Broadband Crackdown 790
MrPeach writes: "In a move unsurprising to those of us who have had interactions with their so-called customer support, AT&T Broadband and Excite@Home are indefinitely filtering all incoming traffic on http port 80 for residential customers. They could have cut access to those running compromised servers, but instead chose to deny the ability to run a web server to all subscribers to their service. DSL anyone?" DSL won't save you. Verizon is apparently also blocking port 80 for their DSL customers, in addition to blocking outgoing port 25 and requiring use of Verizon's SMTP servers to send email. Verizon is also cheerfully paying fines for screwing over their competitors - the fines will be much less than the extra profit they can squeeze out once their competition is gone.
they've never allowed servers (Score:2)
AT&T Port 80 Blocking Ineffective, Irresponsible (Score:2, Informative)
The version of AT&T's Broadband Subscriber Agreement that subscribers in my area (Formerly MediaOne Express) have agreed to could only be vaguely construed to prohibit web servers via the following clause:
Indeed, the service agreement even mentions things users should consider should they decide to run a personal HTTP/FTP server:
See http://help.broadband.att.com/subagreelease.jsp [att.com] for the full text of the subscriber agreement.
AT&T is trying to use the subscriber agreement as a shield against criticism about how they've failed to properly deal with their network's accute inability to handle widespread use of the codered software by subscribers and also their inability to selectively track and remove or restrict users of codered. Running a webserver like IIS+codered that by design, defect, or configuration tries repeatedly to install a software package on every other webserver on the network is surely a prohibited use of the service under the subscriber agreement. Running a web server that only implements RFC2068 and has none of these annoying codered misfeatures probably isn't.
The most effective thing AT&T could do to stop the autoinstallation of codered on customer machines is to block port 80 right at the cable modem on hosts running versions of IIS that support codered. It's certainly within their technical reach, since AT&T does selective layer-3 filtering of ports 137-139 right at the cable per customer request. For hosts that both support and run codered, AT&T should treat the host like they would treat any other compromised host: disconnect it from the network until the owner has recovered control.
Instead of using any of the more effective methods, they're just having routers discard packets bound for port 80. Not only does this solution fail to prevent autoinstallation within AT&T subnets (because that traffic never crosses a router) and from hosts inside AT&T's network to those hosts outside of AT&T's network, but it also inconveniences legitimate users of port 80.
AT&T in Eastern Mass is not blocking (Score:2, Informative)
Given that they can control which ports are open on a per user basis (they can unblock SMB if you ask), I would suggest calling and talking to their tech support and explain to them that your system is not affected and that you want port 80 reopened, assuming yours has been blocked. There's no harm in trying ask first...you just might get it.
I'm lucky (Score:2)
Here is our TOS:
http://www.planetcable.net/policies.asp
As a CLEC, this is how we have been coping. (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a large number of 10.x.x.x addresses for our broadband subscribers. (This saves us the trouble of assigning public IP's to every single customer, because most don't want nor need a public IP). Our NAT server was getting so clogged up with TCP/IP sessions because code red was serching for hosts. (and once it got into the 10.x.x.x network, it has lots of addresses to check.
We simply got a free scanning utility (sorry... I am at home, don't have it here, nor the time to find it. ) After scanning all of our customers, we located around 30 infected computers.) We left messages stating that they were infected, and we were shutting off there connection until they would remove the offending computer..(we could discern the IP itself, and our users are statically assigned, not DHCP thank god..)
Several users were irate as all hell, but the good of the many outwieigh the good of the few correct? Many times the customer simply unplugged the computer and we put them back on. They are then responsible for patching it.. We have been running scans everyday, and have now gotten fewer and fewer code red worms in our user's DSL systems.
I think that this was the ideal approach. Why use a damn sledgehammer when all of about 30 minutes of work allows you to use a use a fly swatter to remove the offending computers.
CodeRed scanner (Score:3, Informative)
Buy CLEC DSL (Score:2)
Maybe it's because we don't have as many subscribers as the big boyz, we keep things simple and user-friendly?
Time to change ports. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it hasn't really helped much! (Score:2)
Phone analogy (Score:2)
Imagine, if you will, Bell giving you a phone that can only be used outbound. No incoming phone calls. If you get one, you are disconnected. Preposterous.
The thing that's missing is $$$. If we were charged for incoming connections by the byte, we'd be required, not allowed, to run servers.
Michael
Perfectly Reasonable Response (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that this is a perfectly reasonable response from @home. I work at a large ISP and I've seen how rapidly this code red garbage spreds. The little editorial comment that they can "simply block infected machines" is, quite frankly, garbage. Code Red 2 spreads faster than anyone could possibly keep up with blocking one machine at a time.
Code Red 2 is tearing up bandwidth at these cable companies. Its noticeably slowing down my speeds on my home internet connection. Something needs to be done in a hurry, and blocking port 80 is a fast solution that works.
Instead of blaming the broadband providers, why don't you blame the real culprit in this situation: Windows. Get angry at Microsoft; if it weren't for their lousy code and lousy security this problem would not have been possible in the first place.
Not really that reasonable, more an act of panic (Score:2)
Of course, competent ISP may be an oxymoron these days.
The problem is.... (Score:2, Insightful)
End of story. If a few dumb assholes would patch their shit and keep current with it, then the majority wouldn't suffer. But no.......... This is military logic, one person screws up, and the whole unit pays the price. The problem is, we can't give a blanket party to the fucking dumbasses who refuse to keep current with secuity patches. This goes for Linux/Windows/Macintosh/Amiga/NeXT/BeOS/Solaris/CP /M/DOS/HP-UX/AIX/OS9/QNIX/FreeBSD/OpenBSD
I don't care what you run, if you don't keep current on security patches, you are an asshole.
"If it weren't for dickheads like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world Pyle"
Re:The problem is.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately that isn't all it is....as I said in a previous post.
"Bundling server software with win2k was stupid, I know several people who werent even aware they were running servers until just the last few day, I guess they were just playing around with add/remove windows components and ended up installing the software which then ran as a service without their ever being aware of it, I imagine quite a few people are in that situation right now. Microsoft could and should have made it a free download for those who knew they wanted it."
I suppose the argument could be made that people were stupid for playing with "add/remove windows components", but microsoft has in many ways gotten as big as they are by claiming their products are almost idiot proof. I guess this is proof they are the idiots.
I must be the only one... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see any reason why providers shouldn't block port 80 incoming. The only reason to have that open is to run a webserver -- something most broadband providers explicitely disallow for residential customers. That's one of the reasons why a "business" account usually costs a lot more, even for the same speeds.
