Re: nothing to do with: Re: [PLUG] Verizon FIOS & open wireless

[zuzu <sean.zuzu@gmail.com>]

On 10/6/07, gabriel rosenkoetter <gr@eclipsed.net> wrote:
> At 2007-10-05 21:59 -0400, zuzu <sean.zuzu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > addendum:  I think this is "popularly" known, but Verizon does block
> > incoming Port 80.
>
> I do not think that that is true across the board, even for FiOS. I
> do expect that it applies to all "residential" lines (of any leased
> speed), but if you would like to present data on port 80, you're
> fundamentally unqualified (not over-: un-) for a "residential"
> connection.

I don't buy into this argument.  I recognize that many people think
this way, and I have to adapt to the consequences of that, but just
because you're connecting to the internet from home does _not_ mean
that you shouldn't have your "homepage" and personal mail server
running from your own computer at home.

the fact that ISPs bundle minimal webhosting and basic POP3/SMTP
services for you is vestigial from dial-up when a high-availability
home server wasn't possible.  however, as the Internet is designed and
intended as a network of _peers_, I think there's something
fundamentally misguided about how users were subtly railroaded into
depending on hosting (i.e. landlords) rather than hosting themselves
(i.e. self-ownership).  too bad the Cobalt Qube was too expensive and
a bit too ahead of its time.  (although OSX does make running your own
webserver and mail server as easy as checking a box in "Sharing" in
"System Preferences", and now Linux NAS boxes can do what the Qube did
for an order of magnitude lower price.)


> Go load http://eclipsed.net/ up. You just connected to port 80 on a
> Verizon-provisioned IP address.
>
> Do you mean that they block it for "residential" service? Maybe they
> do, but maybe they just decided that was cheaper than dealing with
> (a conservative) 10% of their subscribers' systems becoming zombies.

yes, I meant just for "residential" service.  thanks for helping
clarify that.  however, I also think a dangerous precedent is being
set by such ham-fisted network management.  anyone remember the
details of Comcast forging packets and hijacking DNS registrations as
the truncheon of /their/ network management?


> I don't like the fact that there are extra hoops one needs to jump
> through to get an actual Internet connection in one's home these
> days, but those hoops have large holes, are set low, and are
> definitely not set afire. Just request "business" service.

request and pay for, right?  what's the marginal cost increase for
"business" service, offhand?  my initial reaction is to pay DynDNS or
No-IP to circumvent that instead.

unless "business" service will mean that Verizon stops artificially
imposing an asymmetric data rate, so I can get 15Mbps upstream as well
as downstream.  (asymmetric had a real technical reason with DSL, but
no reason other than jackassery for a passive optical network such as
FiOS.)
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug