Verizon Kills Free FTP Access

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Kills Free FTP Access

Posted by timothy on Tuesday August 30, 2011 @12:38AM from the would-you-like-to-check-a-bag dept.

First time accepted submitter JP205 writes "Verizon recently disabled FTP access for its Internet customers who use its proprietary service to build their personal websites. It turns out that if you want FTP access restored, Verizon is happy to grant it to you for an extra $6 a month."

130 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:39 · Score: -1, Offtopic

People still use FTP? WTF?
1. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  reliable, simple, unambiguous, easy to automate, low overhead method for moving any sort of files.
2. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, so?
3. Re:FTP by robbyb20 · 2011-08-30 00:42 · Score: -1
  
  You must not have a webpage that you maintain..
4. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  Why not?
5. Re:FTP by Lumpy · 2011-08-30 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  I maintain about 20 of them and WILL NOT USE FTP.
  SFTP is what anyone who is competent uses. even frigging Go-daddy has it.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
6. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  You must not have a webpage that you maintain..
  Umm, yes I do. I use rsync+ssh to maintain them.
7. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus christ how horrifying.
  Why haven't these people seen the light of HTTP uploading? It's much more modern and Web 2.0
8. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Reliable? Unless you need to go through a NAT
  Simple? Nothing's as simple as connecting to one port for the control channel and then having another random port you need to connect to for a data channel and then there's the PASV/EPASV vs. Active question.
  Unambiguous? Every server displays different text, I'm not even sure the prompts are the same
  Easy to automate? It's a challenge-response password mechanism
  Low overhead? See the "simple" rebuttal
  And, oh yes, all passwords are strictly in the clear.
  SCP, on the other hand, is reliable, simple, unambiguous, much easier to automate, and overhead isn't nearly the problem on modern computers as it was when you tried to get it working on a 386SX. And one more thing, it's SECURE!
9. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:08 · Score: -1
  
  Most of your arguments are quite weak. Quit being a douche. SCP isn't all rainbows and lollipops, either.
10. Re:FTP by shish · 2011-08-30 01:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Is this one of those times that the mods are modding a comment "insightful" because "funny" doesn't give a karma bonus? I hope it is...
  
  --
  I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
11. Re:FTP by Jawnn · 2011-08-30 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  For quick and easy transport of stuff that has no security implications, sure. It even works through NAT, if you know anything about networking. Yes, there are better choices in most cases, but ftp still has it's place.
12. Re:FTP by Viol8 · 2011-08-30 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  "Simple? Nothing's as simple as connecting to one port for the control channel and then having another random port you need to connect to for a data channel and then there's the PASV/EPASV vs. Active question."
  So you claim it has a fault then provide the answer and say its a question? Riiight.
  "Easy to automate?"
  Yes. And if you don't know how to do it then you've obviously never used ftp for much of anything so your opinions are void.
13. Re:FTP by Anrego · 2011-08-30 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  I think more importantly, universal.
  There have been much better alternates (sftp for instance) for a long time. I suspect few people on slashdot still use FTP unless they really have to (no alternatives offered). That said, just about every web host still supports FTP, and all the click-n-drool web dev tools have built in FTP clients. It's still the lowest common denominator for newbies to get their files on the web.
14. Re:FTP by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-08-30 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  How about "widely available and what newbies were taught to use for decades because nobody built a good, free Windows GUI for scp until much later"?
  Not to mention "gets the job done." If it gets the job done, most people don't want to learn a new tool.
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
15. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Really, who uses SCP? It's clumsy to use, since it doesn't provide directory listings. You still need FTP or another protocol to provide remote listings and other file operations.
  Use SFTP. It's a mush better protocol than SCP or FTP (it's not FTP over SSH!).
16. Re:FTP by oh_my_080980980 · 2011-08-30 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  And did Verizon provide an alternative? No they didn't. They'll gladly charge $6/month for FTP not secure FTP.
  
  Read the article moron.
17. Re:FTP by beelsebob · 2011-08-30 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeh, you're right, scp, sftp, rsync, none of these tools exist ;)
18. Re:FTP by Chris+Mattern · 2011-08-30 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  And completely without anything resembling real security. It even subverts *other* security by being difficult to route through a firewall.
19. Re:FTP by jimicus · 2011-08-30 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Purely out of morbid curiosity, what firewall are you using that doesn't have application level support for FTP?
20. Re:FTP by pla · 2011-08-30 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  So you claim it has a fault then provide the answer and say its a question? Riiight.
  
