot because of the floods of "whack-a-mole" spam.

    >Do I feel a feedback loop here? The snake biting its tail?
    >Spam the world, them blame the innocent and establish controls and blocks.
    >That way you get rid of
    >the little guy and ensure that only your spam runs through your networks and
    >reaches your clients.
    >The keywors is again: Monopoly.
    >
    >Did I whine a lot this time? Sorry.

    A better target than big bad evil parasitic blah blah corporations are
    lusers who expect something for nothing, and so respond to spam. Very
    few spammers do it for fun. Spam reading lusers are the same cursed
    fools who consider themselves entitled to real Internet services at
    prices significantly below the costs of ensuring that their Microstupid
    malware distribution systems are not pumping millions of spam through
    their trojan proxies.

    Spammers have only secondary responsibility for the fact that so
    many SMTP servers blacklist the IP addresses of providers such as
    Bell Canada with DNS blacklists. Those with the most responsibility
    are the owners of the millions of trojan proxies. Even Microsoft
    has more responsibility for continuing to advertise and software
    that is practically always run in user friendly modes where random
    mail messages install malware.

    Disclosure: I am responsible for the DCC, which recently has been
    filtering spam from about 190 million mail messages per non-holiday
    weekday.


    Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com
  5. Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

    In article <UXBBd.69975$Tn1.2209706@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    Joe <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
    :I'm not complainoing about ISPs in general. I complained about Bell Canada.
    :It all comes down to the monopoly in the infrastructure. Emerging ISPs
    :depend on how Bell
    :manages that infrastructure (which is theirs), and the former can be subject
    :to unfair practices from the latter (the old
    :communications dinosaur).

    Are you up in Alert? If not then you have alternatives.

    Bell Canada serves only Ontario and eastward, so I know you aren't
    in the Yukon or Nanuvut or North West Territories. If you are
    in anything resembling a city then you have a choice of independant
    providers. There are local dialup numbers in most markets in the
    south of Canada, and a number of the providers have 800 numbers to
    access their services that can be used anywhere that isn't considered
    "the north". You can even use AOL if you need to.

    You might -feel- like Bell Canada is the only game in town, but
    that's unlikely to really be the case. Bell Canada may be the
    only local provider with "residential" priced service in smaller areas,
    but there are a lot of business-class providers that you never hear
    about unless you go looking for a business-class provider.


    Here-abouts, MTS ate practically all of the local independant ISPs that
    advertised residential services, and the MTS AUP (which was the
    Sympatico AUP) was pretty heavy-handed -- an AUP that it was literally
    impossible not to be in violation of from the very first minute that
    you connected your service. I argued hard with MTS and got them to
    agree to bend on everything -except- the most crucial phrase, at which
    point they told me to take it or leave it. The AUP from the local
    cable broadband service looked even worse! I was pretty discouraged,
    but I looked hard and found an alternative service from a company
    whose AUP was excellent. Unfortunately the company essentially went
    bankrupt shortly after we turned up our service :(

    I kept looking and eventually noticed that if you read *very* carefully
    the AUP that you got when you signed up for MTS's DSL service, that it
    was completely different than what was obvious. Not even their sales
    reps knew that, but I called through to the help desk, pointed out the
    difference, and the help desk agreed that the hidden AUP was the
    controlling one, not the AUP that was the only one that could normally
    be found. So I signed up with the DSL service.

    And everything was good... until a couple of years later, I noticed
    that MTS had quietly gone and changed their DSL AUP to one that was
    impossible not to break. [Some of the words in the contract mean
    *completely* different things than what they are commonly understood to
    mean.]

    I then looked around a fair bit and eventually found
    http://www.canadianisp.com/ and it's listing of ISPs. I went through
    and found that there were several dozen business-class ISPs serving my
    area, at least half a dozen of which had acceptable AUPs... I just
    wasn't willing to pay the price for any of them except one;
    unfortunately that one completely dropped the ball on getting back to
    me (even after reminders). I was willing to pay the more than $C 2000
    installation fee (probably $C 4000 as I was outside their core service
    area), but for whatever reason they weren't hungry enough to keep in
    touch.


    It is important to note here that I *had* the choice. I wasn't
    forced to use MTS Sympatico: it was strictly a matter of whether I
    was willing to pay the going rate for the service that I wanted.
    And *that's* what Vern is talking about. Vern would, I gather, say
    that it's -my- fault for putting up with an ISP that isn't fitting my
    needs, and he'd be perfectly right: there are -lots- of alternatives,
    and if I'm just too cheap to pay the price, that's *my* problem,
    not MTS Sympatico's!


    To make an analogy: Chapters/Indigo has the biggest bookstores around,
    and has big discounts on bestsellers because of their massive
    country-wide buying power (big enough to warp the way books have been
    sold in Canada for the last century). Chapters/Indigo owns nearly all the
    obvious bookstores around: through their various store brand names,
    there is nearly no other bookstores in the malls. But Chapters/Indigo censors:
    they refuse to stock some books (e.g., Mein Kampft). If that bothers
    me or I find that they won't stock what I want to read, then
    the -appearance- is that "I have no choice". The reality, though,
    is that there -are- independant bookstores around if I look for them,
    and there are thousands of online services that I can order from.
    I am not -forced- to use Chapters/Indigo: I just have to be prepared to
    pay the higher costs of using the alternatives.


