|Brian Stempin on 27 Aug 2009 13:24:23 -0700|
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:33 PM, John Kreno <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
This isn't a question of freedom...this is a question of service. Your rights in regards to the internet are defined by the government and your agreement with your ISP. What makes you think that you have a right to just do whatever you please on someone else's network?! Do either of these entities protect you from such a thing?
I suppose that I should be upset that I only get <x> minutes with my cell phone plan? "Once they start limiting your minutes, there's not end to what they might do." If I want more service, I should pay more because it costs more to provide, no?
After all, you could use port 25 for encrypted traffic just as well as un-encrypted traffic. Even though it is most commonly used for mail transfer, It's just as good for anything you may want to use it for.
I have a hard time believing that you think it'd be any better if Verizon started doing this through DPI...
According to TFA from the parent post, the whole purpose of this is to reduce spam. If I were an ISP, and a lot of my bandwidth was being eaten by spam traffic produced by botnets or malware, I'd want to do something about it to. Blocking port 25 and delivering an alternate port seems like a pretty unobtrusive way to work towards their goal.
___________________________________________________________________________ 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