Just because they let it ride up to now, doesn't mean they have any less a right to block it now. If they'd been doing this all along, I'm sure most people wouldn't be complaining now.
Sure, it's nice to run a webserver at home, but residential service doesn't usually come with any kind of real uptime guarantees, etc. It just makes more sense to either get a business account, or get a real webserver (lease one, or use a shared provider, whatever).
With the amount of port 80 requests in my firewall logs on my cable connection, I would welcome a block on port 80 personally. I've already bored of looking at 'dir' listings and deleting files on these idiot Windows/IIS machines... but seriously, it's time to put this thing to rest and move on. And get a webserver.
It's obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)
Customer1: What happen?
Customer2: Somebody set up us the port filter.
Computer: We get mail. Customer1: What?
Customer2: Email client turn on.
Customer1: It's you !!!
Cable Provider: How are you, gentlemen ???
Cable Provider: All your TOS are belong to us !!!
Customer1: What you say???
Cable Provider: You have no chance to host, make your time.
Cable Provider: Ha ha ha !!!
Customer1: Move boxen.
Customer2: You know what you are doing?
Customer1: For great serving,
Custoemr1: Move every boxen.
You can thank IIS.. (Score:5, Interesting)
[root@gamara log]# grep DPT=80 messages | wc -l
3722
code red hits, all from other @home users. All W2K/IIS 5.0 users. The ip's I've looked into all have the default pages up too. I've even tried running "dir" commands on a few through the "root.exe" backdoor code red installs, incredulous that it would work, and yes.. thousands of wide open NT boxen. This hasn't even seemed to slow down yet, despite the wide spread publicity which leads me to believe that a large percentage of those stricken are either totally clueless, don't realize they have IIS running (?), or flat out don't care which leaves the ISP little choice. And it may be my perception, or unrelated factors, but my net connection has certaintly seemed more sluggish over the last week, perhaps as a result of upstream saturation, something @home doesn't have much of.
So I would agree, blocking port 80 is the most practical way of defeating this and it should have happened earlier. It's that or ban all microsoft operating systems as a public hazard :)
Re:You can thank IIS.. (Score:2)
In this case it happens to be IIS, but they can do the same when the next apache expoit shows up..
Re: default home pages (Score:2)
Re:You can thank IIS.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I can think of a more effective solution: every time a Code Red probe goes out, deprovision the modem belonging to the customer with that IP address. They've got a proven AUP violation and a proven security problem that's disrupting their network. That's more than enough justification for jerking the account entirely. This has the dual benefits of shutting down Code Red and forcing people to actually learn how to secure their systems which makes future problems slightly less likely, and doesn't impact those of us who aren't susceptible to Code Red at all.
virus protection (Score:3, Insightful)
And for anyone complaining, read your TOS first. As several other people have pointed out, it specifically prohibits running servers, and allows this in other ways as well. You're not guaranteed an unbreakable or complete Internet connection for your $35 a month.
We haven't done this yet.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its great. So instead we just let the network FLOOD. But good thing we aren't blocking port 80, that would SCREW over like what, .1% of our cusomters?
Re:We haven't done this yet.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure it pisses them off. So they call you up and say "Why can't I access the web?". And you look up their ISP and say "Because your computer is infected with a worm that is taking up significant bandwidth and trying to infect other computers to do the same. If you fix that, we'll let you surf the web again."
At least if they're pissed off, they'll go and get the fix so they can surf to their pr0n again.
[TMB]
Re:We haven't done this yet.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We haven't done this yet.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait, there *was* no broadband access until all these losers showed up. Must just be a coincidence.
Re:We haven't done this yet.. (Score:2)
Re:We haven't done this yet.. (Score:3, Insightful)
you know, t1s and t3s have been around for a while. it's just that in the old days you had to Know Things to get access to them.
now, the idiots have broadband. is this better? I am not sure. I suppose in a way. I now have DSL whereas a few years ago I was running SLiRP on my university's sun box for free 'net access.
Quite common already (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, cable and DSL providers are already blocking port 80 (and most lower ports) for months. I am a Charter cable customer. When I first signed up, all ports below ~1500 where blocked. (With the expection of 53, 113, and a few of others) Customers where forced to use there proxy server. Even outbound port 80 was blocked.
After complaining for 4 months about it. and many phone calls to there head techs and managers. I finally won. I proved to them why blocking all of those ports was insaine. I simply wanted to run NTP on my machine. (Well, my entire LAN, but they didn't know anything about that :) Which requires 123/UDP.
As the months went on, more and more ports started opening. One thing that they have relized is that people will run servers regardless. People who abuse it (setting up high traffic sites) will be shutoff. Personally, I think its insaine. I should have the right to run a personal site, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. If it did get to that point, I wouldn't be hosting on cable.
So, they blocked the ports. I wonder how long it will stay. I would be very carefull, they may use this as an excuse to keep the ports blocked.
Working with the large companys his difficault, tring to convince them that they should unblock them. I can kinda of understand there postion. But, then again, it kinda upsets me.
Re:Quite common already (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I like XP. But I can see this causing lots of angery letters...
They should remain blocked (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They should remain blocked (Score:2)
An AC writes: 99% of cable modem and DSL subscribers do NOT need to run servers of any kind.
Er, wait a second. Lets examine that statement. A server can be for more then ftp/http. For example, you are telling me that 99% of all DSL/Cable subscribers have never hosted a 'net game? I think that doesn't sound realistic.
Think, then post.
~ Das
Verizon DSL is NOT THAT EVIL (Score:4, Informative)
Verizon *DOES NOT BLOCK* outgoing port 25 *OR* port 80! I've been running my own mail server off the standard DSL offering, $40 a month, for almost a month now and never one hint of problems. I can send mail anywhere. I can telnet to port 25 on any Internet-accessible mail server.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but if Verizon blocks outgoing port 80, wouldn't that put a bit of a dent in most popular web browsers?
For the love of God, try to be a little accurate! There are plenty of real problems to bitch about!
Re:Verizon DSL is NOT THAT EVIL (Score:5, Informative)
I noticed this happened around 5 am yesterday morning (Tuesday, August 7th). Well I didn't notice it, I just tailed my apache logs and web requests seemed to stop coming in around that time. None the less, I got into work that day and noticed I couldn't access my personal web page... NOTE: Personal, not commercial. I put pretty pictures, that I've taken with my digital camera, on it. I was however able to ssh into it and ftp into it.
What was going on? I got scared for a second cause I thought perhaps they started enforcing some term of their service, but it wasn't until I got home and (not so thoroughly) skimmed through their TOS that I realized running a server was not against their TOS, as a matter of fact they worded it so JUST dialup users cannot run a "server of any kind", and it seemed to be fine for DSL users.
