On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:22:56AM -0800, Majdi Abbas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:53:59AM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
How is this any different then blocking port 25 or managing the bandwidth certain applications use.
If the article is correct, and the ISP involved is also a LEC, then it would be pretty clearly anticompetitive, and the LECs have some legal obligations to provide access to their customers.
I don't think any such restriction would also apply to a normal ISP, but that could change. We'll see.
Internet stuff is unregulated still in the US last i knew. Perhaps this will be the idiotic move by a SP that causes someone to step in and impose some. At minimum, i'd like to see some sort of Universal-Service offering surrounding high speed internet access (eg: 512k dsl) in the US market. This way Ma and Pa Kettle can get their Microsoft patches at a reasonable speed. Either way, this is a provider asking to be smacked down. I wouldn't mind it if they were named so we could shame them into perserving the end-to-end nature of the internet. btw, port 25 blocks are primarily for anti-spam purposes because people can't keep their machines from getting infected. I'm all for them unless you're purchasing some more-dedicated-type service. The days of dialing up with your mail server and updating dns are over. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.