    Anyhow, I let the ISP matter sit for awhile, and eventually for some
    reason or other went back and re-read the broadband cable company's
    AUP. It still looked pretty harsh, but then I took a very close look at
    the semantics of the most offensive clause and realized that one of the
    adjectives that at first only appeared to modify one word in fact
    modified a conjunction of nouns (the adjective "distributed" across to
    all of the nouns), and when read that way the clause became one of
    those meaningless "You can't use our service to do anything illegal"
    clauses. I called the company up, and their abuse department got back
    to me, and I had a very nice chat with them, and found out that the
    people staffing that group are cool and that we had no problem at all
    understanding each other. I'll be signing up with them very soon.
    --
    IEA408I: GETMAIN cannot provide buffer for WATLIB.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

    Vernon:

    Thanks for taking the time to expand on this subject. As a user of internet
    services, you are obviously at
    a different level than I am. I just pay for hosting a domain somewhere, and
    pay for DSL internet access
    somewhere else (currently, as you know by now, Bell.ca). For what I read
    you seem to have experience leasing T1s and higher bandwidth. I am just an
    average internet user, and -at the most- a "web developer" in this
    wired-verse we live.

    I really don't know much about the true subject of this newsgroup (tcp-ip),
    and probably don't undesrtand much about what transpires at the core of what
    you referred -sarcastically, I guess- as "big bad evil parasitic blah blah
    corporations ". I do have a general opinion about all of them, which stems
    from my opinion of capitalism in general, but that is way out of topic.

    All I want is to be able to send email in which the sender is like
    "me@mydomain.com" . I pay for that domain, and have to reply to emails using
    hotmail or whatever, which doesn't look too professional. I want a way
    around that. If the only way is to pay 15 bucks a year for email relaying
    ....oh well, that's what I'll do.

    ____________
    Joe.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

    Walter:

    I will skip quoting some of your comments, and will go straight to what my
    problem with Bell was (and probably is for may average DSL users and
    providers in Ontario and Quebec). It appears that the smaller providers of
    DSL in those provinces have to ask - and wait for- Bell to connect their new
    users. Bell has to do some kind of switching, which I don't know what
    involves, but it takes about a week at best. If Bell doesn't do that, the
    users doesn't get DSL, and the alternative provider looks like the negligent
    and the incompetent one. Because Bell just wouldn't connect me, I decided to
    make them my DSL provider, and then I finally got connected. The whole
    ordeal took over a month. At some point a Bell technician came to my place
    and admitted that Bell does -purposely- make life miserable for those
    emerging ISPs, which I suppose operate like long distance calling card
    providers, who buy bulk phone time from Bell, and resell it cheaper. Those
    smaller providers are -at seems- at the same time Bell's customers and
    competitors.

    My experience above is a small example of alternative services and products
    which depend -for their existence- on infrastructure and resources that may
    be -or are rapidly being- monopolized. The example of Indigo you gave is
    similar one. Yes, we still have choices (for now). But my apocalyptic
    visions of a future where monopolies control everything and everyone is out
    of topic.

    I wrote another message before -in this same thread- asking some questions
    regarding the configuration of an SMTP server. Any suggestions about that?

    Thanks for taking the time to reply.

    Joe
  8. Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

    In article <DvLBd.57525$nV.1700642@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    Joe <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
    :I will skip quoting some of your comments, and will go straight to what my
    :problem with Bell was (and probably is for may average DSL users and
    :providers in Ontario and Quebec). It appears that the smaller providers of
    :DSL in those provinces have to ask - and wait for- Bell to connect their new
    :users. Bell has to do some kind of switching, which I don't know what
    :involves, but it takes about a week at best.

    I don't know about the more rural areas, but turning up a DSL user is
    a "round toit" around here -- something that only takes a few minutes
    once they get around to it. The other part of the equation is that
    MTS sometimes sends someone out to test the wires in older areas, to
    ensure that they are up to grade. When I moved 2 years ago, they didn't
    have to do anything special for the DSL -- the DSL attribute was
    associated with the phone number, so DSL becomae active as soon as the
    phone number was moved.


    :If Bell doesn't do that, the
    :users doesn't get DSL, and the alternative provider looks like the negligent
    :and the incompetent one. Because Bell just wouldn't connect me, I decided to
    :make them my DSL provider, and then I finally got connected.

    Complain to the CRTC.


    :The whole
    :ordeal took over a month. At some point a Bell technician came to my place
    :and admitted that Bell does -purposely- make life miserable for those
    :emerging ISPs, which I suppose operate like long distance calling card
    :providers, who buy bulk phone time from Bell, and resell it cheaper. Those
    :smaller providers are -at seems- at the same time Bell's customers and
    :competitors.

