The reason we block outbound 25 from dynamic networks that we own is that if we do not, we will inevitably become flooded with complaints about SPAM coming from our network. We know this from experience. These complaints cannot be ignored. Some folks have a very itchy trigger finger when it comes to submitting you to a RBL list. This is no fun for us or our customers.
I own part of a small ISP and CLEC in the South. We do not use spy on our customers phone calls or throttle their P2P traffic. We are not considering monitoring their Internet traffic for copyrighted (or any other) data. Maybe some of the big boys are out there using these draconian tactics, but your average, everyday, garden variety, small ISP is just trying to make a living providing a quality alternative to the behemoths out there. Please don't lump us in with those guys.
All that said... We *do* filter inbound email traffic for viruses and SPAM. We do block inbound port 25 to our dynamic IPs. We view these actions as our duty to our customers and to the rest of the Internet to do our small part to help at least slow down the rampant propagation of SPAM on the Internet. We currently block about 95% of the email that hits our domains - and that number is slowly climbing. Do we occasionally throw out the baby with the bath water? Probably so, but it is rare. I can't even remember the last complaint we have gotten about this, so this tells me that our filters are highly effective. As for blocking port 25, we do this to guard our address space against our own customers being irresponsible with their PC's and not keeping virus software up to date. Getting our address space blacklisted would effect ALL of our customers.
It is not about getting rich. Hardly so. Email is the probably the biggest drain on resources that any ISP faces. If we didn't take these steps, we probably would not be in business.
Everyone wishes we had the less evil Internet of yesteryear back, but it isn't going to happen. The Internet is a cesspool. We have to defend ourselves in the best way we know how.
Clearly this question arises from the recent attempt by the rest of the world to give control of the Internet to the dysfunctional, worthless UN.
If the world insisted on this, I think that the US should most certainly say to hell with the rest of the world and the rest of the Internet. Before you take jabs at me, think about it... For you non-US folks out there: How sorry would your daily Internet experience be without US participation? It would suck. For most Americans, the experience would be hardly changed at all. Call that arrogance, stupidity, yada yada yada. It is the truth. I can't remember the last time I visited a non-US site. How many non-US surfers can go a day or a week without visiting a US site? Sorry guys... Heads we win. Tails you lose. That is just the facts.
Please note: I see nothing productive in doing this. One Internet is clearly better than many. My point, though, is that if the rest of the world wants to try to hijack something that the USA thought of, funded, and built, then to hell with the rest of the world. They will suffer far, far, more from balkanization than we will. We will just sit back and wait for you to cry uncle, and laugh the whole time.
What is wrong is that the ILEC's (SBC, Verizon, etc) have had 100+ years as a protected monopoly to build their networks on the backs of their captive customer base.
CLEC's and other DSL providers have had since the 1996 Telecom Act to try to build a business in the face of the 800 lb gorilla.
It is silly to act like the ILEC's have been successful by building a business just like anyone else does. They haven't. They had the enormous advantage of being the only game in town for a long, long time.
What we need is structural separation. Break each Babay Bell into two units. One being a regulated company that owns the outside plant. It would be required to sell access to everyone equally at requlated, cost-based rates. Take the switching and retail side of the company and put it into another, un-regulated unit. This company would buy loops from the regulated company just like every other CLEC does.
Of course this is pie in the sky. The Baby Bell's have far too much lobbying power for this to ever happen.
I will repeat myself.
900MHz does *not* require line of sight.
My company has been deploying 900Mhz Wi-Lan Hopper radios for a year now in NON-line of site situations. We are getting 1M of throughput. They work like a champ.
You are looking at it the wrong way.
A 45 mile hop may be a long way, but two 22.5 mile hops are not. There is plenty of available tower/rooftop space in most parts of the country. Why not just repeat the signal halfway to overcome the long distance limitations.
Also, On the subject of line-of-site, check out the 900MHz radios. They don't require line of site and you can still get about 1Mb of bandwidth.
My company (an ISP and CLEC) has been using
Wi-Lan for about a year to provide fixed wireless (both point to point and multipoint) internet service to the masses outside the normal wireline broadband ranges.
We have been mostly happy with their products.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason we block outbound 25 from dynamic networks that we own is that if we do not, we will inevitably become flooded with complaints about SPAM coming from our network. We know this from experience.