So I call up Verizon, talk to a couple different people, none of which knew a single thing about anything. One tried to accuse me of violating the TOS, and I told them it said I'm allowed to run a server in it. She shut up immediately.
Another told me that since I wasn't patched against code red, my internet service was being blocked. I told her I wasn't using a Microsoft operating system therefore I'm not affected by it, and even if I wanted to I wouldn't be able to apply the patch. She told me that because I didn't apply the patch, port 80 was being blocked. Again, I explained to her I wasn't running a Microsoft OS. In the end I think I explained it to her around 5 times... hopefully she knows a little more about computers now.
Finally I got to some guy who was somewhat intelligent, although he did call Linux, L-EYE-NUCKS, he seemed to have some understanding of how to press buttons. I asked him why port 80 was being filtered, and he told me because Microsoft had recommended they block the port. (BTW, I totally agree with someone else that commented on this, who said that because of Microsoft building insecure web servers, we are paying. That is fuct) I asked him if there was anything they could do to unblock the port for me, like put me on another subnet and give me a static IP (I'm a sneaky bastard), or put some kind of flag on my account. He told me that for the time being there was no work around, however he would post a memo and suggest to their tech team they find a way around the port blocking for users who are patched, or not running a Microsoft OS. I asked how long the filtering would stay in place ... he told me it would only last for another couple hours. Right there I told him I didn't think that was true, but he insisted it would only last another hour or two, MAX... port 80 is still blocked.
I just thought I'd contribute this tid bit. I have Verizon DSL in Northern New Jersey, in Essex County. Again, their TOS did not prohibit running a server, unless you are on a dial up. I would post it here, but there is also some clause in their TOS that prohibits reproducing it, so if some brave soul wants to post it below this, go right ahead =]
I need to get a higher paying job so I can get a T1 and then just have to deal with UUnet fiber-optic cuts because of train wrecks [yahoo.com].
Re:Verizon DSL is NOT THAT EVIL (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Verizon DSL is NOT THAT EVIL (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a Verizon DSL user. My brother and I just got off the phone with tech support. First they tried to convince us that hosting a web server was illegal (after we convinced them that we had seen the ToS which says DSL users are exempt); after about ten minutes of arguing that was changed to "We don't support that." Then they told us that they would not open port 80 for specific machines, and that they would not even tell us ANY details about other ports (like the mysterious 25). I hope to call back later and speak to someone a bit more helpful...
As for why we learned about the port closing from /. long before we heard about it from verizon in a vaguely worded, hidden post [verizon.net], they told us that they didn't send an email because it only affects about 5% of their customers. They also won't notify us when they reopen port 80, however distant that may be. Furthermore, they claim that the vast majority of users who would receive such an email would not care. Still, if I were the average user I certainly would rather hear service/security updates I can ignore than miss ones that might be relevant.
Conclusion: Verizon is at least approaching Evil, if not already there... please let me know if you've had any better experiences with tech support since the start of the filtering!
TildeMan
Re:Verizon DSL is NOT THAT EVIL (Score:2)
The EVIL that you describe is something that infects most large, and many medium, and even some small, corporations. It's a combination of bureaucracy and authority concentrated (generally it has to be) in people who don't care to deal with reality (or the customers who provide such clues).
5% is enough to send a mailing for. 1% perhaps not. But that's subjective. Someone will be affected. What would be useful is for a signup list for such things to opt-in to get non-general announcements. Then they can justify sending them since they would only go to the people who want them. But they probably don't want to have their web developer(s) spending time (less than a day for a good developer, which I have doubts they have) putting something like that together.
If you'd like to have some fun with then, call them back and raise the original point, again, that got that 5% excuse. Then say "but you keep sending out those crappy email ads to get people to sign up for more services, and less than 1% of the people care about those, so why not just stop annoying people and cancelling that?" :-)
Re:Verizon DSL is NOT THAT EVIL (Score:3, Informative)
I just re-read the Verizon TOS. An in attachment B, there is a clause that explicitly states that DIAL-UP users can not run servers, and that DSL users are exempt. Attachment B-3q is the clause.
My reading of the Verizon TOS, which covers Dial-ups and DSL users, indiecates that DSL users can do whatever they want with the bandwidth they have, as long as what they do doesn't interfere with network operations and is not illegal. So if you had a Code-Red infected server...they could shut off yer whole account to prevent network degration.
I think someone is confusing Verizon's statement to restrict use of their mail server's to email that includings a valid verizon.net account in the From header, to mean blocking smtp ports...Ttoally inaccurate.
1) Verizon is not blocking web servers
2) Verizon is not blocking smtp servers
3) Verizon isn't blocking any ports as far as I can tell
4) Verizon IS preventing spam from being generated from their mail servers by requiring every piece of mail sent from their smtp servers to have a valid userid@verizon.net.
5) Verizon will shutdown DSL accounts on a case by case basis if you computer account is being used to degrade overall network service (ie you are a spam or virus factory, and Verizon can trace the network congestion back to you)
Re:Verizon DSL is NOT THAT EVIL (Score:3, Insightful)
Verizon IS blocking port 80 from outside verizon's network, and the reason verizon has been giving its tech support people, is that this is a temporary port block becuase of Code Red.
The block started yesterday, and affects in bound traffic into verizon's network. I can get to my website from other verizon addresses, but not from outside of verizon's net. I couldn't get a specific time frame on how long the block is going to be up, but the tech support people have been told that its not permenant.
Does Verizon have a legitimate concern about Code Red investation across its network? Maybe...but since I'm not running in MS products on my LAN and I take the time to secure my stuff, I'm pretty unhappy that my services get knocked off the net like I'm one of the clueless masses.
The best solution to get Verizon to hurry up and unblock the port is for everyone who has a verizon DSL account to call them and tell them in a very nice calm manner that if the block stays in place, your business will go elsewhere. I was call 25 this morning. Let's see if the slashdot effect works over the phone as well....I want to see the number of complaint calls jump to 2000 in the next 30 minutes.
Verizon Tech Support:
1-800-567-6789
-jef
Speakeasy! (Score:4, Informative)
Not a huge surprise.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they're doing the sensible thing to contain potentially hundreds of thousands of machines running IIS (Mostly run by people who probably have no idea about worms and the like anyway - even if they knew they were running a web server in the first place).
Seems pretty sensible to me, although my DSL ISP has no problems with me running servers, so I'm happy either way..
