Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com>]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 2015, at 14:01 , John R. Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Well, actually, it does.  Every broadband network in the US
> > > > > > currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, that's not entirely true.  (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam
> > > > > from Comcast customers:
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to
> > > > at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago.  I can believe that they
> > > > have configuration problems on a networks of that size.
> > >
> > > fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business
> > > customer links.
> >
> > As I said above, retail customers.  Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking.
> >
> > R's,
> > John
>
> Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.

I still keep hoping for some way to buy an ipv6/48 from them. Being
dynamically renumbered all the time is a PITA, and yet, when comcast's
ipv6 works - it is GREAT. I had huge amounts of nat pressure from dns
traffic simply vanish once I switched my dns servers over to their
ipv6 (and deployed dnssec and got back NXDOMAIN)

> Owen



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb