We are preparing to implement port 25 blocking Aside from the fact that we are so small as to not even be a blip, this is technically now a protected service? Verizon does it on DSL, will they have to pull the filters?
I would hope this is covered under effective network managment as it partially eliminates illegal traffic, while still leaving equally similar pathways for legitimate traffic on othe rports or protocols. But then the problem comes in of SLA customers that it is open to, would that not be considered paid for prioritization of similar service (fast lane)? On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Patrick Leary <patrick.le...@telrad.com> wrote: > One thing is certain. This is a jobs program for lawyers. It'll be a > career year for my lawyer friends in this business. > > > > *Patrick Leary* > > *M* 727.501.3735 > > <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet> > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *James Howard > *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:47 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading > > > > *If a practice is primarily motivated by such an other justification, such > as a practice that permits different levels of network access for similarly > situated users based solely on the particular plan to which the user has > subscribed,**558 **then that practice will not be considered under this > exception.* > > > > I’m sure that I am not reading everything in this document “correctly” but > that section in bold seems to indicate that it would be allowed to limit > something such as streaming video to SD BUT it would have to be on all > offered plans and would need to be all streaming video, not just Youtube. > > > > The first thing I thought when I read that section was that customers (if > they see this part or hear about it) are going to expect all plans to be > the same speed. Of course, what the customer expects and what is reality > are often not the same thing. > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Patrick Leary > *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:35 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading > > > > Not so sure about that Jon. Pushing it down to merely SD is not blocking > or otherwise rendering the traffic "unusable." SD is perfectly usable, > though consumer might not find it desirable. I think a wireless provider > can make an effective case for forcing streaming to SD under the > "management" clauses of this order, because it is an action taken to > preserve the ability of all subscribers to have useable connections. > > > > *Patrick Leary* > > *M* 727.501.3735 > > <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet> > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Jon Auer > *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:29 PM > *To:* Animal Farm > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading > > > > "The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable > expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that > promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship > designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an > application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the > degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content." > > > > Seems pretty clear. > > > > I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by > throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime > since I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be > considered reasonable network management under this. > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not sure why. > > If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as > "everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation", and that the > cost should be $9.99 per month. > > That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth > management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis. > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: > > Procera is gonna hate this I think. > > > > *From:* Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> > > *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* [AFMUG] Light Reading > > > > Something to do this weekend. > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************************************ > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses. > > ************************************************************************************ > > > > > > > ************************************************************************************ > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses. > > ************************************************************************************ > > ------------------------------ > > *Total Control Panel* > > Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net> > > To: ja...@litewire.net > <https://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993&domain=litewire.net> > > From: > 0000014c0ed65728-f6dc8d17-7b1f-4864-be2a-2018e4a781e8-000...@amazonses.com > <https://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=3130435799&domain=litewire.net> > > Remove > <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender-domain=1&rID=242260993&aID=3130435799&domain=litewire.net> > amazonses.com from my allow list > > *You received this message because the domain amazonses.com > <http://amazonses.com> is on your allow list.* > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************************************ > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses. > > ************************************************************************************ > > > > > > ************************************************************************************ > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses. > > ************************************************************************************ > > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