It would mean them having to do real work (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It would mean them having to do real work (Score:3, Informative)
Read your TOS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Signing on with a domestic oriented ISP means that you are essentially "users" on their network. Blocking inbound port 80 access is a good starting point for at least protecting their internal network segments. If you were running what is essentially a DHCP/DNS/proxy service for thousands of users, wouldn't you at least take this step to protect the integrity of your network?? (I admit it doesn't begin to solve all the problems, but...)
If you want to run your own "mini NOC", then pony up the cash and get ISDN, a T1, or something faster put into your basement. But if you are subscribing to a consumer grade ISP's offerings, don't be suprised when this happens. And especially don't start with the geek indignation, because consumer broadband is not meant, nor sold, under the pretense of running home servers.
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:2)
I'm both a customer of residential broadband and an employee at a DSL ISP -- and I'm not a customer of my own company. For my DSL line, I accept the fact that it's a consumer product and shouldn't be expected to have all the functionality of a product for which someone else (e.g. a business) is paying 4 to 10 times as much. It's ridiculous to assume that your $50/mo connection (which the company is probably losing money on, if not breaking even) can run a web server and a DNS server and what-have-you. If you think that you're entitled to everything and entitled to it for free, get over yourself, get a job and pay for what you use.
On the other hand, where I work, I didn't hesitate to block inbound port 80. It's the first large-scale compulsory filtering of any kind we've done on dialup or broadband. It sort of hurt to do so, but with Code Red et al propogating like rabbits, it had to be done. If (business) users contact us and explain that they're running apache or a patched IIS server, I'll gladly set up an exception for them. But with something like Code Red, everyone has to do their part to stop it from spreading. Despite near-domination by commercial entities, it's still a community which requires upkeep by all participants.
Just my $0.04.
-Chris
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:2)
It may be in the TOS, but the "no servers allowed" clause in the agreement is totally unreasonable. Lots of residential customers have plenty of good reasons to have servers - small web servers for their own amusement, Freenet nodes, Quake servers for hosting games with neighbors, an email server that serves as a spam filter, etc. I can understand the need to limit bandwidth with rate caps so one person isn't hogging the network, but within those constraints, people should be able to run servers if they want.
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:2)
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:4, Insightful)
From a social standpoint -- where our priorities are less about the "bottom line" and more about providing for a healthy, vibrant, diverse democracy -- there isn't an incredibly good reason why web servers or other content servers are prohibited on so-called "consumer" Internet service providers.
In some cases the bandwidth isn't there-- I understand that, however, in general, the speeds are suitable for most people's private soapboxes... further, overall and in general, home servers do little harm to the network, Code Red notwithstanding.
And in all seriousness, I doubt anyone expects strict uptime SLAs or performance guarantees from your local @Home franchise. I'm not suggesting that "consumer-grade" Internet access claims to offer such things or even really ought to... However, I tend to believe that the prohibition on servers is more an effort to control media content creation & affordable distribution more than it is an effort to ensure network stability.
In effect, a ban on servers prevents citizens from competing affordably for so-called "mindshare" with big corporations and others who don't sweat the cost of dual redundant T3 connectivity.
Broadband internet access has the potential to really revolutionize media distribution by empowering individuals to affordably control & create new and innovative media outlets.
On the other hand, most home servers probably aren't even public servers but private servers used for, say, development purposes or sharing files between office & home. These uses are of course even less stressful on the network and certainly more benign.
Meh... just some food for thought.
BRx.
thank you (Score:2)
It's sad to see so many people believe that publication has to be expensive. As you point out , it could not be further from the truth technicaly. Someone downloading flash trash and comercially produced video consumes far more bandwith than someone serving static web pages. Still, when I tell people at work that I want to host so much as my own email, they look at me like I have a hole in my head and want to provide Hotmail. What's driving this kind of nonsense? Where are all of these arogant trolls with their "Enterprise missions" coming from?
Keep up the good fight. The web must not end up like broadcast media.
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, use of so-called "shared" or "virtual" web hosting services limits greatly the sorts of applications you can create and run. It also limits your ability to administer your machine and configure the applications you use the way you see fit.
Some hosts are more forgiving than others, but, for highly specific development environments any shared host is less than ideal. Also, censorship considerations by [corporate] hosting providers may also be a concern...
Further, shared web hosting says nothing of other content servers which may be unavailable completely or available in shared configurations only in highly restricted circumstances.
BRx.
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:5, Insightful)
It also creates an artificial market-- why would I buy "business class" bandwidth or co-locate a server for a site that's adequately hosted on broadband for a fraction of the price? We're not talking "enterprise, mission-critical, ecommerce" web applications or anything... we're talking about noncommerical, nonprofit media forums.
I run a site that gets maybe 100 hits a day, is frequented by only a small group of 15 visitors. However, we have very complicated custom web applications the drive the sorts of things we do... free or paid shared hosting is not an option. Nor is it a real possibility to shell out money for co-location or "business class" bandwidth for this sort of thing -- that of course generates no profit. The idea that the home user should settle for less (yanno, the idea that a 5MB, add-riddled, censored, GeoCities account "is good enough") -- that only big corporations should have access to high quality server applications -- is disturbing. It reinforces the idea that the Internet is here for business-- not for culture, not for recreation, not for academia, not for the free exchange of ideas.
Access to the tools big business uses is a real possibility with broadband since a lot of hobbyists, enthusiasts or professionals working in their spare time can put together a lot of the same things that corporate and "ecommerce" sites can...
As I say, I'm not claiming that broadband needs to come tethered to the sorts of service levels that corporate folks are expecting-- nobody suggests such a thing... but there's no good reason to limit people to Geocities because... "pfah! if you're serious, you'd co-locate in an Exodus data center."
That argument is pretentious and elitist. I get no Darwinian thrill from seeing only the moneyed have access to technologies all of us could use, enjoy and share at minimal cost.
BRx.
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:2)
If I pay $50/month for a 256k pipe, and if I want to do my own personal development and want to be able to show others my site from work, or setup a private FTP so that I can grab files offsite, they sure as hell better not stop me. These are totally legitimate uses of a consumer/home office level Internet connection. Plus, with most connections, you can't run a "mini NOC" due to the bandwidth restrictions (128k - 256k upstream).
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:4, Insightful)
And what exactly is a "server"? Is accessing your Pilot calendar remotely using a server? Is using an FTP client a server? What about identd? What about my PC vendor's remote Windows support system? Is running a client connection to establish a VPN to some other host on the Internet and poking out a server socket on that machine "running a server"? Let's be concrete please, because my TOS don't actually say. They are so vague that the provider can make up what they mean whenever they like.
And especially don't start with the geek indignation, because consumer broadband is not meant, nor sold, under the pretense of running home servers.