  Uhh... Yes, he did. "FTP has faults X, Y, and Z; This alternative solves those faults". I don't see the problem.
  
  And if you don't know how to do it then you've obviously never used ftp for much of anything so your opinions are void.
  
  Don't act like an ass. I've "automated" more than a few FTP connections to pull in daily data feeds (EDI, price feeds, transactional data, etc). And every single one of them required slightly different syntax. Some servers don't like dir vs ls. Some always use binary mode. Some don't support mget/mput, or don't support it recursively. For EOL "conventions", you may as well flip a coin - On top of which, some servers will deal with the "wrong" EOLs, some give useful feedback, some just shit the bed. PASV solves one set of problems in exchange for another (cheap insecure home firewall? Great, no problems. Actually secure corporate firewall? Prepare for a day of agony, and expect it to break every time you get an update).
  
  SCP also has its own problems, but you look silly mocking the GP for the suggestion.
21. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:31 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I disagree. I find SCP to have highly significant rainbow and lollipop content.
22. Re:FTP by icebraining · 2011-08-30 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  If I have reliable SSH access, I rather use sshfs.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
23. Re:FTP by Opportunist · 2011-08-30 01:34 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'm colorblind and have diabetes, you insensitive clod!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
24. Re:FTP by Culture20 · 2011-08-30 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  what firewall are you using that doesn't have application level support for FTP?
  Just about any non-windows firewall, including network firewalls.
25. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  I'm diabetic and have cancer, hand me another Mt. Dew while I enjoy the lollipop before I drop.
26. Re:FTP by nitehawk214 · 2011-08-30 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Purely out of morbid curiosity, what firewall are you using that doesn't have application level support for FTP?
  Every firewall that I don't personally control.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
27. Re:FTP by metamatic · 2011-08-30 02:01 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I use rsync, which practically shits rainbows.
  
  --
  GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
28. Re:FTP by bberens · 2011-08-30 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  I consider myself techy but I use FTP first if it's available. It's simple, I can do it with my eyes closed. I can SCP if necessary but frankly I find it a waste. If I needed to send files I considered really important (financial data or something) then I'd do something more secure than FTP. Appropriate tool for the job. Lowest common denominator task on a closed network? Use the lowest common denominator tool.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
29. Re:FTP by tepples · 2011-08-30 02:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I've "automated" more than a few FTP connections to pull in daily data feeds (EDI, price feeds, transactional data, etc). And every single one of them required slightly different syntax.
  
  Doesn't, say, the FTP module of Python abstract that away for you?
  
  Some servers don't like dir vs ls.
  And SCP doesn't like either, as far as I can tell. That's why I prefer SFTP, automated with the aid of Paramiko, an implementation of SSH and SFTP in Python on top of PyCrypto. But not all web hosts support SSH access at all.
  
  PASV solves one set of problems in exchange for another (cheap insecure home firewall? Great, no problems. Actually secure corporate firewall? Prepare for a day of agony, and expect it to break every time you get an update).
  In what way is a cheap home firewall insecure?
30. Re:FTP by Count+Fenring · 2011-08-30 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the additional sunshine does mean that everything involvedis wonderful.
  It has the Lesley Gore seal of approval!
31. Re:FTP by vtcodger · 2011-08-30 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Of course people still use FTP. A lot of us want the master copy of our web site to be on our own machine and our own backups. But Website Hosts have these neat GUIs to automate upload? I have not the slightest inclination to manually update 800 files four times a year. I doubt you would either. Most Website Hosts (Google excepted) support FTP. But there are better ways? Probably. But I have my hands full fixing stuff that is actually broken.
  
