POTS in charge again

http://www.ukonline.net/broadband/broadband8000.php

"We do not offer a newsgroup service on our broadband services. We also
block ports 25, 80, 8080 and 3128 on all of our broadband services in order
to maintain quality of service for all of our customers, so you will not be
able to run a mail or web server."

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA!!!!

I can see POTS management trying their head
around new technologies again and coming up with
random loony tunies again.

Ah yes, today we shall block port 8181 because it
is port 8181's turn today to maintain quality of service
for all our customers.

Tomorrow we shall block port 666. Its the devil
port and we don't support devil workshippers on our network
to maintain quality of service for our customers.

On Friday, the 13th, we shall be blocking port 13.
We don't want to scare anybody to maintain quality
of service for our customers.

Just so that you know we care about quality
of service for our customers, we are blocking
port 69 today as well. It is a filty port.


These stupid lying POTS management fscks have should
not be lying to the public, and should be reported
to trading standards. Blocking those ports have
no impact on maintaining quality of service for customers.
If it is, they are running a shitty service in the first place
and overcharging for a fraudulent service that requires investigation
and criminal prosecution.

7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:ZTASe.102118$(E-Mail Removed) .uk:

> "We do not offer a newsgroup service on our broadband services. We
> also block ports 25, 80, 8080 and 3128 on all of our broadband
> services in order to maintain quality of service for all of our
> customers, so you will not be able to run a mail or web server."
>
> BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA!!!!
>
> I can see POTS management trying their head
> around new technologies again and coming up with
> random loony tunies again.

This is INBOUND blocking to prevent people from running servers. Those
ports equate to SMTP, web servers and web proxies.

The policy is basically to stop people using a residential line for
Internet access as something else. It also takes out problems with open
relays and proxies which the spammers and warez pups will use to suck up
bandwidth.

It is a perfectly logical business choice. If you want to run a server
such as that you should get an account which allows that in the T&Cs.

--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

cw wrote:

> 7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:ZTASe.102118$(E-Mail Removed) .uk:
>
>> "We do not offer a newsgroup service on our broadband services. We
>> also block ports 25, 80, 8080 and 3128 on all of our broadband
>> services in order to maintain quality of service for all of our
>> customers, so you will not be able to run a mail or web server."
>>
>> BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA!!!!
>>
>> I can see POTS management trying their head
>> around new technologies again and coming up with
>> random loony tunies again.
>
> This is INBOUND blocking to prevent people from running servers. Those
> ports equate to SMTP, web servers and web proxies.
>
> The policy is basically to stop people using a residential line for
> Internet access as something else. It also takes out problems with open
> relays and proxies which the spammers and warez pups will use to suck up
> bandwidth.
>
> It is a perfectly logical business choice. If you want to run a server
> such as that you should get an account which allows that in the T&Cs.


No it isn't logical as you put it.

1. NOTHING can be blocked by this method. Its childish incovenience
to put it mildly. Loon POTS managers in charge have gone mad.

2. If you instead say you are trying to block servers, then they should
it put it in the advertising to make pretend their operations are legal
and wait for step 3.

3. It is illegal to block any ports and then sell it as an internet service.
You can and should be sued for it and it will NEVER stand up in court.
A customer has paid for internet service in good faith and is entitled
to internet's full services, and if he's not being given any of it in
good faith, with a lie about 'customer service levels' WHICH WILL BE
PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW AS A LIE, then he is entitled to sue and
win enormous damages under consumer protection rights.
Its as if Royal Mail deciding they will deliver
your birthday cake, having illegally
eaten a percentage of the pie with an illegal T&C about how much
of your pie they can eat in transit.

On 04 Sep 2005 19:46 GMT, 7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>3. It is illegal to block any ports and then sell it as an internet service.
> You can and should be sued for it and it will NEVER stand up in court.
> A customer has paid for internet service in good faith and is entitled
> to internet's full services, and if he's not being given any of it in
> good faith, with a lie about 'customer service levels' WHICH WILL BE
> PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW AS A LIE, then he is entitled to sue and
> win enormous damages under consumer protection rights.