These complaints cannot be ignored. Some folks have a very itchy trigger finger when it comes to submitting you to a RBL list. This is no fun for us or our customers.
I own part of a small ISP and CLEC in the South.
We do not use spy on our customers phone calls or throttle their P2P traffic. We are not considering monitoring their Internet traffic for copyrighted (or any other) data.
Maybe some of the big boys are out there using these draconian tactics, but your average, everyday, garden variety, small ISP is just trying to make a living providing a quality alternative to the behemoths out there.
Please don't lump us in with those guys.
All that said... We *do* filter inbound email traffic for viruses and SPAM. We do block inbound port 25 to our dynamic IPs.
We view these actions as our duty to our customers and to the rest of the Internet to do our small part to help at least slow down the rampant propagation of SPAM on the Internet.
We currently block about 95% of the email that hits our domains - and that number is slowly climbing. Do we occasionally throw out the baby with the bath water? Probably so, but it is rare. I can't even remember the last complaint we have gotten about this, so this tells me that our filters are highly effective.
As for blocking port 25, we do this to guard our address space against our own customers being irresponsible with their PC's and not keeping virus software up to date. Getting our address space blacklisted would effect ALL of our customers.
It is not about getting rich. Hardly so. Email is the probably the biggest drain on resources that any ISP faces. If we didn't take these steps, we probably would not be in business.
Everyone wishes we had the less evil Internet of yesteryear back, but it isn't going to happen. The Internet is a cesspool. We have to defend ourselves in the best way we know how.
Clearly this question arises from the recent attempt by the rest of the world to give control of the Internet to the dysfunctional, worthless UN.
If the world insisted on this, I think that the US should most certainly say to hell with the rest of the world and the rest of the Internet.
Before you take jabs at me, think about it... For you non-US folks out there: How sorry would your daily Internet experience be without US participation? It would suck.
For most Americans, the experience would be hardly changed at all. Call that arrogance, stupidity, yada yada yada. It is the truth. I can't remember the last time I visited a non-US site. How many non-US surfers can go a day or a week without visiting a US site?
Sorry guys... Heads we win. Tails you lose. That is just the facts.
Please note: I see nothing productive in doing this. One Internet is clearly better than many. My point, though, is that if the rest of the world wants to try to hijack something that the USA thought of, funded, and built, then to hell with the rest of the world.
They will suffer far, far, more from balkanization than we will.
We will just sit back and wait for you to cry uncle, and laugh the whole time.
What is wrong is that the ILEC's (SBC, Verizon, etc) have had 100+ years as a protected monopoly to build their networks on the backs of their captive customer base.
CLEC's and other DSL providers have had since the 1996 Telecom Act to try to build a business in the face of the 800 lb gorilla.
It is silly to act like the ILEC's have been successful by building a business just like anyone else does. They haven't. They had the enormous advantage of being the only game in town for a long, long time.
What we need is structural separation.
Break each Babay Bell into two units.
One being a regulated company that owns the outside plant. It would be required to sell access to everyone equally at requlated, cost-based rates.
Take the switching and retail side of the company and put it into another, un-regulated unit. This company would buy loops from the regulated company just like every other CLEC does.
Of course this is pie in the sky.
The Baby Bell's have far too much lobbying power for this to ever happen.
It is the gift that just keeps on giving.
That is cruel!
I will repeat myself.
900MHz does *not* require line of sight.
My company has been deploying 900Mhz Wi-Lan Hopper radios for a year now in NON-line of site situations. We are getting 1M of throughput. They work like a champ.
You are looking at it the wrong way.
A 45 mile hop may be a long way, but two 22.5 mile hops are not. There is plenty of available tower/rooftop space in most parts of the country. Why not just repeat the signal halfway to overcome the long distance limitations.
Also, On the subject of line-of-site, check out the 900MHz radios. They don't require line of site and you can still get about 1Mb of bandwidth.
My company (an ISP and CLEC) has been using Wi-Lan for about a year to provide fixed wireless (both point to point and multipoint) internet service to the masses outside the normal wireline broadband ranges. We have been mostly happy with their products.
Didn't Bell Labs go with Lucent after the spin-off?