  --
  You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
32. Re:FTP by Anrego · 2011-08-30 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  To each their own I guess ;p
  I actually find sftp more convenient, as there is no real server setup (assuming you are already running ssh), no annoying firewall configuration, and you don't need to specify a password every time (assuming you have ssh keys set up). The added security is just a (nice) bonus.
33. Re:FTP by Viol8 · 2011-08-30 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  "And every single one of them required slightly different syntax"
  Oh BS. I've yet to come across an ftp server than didn't except the standard rfc commands.
  "For EOL "conventions", you may as well flip a coin"
  Wtf are you talking about? What are these servers running on, Windows??
34. Re:FTP by TheRaven64 · 2011-08-30 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  I was using WinSCP in 2001. I think it was on version 2.3 then. Learning a new tool wasn't exactly a problem - it looked like Windows Exporer, so once you'd typed in your login details (once, then it saves them) you just needed to drag and drop in exactly the same way you would with WebDAV or FTP.
  If my clients were using Windows, I'd probably favour WebDAV-over-HTTPS over SFTP, simply because Explorer has support for WebDAV, while they need to install a free program to use SCP / SFTP.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
35. Re:FTP by TheRaven64 · 2011-08-30 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  But I have my hands full fixing stuff that is actually broken
  Was that stuff broken by the script kiddie who sniffed your FTP password?
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
36. Re:FTP by nabsltd · 2011-08-30 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect few people on slashdot still use FTP unless they really have to (no alternatives offered).
  A few factors (ssh server config, client CPU, server CPU, etc.) can make SFTP orders of magnitude slower than FTP, especially if the network link is fast.
  For updating a website over your Internet connection, it probably won't matter, but when transferring 100GB over LAN, it can make a huge difference.
37. Re:FTP by MightyMartian · 2011-08-30 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's been fifteen years since I saw a NAT router have a problem handling FTP.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
38. Re:FTP by hairyfeet · 2011-08-30 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhhh...dude? Everybody here seems to be going off an an epic FTP VS SCP debate while missing the forest for the protocols, which is this is yet again an ISP nickle and diming and being douches, which I'd say is a LITTLE more important than whether one uses FTP or SCP to connect.
  After all if one doesn't have a royal shitfit when they do this on the unpopular stuff when it gets to the popular stuff the public will be so used to being gouged they won't even notice. it is bad enough while the rest of the planet is getting huge pipes run we in the USA get to ride the short bus to the information superhighway, but now they are gonna nickle and dime for every little bullshit they can think of.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
39. Re:FTP by tlhIngan · 2011-08-30 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Unambiguous? Every server displays different text, I'm not even sure the prompts are the same
  Every HTTP server displays different text as well. Hell, every 404 page is different, yet all HTTP clients seem to know it's a 404.
  Deal is, FTP has numeric response codes. The FTP client looks at those to figure out the responses, and displays the text portion for the user so they don't have to know the FTP numeric responses.
40. Re:FTP by Gideon+Wells · 2011-08-30 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I have a simple server for a simple purpose hosted by a third party that requires FTP or web style uploads. Look, it may not be the best method, but I don't stop beside the Amish buggies I pass and shout "WTF" at them.
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
41. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  It's not so much the files themselves that are the worry.. but the fact that you are sending your username and password in plain text. This is especially worrying if you are on a shared host.
42. Re:FTP by Grishnakh · 2011-08-30 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Use SFTP. It's a mush better protocol than SCP or FTP (it's not FTP over SSH!).
  No, it's not. It's a different tool, for different uses. I use scp all the time; if I want to copy a single file (or a group of them) from one PC to another, and I already know exactly where I want to put them, scp is easily the fastest and easiest way to do it. With the public keys already programmed into each PC, I don't even have to bother with passwords; copying a file with scp is almost as simple as a regular "cp" command, except that I have to add in a machine name.
  Now obviously, if I want to go to some other site and browse directory listings, scp simply isn't the right tool for the job. But if I don't need directory listings, sftp has a lot more overhead and typing involved.
43. Re:FTP by Grishnakh · 2011-08-30 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Really, who uses SCP? It's clumsy to use, since it doesn't provide directory listings. You still need FTP or another protocol to provide remote listings and other file operations.
  I use scp every single day. It's simple to use, and I don't need remote listings. I'm frequently logged into several Linux boxes (using ssh), and need to copy from one to the other. scp makes it a simple one-line operation, just as simple as a "cp" command, except I just have to add the machine name. Why do I need remote listings when I'm already logged in with ssh?
  Obviously, if you're connecting to some machine you're not logged into, not completely familiar with, and need directory listings to see what you're doing, then sftp is the right too for the job. Not all jobs are like that.
44. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  You should probably see a doctor about that.
45. Re:FTP by Retron · 2011-08-30 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Every 3 minutes here - my weather station FTP's data to my ISP's personal homepages server.
46. Re:FTP by bberens · 2011-08-30 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, that's not the case for me. 99% of the time it's across the LAN and isn't an account that has access to do anything but FTP to that particular server.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
47. Re:FTP by asdf7890 · 2011-08-30 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  In what way is a cheap home firewall insecure?
  Most home firewalls are, in their default configuration which most home users never change (they are never told they might need to), doing nothing but a subset of Network Address Translation.
  
