Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Electronic Frontier Foundation Google Networking Your Rights Online

EFF Slams Google Fiber For Banning Servers On Its Network 301

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-my-quake-3-server-isn't-welcome-then-i-am-not-welcome dept.
MojoKid writes "Anyone who has tried to host their own website from home likely knows all-too-well the hassles that ISPs can cause. Simply put, ISPs generally don't want you to do that, preferring you to move up to a business package (aka: more expensive). Not surprisingly, the EFF doesn't like these rules, which seem to exist only to upsell you a product. The problem, though, is that all ISPs are deliberately vague about what qualifies as a 'server.' Admittedly, when I hear the word 'server,' I think of a Web server, one that delivers a webpage when accessed. The issue is that servers exist in many different forms, so to target specific servers 'just because' is ridiculous (and really, it is). Torrent clients, for example, act as servers (and clients), sometimes resulting in a hundred or more connections being established between you and available peers. With a large number of connections like that being allowed, why would a Web server be classified any different? Those who torrent a lot are very likely to be using more ISP resources than those running websites from their home — yet for some reason, ISPs force you into a bigger package when that's the kind of server you want to run. We'll have to wait and see if EFF's movement will cause any ISP to change. Of all of them, you'd think it would have been Google to finally shake things up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Slams Google Fiber For Banning Servers On Its Network

Comments Filter:
  • Who cares what it is (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Naatach (574111) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:16PM (#44559275)
    Who cares if it's Torrents or running your own porn site. Don't block it. Be the non-evil medium of transport, not another Comcrap.
    • Isp's care about uploads since it costs them money to send data to another network operator

      This is why business service costs more
      They assume you will send more data to other networks

      • Isp's care about uploads since it costs them money to send data to another network operator

        If transit cost is the problem, then why not just offer users something like "250 GB download and 25 GB upload allowance per month"? That'd solve the bandwidth problem while still allowing low-bandwidth hobby servers.

        • by alen (225700)

          because people will go over the limit and complain and say its not their fault. the cell phone carriers had this problem when minutes were rationed out on plans long ago

          it is cheaper to sell unlimited plans and set rules limiting what you can do with a consumer plan than pay people to answer customers' phone calls

          • because people will go over the limit and complain and say its not their fault. the cell phone carriers had this problem when minutes were rationed out on plans long ago

            Even though cellular voice and text have tended toward unlimited on contract plans, satellite and cellular carriers still cap each subscriber's data transfer, usually at single-digit GB per month.

            it is cheaper to sell unlimited plans and set rules limiting what you can do with a consumer plan

            The problem is the insinuation [gnu.org] that everyone who's not a business should resign himself to "consuming" works created by others. Perhaps the solution is a "hobbyist producer" tier between "consumer" and business, much as PayPal has the "premier" tier.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Ichijo (607641)

          Better yet, charge by the megabyte during prime hours, and make it free at other times. Then people would schedule their torrents to run in the wee hours when it won't disturb their neighbors. It would also make Google Fiber cheaper for grandma who only needs e-mail and Facebook.

          • by symbolset (646467) * on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @10:43PM (#44560967) Journal
            Google Fiber is already free for Grandma who only wants to email, Facebook and Netflix one FullHD stream at a time. I wish you people who like metered Internet would just go away. There is no good reason for it. Bandwidth is not precious. There is so much of it that well over 95% of the transit fibers are entirely dark or using legacy tech that doesn't saturate 1% of what modern endpoints would give.
        • We do? News to me. All of my upstream bandwidth connections (admittedly I'm not big enough to be a 'peer' or 'near peer' are symmetric and the upstream side is hardly used. I only care from a last mile standpoint because most of the technology we use (Not counting our latest fiber tech we're putting in) is heavily consumption oriented (yeah I can give you 50 mb down... you want 10 up? no I can't do that.)

          The only thing I see as a 'I don't really like servers there' point of view is static servers, especiall

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @08:45PM (#44560155)

        Isp's care about uploads since it costs them money to send data to another network operator

        This is why business service costs more
        They assume you will send more data to other networks

        Well, that's one consideration, there are others as well. For example, it's a lot easier to keep spam operations on your network to a minimum if you simply block mail server ports for residential connections. In actual practice, most ISP's don't mind if you run a more private type of server these days, especially things like games.
        The other reason is that when you run a server, you're a lot more likely to utilize your entire bandwidth capability, and do so around the clock in many cases. This messes with the "buffet style" internet service sold to most residential subscribers. Yes, ISP's could offer dedicated bandwidth but most people don't want to pay what it would cost to actually have enough bandwidth to support their connections 24/7 at max capacity. In many places you'd have to charge people upwards of $100 a month just to give all of them a dedicated 5meg.
        Another reason, specific to cable modems, is that instead of offering a symmetrical connection they offer a low upload with a high download. This is because they use a larger chunk of spectrum on the wire for the downstream carrier than they do for the upstream. Many ISP's who offer business grade modem service do it by using different carrier ranges for residential and business modems, and segregate traffic through the IP network so they can have a lower "over-sale" percentage on their network for businesses.

        The list goes on, that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's far more complex than simply writing it off to greedy ISP's.

    • by poetmatt (793785) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @09:50PM (#44560641) Journal

      what's stupid is the article title. It's targeting *all* ISP's ridiculous policies, not just google for going along with it.

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:19PM (#44559307)

    "Of all of them, you'd think it would have been Google to finally shake things up"

    Maybe when the do no evil line seemed to ring true, now they seem nearly as evil as the rest around.

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)

      by symbolset (646467) * on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @11:35PM (#44561283) Journal
      • The story is not true. Google does not prohibit servers. They do not ban servers. They do not block servers. They suggest that you "should not" run servers. This is actually IN the article. So the evil you speak of, it ain't Google.
      • The devil would tar the saint with unearned Evil, so to corrupt the hearts of Men. He is the father of lies.

      Google really doesn't care if you run an mtr network stress test between Kansas City and Norway 24/7 and suck up your whole gigabit both up and down. They would just prefer that not everybody did all at once. If too many people try that they're going to have to do something about that.

      I'm pretty sure Norway is with them on that. By now Kansas City's aggregate bandwidth is probably greater than the capacity of the transatlantic fibers.

  • Buisness Package (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ZombieBraintrust (1685608) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:21PM (#44559337)
    Does Google offer a business package? If so what is the cost?
  • Pros/Cons (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dlarmeir (1505351) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:22PM (#44559349) Homepage
    Yes, running a server from a home ISP is great for people to learn technology, sparks creativity, and is great for those of us who are IT focused. On the other hand, imagine the security nightmare a network like Google Fiber could become with 1gb uplinks and tons of rogue apps and sites infected by malware, bots, etc. There are a lot of IT admins not taking security seriously and if you couple that with inexperienced home admins the threat is real. I'm not taking a stance on this issue saying yes or no, but there would have to be tight controls on the network in order for this to work effectively - hence one of the reasons Google may be reluctant to support it.
    • Re:Pros/Cons (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sarten-X (1102295) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:29PM (#44559433) Homepage

      To wit, with great bandwidth comes great responsibility.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vux984 (928602)

      There are a lot of IT admins not taking security seriously and if you couple that with inexperienced home admins the threat is real.

      The "threat"? The threat of what exactly?

      You do realize botnets are already a very real thing. What on earth would be made "worse" if a handful of savvy customers were also running their blog on a private webserver in their basement?

    • Re:Pros/Cons (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maccodemonkey (1438585) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:29PM (#44559443)

      On the other hand, imagine the security nightmare a network like Google Fiber could become with 1gb uplinks and tons of rogue apps and sites infected by malware, bots, etc.

      Because this never ever ever happens on machines that aren't web servers.

    • Re:Pros/Cons (Score:5, Insightful)

      by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:59PM (#44559711)

      here are a lot of IT admins not taking security seriously and if you couple that with inexperienced home admins the threat is real.

