Comcast and SORBS

[invalid at pizzashack.org (Derek Martin)]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0500, Don Levey wrote:
> discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0500, Don Levey wrote:
> >> Well, do the ISPs permit commercial use of non-commercial accounts?
> >
> > Why do I care if they do?  I'm not a business, and I'm not using it
> > commercially...
> >
> 
> Keep in mind that the post to which I was responding specifically mentioned
> "Joe Tech" as a small business.  

Um, I wrote that post, and no it didn't.  Joe Tech is me.  And many
other people on this list, who want to run their own PERSONAL mail
server...

> Thus, the business-related discussion here.

Thus, no, it isn't.
 
> > As for comcast, even if their TOS prohibit running servers, they
> > tacitly allow it (at least until you become a problem for them).  So
> > all those arguments about blocking mail based on my TOS are
> > ridiculous...  What my service provider does and does not allow me to
> > do is between me and them, and is no one else's business.
> >
> Um, no.  Just because they look the other way when competent people run
> servers is absolutely no reason to conclude that their TOS is ridiculous.

No, that's not what I said.  Read it again.  I said for people to make
argments that it's acceptable to block my e-mail on the basis of my
TOS is ridiculous.  That's a matter which is between me and my ISP.

> > Arguments based on blocking spam from abusing parties are more valid,
> > but this is still the wrong solution, and needlessly penalizes many
> > legitimate users.
> >
> This has been examined many times by many people in other fora.  Basically,
> the only way an ISP will clean up their own yard is if they see a financial
> interest in it.  Losing customers is a financial interest.  There are
> occasional de facto monopolies, but providers are not prohibited from moving
> into an area.  Thus, it's not the same as a utility or common carrier.  And
> even with utilities, you now often have a choice if you don't like the
> practices of one.

ISP's provide a service to people in thier homes, which these days is
demanded by most people, and their choices for who provides that
service is basically limited by who owns the infrastructure to deliver
that service, and who can get access to it.  That seems an awful lot
like a utility to me.  I see no difference between ISPs and utilities,
and your description doesn't provide any distinction.

> >> Sure, I'll agree with that 100%.  Ideally, we should also be able to
> >> have open relays,
> >
> > No, we shouldn't.  This is a relic of a day when this was neccessary
> > due to the Internet being poorly connected.  That's no longer the
> > case, and site-to-site mail delivery is basically universally
> > available.  Under such conditions, open relays provide no benefit, but
> > do provide lots of opportunity for abuse.
> >
> But we should be ABLE to have them.  

There is a matter of practicality.  If you have an open relay, it will
be found and abused.  No one will abuse my mail server, unless they
employ a pretty talented cracker to break into it.  Thus there's no
FAIR practical reason to block me specifically.  Blocking everyone
just because someone MIGHT commit abuse goes against the principles of
freedom that helped found the United States of America.
 
> I did.  I don't think it says what you think it says.
> Unlike in the days when AT&T ruled all the phone lines, there are no real
> monopolies in this business, except to the extent that competing companies
> do not choose to move into an area.  

Rich's post says exactly what I think it says.

A monopoly is a business with no competition.  It doesn't matter what
the reasons are.  If I want high-speed access, and I have only one
choice, then in my market they are a monopoly.  From the consumer's
perspective, if there are choices, but there is no discernable
difference between them, it is the same as being a monopoly.

> Basically, they don't see a compelling business reason to do so.  

Right, because the barriers to enter the market are high.  I believe
it was Keynes who suggested that this is a good example of where
government intervetion is required to ensure the availability of real
competition in the market.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20041125/336577c0/attachment.sig>