[oclug] #1 reason why I switched to NCF from Bell DSL

[Damian Gerow]

Shawn H Corey wrote:
: Garth Boyd wrote:
: > Sadly this kind if thing is allowed common practice for Bhell and
: > Rogerds (spelling intentional). You are locked into a contract that
: > they can change at a whim.
: 
: Yeah, it's about time to nationalize the internet.  Sadly, our
: legislative is not full of people who are willing to spit into the eye
: of fate.  If small people only think of small things, then small is all
: they'll be.  And the rest of us shall be dragged down with them.

I'm actually going to voice my support of Bell and Rogers in this whole 'no
services' aspect, and drag this conversation backwards a moment.

(Disclaimer: I used to work for a regional DSL provider.)

Firewalling all TCP SYN and UDP packets inbound to your customer IP space
greatly simplifies network management.  Same with firewalling outbound SMTP
connections.  It reduces the number of zombies on the Internet, the exposure
of your customers (who rarely patch) to Internet worms, and the number of
spam-spewing boxes in your address space.  Abuse desks -- which are
notoriously difficult to run -- become much more streamlined.

However, this approach breaks one of the fundamental aspects of the Internet:
share, and share alike.

Suddenly, anything P2P (and I don't just mean file sharing) no longer work.
Many game consoles will break.  Publishing stuff on the Internet becomes
much, much more difficult.  Essentially, the Internet becomes another
service that we procure from large companies, not something we work on and
contribute to ourselves.

Enter the 'third-party' ISP.

The Bell/Rogers model works for a significant majority of the population.
They'll never have any problems with the service, and they'll never see a
need to change providers.  But for the more technically-savvy folk (aka you),
for those who are willing to keep up with security patches and best practices,
and for those who want to run their own services, Bell/Rogers just don't work.

In other words: for those using the Web as it's sold to them, Bell and
Rogers fit the bill.  For those using the Internet as it's designed,
regional ISPs come to the rescue.  (For now, but that's a whole other
conversation.)

Now, getting back on topic...

I'm near positive that these contract-changes-on-a-whim aren't legally
binding, but someone would have to have the patience, money, and guts to
challenge them in court.

I'm near positive that Bell and Rogers are abusing their positions to make
more money, at the expense of connectivity and service quality, but someone
would have to have the money, balls, and business savvy to challenge them in
the market.

I'm near positive that nationalizing the Internet would make things better
for everyone.  But with Federal and Provincial governments who seem
hell-bent on privatizing as much as they can, I can't see this happening --
short of labelling Internet access an Essential Service.