      Hi. I've been doing network administration for close to a decade. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't cure stupid. And being smart and experience is no bar from fucking up either. I've done it. You've done it. The guy replying to this comment insisting he wouldn't, yup -- he's done it too. You don't get good network security on your own... it's a team effort. The more eyeballs you have, the less of a chance of screwing up. But it's never zero. There's never perfect security; If it was achievable, I'd be out of a job.

      So let's just put to bed now the notion that "tons of rogue apps and sites infected" wouldn't happen if the people on the other end were intelligent and experienced. It'll happen to anyone you put on the other side of that router. Anyone.

      Now, let's talk about servers: On the internet, there's no such thing. Oh, you know and I know what a server is. But defining a server at the network level is like defining porn: You know it when you see it. But it's an arbitrary distinction. As far as the network is concerned, it's just a network address... like all the other network addresses. Its only job is to get the packets from the source to the destination. At the network level (ie, the internet), there's no such thing as a server. Now, here's the rub; Whatever arbitrary definition you come up with for what a server is, you're going to find an exception. A grey area. Bittorrent has no concept of a server, for example -- everyone is both a client and a server... or more accurately, a peer. Many protocols are like that.

      From a practical standpoint, there is no way to define a server that won't, in some manner, ban a legitimate use situation by someone who isn't trying to "serve" anything. It's unenforceable anyway -- you're just a tunneled connection away from plausible deniability. Connect your server to the Tor network as a hidden service...

      Ultimately, the only thing the ISP will be able to claim is that your upload:download ratio isn't like most of the others on their network. And this, right here, is the key to the argument. ISPs don't want people to have a lot of upstream capacity because they can't cache it, buffer it, or otherwise manipulate the data streams to avoid paying for bandwidth out to their border routers. Comcast, for example, intercepts windows update connections and re-routes them to local servers. They have hundreds of them. As far as the actual download of a patch goes, Microsoft never hears from your computer if you're a Comcast user.

      Stuff like that is the reason for the fail whale language about "servers"; It means less profit. Network administration and security is separate -- it may be the excuse, but it's not the reason.

      • Ultimately, the only thing the ISP will be able to claim is that your upload:download ratio isn't like most of the others on their network.

        That and the fact that the ISP can claim that a subscriber was accepting incoming TCP connections. In fact, some ISPs have installed carrier-grade NAT to block incoming connections.

    • by wbr1 (2538558)
      This argument is spurious at best. There are millions of malware hosting, email relaying, bot net infected machines out there. Having some (even a lot) of home servers of various ilks spewing crap is no different.

      If some cracker wants to host infected wares or ransomware, there are plenty of places to do it for free or cheap, especially out of the US. Hell though, even spawning, tearing down AWS instances are used to constantly move the hosting of crapware, as long as the person perpetrating it has some

  • p.
    Just sayin'. I've run three websites out of my garage for years. The router provided by the ISP has dyndns support built in. A little tricky to set up, and then I forgot about it.

  • by Frobnicator (565869) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:23PM (#44559359) Journal

    A server is something that serves data. If it responds to a request for data, that makes it a server.

    Does your IP address have ports mapped open for games or other products? It is a server!

    Does your IP address respond to ping requests? It is a server!

    Does your IP address respond to ANY inbound connection? It is a server!

    An ourtright ban on servers does not make sense. It breaks the Internet. Bandwidth limits might make sense in some scenarios, but not in this case for fiber-to-the-home. If the data needed to travel through their servers and other equipment a cap could be potentially justified in not saturating their equipment. But for fiber to the home where the other end is connected to internet backbones, the ISP doesn't bear any traffic so bandwidth limits are nonsense and profiteering.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Zero__Kelvin (151819)

      "A server is something that serves data. If it responds to a request for data, that makes it a server."

      Your SlashID is low enough that you have no excuse for knowing that this simply isn't true [wikipedia.org].

      "Does your IP address respond to ping requests? It is a server!"

      No. It isn't. Please turn your geek badge in at the front desk and escort yourself over to digg. Thank you.

    • I agree with what you're getting at, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that you've overgeneralized the meaning of what a server is by quite a bit. After all, TCP/IP relies on ACKs coming back, and surely we can agree that just because a device ACKs, it doesn't have to be a server.