  While I personally wouldn't call this particularly insecure (it at least keeps out unwanted incoming connections for the most part) some people would and it is certainly less secure than a proper firewall arrnagement that polices traffic intentionally rather than just blocking outside connections due to a side effect of how the packets for connections made from the LAN-side are translated. A cheap home "firewall" won't stop an infection merrily sending out your data via IRC for instance, where a fully configured firewall might (it wouldn't stop the data doing out over HTTP in most cases, unless your company operates a white-list of web sites you are permitted to visit or some such limiting arrangement).
  
  Also some home routers have been sold with simple or blank default admin passwords for accounts for an admin interface that is by default exposed to the WAN side. This is rare though, the last example I can state being some cheap Apple Airport knockoff devices that were floating around eBay a year or two ago, so I'd not tar all consumer targeted routers with that brush.
  
  And to pull back to somewhere close to on-topic I'll add a little more anecdotal evidence: FTP through corporate firewalls is definitely a problem often in my experience. In fact some companies (just about all our clients for instance) deliberately don't allow FTP in either direction at all, dictating (sensibly, in my opinion) that SCP/SFTP (and sometimes rsync through ssh) be used instead where a file transfer protocol with authenticated is needed. Though this isn't about Verizon forcing users to use a better protocol, it is about Verizon charging for a previously free service for which they offer no alternative (other than paying for it, of course, or paying someone else for hosting).
48. Re:FTP by asdf7890 · 2011-08-30 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  When I tried sshfs I fount it to intermittently break even on otherwise reliable routes, though that was a time ago so things could have moved on far since then.
  
  My swiss-army-knife for file transfers both to/from remote hosts and local ones, is rsync-through-ssh (and even sometimes rsync for local file copies) - especially when updating a file or selection of files (it can be rather efficient at only sending the changed parts over) or transferring something very large (with the right options transfers are easily resumed if something interrupts them).
  
  At some point I might have to full apart the sshfs FUSE code, if it is generally reliable these days, and see if I can hack together an rsyncfs...
49. Re:FTP by asdf7890 · 2011-08-30 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  He is probably referring to directory listings, which do vary (considerably in some cases) between ftp daemons. Many, but far from all, output the format usually returned by "ls -l" in a GNU environment. While the result codes are described by the standard laid down by the relevant RFCs so even if the exact message is unrecognised the general meaning can be understood, the format of directory listings returned is not so different implementations are free to return whatever they like.
50. Re:FTP by asdf7890 · 2011-08-30 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  ftp still has it's place
  On a plinth in a museum?
51. Re:FTP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  It would help if people could use STFU.
52. Re:FTP by bell.colin · 2011-08-30 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  We don't want know what you're transferring with it.
53. Re:FTP by adolf · 2011-08-30 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  blah blah blah
  So. A "good" firewall adds additional obscurity where a "cheap" firewall does not.
  *yawn*
  1996 called, and they want their argument back.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
54. Re:FTP by asdf7890 · 2011-08-30 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  blah blah blah
  So. A "good" firewall adds additional obscurity where a "cheap" firewall does not.
  *yawn*
  No. A good firewall doesn't offer what protection it does simply by accident as a side-effect.
  With regard to FTP: a good protocol doesn't needlessly require several connections that make tracking the process less trivial, and making it less efficient to boot. If you want to keep using FTP go ahead though, its no skin off my nose. Unless you are using any service I have some responsibility for of course, in which case you'll need to use a more modern protocol or take your business elsewhere.
  
  1996 called, and they want their argument back.
  Of the two arguments, I'm not convinced that the one I agree with is the backwards one.
55. Re:FTP by adolf · 2011-08-30 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  blah blah blah, best practices, blah, blah, blah.
  1988 called. They want to talk to you about your stance on FTP.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
56. Re:FTP by asdf7890 · 2011-08-30 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  I currently live in 2011. 1988's stance on file transfer protocols is not something I feel the need to consider relevant.
57. Re:FTP by pla · 2011-08-31 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Oh BS. I've yet to come across an ftp server than didn't except the standard rfc commands.[...]
  Wtf are you talking about? What are these servers running on, Windows??
  
  Among others. Windows, and VAXen, and ancient IBM mainframes, Oh My.
  
  Modern coders have gotten spoiled by the fact that "modern" OSs (from 'doze to Linux to OS-X) all ripped off the same stock networking code from BSD-circa-1985.
  
  The fact that you've never had the need to communicate between systems more diverse than XP-to-RHEL doesn't reflect the reality of the business world, where your boss tells you "pull a price feed from XYZ corp", and XYZ corp still runs everything on a machine considered obsolete 20 years ago that speaks EBCDIC or uses 36-bit machine words.
58. Re:FTP by adolf · 2011-08-31 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
59. Re:FTP by asdf7890 · 2011-08-31 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I definitely remeber working with the FTP protocol. Don't worry, I have no intention of repeating that part of history.
  
  That is how the modern world is supposed to work: we realise what problems we have, find better ways to perform those tasks affected by those problems, and move on. This process is usually referred to as "progress".
60. Re:FTP by adolf · 2011-09-01 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  Then why are we discussing it now?
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
Misleading summary is incomplete. by plover · 2011-08-30 00:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Verizon didn't "kill FTP access". They didn't shut down the protocol. They only shut off FTP access to their free personal web page hosting servers. That's a big difference when you're writing a headline.
It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.

--
John
1. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by CastrTroy · 2011-08-30 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, who uses these services anyway. Anybody I know who wants a little web server just pays the $5 a month and gets a shared hosting package. You get a lot more features this way. Most Home ISP web server packages only let you serve up static files, with no scripting abilities or anything. I personally can't even believe they have the service at all.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
2. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Dachannien · 2011-08-30 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's for people who want to take that next step up from Verizon's craptacular home page.
3. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-08-30 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.
  Wait, when was this golden era of non-sensationalism on Slashdot?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
4. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by AtlantaSteve · 2011-08-30 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.
  I kept my snark to myself during the CmdrTaco farewell love-fest last week, because it seemed a bit "too soon" for that. However, I gotta ask... what in the world are you guys talking about?!? No one's been putting "fine editing" on anything for years now. Headlines were misleading and sensationalized to draw eyeballs last month, and they still will be next month.
  That is Slashdot. Most of us who love it, do so for its amazing comment community rather than its borderline whore-ish editors. If you want to mourn CmdrTaco's departure, you're a bit late... the departure really happened back when Slashdot was first sold off to a corporate interest back in the day.
5. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by mrbester · 2011-08-30 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  That would be when my UID was considered to be in the "newb" group
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
6. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  Dumbass headlines on Slashdot didn't just show up this week.
7. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by lm2s · 2011-08-30 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Verizon didn't "kill FTP access". They didn't shut down the protocol. They only shut off FTP access to their free personal web page hosting servers. That's a big difference when you're writing a headline.
  It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.
  Shame on you for wanting the truth instead of the news!!
8. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by ShakaUVM · 2011-08-30 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  >>It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.
  You must be new here.
9. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, Verizon indeed didn't "kill FTP access" as you put it, but it did "kill FREE FTP access" as the title of the article puts it.
10. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by plover · 2011-08-30 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  Ummm... whoosh?
  6 years ago I'd have cracked the same joke about Jon Katz (and probably did.)
  It's never too early for snark. I was just on vacation this weekend.
  
  --
  John
11. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Zarhan · 2011-08-30 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. When I find interesting topic, the best stuff is reading comments at +4. Usually there's information on what is *actually* occurring, instead of whatever the summary/linked blog/linked popularized article says.
12. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by cyberchondriac · 2011-08-30 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not 100% sure about that. About 6 months ago, I could no longer FTP to my hosting account at bluehost.com from my home computer (ISP=Verizon) but I could from work. No biggie though, I just started using SCP, which is better anyway.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
13. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  When Michael was an editor.
14. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  > fine editing
  > CmdrTaco
  cool story bro
15. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by elp · 2011-08-30 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  As far back as I can remember Slashdot summaries have put fox news headlines to shame.
16. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Raenex · 2011-08-30 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes you have to make the sarcasm explicit. Too many people are actually claiming that things are going to hell now that Taco has left.
17. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  At 5USD/mo they're paying too much. You can get a lightweight VPS for like 15 bucks a year now. It will more than do what the average person needs for a small website to run Wordpress or something.
18. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by inode_buddha · 2011-08-30 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  *going* to hell?
  
  --
  C|N>K
19. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Raenex · 2011-08-30 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's the point. Slashdot has been trying to compete with Huffington Post (typical activist slants), Digg (idle), and Reddit (user submissions of blog posts) for a while now.
20. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by treeves · 2011-08-30 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Last week it was all "Good Luck CmdrTaco, we're going to miss you, fine job you did, thanks for everything, yada, yada, yada."
  Now it's back to "lousy editors, lousy CmdrTaco, why can't we have a good editor, yada, yada, yada."
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
21. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by GameMaster · 2011-08-30 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, I don't seem to remember such a time. As far back as I can remember, Slashdot headings have been misleading; the summaries have been poorly written; and the editors were too lazy to do any actual "editing".
  
  --
  
  Rules of Conduct:
  #1 - The DM is always right.
  #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
22. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by inode_buddha · 2011-08-30 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot was doing this stuff *long* before any of those sites even existed.
  
  --
  C|N>K
23. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by Raenex · 2011-08-30 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe, but I noticed a marked uptick in the non-news items when Digg and Reddit were getting popular. I believe that's around the time that Idle was created.
24. Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. by jseale · 2011-08-30 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, this is backwards technology, but quite popular with regional cable TV operators. One such that I know of is Insight Communications. This one covers Kentucky, southern Indiana and Southwest Ohio. Some other cable operators might still be doing this also but I don't know of any.
oh yeah baby by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:42 · Score: -1

nigga hard
People use *some* file transfer protocol by F69631 · 2011-08-30 00:42 · Score: 1

No alternative has been offered in place of FTP, such as the more secure SFTP.
From TFA.
OSS Be Damned! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:43 · Score: -1

So, if you're using web development tools on Linux/BSD/WhateverOS like many sane people do, how are you supposed to upload your content? .... not that these savvy nerds would be buying hosting from Verizon though, so I guess not much is lost.
1. Re:OSS Be Damned! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:50 · Score: -1
  
  This just in: They don't give a shit about your irrelevant OS that has a market share percentage that isn't even higher than the statistical error rate. Besides, everyone knows that only nigger faggots ues Linux and no one cares what a nigger faggot wants.
Good by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 00:57 · Score: 0

This way nobody is tempted to use the password-leak known as FTP. Not offering an alternative protocol then removes the temptation to host web pages on a service that's tied to your internet provider.
Password-leak terminated.
Lock-in avoided.
This looks like an all around win to me.
Misquoted? by return+42 · 2011-08-30 01:09 · Score: 1

ITYM:

Verizon recently disabled FTP access for those foolish enough to use its proprietary service to build their personal websites.
A real web hosting provider by suso · 2011-08-30 01:10 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Since this article is just an advertisement for Verizon's hosting service (otherwise, what do we really care about Verizon Webhosting?), I'd like to take this chance to advertise my company, Suso Webhosting, where we have been offering SSH/SCP/SFTP access since day one and will continue to do so. Use SLASHDOT in the referral field and you'll get 20% off.
boy 90% of posters here are stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:21 · Score: 0

its about making a website off there servers with FTP ....NOT your own personal file server.
All i have to say is that in time no one will host anything in the usa all they do is drive away all the IT business and looky oh boy seems Canada is getting some movies made cause um i dunno its cheaper with fewer rules to make a movie?
1. Re:boy 90% of posters here are stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  Re:boy 90% of posters here are stupid
  Yeah, you sure proved them!
  Next time you think about posting, try having just one more tiny drink instead. That should put you right over the top into an alcohol-induced coma, rendering you unable to post anything at all, and sparing the rest of us from your incoherent babble.
Options by Lieutenant_Dan · 2011-08-30 01:27 · Score: 1
Change is never welcome by most people. We're creatures of habit.
Not sure what Verizon's rationale was; security concern with FTP, operational support, strategic decision to get rid of the free web service?
- Host with a free web hosting service; update your existing Verizon site to re-direct to the new location.
- Host with a paid hosting service; update your existing Verizon site to re-direct to the new location.
- Transition to the fluffier "Site Builder"
- Use the "My Domain" service as stated in the article
- Find an alternate ISP
- Blog like crazy until Verizon cracks from the bad press and returns FTP access
Lots of pros/cons with all these options, the main being the fact that some folks are stuck with existing Verizon URL or e-mail addresses that will make the move to something else a tad harder.
--
Wearing pants should always be optional.
1. Re:Options by WebManWalking · 2011-08-30 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm paying $4/month for database (if I wanted it), ColdFusion and secure FTP for my .org sites. So free personal web hosting that requires $6 for FTP access doesn't seem like such a good deal. It's kinda like those ads I see where something's free as long as you pay for shipping and handling. Or used books on Amazon that cost only a penny, as long as you pay for shipping and handling.
Good! FTP should die! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:28 · Score: 0

FTP should be taken out back behind the woodshed & put out of its misery.
Use a nice secure protocol like SFTP instead.
The fact that so many people are complaining about this shows how little they understand security.
Of course, Verizon sucks, so they aren't likely to deploy SFTP as a replacement...
Personal web pages? by Darth_brooks · 2011-08-30 01:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Wow. I bet both users were not only outraged, but they were even more infuriated to learn that geocities was gone too....
1996 called, they want their web hosting solution back.
1992 called, they want their protocol back.
1990 called, telling me I owe it royalties on this joke....