That would be true if broadband providers fully owned all the rights of way and infrastructure. They don't. They tear up public streets and use public spectrum only because the communities where they deliver service let them. They can be kicked out if they don't satisfy the needs of the community. And peer-to-peer and servers are crucially important in particular for non-commercial and non-profit uses.
Furthermore, for broadband providers to try to control whether you may run a "server" is the beginning of content controls. The next thing you know, you'll only be able to connect to the commercial sites of your provider's choosing.
Broadband providers should be legally required to provide universal Internet connectivity and set rates and limitations based on bandwidth and volume only. Possibly, there might be two rate structures, one for non-commercial and another for commercial customers. But providers should have no business deciding what content or packets travel over their networks, as long as the packets are properly addressed and their format is according to spec.
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:5, Informative)
I've read my TOS and it sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone can explain a good reason for banning servers rather than limiting data volumes, I'm all ears. I think it's either a combination of laziness and sloppy thinking on the part of the providers, or a desire to force the "users" to also be "content consumers" rather than "content providers". Hanlon's razor, I believe, favours the former explanation.
Re:I've read my TOS and it sucks. (Score:2)
No, the second is closer to the truth. It's the same reason why companies can't buy a residential phone line. The vast majority of people who want to run servers want to do it for commercial reasons. And therefore have money to pay for a more expensive connection than cheap broadband. By forbidding the use of servers on the residential cable/DSL service, they force all the companies to use the (more expensive) business services. Voila, more money for them, and the only people who get screwed are the relatively small number of us who are poor individuals but who want to run services on priveleged ports on our home boxen.
[TMB]
Re:I've read my TOS and it sucks. (Score:3, Informative)
> servers rather than limiting data volumes, I'm
> all ears.
Because 99.9% of security issues comes from someone running an unpatched redhat box at home.
This is not something tier1 tech support can handle, a real sysadmin has to look at it, figure out where it's coming from, and figure out what is going on. That costs money. Say it took collectively 30mins of peoples time to figure it out, already that has costed more than what you've paid for this month's service.
The AUP would not be this stupid or strict if these things weren't a real problem. But they are. Until people (not necessarily you), get the brains to keep their computer up to date and know what's going on, the ISPs will have to keep these stupid provisions just to protect their ass.
Re:I've read my TOS and it sucks. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if that were true, so what? I bought bandwidth from my ISP and I expect them to deliver that bandwidth. If my machine has a security problem and starts attacking other sites on the Internet, that should be my problem, not my broadband provider's problem. My broadband provider may choose to limit my outgoing and incoming bandwidth to a previously contractually agreed-upon minimum, but no further.
By your reasoning, the telephone companies should listen in on our telephone conversations to make sure we don't do anything illegal and don't make prank calls. Wisely, we have chosen not to place that authority in them, and we should take a similar approach to security with broadband providers.
Re:I've read my TOS and it sucks. (Score:2)
Current state:
- Broadband provider may fail to deliver minimum bandwidth.
- One misbehaved user can use up all available bandwidth.
- Broadband provider fails to enforce correct IP addressing, facilitating DOS attacks.
- Broadband provider attempts to control the content of packets.
- Customers don't get a well-defined product and have to live with arbitrary restrictions as their broadband provider flounders.
Desired state:- Broadband provider delivers minimum bandwidth (more is optional).
- Broadband provider enforces upper limits on bandwidth.
- Broadband provider enforces correct IP addressing.
- Broadband provider is oblivious to content of packets.
- Customers get a well-defined, predictable product at a well-defined, predictable price.
Easy, isn't it?Re:I've read my TOS and it sucks. (Score:2)
Yeah! And it's called offering a lower class service to lower class people who want to pay lower amounts and only care to have the lower class service. Even business has to deal with this as T1 (lower class digit circuit) has less bandwidth and costs less than T3 ... duh!
Simply not true... (Score:4, Informative)
Definitely not all. MediaOne (now AT@T Broadband) never prohibited it. I understand your reasoning, but if you chek the TOS, many companies do not explicitly prohibit running your own server, and some even explicitly permit it.
What AT&T (at least the Roadrunner service) prohibited was duplication of their services. You weren't allowed to run as an ISP, and they also reserved the right to shut you down if you used up too much bandwidth. You weren't allowed to run a commercial web-server, because they sold web hosting.
I don't disagree with their decision, as inconvenient as it is for me. I can just have my webserver listen to a port that is not 80. I don't even know if MS IIS supports this, but luckily I'm not running IIS.
Think about it this way: if the virus was actually eating enough bandwidth and resources to affect the general home user experience, they would get complaints from those users. Maybe they will open the ports back up. Ha. that kind of stuff never happens. oh well... guess I have to look for a new ISP (maybe speakeasy.net, even though ovad is going belly up...)
Re:Read your TOS! (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the link Slashdot kindly provided for you you will notice this:
Looks as though they updated that part about servers, all I could find was this:
" (b) FTP/HTTP Service Setup. Customer should be aware that when using the Service to access the Internet or any other online network or service, there are certain applications, such as FTP (File Transfer Protocol) server or HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) server, which may be used to allow other Service users and Internet users to gain access to Customer's computer. If Customer chooses to run such applications, Customer should take the appropriate security measures. Neither AT&T nor @Home Network shall have any liability whatsoever for any claims, losses, actions, damages, suits or proceedings resulting from, arising out of or otherwise relating to the use of such applications by Customer, including without limitation, damages resulting from others accessing Customer's computer. "
So they do not mind you running the services, just that you are responsible for your security.
For reference:
http://help.broadband.att.com/faq.jsp?content_i
http://help.broadband.att.com/subagreelease.jsp
StarTux
Servers were never allowed out on cable (Score:5, Informative)
So stick a server out there, get Slashdotted (or even just get mildly popular), and the upstream bandwidth is wiped out for your whole neighborhood (technically, the area of your optical conversion node and CMTS channel). This is a big risk, so the cable companies don't take it. Instead, they do give you some free hosting space at their data centers.
VeriZontal has no such excuse -- ADSL has little upstream bandwidth (they typically provision only 90 kbps) but it's your very own, and they end up with a huge surplus of upstream bandwidth at the back of the DSLAM, where all of the traffic is aggregated. It's downstream that can congest easily. They're just being shmucks as usual. But if their customer agreement doesn't allow servers, then that's the deal -- commercial-grade DSL services allow servers.
The real problem they're addressing (even VZ) is Code Red II. Web servers that get infected will probe their own networks like crazy looking for others to infect. This creates congestion. So shutting off port 80 stops the worm. Crude but effective. See the recent LinuxPlanet column about Charter for how a cable company won't admit that its infected servers are causing huge congestion. The author suggests blocking port 80!
