If anything, Mr. Bambauer’s discussion’s emphasis is too limited. VOIP blocking is the least of the real worries. Blocking of any kind is counter to the fundamental philosophy behind the Internet. The article touches on this, but perhaps should more strongly condemn the blocking the seems to regularly take place: Verizon, for example, blocks SMTP ports on much of its DSL service. Many ISPs at least “reserve the right” to block users from utilizing servers. Actions such as these clearly do cause the kinds of problems Bambauer mentions – a user cannot experiment with new applications involving e-mail if their SMTP ports are blocked, likewise for applications that might need to be tested on a home web server. This might almost the modern equivalent of saying to Steve jobs “you’re not allowed to build computers in residential garages.” A packet is a packet is a packet, and once a user buys the bandwidth from an ISP that should be the end of the ISP’s concern over how the bandwidth is utilized.
Danny
May 9, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
If anything, Mr. Bambauer’s discussion’s emphasis is too limited. VOIP blocking is the least of the real worries. Blocking of any kind is counter to the fundamental philosophy behind the Internet. The article touches on this, but perhaps should more strongly condemn the blocking the seems to regularly take place: Verizon, for example, blocks SMTP ports on much of its DSL service. Many ISPs at least “reserve the right” to block users from utilizing servers. Actions such as these clearly do cause the kinds of problems Bambauer mentions – a user cannot experiment with new applications involving e-mail if their SMTP ports are blocked, likewise for applications that might need to be tested on a home web server. This might almost the modern equivalent of saying to Steve jobs “you’re not allowed to build computers in residential garages.” A packet is a packet is a packet, and once a user buys the bandwidth from an ISP that should be the end of the ISP’s concern over how the bandwidth is utilized.
-Danny.