--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
1. Re:Personal web pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:59 · Score: -1
  
  Kill yourself.
2. Re:Personal web pages? by cyberchondriac · 2011-08-30 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  1992 called, they want their protocol back.
  1992? For FTP? It's not even that recent. 1985 for the current specification (RFC 959), but it's first version was written as early as 1971
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
3. Re:Personal web pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Did you warn them? You know, that all future jokes like this would forever be overshadowed by XKCD?
4. Re:Personal web pages? by gl4ss · 2011-08-30 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's more important to know, does verizon offer sftp?
  because uh, fuck regular ftp. it's only good for public sites. but for those I wish it made a comeback, so fucking tired of 10 phase gui selection to find some driver.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:Personal web pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Because navigating through 10 levels of insane directory structure with arcane naming+versioning schemes is easier?
6. Re:Personal web pages? by ElmoGonzo · 2011-08-30 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  My only use for that space is (was) to provide links to files which made the FTP interface for uploads extremely useful. Verizon's other tools are awkward, cumbersome, and roughly equivalent to reaching over your right shoulder with your left hand to retrieve something from your left-side back pocket. Using FTP only required a simple script.
7. Re:Personal web pages? by Darth_brooks · 2011-08-30 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  Nope. No SFTP access, so really this is more about just killing off personal webhosting than FTP access.
  And really, if you can figure out FTP for web hosting, it's not much of a leap to just run FTP on a box at home if all you're doing is storing files. Or SSH.
  
  --
  There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
8. Re:Personal web pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  FTP pre-dates TCP/IP itself, which explains some of its funny quirks like the way active transfer mode works. Before SMTP, the primary means of transferring mail was FTP and opening the inbox for append.
9. Re:Personal web pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  when all of those years called, did you warn them about the tsunami's in thailand and Japan, or about the war on terror?
10. Re:Personal web pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  I'd rather use ftps because I think it is more secure. Plus, the explicit/implicit options are nice. I never did like the replayability assumption of security built into ssh.
11. Re:Personal web pages? by bedouin · 2011-08-30 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  Run a web server at home, make a desktop shortcut to the public_html folder on it, and drop files for your friends whenever they want them with no uploading required in between.
  Best solution for sharing small files to a handful of people and if you enable directory listings you can link say -- 20 files at once without sending individual URLs.
12. Re:Personal web pages? by jseale · 2011-08-30 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. I bet both users were not only outraged, but they were even more infuriated to learn that geocities was gone too
  Yep! It definitely looks as if Google has taken over this space with its Google Sites website. Angelfire and its brethren are pretty much gone too.
FTP? Who cares... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 01:51 · Score: 0

As long as they are providing SFTP for free, I don't really care.
(disclaimer: I don't know *what* they are providing)
And they replaced it with...nothing by jandrese · 2011-08-30 01:52 · Score: 1

Ok, so Verizon's website builder thing is pretty lame, but if you need a place to host a small file or two it works pretty well and comes free with your service. However, previously the ONLY ways of getting data on there were FTP and their totally useless "I'll make a crappy looking website for you, you just pick how much lens flare to add!" website. They've just killed the one way that was actually somewhat useful. I know some of you are suggesting that FTP is dead and you should be using SCP instead, and I agree, but Verzion hasn't gotten the message.

To be fair though, they probably did get a lot of complaints about their FTP server, because it advertised EPSV4 support, but was on a machine that had a firewall that blocked ports above 1024. So basically it only worked on Windows XP with the ancient FTP program that shipped with it unless you were a guru. I'm sure they've been getting more and more complaints about it and decided to just shut the thing down instead of trying to figure out how to fix it. Lord knows the tech support guys I talked to had absolutely no clue what I was talking about when I tried to get this fixed years ago.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
1. Re:And they replaced it with...nothing by thegarbz · 2011-08-30 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  An incompetent tech doesn't know how to setup their servers so they decided to shut it down at the expense of end users and you start the sentence with "To be fair"?
  What the heck is fair about that?
Compare to Tripod by I_Voter · 2011-08-30 02:04 · Score: 1