Re:Servers were never allowed out on cable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Servers were never allowed out on cable (Score:2)
There is always port 443! https is good for these things.... They would have to get really anal and make us use their proxies for all usable service ports to be reasonably blocked....
Re:Servers were never allowed out on cable (Score:4, Insightful)
@Home and others had the exact same philosophy that we did, "we really don't care, unless it starts to become a problem." We (as in the ISPs), were quite lenient (yes, i have a webserver running at home) because we believe in the exact same things you do, we're geeks too.
But frankly, you guys failed. If everyone had just patched their servers regularly, and knew the least bit about their computer, and wtf it was doing, then this would never have been a problem, and we wouldn't have to do such rediculous measures such as this. Yes, i think this is a rediculous measure, but so is leaving your computer unpatched for any decent amount of time. So please, stop deflecting the blame when really you yourselves (or your friends who don't patch) are at fault.
imagine if other utilities did this (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if the phone company checked your lines for "business use" and shut you down unless you got a business contract.
Or how about the power company, charging you differently depending on how you use the power, and limiting you to, say, 10 amps peak if you don't have a business contract.
I wonder if it isn't appropriate to have a little (eek) government regulation when it comes to these things? Like not blocking any ports for any customer unless it is clearly marked in advertising or something?
I always wonder when my ISP will decide, for the good of all customers, to shut down this or that port or filter or monitor traffic. They'll probably not even notify me, they'll just update the terms of service buried in their web page someplace.
Re:imagine if other utilities did this (Score:4, Insightful)
The have do so for many years with regard to digital service. To residential customers, a phone line is sufficient if if passed voice. If you managed to get over a 300 baud connection , consider yourself lucky and don't complain if bandwidth sucks or you have drop offs.
However, if you want higher bandwidth or guarantees, then you are supposed to order a data grade line (which is usually a business line). In fact, they tell you in their service agreement that if they detect business use of the line, they will charge your more for it.
Telephone service is not a right but a priveledge to those willing to pay for use of the network. Same thing goes for most residential services like @Home. It is their network. You agree to their terms of service prior to them turning the service on. If you want to go outside the bounds of that agreement, then you are expected to pony up and purchase the appropriate service.
There is nothing wrong with them enforcing the terms of their agreement. If you don't like their actions or policies, then take your business elsewhere. However, these actions are being taken to protect their customers from others as well as themselves through their own incompetence and negligience.
The warning signs were plastered everywhere, remedies were posted in accessible locations, and these people did nothing to protect themselves. Now, they complain because their systems have been compromised. Oops.
Or how about the power company, charging you differently depending on how you use the power, and limiting you to, say, 10 amps peak if you don't have a business contract.
They can and do. Power companies routinely offer reduced rates for certain customers willing to meet certain guidelines. Example might be reduced rates for home owners willing to curtail power consumption during peek hours. They provide power real cheap so you can run your refrigerator and other minimal services (like keeping your house at 60 degrees). If you use the added circuits outside the conditions imposed on the line, the will either charge your a fortune or cut you off from the special deal altogether. It's not rocket science.
Re:imagine if other utilities did this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:imagine if other utilities did this (Score:2)
We, the citizens of this country, seem to think that somethings as common as telephone service or driving are rights. They are not. Simply because something is regulated or provided for by law does not imply it is a right. If you know what provision of the Consitition guarantees basic or data grade phone service, I'd be much interested in hearing about it.
The United States is *NOT* a communist or socialist society. What you construde as a right may be in those societies. Not here. We may have our liberal factions, but we are capitalist society driven by those rules. Yes, the gov't can establish regulations to provide minimal services such as publicly accessible phone. I don't think data grade service is one of them. Unless you are making an emergency call, you still have to put money in them or you get cut off. No?
If you don't pay your bill, they CAN and WILL cut you off. Same thing goes for cell phone use. The exception is 911 or emergency calls. All public pay phones and cell phones will permit a 911 call at no cost (hence you should keep your cell phone even if you no longer have service).
When I have moved and needed to set up phone service to my new domicile, the phone line at my old residence loses its dialtone. I can not make a phone call when the line has been disconnected DESPITE the fact that there is a phone line running into the old residence. This is because I have not paid for service in both locations.
The service they must provide to you is, naturally, no-discriminatory as you pointed out. But, the rate at which you pay for your calls is based upon a legally binding contract. Go over your allocated minutes or call into a long distance area, and different charges apply. Am I not correct? Regulated or not, they are in the business to make money.
Gas, electric and water companies can also cut off service. But, they may not do so when such action endangers life (that *IS* in the consitituion...You have the right to *life*, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). That is why they won't cut off service in the dead of winter or to a nursing home during a heat wave. When the endangering condition no longer exists, they can and will cut off your service. And, they will temporarily restore it if the dangerous condition resumes.
Punishing Alice for Bob's bad acts (Score:2)
But that's not what's happening. EVERY user, including the responsible IIS user who patched their system and all Apache, NCSA, et al users are being punished for the inactions of others.
If the reason why this is so offensive isn't already clear, let me ask you a question: if I'm going to be punished for the actions of others anyway, why should I give a flying fuck about cleaning up my own act? If you don't hold people individually responsible, most behavior quickly falls to the lowest common demoninator.
People are becoming consumers, not content creater (Score:5, Insightful)
The average American is a mere couch potato which the corporations feed information to the unwashed masses the same way the inhabinents of Huxley's Brave New World were fed soma. The average consumer has nothing to say unless what they have to say is under corporate control. While people running web servers were tolerated when what they did was not attracting the attention of the corporate suits, they are being cut off by those who feel that people really shouldn't be running personal web servers.
I am also annoyed that, while Apache and other UNIX web servers are able make a web server without countless remote root exploits, all UNIX users on these cable modems suffer because Microsoft did not make a secure web server.
Thankfully, this is easy enough to work around. E.G:
- Sam
Road Runner (Score:4, Informative)
If you want to run an e-mail or web server, get a business line ($295/month w/1 IP; $325/month w/5 IP).
However, they have been turning a REAL BLIND EYE to all of the above. I get port scanned daily and it looks like 30%+ of the machines on my subnet are running a web or mail server. (According to my *cough* port scan *cough* of the subnet.)
Road Runner does more than turn a blind eye (Score:2)
So they don't just turn a blind eye, they actively encourage users to violate the contract signed when procuring the cable modem service.
