Re: How not to do business: Why insult a smart Comcast customer?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood () cable comcast com>
Date: February 25, 2009 11:09:43 PM EST
To: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>, Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, John Levine <johnl () iecc com>, Dave Crocker  
<dhc2 () dcrocker net>
Subject: Re: How not to do business: Why insult a smart Comcast  
customer?

See my replies inline below.

Regards
Jason

> I have a simple question: why can't Comcast notify its subscribers  
> when
> it chooses unilaterally to "block a port"?  And if that customer is
> intelligent, why not let them choose whether to be treated like an  
> idiot
> by default?  Do you call all of your users "losers"?

I have to admit, I am at a loss here.  I was not aware that I or  
anyone else
in Comcast has called this customer either a loser or treated them as an
idiot (and agree that would be no way to treat a customer or anyone  
else for
that matter).  If anything, our efforts to stop abuse of port 25 are
intended to protect our customers and other users on the Internet.

That being said, I'm as open to feedback as the next guy, so if you  
feel a
particular part of my email exchange could have been worded  
differently, I'm
absolutely 100% open to any guidance you wish to provide.

As for notification, I believe that an email notification is sent to
affected customers currently.  Perhaps this is a case of being  
criticized no
matter what you do though, as many other ISPs simply block port 25 by
default (more all the time), whereas we only do it on a limited and  
targeted
basis when we have some indication of actual spam or similar port 25  
abuse.

But perhaps more importantly in this specific case, it does not even  
appear
there is a block on this customer's SMTP port, either currently or at  
any
time in the past.  (Note: I continue to work with the customer to help  
her
troubleshoot why she cannot telnet in on port 25, and tomorrow plan to  
dig
into how her home router's port pass-through function is configured.   
I am
concerned there may be an issue with how that home gateway device is
configured, but that will simply take time to work through with her  
one on
one.)

> And if it is "blocking the port" because of the fear that particular
> subscribers are *stupid*, why not express your attitude accurately in
> the notice as follows:
>
>    "we know you're an idiot, so to help you in our infinite wisdom, we
> are blocking your port.  Self-proclaimed experts such as John Levine
> (who wrote the first "for Dummies" book, by the way) know that you  
> are a
> stupid idiot.  Other somewhat more expert people like Dave Crocker  
> also
> think that *all* users are too stupid to know what they are doing, so
> they will also support our treating every customer as an idiot.  And
> Comcast knows that you don't know what we know, so we will just damage
> your service and then let you hope that you can call our help desk and
> if you can get through, and talk to the idiots there, perhaps you can
> ask to reinstate the service you originally contracted for.
>
>    Sincerely, you silly infant, you "Dummie",
>    Comcast, your paternalistic protector (of course we have other
> agendas, but we prefer to stand behind our claim that people are  
> stupid)."
>
> That would express the RUDE, INSULTING, AND DEMEAN ING attitudes I  
> have
> read so far in this silly colloquy.

With all due respect, I'm not sure I understand how you could take my
communications with this customer and come to these conclusions. I
positively fail to see how my comments could have been construed in  
such an
insulting manner.  And I sincerely hope that you understand that neither
John Levine nor Dave Crocker are employees of Comcast -- their  
statements
are completely their own.  (That said, I actually think they're  
generally
nice guys, and I like interacting with them and others like them at the
IETF, MAAWG, and in other places.)

> The author of the original note is
> not an idiot, seems quite knowledgable to me,

I quite agree with you!

> and I think might have a
> few technical things to teach to Brian Roberts, who, according to  
> Wired,
> is trying to show Comcast's more sensible face to the world.  I have  
> met
> several times with Brian, by the way, and he is a lot smarter and
> perspicacious than the people on this discussion.
>
> I know that Levine thinks he is the smartest person ever to talk to
> dummies, who apparently include everyone but himself.  But why does
> Comcast want to continue to dig itself into this hole of insulting the
> intelligence of its customers?  Give them some credit.

I do give them that credit, every day, and I work daily to improve our
services for our customers.

