Socks Proxy?

Hi there.

My ISP does not allow connections to Peer to Peer networks but a few
of my PC friends have got round this by using programs called HTTP
Tunnel or Hopster... Apparently they use SOCKS Proxy or something?

Does anyone know of an equivalent program for MAC?

Nick

"Bob Eager" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:04:50 UTC, (E-Mail Removed) (Nick Dixon)
> wrote:
>
> > Hi there.
> >
> > My ISP does not allow connections to Peer to Peer networks but a few
> > of my PC friends have got round this by using programs called HTTP
> > Tunnel or Hopster... Apparently they use SOCKS Proxy or something?
> >
> > Does anyone know of an equivalent program for MAC?
>
> Let's get this right...you're asking for help with ripping off your ISP,
> and by proxy all their otehr users?
>

Well I have to say if the ISP is blocking ports it's really the ISP ripping
off the user not the other way around. If the OP can bypass this by using
other *legitimate* ways of doing it, i.e. ways that are allowed by the ISP,
then that's fine, he won't be using the blocked port will he?

Mark.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:55:51 UTC, "markp" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> Well I have to say if the ISP is blocking ports it's really the ISP ripping
> off the user not the other way around.

Why? Let's take an example (not this ISP, as it happens). PlusNet offer
a service without P2P for one price, and a service with P2P for another
price. They do that because it costs more to provide the extra
bandwidth. I don't call that a rip-off.

But, honest customers are paying for their bandwidth, whereas a user
using the non-P2P account and 'getting round' restrictions to use it, is
effectively stealing that bandwidth, putting up prices for others.

As for it being legitimate for people to do so if they can 'find a way
round' - it's in the T&Cs that use of P2P is forbidden. Full stop. If I
find a way of entering your house because you forgot to lock a window,
does that make it OK to burgle? If you think it does, please send me
your address!

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:55:51 +0100, "markp"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Well I have to say if the ISP is blocking ports it's really the ISP ripping
>off the user not the other way around. If the OP can bypass this by using
>other *legitimate* ways of doing it, i.e. ways that are allowed by the ISP,
>then that's fine, he won't be using the blocked port will he?
>
That about sums up the screwed up attitude in society today, so long
as you can get away with something, its all fine.

Andrew.

"Bob Eager" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:55:51 UTC, "markp" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > Well I have to say if the ISP is blocking ports it's really the ISP
ripping
> > off the user not the other way around.
>
> Why? Let's take an example (not this ISP, as it happens). PlusNet offer
> a service without P2P for one price, and a service with P2P for another
> price. They do that because it costs more to provide the extra
> bandwidth. I don't call that a rip-off.
>

Are you not jumping to conclusions as to what this poster's T&Cs actually
say? If it just says 'we block port x' without specifically mentioning P2P
networks then going via another way is fully legitimate. The OP just said
the ISP does not allow P2P connections, this could have been inferred by the
fact they block specific ports. If the T&C's specifically mentions not
allowing P2P network connections via any means then of course you have a
point.

Now if the ISP originally advertised as not blocking ports or disallowing
P2P, a user signs up but then is then forced a terms and conditions change,
then that *IS* a rip-off. This happens with frightening regularity, first
ISPs advertise as 24/7, then impose acceptable usage policies on their users
when they've got their customer base up (which of course they do by
advertising as 24/7 during the period when they had enough bandwidth to
honour it), then they claim 24/7 never really meant access at any time. They
know that changing ISPs involves changing email addresses, web addresses and
the updating of all contact details and force these changes on their users
anyway. ISPs seem to be a law unto themselves.

> it's in the T&Cs that use of P2P is forbidden

Can you tell me exactly where this is in the T&C's for the OP? It seems the
OP is on ntlworld, but I can't find any mention of port blocking on their
website.

However, they do say things like this (on page
http://www.ntlworld.com/help/aup/vpnFAQ.html):
Q6. Under what circumstances would you ask me to stop using VPN?
A6. If your usage was affecting network performance then we may be in touch
to ask you to stop using VPN.

Mmmm. So if the ISP thinks you are vaguely using too much bandwidth, as
defined by them, they'll stop you from using it. You don't call that user
ripoff?