~Moller
Road Runner's AUP varies (Score:2)
All the say is that you are responsible for securing your services:
Re:Road Runner (Score:2)
My cable data light started flashing like crazy the other day (and is still doing so). Out of curiousity, I ran iptraf, and discovered the traffic was all ARP packets coming from the default router (and I didn't see any destined for my MAC).
From A Business Perspective, It Makes Sense (Score:3, Informative)
[Rummaging in drawer for flamesuit...]
"They could have cut access to those running compromised servers, but instead chose to deny the ability to run a web server to all subscribers to their service."
Honestly, if I was in the position of the ISP, I would just have cut off all port 80. It makes perfect sense, from a business perspective, that is.
[donning flamesuit...]
I mean, do you really expect them to sift through millions of accounts, determine which ones were compromised with CodeRed IIS servers and block them off? And this list would have to be dynamically maintained , of course, and more port 80s continually blocked because Code Red II is still on the loose. And the ISP couldn't discriminate. If they decided to block all compromised IIS, they'd have to keep up with each and every server running.
It would simply be a logistical nightmare where thousands of hours of work are diverted from network administration, support, maintenance, etc. It wouldn't work. They'd probably have to start up a whole new management division to keep track of it. And then their support people would continually be taxed by calls from people who are getting blocked when their neighbor's Apache box is still serving up pages.
And even if they did do this, how would they correct for human typos in the blocking tables and correcting for all of it, verifying that it was an error, etc?
So Which would you prefer? An ISP where you could just run a proxy and keep your server running, or one that throws all their support staff into keeping the IIS boxes under control and doesn't have the people to actually manage/administrate the network/support so your site wouldn't be available half the time anyway?
In an ideal world, they WOULD block only the people who didn't patch their IIS servers and got infected. But unfortunately for *everyone* it just doesn't work that way.
[peeks out from flamesuit helmet... do I have any friends left on /.? ;-]
Read the Acceptabel Use Agreement (Score:3, Redundant)
So if this is the case then why the story ? why the complaints ?
ignorance is no defense - when you sign up for any service or contract you read the terms and conditions - thus you dont have these problems.
End of story - if its not acceptable and you do it you get thrown off - i cant see anything fairer than that and whingeing about it happening is like ignoring the warning on a chaisaw that says dont cut off your leg and doing just that !!
(of course in the US you could sue the company as stupidity is no exclusion - get the right jury and get lucky)
Anyone permanently disconnected for running server (Score:2)
If you're in Eastern Mass. AT&T's lying (Score:3, Interesting)
Partially quoted from:
Which states: And furthermore from the same document: Did anyone else get notification before port 80 was blocked? The above policies certianly still seem to be in effect; they're still posted [att.com] and they clearly imply customers may run HTTP & FTP servers at their own risk.roadrunner.techtalk.general [roadrunner...lk.general]
3B709BDA.3480@mediaone.net.invalid
chelm@mediaone.net.invalid wrote:
Clause? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clause? (Score:2)
oh no, you're not going to get me that easy, G-Man.
Re:Clause? (Score:4, Funny)
- As an @Home user you are not supposed to do anything business related, including someting as simple as sending email to your office.
- If you want to do business, you can easily upgrade your cable @Home connection to an "Excite@Work" DSL connection. Except that @Work simply isn't available over most of the @Home coverage area.
So they tell you to upgrade to a product they can't sell you. Hilarious.
I would happily pay more for @Home CABLE service if they would give me a fixed IP and not block servers. Not that they are at the moment, but I smell trouble on the horizon. That Qwest DSL with the month-to-month pricing is looking better all the time.
Re:Clause? (Score:2)
I don't think so. I am an AT&T@Home customer, and my recollection of the AUP was something like "connecting multiple computers requires a home LAN" [duh]. Then it talks about purchasing additional IP addresses. It says absolutely nothing that forbids the use of one IP address for multiple computers. I think they want to pretend it can't be done.
IMHO, their AUP begins and ends with the ONE computer that has a direct connection to the cable modem. Sure, they can block outside access to servers inside my LAN, under the "we can do anything just by issuing a new AUP" clause. If my ONE computer happens to be rewriting/forwarding packets on behalf of an internal class B network in my basement, good for me. I am buying bandwidth, and one IP address. Technically, my inside machines don't have an internet connection, they are connected to a machine that does that "Internet stuff" for them. Sure, the whole process looks transparent, but that's not my problem either.
By the time you read this, the people who want to keep their webservers will have moved them to nonstandard ports.
Re:No blocking yet (Score:4, Insightful)
From their service agreement.
AT&T Broadband does not allow servers to be connected to the cable modem. This means that no computer in a personal network can be used as a server.
Hmmm, sounds like a pretty good clause to hide behind, eh?
Re:No blocking yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Could you provide a URL for what you are quoting?
The explanation given and the clause given as an excuse are (quoting from the above links) an extremely long stretch in IMO:
Why Can't AT&T@Home Residential Customers Run Web Servers?
The AT&T@Home residential service offering is a consumer product designed for your personal use of the Internet. Customers must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the Services, nor represent (in the sole judgment of AT&T Broadband) an unusually large burden on the network itself.
The benefits and privileges available from the AT&T@Home, and the Internet in general, must be balanced with duties and responsibilities so that other customers can also have a productive experience.
Under the terms of the AT&T Broadband Subscriber Agreement customers are not to restrict, inhibit or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person to use or enjoy the AT&T Equipment or the Service. See Prohibited Uses of Service (g) in the AT&T@Home Subscriber Agreement.
The clause referred to:
g) restrict, inhibit or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person to use or enjoy the AT&T Equipment or the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a virus or other harmful feature; or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information;
So, where do they get off filtering a small, low-bandwidth server that doesn't do what "clause g" prohibits?
Re:No blocking yet (Score:2)
The problem on the cable modem networks isn't boneheaded admins. It's silly people who didn't realise they had IIS running on their NT system.
Still seems draconian to me. "We're going to close the intersection of Pine and Elm because there are too many accidents there."
Re:No blocking yet (Score:2, Funny)
Exactly. How stupid. That's like grounding all flights of a certain aircraft because it crashed once. Oh wait....
Same in Salem (Score:2)
I agree that *temporarily* blocking it may be a good idea for stopping Code Red. But for crying out loud, don't *permanently* block it, or I'm gonna look at DSL. (There are several DSL companies, so *one* of them should be good.)
Re:Move to Canada (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm one of the earlier @home customers in Fremont CA. which was a test city for the technology. The terms of service I signed didn't limit the things I could run on the system. I checked for that before I signed it.