      Really, we should refine your definition to be that a server is something that serves content, with a distinction being made between content and data that is used to acquire access to that content. Of course, where "data" end

  • Google offers 'unlimited fiber to the home' in the same way that Dreamhost offers 'unlimited web hosting': unlimited with some restrictions on the kind of use you'll make of the service. So Dreamhost won't let you use the unlimited space for hdd backup, since it's only supposed to be for webhosting, and Google won't let you use the unlimited bandwidth for hosting an FTP server, since it's only supposed to be for residential internet access.

    I would personally like there to be reasonably priced unrestricted f

  • by Simulant (528590) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:25PM (#44559391) Journal

    I can live with not running a business off my consumer internet connection but I am mad as hell that I can't run my own mail server.

    At this point one wonders if the NSA is involved....
  • Why so confused? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scarboni888 (1122993) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:27PM (#44559417)

    It's very simple. If it's a 'server' that can generate revenue then they want their share.

    You can't charge bittorrent clients you are seeding to but you can take credit card numbers, paypal donations, and bitcoins through a web page.

    Remember to always follow the godforsaken $$$ whenever you want an answer to anything even remotely related to business.

    It's not hard, really.

  • Use more, pay more (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bhlowe (1803290) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:28PM (#44559427)
    If you're using the service more, you should expect to pay more. Otherwise, the little guys end up subsidizing your bandwidth hogging ways... rather than the other way around, where the big data guys pay more, and the little data using guys pay less. You expect that with almost every known business transaction.... get off your wallet and pay the extra cash for a business account... (I have Comcast business level internet for an extra $50/mo and I have 30Mbps upload... a terrific deal that I don't expect the little lady down the street to subsidize.)
    • If you're using the service more, you should expect to pay more.

      Assuming you ran a mail and web server within the agreed bandwidth limits, how would you be abusing or over utilising the service?

      It strikes me as one of those arbitrary decisions that are made purely for the bottom line, like how some telecom companies charge extra for tethering despite it costing them absolutely nothing extra.

  • Wake me when they reach my country. Until then I'll stick with TekSavvy.
  • There are a reason there are domestic packages and professional packages: uptime, help desk assistance, troubleshooting and cost. I for one, don't wait to pay extra in my home communication package because the government is messing with and dictating rules to private business. At the end of the day, is a matter of cost, and distributing it - residential have it cheaper, businesses foot a bigger bill. The security nightmare and also extra administration for this to happen in the ISP side has to be paid. Ther
    • by MrEricSir (398214)

      You seem to have missed the point entirely. Google, like every ISP, is selling something that they claim is "unlimited," but that claim is 100% bogus.

      The issue isn't that the EFF wants the government to tell Google what they can and can't offer, it's that Google (and other ISPs) need to be honest about what they're selling.

      • by ruir (2709173)
        I haven't read it anywhere in the articleit is talking about running servers. Note, I don't condone deceptive marketing about it being "unlimited". Here the cartel of mobile operators redefined unlimited in 4G as 15GB DOWNLOAD. I even filed a complaint in tmn.pt only to be given a stupid boilerplate answer message. Anyway, unlimited and running servers *is* not the same thing. I fully maintain what I said, I don't want to foot the bill for the hoarders/freeloaders 5%-10% of users who misuse the resources.
  • Browsing the web and such, a person will use full bandwidth for about a second, look at the page, load another in about a second, look at it, etc. Between the time they get home from work and the time they go to bed, the typical web user might load a hundred pages in a day. 100 page loads of bandwidth is what a typical customer costs the ISP, do their bill is based on.

    A server can easily serve up 100 pages per MINUTE, 24/7. That's 3600 times as much bandwidth cost than a surfer. If you want to use thousa
  • The same google who gives all your data to the NSA? Who's high on Slashdot today?

  • "Admittedly, when I hear the word 'server,' I think of a Web server"

    Sad, eh? Because the WWW is the end-all, be-all of the entire internet. Ports 80 and 443 are all you need to know!