Illegal ? Hmmm, under what Act ? If the ISP makes it clear that they offer
a service with some restrictions, and that they can change the terms of the
service where they dem necessary, it is for the consumer to beware.

> Its as if Royal Mail deciding they will deliver
> your birthday cake, having illegally
> eaten a percentage of the pie with an illegal T&C about how much
> of your pie they can eat in transit.

Only if they were the only company you could use would there be any way to
complain it was an unfair restriction. Out of interest, which ISP blocks
8080 (and the others you quoted) ? Peter M.

--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!!

"7" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6aISe.102402

>>> BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA!!!!
<snip>
>
> 1. NOTHING can be blocked by this method. Its childish incovenience
> to put it mildly. Loon POTS managers in charge have gone mad.

The POT calling the kettle black me thinks!

> 3. It is illegal to block any ports and then sell it as an internet
> service.

Erm no. Which law is this exactly?

Tony

"7" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6aISe.102402$(E-Mail Removed) .uk...
> 1. NOTHING can be blocked by this method. Its childish incovenience
> to put it mildly. Loon POTS managers in charge have gone mad.
>
> 2. If you instead say you are trying to block servers, then they should
> it put it in the advertising to make pretend their operations are legal
> and wait for step 3.
>
> 3. It is illegal to block any ports and then sell it as an internet
> service.
> You can and should be sued for it and it will NEVER stand up in court.
> A customer has paid for internet service in good faith and is entitled
> to internet's full services, and if he's not being given any of it in
> good faith, with a lie about 'customer service levels' WHICH WILL BE
> PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW AS A LIE, then he is entitled to sue and
> win enormous damages under consumer protection rights.
Then why don't you go sue them, and let us know how you get on?

I won't hold my breath given your wonderful record in telling us what can be
done, yet doing nothing about it...

7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:6aISe.102402$(E-Mail Removed) .uk:

> 1. NOTHING can be blocked by this method. Its childish incovenience
> to put it mildly. Loon POTS managers in charge have gone mad.

How'd you work that one out? If those ports are blocked then surely
anything running on those ports is blocked. There are numerous reasons
this could come in handy. For example some business fella decides
they're going run 2000 server with IIS but doesn't do anything to lock
it down. This prevents all the code red, nimda and similar variants from
compromising the system. It also prevents the SMTP component from being
used as a spam relay amongst other things.

We are always being called in to clean up after people doing things they
don't understand and then buggering themselves up in the process.

Yes people in the know can simply change the port, but that renders all
the standard scanners useless and anyone knowing enough to change the
port should be able to figure out how to lock the server down or at
least run Windows Update.

> 2. If you instead say you are trying to block servers, then they
> should it put it in the advertising to make pretend their operations
> are legal and wait for step 3.

It is clearly stated in the terms and conditions. There is no attempt to
obscure it.

> 3. It is illegal to block any ports and then sell it as an internet
> service.

As others have said, under what law? Go talk to NaNOG or any of the other
continental equivalents where blocking is routine amongst Internet
Providers, backbone/transit carriers and the like. Ports 137-139 are the
most common as NetBIOS traffic very rarely has any reason to pass network
borders.

Blocking of any kind is not illegal hence we get spam filtering,
firewalls, IDS etc. It would only be classified as misleading advertising
if the company concerned advertised the service as not filtered.

Which reminds me, there is another form of legal blocking called a
killfile..

--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

cw wrote:

> 7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:6aISe.102402$(E-Mail Removed) .uk:
>
>> 1. NOTHING can be blocked by this method. Its childish incovenience
>> to put it mildly. Loon POTS managers in charge have gone mad.
>
> How'd you work that one out? If those ports are blocked then surely
> anything running on those ports is blocked.

Who told you that? And how certain are you?
Clue -> Do even have an idea why 80 AND 8080 is blocked?

> There are numerous reasons
> this could come in handy. For example some business fella decides
> they're going run 2000 server with IIS but doesn't do anything to lock
> it down. This prevents all the code red, nimda and similar variants from
> compromising the system. It also prevents the SMTP component from being
> used as a spam relay amongst other things.