Unfortunately there is the "out" in the contract where they can unilaterally change the terms of service by simply publishing new ones at a given URL:
So is that binding on me? Not sure - IANAL, but it isn't really fair either. On the other hand, it has been true for most of the time that I've been on the service that they "officially" not allowed ANY kinds of servers on the home systems. For that matter, they even had one version of the dang TOS that let them prohibit me from doing any business over the internet - yeah like going to amazon.com and ordering a book was prohibited. That part got dropped like a hot potato because of a ton of public criticism locally.
I do think they are being heavy handed, and extremely short sighted. They are in many ways restricting freedom of speech by such filters. They are probably legal - but they suck!
Re:Move to Canada (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it is a feature of the DHCP protocol. By default, you attempt to renew your address lease after 50% of it is gone. If you do not have connectivity to the DHCP server, the client will keep trying to renew the lease until it is able to contact the server again. The client will attempt to renew a lease from the same server that gave it the initial lease. Even if the lease has been expired for some time, the server will still attempt to give the same address. This is default on most DHCP servers. Of course, you can change this and automatically assign a different address each time, but it gives better overall network stability to have clients keep their ip addresses.
Re:Leased Line (Score:2, Informative)
You'd just need neighbors who are cooperative, long-term minded, trusting of the admin, and with startup equipment funding. Consider that everyone's paying $20-80 per month already and that some neighbors can't even get broadband. In my neighborhood, my neighbor had DSL but I couldn't for several months due to insufficient circuits, and our cable network had unstable power levels that fluctuate with environmental conditions.
As for the homebrew DSL, try these links:
As for the wireless, I'd test compatibility with the environment to make sure it works, and possibly put up signal extending antennae. I heard of someone taking apart an Apple Airport base station, adding a large antenna, and getting line of sight throughput all the way to their ISP. :)
Has anyone tried homebrew DSL? Got any links to any personal experience? In my case, I'd like to hear from someone in the San Francisco Bay Area. Good luck!
Re:Leased Line (Score:5, Insightful)
> Granted I don't know how much one costs but I
> figure at around $40 a month a group of about
> 20-30 should be able to gets something way
> faster that DSL/Cable and without the bullshit.
We have an LADC line (which while only rated for 9600baud, but can do 768k unreliably via HDSL), that runs 4 blocks. It has a heavy distance limitation. It costs $80/mo. This does not include bandwidth charges. Distance matters. A lot. Too far away? Too bad, you'll either need to 56k lease line (haha), or frame relay, or ptp t1. None of these (well except 56k) are in your pricerange.
> around $40 a month a group of about 20-30
> should be able to gets something way faster
> that DSL/Cable and without the bullshit.
Ok, let's say 25 people @ 40bucks, not including the line charge. that's $1k. Call up qwest, or maybe sprint, or maybe a tier 2-N (because that's all you can afford), and if you live near a POP and you're lucky, maybe you can get a full T1.
Ok, now we have a shared T1, for 25 people (who i'm assuming will all be geeks, and will be downloading stuff late at night...) Assume a T1 can get maybe 160k/s throughput (you can't get 100% util on a T1 w/o severe latency problems), you get 6.4k/s. Congrats, you've gotten isdn speeds, for the cost of approximately $120/mo/person. This doesn't include startup costs. xDSL equipment costs a few hundred dollars on each end, and 802.11b accesspoints are a lot more expensive than the cards (no, airports don't count, their distance sucks) and the costs of outdoor antennas are horrendous, not to mention you'd have to find/hire someone to do the professional antenna install for you. You'd need a router for your shared T1, add another $600 in startup there.
> What happens when the network / connection goes
> down. Either we set up some sort of rotation
> but we need an admin to fix stuff and that can
> be expensive.
Expensive is right. You can get a crappy consultant for $75/hr. Say something significant happens once a month for two hours (that's not too unreasonable, given the current codered/sircam problems, and general maintainence, mailserver/dns crap).
Your cost is now $125/mo for slightlyhigherthan isdn speeds. See why this idea isn't that great?
I'm not a big fan of the quality of service of @home or Roadrunner. But at $40/mo, what can you really expect? Does your cable modem/dsl occasionally do over 200k/s? It does? Guess what, just that bandwidth capability alone, would cost you $1.5k/mo to do.
Re:Leased Line (Score:2)
I'm also assuming equality, which isn't the case. In the ISP world, 90% of the bandwidth is used by the top 10% of the people. One person could easily saturate the t1 and make it utterly miserable for anyone else (we have t1s into apt buildings and we see this exact thing). Again, now you have worst service than a 56k modem can provide.
Re:Why not force a download of the patch? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Necessary? (Score:2)
Who do you want to ofend? Re:so what (Score:2)
Either group will be ofended enogh to change providers if they take action. Busness dictates that you shold chase 2 guys who complain about smoke to keap the 10 goys who pass around fat cigars all the time.
Re:Wrong about SMTP @ Verizon (Score:2)
Re:A simple go-around: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's say someone is looking at "http://foo.ne.mediaone.net:8080/bar/fred.html", and this html file contains a reference to another file, be it a CSS file, an image, an anchor -- whatever. There are three possibilities I want to consider.
In the first, if this reference is of the form "http://foo.ne.mediaone.net/bar/ney.html", it's obviously not going to go to port 8080, but people rarely use absolute references like that, so let's move past that to the more interesting cases.
In the second, if the reference is of the form "ney.jpeg". Here, everything works fine and the client looks for "http://foo.ne.mediaone.net:8080/bar/ney.jpeg".
In the third, with a reference like "/css/rubble.css", you'd like to think that, since the parent URL is in http://foo.ne.mediaone.net:8080, the client would go for "http://foo.ne.mediaone.net:8080/css/rubble.css", but no! It looks up "http://foo.ne.mediaone.net/css/rubble.css" (and spends a long time timing out because of the block).
I have no idea why this is, but it seems to happen in both Netscape and IE. Haven't had time to investigate it thoroughly, so if anyone knows anything about this, I'd appreciate the info.
Re:The end of a state of denial (Score:5, Informative)
This is what we've run into at my company.
What our security team did was scan for infected IIS servers and shut down those specific customers.
We then contacted them and informed them to patch immediately once we turned them back on. We also warned them that we would scan again that evening and would not hesitate at shutting them down a second time.
About 50% of those contacted had no clue they even had IIS running. This made it very frustrating.
Re:What the hey? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Disclaimer: I have no association with @home)
You might have a leg to stand on if @home was bringing in huge profits and denying you features just to bring in a cent more. But guess what, they aren't, and those downsides of cable modem service are precisely what's enabling them to offer it at the price you are paying now.
Don't like it? Tough. Go out and buy some real Internet bandwidth. It will cost you at least $200 per Mbps per month, in addition to the circuit costs.