Mark.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 01:25:21 +0100 and in article <bhjtlh$chd2$1@ID-
100912.news.uni-berlin.de>, markp said...
: > it's in the T&Cs that use of P2P is forbidden
:
: Can you tell me exactly where this is in the T&C's for the OP? It seems the
: OP is on ntlworld, but I can't find any mention of port blocking on their
: website.

Erm?

The OP's IP resolves to 'cache.aramiska.net'. Where are you getting NTL
from??

re NTLworld + Port blocking. NTL dont block any ports bar Netbios
afaik.
--
chris

"Nick Dixon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Hi there.
>
> My ISP does not allow connections to Peer to Peer networks but a few
> of my PC friends have got round this by using programs called HTTP
> Tunnel or Hopster... Apparently they use SOCKS Proxy or something?
>
> Does anyone know of an equivalent program for MAC?
>
> Nick

http://www.hopster.com/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. by AVG & Guy In©ognito ®
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 12/08/2003

<snip>

> Which bit of 'let's take an example' is unclear?
>

The whole premise of your original post to the OP made assuptions about the
ISP's T&Cs not allowing P2P using any means, not just because ports have
been blocked:

> Let's get this right...you're asking for help with ripping off your
> ISP, and by proxy all their otehr users?

What you posted was somewhat sarcastic and doesn't make sense if the ISP did
not prevent other forms of accessing P2P networks other than by using the
blocked ports. As I have pointed out this depends on exactly what is in the
T&Cs.

> Which bit of 'let's take an example' is unclear?

Your last paragraph, which is separate to the example paragraph, says:

"it's in the T&Cs that use of P2P is forbidden. Full stop"

Again the whole premise of your original post was that the ISP was
forbidding P2P by any means, and given the above paragraph was separate from
your example paragraph it is reasonable to conclude you were talking about
the actual case of the OP, using the paragraph above it as an example. I
then asked you for the OP's specific T&Cs and you were unable to answer.
That's what was unclear!

Now I have to confess I also made an assumption, that is that the ISP has
introduced this port blocking at some stage but it was not there originally.
This is what prompted my 'ISPs ripping off users' comment, as backed up by
my subsequent comments on that subject. This assumption may not be correct
and I apologise for it.

Mark.

<aep@nospam writeme.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:55:51 +0100, "markp"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Well I have to say if the ISP is blocking ports it's really the ISP
ripping
> >off the user not the other way around. If the OP can bypass this by using
> >other *legitimate* ways of doing it, i.e. ways that are allowed by the
ISP,
> >then that's fine, he won't be using the blocked port will he?
> >
> That about sums up the screwed up attitude in society today, so long
> as you can get away with something, its all fine.
>

Yes, but ISPs do it all the time. I had a 24/7 connection and it was
intially advertised as 'unmetered access 24/7'. When the ISP got it's
customer base up it found that it couldn't allow users to have this
unmetered aspect any longer so they introduced a AUP, disconnecting them if
they use more than a certain number of hours both daily and accumulative in
a month. ISPs are notorious for changing T&Cs even though the original
customer base was entised without those restrictions and with no regard for
the hassle a user would need to go through to change ISPs. All's fair in
love and internet browsing IMO, if they block ports when they feel like it
their users are going to 'legitimately' get around those blockages (without
breaking the new T&Cs of course). I'll say it again, any ISP who entises
customers by using ambiguous or downright misleading advertising and then
change their T&Cs to restrict their users are the ones ripping people off,
not the other way around.

Mark.

"chris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 01:25:21 +0100 and in article <bhjtlh$chd2$1@ID-
> 100912.news.uni-berlin.de>, markp said...
> : > it's in the T&Cs that use of P2P is forbidden
> :
> : Can you tell me exactly where this is in the T&C's for the OP? It seems
the
> : OP is on ntlworld, but I can't find any mention of port blocking on
their
> : website.
>
> Erm?
>
> The OP's IP resolves to 'cache.aramiska.net'. Where are you getting NTL
> from??
>
> re NTLworld + Port blocking. NTL dont block any ports bar Netbios
> afaik.
> --

Got confused with the email address, my apologies.

Mark.