  • The other side (Score:5, Informative)

    by barlevg (2111272) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:42PM (#44559555)
    Google Fiber Server Neutrality Violation Being Overblown [dslreports.com]

    In short, Google isn't doing anything that the other ISPs aren't doing (it's not like there's any indication that they will actually enforce the ban), and the reason the language is there is that Google will likely roll out a business package in the future.
  • By making it difficult to run a server on Joe Schmo's DSL connection, you remove the problem of malicious servers (spammers, bots, etc). I'd love to run my own mail server the way things are going. I already use SSH to tunnel home and BTSync to keep myself out of the cloud.
  • Tend to be victims of traffic shaping and are the first to be throttled if the ISP is low on bandwidth.

  • But Google said... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wjcofkc (964165) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:55PM (#44559675)
    When they started this whole fiber deal, Google clearly stated that they had no idea what people might use this bandwidth for. They said it was an experiment to see what creative uses people might find for it. This policy clearly goes against that statement. As someone who will have Google Fiber available in the next couple months, this is frustrating. I am a "tinkerer/pseudo hacker", and that means sometimes running an internet facing server of some sort for pure nerd learning purposes. Sigh...
  • by damacus (827187) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @07:58PM (#44559701) Homepage

    My opinion is that it makes sense for default settings (protecting those inadvertently sharing, preventing a trojan from starting up a common service or opening VNC to the world, etc etc), but a customer should be able to call in and ask that they be exempted from those restrictions. I do understand also non-commercial stipulations and am fine with that too.. but I should never have to wonder if, as a customer, I'm violating my ToS by having SSH and a VPN service sitting on my connection.. it's one of those things where even unenforced it can be used as means for termination and whatnot.

  • by DewDude (537374) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @08:01PM (#44559741)
    Screw whatever karma points I'm not going to get...I have nothing too insightful to say on this matter; but i'm going to talk anyway.

    I, too, feel it's a trumped up way of making customers pay for a higher tier. I too wonder why they specifically are targeting web-servers than anything else. One part of me wants to say it's a "public" vs "private" aspect. Look at a device like a Slingbox for example. When you get down to it; it's a server. It's a little device that sends data over the internet. At the same time; it's "hidden" and not publically accessible. You need two individual logins to be able to connect to it; one for the slingbox website; another for the slingbox itself. It's not like *anyone* can drive by my IP and go "I think i'll stream some video". I don't know of a single ISP that's had issue with this. I'm sure there's a few people with google fiber running one. Verizon has never taken an attempt to block mine. or tell me I needed to stop running it. Hell, having this insane amount of bandwidth is what made me invest in one in the first place. Same goes for my remote SSH access. Yeah; that's a server alright; but again, it's not a "public" thing...and mine isn't even on a standard port. So, maybe there's a distinction between a "public" server; like an httpd; and "private" servers like SSH, games, torrents; etc. I run a VPN on my network...and that's not even raised any eyebrows by my ISP...and within that VPN I've got access to any server running on my LAN. Again, this is what leads me to believe they make a distinction between public servers pumping out data to everyone; and private servers that "just happen to use your residential" account.

    But, let me focus on Verizon for just another minute; since it's the only ISP I've used for the last 11 years (12 if you count the year my DSL was technically GTEi). My original DSL TOS was on like...a 4"x4" leaflet...and said *nothing* about servers. I read that tiny piece of paper three or four times.....GTE (this was before they completely merged the networks sometime in '02) didn't care if you ran a server on your DSL. Therefore; I did. In fact, I ran a server a large majority of the time I was on a DSL connection. Verizon never blocked port 80....and I don't think they even scanned. Oddly enough; the only port they blocked was 25. It was for trying to reduce the amount of spam people's PCs were sending out; and they gave a TON of notice about it. I didn't have a business account...they probably didn't have to tell me; but they did. They even called me to make sure I knew about the upcoming block on incoming port 25. I ran web-servers; ftp; ssh; shoutcast, even an ircd; never had Verizon "get after me" or block any ports.

    Ok, granted FiOS isn't offering a 1gpbs plan yet; and I don't know what ever happened to XG-PON...but even now, they don't forcibly prevent you from running a server by blocking ports. A buddy of mine up in MA has a residential FiOS account and has been running an httpd for who knows how long. I've tried running services that are public on standard ports and never had an issue.