    I didn't follow how it happened with Bell, but here with MTS,
    MTS entered into an agreement with the CRTC whereby MTS was required
    to seperate their ISP business from their data line provision business,
    forbidden to cross-subsidize the two, and was required to sell data
    lines to its competitors under the same tarrifs that they sold
    the lines to their internal ISP business. They might still win on
    because of economy of scale, but they also have higher overheads
    and competitors might be willing to accept lower profit margins,
    so it is not enough to put a lock on the market. But it didn't really
    matter in the long run as they bought out all the resellers anyhow.

    There are, as I recall, at least 3 alternative DSL providers available
    here. The difference is that they get MTS to install a distinct wire
    instead of going through the MTS dialtone service like the resellers
    you reference do. The wire is logically terminated at the DSL
    provider's equipment rather than at the MTS Central Office (CO)'s
    DSL equipment, so though the bits flow through copper that was
    originally installed by MTS, the long haul, interconnects, AUPs
    and so on have nothing to do with MTS.

    >
    :My experience above is a small example of alternative services and products
    :which depend -for their existence- on infrastructure and resources that may
    :be -or are rapidly being- monopolized.

    The alternative market here is expanding in providers, not contracting.
    The alternatives just aren't publically marketted for residential
    service [though they may offer residential pricing]. If you pay
    business-class rates, you get business-class features, like rights
    to host servers, rights to email directly out, static IPs, and so on.

    The problem probably isn't lack of alternatives: the problem is that you
    don't want to pay for the alternatives.

    :Yes, we still have choices (for now). But my apocalyptic
    :visions of a future where monopolies control everything and everyone is out
    :of topic.

    Chapters/Indigo came here. Some of the smaller bookstores went out
    of business; some have stayed pretty much the same. Interestingly,
    several of the second-hand bookstores have expanded and are busier
    than ever.

    One store looked ahead, saw the writing on the wall, pre-emptively
    built a large store, concentrated on really keeping up with the
    local literary and music community -- and has been successful enough
    to expand into four other cities (including New York), and winning
    Canadian Bookseller of the Year the last 3 years running. Their prices
    are a bit higher but people go out of their way to shop there anyhow,
    because the store knows how to give the customer what the customer wants.
    Which, in the case of book-lovers, usually *isn't* the New York Times
    Top 10 list at 40% off cover price, but rather a plethora of ideas
    and a sense of belonging to a community of letters.

    Pseudo-onopolies survive to the extent that people find them "good
    enough". MacDonalds is *far* more market-savy than Bell Canada, and
    yet there are a record number of restaurants in Winnipeg now --
    supported by people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is.


    :I wrote another message before -in this same thread- asking some questions
    :regarding the configuration of an SMTP server. Any suggestions about that?

    No, Vern covered that well enough. If you are trying to email to
    random locations, there is little you can do on your smtp server
    to help you out, as those random systems are only going to be
    listening on tcp 25. Like Vern said, if you want to get around the
    filter, you'll have to have a relay system on the far side of the blockage,
    unless you can get the ISP to remove the block for you. If
    Bell Sympatico is like MTS, then the simplest way to get the block
    removed is to upgrade to a SOHO business account: MTS will remove
    the smtp filter for business accounts without questions, but they
    sometimes have to be argued into it for residential accounts.
    --
    Look out, there are llamas!
  9. Archived from groups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,microsoft.public.windowsnt.protocol.tcpip (More info?)

    In article <1104795274.656508.215930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    <alex_dot_net@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >1. You can change your DSL provider if you want but all of them block
    >ports 25,80 and some more.
    >They do not want you to host a website or other web services.

    That is wrong in many locations and for many DLS providers, unless
    you restrict yourself to the major below-cost residential DSL
    providers including the telephants and cable-TV companies.

    In the U.S. it is common rent the analog DSL parts from an ILEC
    (incumbant local exchange carrier or telephant) but have the digit
    bits backhauled to an IP router at a DSL provider with something like
    an ATM PVC. Those ATM virtual circuits sometimes cross surprisingly
    large chunks of landscape.

    >If you want to host a website use IP forwarding [www.zoneedit.com]
    >and setup the website on other port.

    That is only one of many providers for that tactic, which is only one
    of many tactics. Of course, whether it is best for any given situation
    depends on the situation.


    >2. If you host website somewere ( what I asume you do) you should not
    >care about port 25 blocking to get emails.

    An HTTP server ("website") has nothing to do with port 25 (SMTP).
    As far as I can tell, the other person is interested in mail more
    than websites.


    >3. IIS SMTP server works fine on my local computer.I use it only for
    >sending mails. I think you can do the same if you set it up properly.

    Outside Microsoft corners of the net, it is more difficult to find
    encouraging words about the use of IIS for anything except the
    distribution of malware.
    http://news.netcraft.com/ is more about HTTP than SMTP, but it might
    be interesting.


    Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com
Ask a new question

Read More

Internet Service Providers TCP/IP Windows