Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

* unfair limitations and practices by ISPs

Last response: in Windows 2000/NT
Share
December 30, 2004 2:48:38 PM

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
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 2:48:39 PM

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
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 11:45:20 PM

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
Related resources
January 1, 2005 4:26:59 PM

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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 5:20:26 PM

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
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:26:37 AM

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
:D epend 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.
January 2, 2005 2:43:21 AM

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.
January 2, 2005 3:19:34 AM

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
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:55:14 AM

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
:p roblem with Bell was (and probably is for may average DSL users and
:p roviders in Ontario and Quebec). It appears that the smaller providers of
:D SL 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
:o rdeal 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
:p roviders, 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
:o f 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!
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:55:10 PM

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
!