TRIPOD has a free subscription but it doesn't include FTP either. http://www.tripod.lycos.com/web-hosting/compare_plans.pl

Monthly $4.95 Yearly $54.45

Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
1. Re:Compare to Tripod by Reziac · 2011-08-30 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  You can get hosting at a real hosting provider for less than that, with FTP, domain name included, far more space, mailboxes, and various other perks.
  http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=6761404
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Don't feed the trolling editors by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 02:05 · Score: -1

Don't feed the trolling editors.
No more replies.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
verizon kills free ftp access by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 02:07 · Score: 0

free or paid, Verizon is known for taking a feature you've always used and converting it to a charge you for it plan.
Re:FTP? Who cares... by TheSpoom · 2011-08-30 02:23 · Score: 1

They're not providing SFTP. They're not providing anything, from what I read, other than a "site builder"-type software package (which probably can't work with custom files). Basically, they're holding customers' sites hostage to a price increase.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Misquoting headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 02:25 · Score: 1

So the headline was "Verizon Kills Free FTP Access." You removed the word "free," then complained that the word "free" wasn't there.
anon ftp still useful by bzipitidoo · 2011-08-30 02:59 · Score: 1

FTP is not dead. Still useful for anonymous dowloading like for the latest Linux kernels. Don't recall ever seeing an anonymous SCP transfer method.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
One step in the right direction by SpanglerIsAGod · 2011-08-30 03:13 · Score: 1

Anonymous FTP is okay for personal use with data that contains no personal information I suppose, but from a corporate perspective it is a real pain to deal with companies who think we would trust software downloaded from an FTP site without MD5 hashes stored separately to compare against. It's even worse to deal with companies who think it's ok to upload log data that may contain who knows what confidential information to "password protected" FTP site. We should be beyond clear text passwords by this day in age, and it shouldn't be that hard for a company to setup an HTTPS site that allows customers to upload dump files. /rant

--
War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
I use it! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 03:15 · Score: 0

I build a web site with a friend and pointed my godaddy address at it... The number crunching bit is an AJAX call back to the server verizon hasn't discovered yet. It has worked very well for over a year... I guess good-bye to updates.
Lame decision by meburke · 2011-08-30 03:34 · Score: 1

The problem for customers seems to be deciding how they are going to maintain their websites. SiteBuilder really sucks; It is hard to use, lack features and design, and only has limited options. Customers I've talked to seem to resent not having the choice of protocols and methods. Theoretically, SiteBuilder will allow you to upload your own pictures and graphics into your selected templates, but it works better in theory than in practice.
Until now, a person with a limited website account could still design locally and upload using ftp. I can see the rationale for disabling anonymous ftp, but not the capability to use ftp to maintain your own website.

--
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Cloned Time Warner by i621148 · 2011-08-30 04:02 · Score: 1

Same thing happened with Time Warner cable. You used to be able to create web pages and FTP to your personal directory. Then you could only use a stupid python website generator. Then they just totally took personal web pages away. (No suprise that no one wanted a "custom" web page generated to look like it was made by a ten year old.
No SFTP either? by Animats · 2011-08-30 04:51 · Score: 1

From looking at Verizon forums, the problem seems to be that, unlike everybody else in web hosting, they discontinued FTP without supporting SFTP as a replacement. Most hosting services now require you to use SFTP instead of FTP, and SSH instead of Telnet.
Dreamweaver can use FTP or SFTP, so people with sites big enough to need Dreamweaver have no problem with that.
Safe Sex by zooblethorpe · 2011-08-30 05:11 · Score: 1

because uh, fuck regular ftp.
Actually, don't. You might catch something.
:-p

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I prey to god and I Am a Athiest. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 05:39 · Score: 0

That every customer using FTP runs as fast as they can.
When my tethering phone quit I did not pay up I through it in the trash and no longer have a cell phone I dont miss it at all.
I got a device with wifi I can text surf and skype almost everywhere I go.
My next one will have hdmi and bluetooth for keyboard damn near laptop replacement.
Fuck um.
obligatory XKCD by sabt-pestnu · 2011-08-30 06:57 · Score: 1

https://www.xkcd.com/875/
Why? with IP Redirections... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-30 09:12 · Score: 0

Use an IP redirection services, build a mini computer that's constantly on and plug it into your home network.
Why am I wasting my time, you guys/gals know this.