Stephen, I guess I felt that the telco was not up front about this kind of issue. It certainly was not in the large print. Whether it was in the small print, I can't say. This was my first experience with broadband and upon initial discovery I was surprised, perhaps even a little shocked. The tone of the telco response email was sort of a take it or leave it attitude with little explanation why it was being done.
In the end I did what any good consumer would do and took my business elsewhere. Service is certainly more expensive but that's how things work. My apologies to you if you are with a telco and you felt like I stepped on your toes. Jon Schlegel At 12:37 PM 2/25/2002 -0500, Stephen Bradley wrote: >Playing Devil's advocate here. > >Why assume that the xDSL provider was just interested in collecting >the money? If they are providing you with a service level and that >their service level agreement has an acceptable usage policy attached >that says no servers then they are well within their rights to block >the well known ports that servers use. > >We build ISPs and that's the norm and not the exception on a usage >policy. > >Now if they are blocking them for every class of service that's a >different story. I doubt very much they would have any business clients. > > >steve > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jon Schlegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 12:34 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [gb-users] Cable Modem IP Lease > > >A year or so ago after signing up for the local telco ADSL service I >discovered I couldn't get any server to operate. After some tests and >investigation, I concluded that inbound was blocked on many if not all >ports. The telco's response to an email that related my findings confirmed >this to be the case. I've since dropped the telco service and am now with >one of the smaller ISP's who's interest is much more service oriented than >with just collecting the money. > > > > >At 09:36 AM 2/25/2002 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote: > > > >I have the feeling that these "new" ISP's are going to be more active in > >port blocking. I've already experienced a odd form of this. Where I live > >in Mesa I had no problem checking my email on the company's Exchange >server. > >Exchange uses three ports: 135 and two random numbers in the 1000 range. >My > >boss in Scottsdale after the switch to Cox could no longer connect to the > >server. I hard coded the two random number in Exchange to the 2000 range > >and he was once again able to connect to the server. I've heard of inbound > >port blocking such as port 80 for webservers, but never outbound port > >blocking. That is how they could possibly control the VPN issue. > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To subscribe to the digest version first unsubscribe, then > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To subscribe to the digest version first unsubscribe, then > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To subscribe to the digest version first unsubscribe, then > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the digest version first unsubscribe, then e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