    There's...a lot I don' t know about how they handle; or even if they check. If google's blocking port 80 incomming (which is what I gathered from some of the comments); then how is it Verizon...whose been called extremely evil...not?

    Maybe part of it is the "old" way of thinking it seems tech companies don't want to shake. Maybe they're lumping *anyone* who runs a server as a business; completely shunning the fact a home user might want to run a server as a hobby.
  • all ISPs are deliberately vague about what qualifies as a 'server.' ... because TCP clearly specifies it.

    The fact that some programs might behave correctly when implementing a server, or not (eg: skype) or the fact that, in some cases, ISPs allow certain services or ports, does not mean that a 'server' is something arcane. It's you that don't know it.

  • Then they misunderstand. The reason why ISPs block port 80 incoming is not to block "servers" primarily to up-charge people. It's done to protect the internet from XP zombies which serve up ads. My ISP (cox) doesn't charge more for a business account than it does for a personal one. The need to specifically ask for a business account with no port blocking is there to ensure responsibility with viruses.
  • Which sardonic quip to use? I can't decide, so I'll post both.

    Of all of them, you'd think it would have been Google to finally shake things up.

    "Of all of them," perhaps, is true. Google may well be the least evil of the major providers. And Obama was the less evil of the two major 2012 candidates. Not high bars to get over, and yet they both just graze past.

    Of all of them, you'd think it would have been Google to finally shake things up.

    I think you may be confusing Google ca 2001 with Google ca 2013. They a

  • nobody is perfect. And so the ideologues turn on themselves fighting with each other rather than the greater enemy, cableco and telco, and so dissolve into an ineffectual cacophony. Comcast must be grinning.

  • What ever happened to Google favoring net neutrality? You know, not discriminating on the type, source, or destination of data? Oh right, they were a data source and now they're becoming a data transport. This suggests they're not all about principles unless it happens to suit them.
  • ISPs pay by the bandwidth used. The price you pay for your home internet doesn't cover the cost to your ISP if you used the max bandwidth 24/7. If it did, it would be much more expensive.

    By making rules like this, they are protecting mom and dad who don't use the internet much from having to subsidize joe hacker running a porn site out of his home.

    Imagine if you paid for gas by the month. Would it be ridiculous if they said you weren't allowed to drive a commercial semi and fuel it there? No. You'd hav

  • Small ISPs tend to be more flexible. Find a reseller of Bombastic Cable or your local Ma Bell spin off and see what you can negotiate. I run my own web, e-mail, ssh, DNS and VPN server on a 1.5 mb (down) and .5 mb up DSL connection. What I said to my ISP was, "If I get enough traffic that the connection needs to be faster then that's a good indication I need to upgrade the account." They bought it so I run everything through a single IP address on their fixed IP address, business account. And, yes, it

  • by caseih (160668) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @10:07PM (#44560761)

    In fact the Internet, as originally envisioned, hasn't existed for some years now and may never exist again. It's not just that ISPs are forbidding servers, it's that their asymmetric I/O speeds combined with network-address translation fundamentally changed the game from a peer to peer network to a producer/consumer network. The only way to serve up your own content right now is to buy server in a data center, or use an existing service. Just to route around the fundamental brokenness of our modern-day internet, I have to buy a VPS, which is run by a company that pays the big network providers big bucks for peering. Pretty depressing, really.

    I wonder how a transition to IPv6 will change all this. Will all ISPs simply assign non-routeable addresses?

  • You just need written permission from Google.

  • The key is to avoid the big-name assfaces whenever possible; much like the major cell carriers, they don't give a shill if they lose any particular customer, as long as their bottom line isn't affected. Regional places like Sonic.net [sonic.net] or DSL Extreme [dslextreme.com] are MUCH better for any geek to go with, for example -- neither uses caps/throttling or minds home servers, and while both block port 25, DSL Extreme's TOS states they will open it if asked.

    The thing is, regional ISPs are rarely well known even in their area, so

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Working...