On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, christopher neitzert wrote:
> Business Line: (Static and Dynamic IP Accounts) are not supposed to
> filter any ports below 1024, as he says "...the whole purpose of the
> business account is to run a server." [If they are being filtered let me
> know and I'll talk with the people I now know there.]
This is incorrect. I spent 7+ hours talking to darn near everybody at
Charter over the past two days, and the consensus seems to be that the
ONLY way to get an unfiltered account is to buy a business account PLUS a
static IP. Minimum cost is around $80/month, and at that you are buying
lower bandwidth than you get for residential service (384Kbps vs.
1.5Mbps).
> the lines] As for SSH, they say that they'll never filter ssh because
> that is how they manage their routers.
I can live with port 80 being blocked, even though I'm very unhappy about
it. It makes my URLs ugly to have to have everything redirected, but it's
not the end of the world. However, some ports CAN'T be redirected (e.g.
SMTP on port 25) without breaking connectivity to every other system on
the Internet.
In addition, the fact that they reserve the right to block servers means
that, if they ever get a smart router or security engineer in place who
decides to block ALL ports except those going to Charter's routers, port
22 will go away too, and you will have no recourse. After all, the AUP
allows them to do that with no notice whatsoever since even running sshd
is technically a violation of the policy.
Also, please note that running NAT or connecting a home network to your
residential service is also a violation of Charter's AUP (unless they've
revised it recently, and without notice). So again, most everyone on this
list who is a Charter subscriber is a scofflaw in their eyes. Most of the
cable companies are actively working on ways to detect NAT so that they
can bill you more or disconnect you; they just haven't managed to get
there yet.
> that the ISP sends you when you sign up, however you can't really get
> upset at the ISP when they decide to enforce something that you agreed
> to when you signed up for service.
I don't think anyone's disagreeing that Charter is within their legal
rights. However, an AUP that can be changed at any time and without notice
(i.e. all of them) is hardly a fair agreement, especially when it is
forced on you by a de facto monopoly (e.g. the cable or phone company).
So, if you want telephone service, you are bound by the AUP, but that
doesn't mean it is fair, or that people should shut up about unfair or
unreasonable treatment.
The same applies to Charter, since for some of us, we do *not* have
alternatives. While I'm currently investigating something with GBIS, it
appears that none of the WISPs or telcos service my area of Sparks. Am I
then required to be *grateful* to Charter for forcing me to be bound by an
unacceptable AUP when I have *no* reasonably-priced alternatives?
I'm not morally obligated to defend their business decisions. They may or
may not be valid, but they are *irrelevent* to my experience as a
consumer, except insofar as they impact *me*. In other words, an
unreasonable policy may be binding, but that doesn't make it okay.
--
Todd's "Customer Disservice Hall of Shame" currently contains:
- Charter Communications: Mislead their customers about services,
and block Internet connectivity.
- AT&T: Honoring the "checks" they send out to entice you to switch
long-distance providers is apparently optional.
- eFax: Receive (not send) 20 pages of *unsolicited* faxes, and lose
your account.
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