Jee wizo mr clueles security man, just stick to your day job ok.


> We are always being called in to clean up after people doing things they
> don't understand and then buggering themselves up in the process.
>
> Yes people in the know can simply change the port

Well you just answered everything in just one short sentence.
The ports have no bearing on what services are run on it.
Its just incovenient if you don't stick to traditional port numbers.

>, but that renders all
> the standard scanners useless

Bwaahahahahah! Are you sure of this mr security man?


> and anyone knowing enough to change the
> port should be able to figure out how to lock the server down or at
> least run Windows Update.
>
>> 2. If you instead say you are trying to block servers, then they
>> should it put it in the advertising to make pretend their operations
>> are legal and wait for step 3.
>
> It is clearly stated in the terms and conditions. There is no attempt to
> obscure it.
>
>> 3. It is illegal to block any ports and then sell it as an internet
>> service.
>
> As others have said, under what law? Go talk to NaNOG or any of the other
> continental equivalents where blocking is routine amongst Internet
> Providers, backbone/transit carriers and the like. Ports 137-139 are the
> most common as NetBIOS traffic very rarely has any reason to pass network
> borders.
>
> Blocking of any kind is not illegal hence we get spam filtering,
> firewalls, IDS etc. It would only be classified as misleading advertising
> if the company concerned advertised the service as not filtered.
>
> Which reminds me, there is another form of legal blocking called a
> killfile..
>

poster wrote:

> On 04 Sep 2005 19:46 GMT, 7 <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>3. It is illegal to block any ports and then sell it as an internet
>>service.
>> You can and should be sued for it and it will NEVER stand up in court.
>> A customer has paid for internet service in good faith and is entitled
>> to internet's full services, and if he's not being given any of it in
>> good faith, with a lie about 'customer service levels' WHICH WILL BE
>> PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW AS A LIE, then he is entitled to sue and
>> win enormous damages under consumer protection rights.
>
> Illegal ? Hmmm, under what Act ?

Trade description act.

> If the ISP makes it clear that they
> offer a service with some restrictions,

You can try that on the judge and see if he agrees.

> and that they can change the terms
> of the service where they dem necessary, it is for the consumer to beware.

Thats what he's gonna be thinking as well!!
What's his position if here were a consumer that had to read volumes
of T&C and ordered something that isn't internet by virtue of trickery?
Internet has reasonably precise meaning.
And there are distinctions like ADSL and dial up for it
delivery. So its illegal to call a TCP/IP service full of blocked ports
an internet service when it isn't. Its something else and wrongly
takes away market share from companies that offer the full
legitimate internet services. Judges have in the past have ordered
dopey companies that try to stretch meanings of words
and sell apples for oranges to take down their advertising
or face the court for contempt.


>
>> Its as if Royal Mail deciding they will deliver
>> your birthday cake, having illegally
>> eaten a percentage of the pie with an illegal T&C about how much
>> of your pie they can eat in transit.
>
> Only if they were the only company you could use would there be any way to
> complain it was an unfair restriction. Out of interest, which ISP blocks
> 8080 (and the others you quoted) ? Peter M.
>

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:32:57 GMT, [7] said :-

>poster wrote:
>
>> On 04 Sep 2005 19:46 GMT, 7 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>3. It is illegal to block any ports and then sell it as an internet
>>>service.
>>> You can and should be sued for it and it will NEVER stand up in court.
>>> A customer has paid for internet service in good faith and is entitled
>>> to internet's full services, and if he's not being given any of it in
>>> good faith, with a lie about 'customer service levels' WHICH WILL BE
>>> PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW AS A LIE, then he is entitled to sue and
>>> win enormous damages under consumer protection rights.
>>
>> Illegal ? Hmmm, under what Act ?
>
>Trade description act.
>

Total rubbish Slick.

Go on, take them to court Sonny.


You have said lots of complete hogwash birdbrain, and not once backed
any of it up with any action whatsoever.