Jason

> David Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood () cable comcast com>
> > Date: February 24, 2009 8:57:23 PM EST
> > To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, Paula
> > Keezer <paula_ke () yahoo com>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Port 25 inbound blocking
> >
> > Hi Paula -
> >
> > See my replies inline below.
> >
> > > Please reconsider the decision to block inbound port 25.  I  
> > > understand
> > > the spam fighting efforts for outbound port 25.  Creating alternate
> > > outbound paths for legitimate email users is fairly easy and does  
> > > not
> > > stifle innovative uses of the web.
> >
> > Port 25 blocking, as was noted on IP last week, is increasingly being
> > used
> > by ISPs around the world to combat the problem of spam.  Comcast  
> > does not
> > currently block port 25 for all residential subscribers; this is done
> > on a
> > case-by-case basis, generally in response to abuse complaints, spam
> > detection, or other spam indicators.  We have a special team in our
> > Customer
> > Security Assurance group that can help you understand if there is a
> > port 25
> > block in place or not, and you can ask them to consider lifting that
> > block.
> > Their contact info is at
> > http://security.comcast.net/get-help/contact-comcast-security.aspx
> >
> > > However, blocking inbound port 25
> > > is erroneous and will stifle innovation amongst legitimate users.   
> > > As
> > > more computers infiltrate the home and servers (media, game and
> > > otherwise) become powerful facilities in the home, it will become
> > > natural for users to make use of email and other communications  
> > > ports
> > > to contact their home servers.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any legitimate use of inbound port 25 other than for
> > running an email server.  (see additional note below)  I do not
> > believe this
> > in any way, shape, or form stifles innovation.
> >
> > > An example of such a use is a personal use photo gallery system I  
> > > have
> > > on my media server.  I have several ways to load photos into my
> > > gallery which I enjoy on my locally connected hi def televisions (no
> > > need to plog up the net moving medium or low def pictures from  
> > > flicker
> > > or other net based architectures, I have my own little personal  
> > > cloud
> > > which is much faster thank you).  Recently I have built an email
> > > server that just recieves mail from my cell phone.  I send images
> > > through my cell phone ISP as mail attachements with a simple  
> > > category
> > > message and my media server recieves the images and puts them into  
> > > my
> > > gallery.  This is for my personal use and I believe it to be quite
> > > legitimate.
> >
> > Sounds like you may have developed this software yourself, but I'm  
> > not
> > sure.
> > If that is *not* the case, I'm curious what software you used.   
> > Either
> > way,
> > perhaps you can use an alternative such as a POP client on the media
> > server
> > that checks a special mailbox for just such pictures on a periodic  
> > basis.
> > You can of course copy the photos locally onto your media server,  
> > and you
> > could also leave a copy on the server as a backup in the network.
> >
> > > Due to Comcast port blocking of inbound port 25, my little gallery
> > > project no longer works.  Sadly, I believe I did some inovative work
> > > and am being stiffled by Comcast's inbound port 25 policy.
> > >
> > > As my server does not send mail at all, there is no way it can  
> > > become
> > > a port 25 zombi for spammers.
> >
> > Never say never.  ;-)  You'd be quite surprised what is possible  
> > and I've
> > had many folks even say they work in network security and so on, and
> > there's
> > no way the could have been infested with a bot, when it turns out  
> > that
> > they
> > were just as vulnerable to these things (or nearly so) as most  
> > people.
> >
> > > I have a legitimate use.  I am a long
> > > time paying customer of the Comcast ISP but find that the ISP in
> > > Comcast is becoming more of a CPS  (couch potatoe surfer).
> >
> > As I noted above, you may wish to contact our Customer Security  
> > Assurance
> > team to request a removal of the block.  But, in my personal opinion,
> > that
> > is a short-term tactic.  In the long-term, since more and more ISPs  
> > are
> > blocking port 25 across-the-board and since port 25 is subject to  
> > such
> > massive abuse, you'd be smart to figure out an alternative method for
> > getting your photos onto your media server.
> >
> > Along those lines, you may also want to participate in our user  
> > forums at
> > http://forums.comcast.net (there is one entire forum on just email
> > topics),
> > and share ideas about how your app works and how to improve it, etc.
> >
> > > Please reconsider your policy of blocking inbound port 25. This does
> > > not solve the spam problem (please continue to block outgoing port  
> > > 25
> > > as this does solve the spam problem)  Forcing inovators such as my
> > > self to contract an outside email relay port hopping service is  
> > > not a
> > > 'fair use' strategy and not a customer centric focus.





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com