Thank you, Comcast.

Maxwell Cole mcole.mailinglists at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 16:00:59 UTC 2016


Thats not really a fair comparison, I think a lot of people have issues with people censoring/controlling/prioritizing internet access to make money. Its a somewhat more nuanced conversation when you are talking about doing the same thing to prevent abuse. 

Cheers,
Max

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:32 AM, James Downs <egon at egon.cc> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 06:31, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf at dessus.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ISP's should block nothing, to or from the customer, unless they make it clear *before* selling the service (and include it in the Terms and Conditions of Service Contract), that they are not selling an Internet connection but are selling a partially functional Internet connection (or a limited Internet Service), and specifying exactly what the built-in deficiencies are.
> 
> Absolutely. It’s funny that a group that worries about about net neutrality and whinges about T-Mobile’s zero-rating certain video sources is perfectly fine with blindly blocking *ports*, without even understanding if it’s legitimate traffic.
> 
>> Deficiencies may include:
>> port/protocol blockage toward the customer (destination blocks)
>> port/protocol blockage toward the internet (source blocks)
>> DNS diddling (filtering of responses, NXDOMAIN redirection/wildcards, etc)
> 
> This would be a big reason to point to a different DNS...
> 
>> Traffic Shaping/Policing/Congestion policies, inbound and outbound
>> 
>> Some ISPs are good at this and provide opt-in/out methods for at least the first three on the list.  Others not so much.
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list