6 ms·

For a basic explanation the electricity analogy posted above is fair and accurate. I don't think consumer ISPs blocking port 25 is related to the discussion on

For a basic explanation the electricity analogy posted above is fair and accurate. I don't think consumer ISPs blocking port 25 is related to the discussion on net neutrality. It's blocked because spam/viruses would be much worse if it wasn't.

mehrdadn 9y ago
> I don't think consumer ISPs blocking port 25 really weakens the analogy. I think it does? Port 25 is only blocked if you don't pay for the premium service of having it opened. It's very much similar a case of the ISP deciding that it would rather you have a client (toaster) than a mail server (refrigerator) and charging you accordingly.
- rosser 9y ago
  My ISP (sonic.net) doesn't block anything, specifically including port 25, and I'm not paying them a premium to do so. I am paying the (very high per-mbit) premium of using them instead of, e.g., Comcast, but that's, at best, tangential to port 25. EDIT: phrasing.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mehrdadn 9y ago
    > My ISP (sonic.net) doesn't block anything, specifically including port 25 I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting it is incorrect that many ISPs block port 25?
    - brokenmachine 9y ago
      I think he/she was just making the point that not all consumer ISPs block port 25.
      - rosser 9y ago
        Yes. My comment was an existence proof against 'dataflow's assertion that "Port 25 is only blocked if you don't pay for the premium service of having it opened."
        mehrdadn 9y ago
        >>> My ISP (sonic.net) doesn't block anything, specifically including port 25, and I'm not paying them a premium to do so. > My comment was an existence proof against 'dataflow's assertion that "Port 25 is only blocked if you don't pay for the premium service of having it opened." You got my statement entirely backwards. I said port 25 is blocked only if you don't pay for it to be opened. This is logically equivalent to "if port 25 is blocked, then you can pay for it to be opened". In other words, your payment is a sufficient condition for it to be opened, but it's not necessary because not every ISP will have blocked it in the first place. (You missed the word "only" in my sentence.)
        rosser 9y ago
        It's been many years since I studied logic (but, as a philosophy undergrad, it was required), so I may be wrong here, but ISTM that your construction is an "iff" — "if and only if". But whatever. If I mistook your meaning, my apologies. Regardless, I think port blocking is orthogonal to Net Neutrality, and that it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. That is, specifically: it's about prioritization not blocking.
        mehrdadn 9y ago
        Yeah, no, I didn't mean an "iff" when I wrote "if". As a general rule of thumb, it's safe to assume everybody understands that there are exceptions to every rule (yes, including the very rule that there are exceptions to every rule). Furthermore, it's unhelpful to contest minor points like this when they're not germane to the argument being presented. Nothing in the point I was trying to get across would have changed even if I had neglected the exceptions out there. > Regardless, I think port blocking is orthogonal to Net Neutrality, and that it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. That is, specifically: it's about prioritization not blocking. I'm sorry, so are you saying that as a consumer you would consider it net-neutral if they blocked everything except Facebook unless you paid an additional fee, as opposed to merely de-prioritizing that traffic? You're fine with blocking but not with prioritization?!
- nl 9y ago
  Port blocking isn't something that is generally considered part of the net neutrality discussion. Yes, you can make a case that it is. But the OP was accurate: NN is mostly about pay-to-play prioritization of content.
- stevenhuang 9y ago
  It's an analogy. It gets the point across. Yes, as you've pointed out, there are exceptions, but then you'll be ignoring the spirit of the argument. The point is that it shouldn't matter what services are used, everything should be priced the same, companies should not be able to bribe an ISP to prioritize their traffic instead of their competitors.

mehrdadn 9y ago

> I don't think consumer ISPs blocking port 25 really weakens the analogy. I think it does? Port 25 is only blocked if you don't pay for the premium service of having it opened. It's very much similar a case of the ISP deciding that it would rather you have a client (toaster) than a mail server (refrigerator) and charging you accordingly.

rosser 9y ago
My ISP (sonic.net) doesn't block anything, specifically including port 25, and I'm not paying them a premium to do so. I am paying the (very high per-mbit) premium of using them instead of, e.g., Comcast, but that's, at best, tangential to port 25. EDIT: phrasing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mehrdadn 9y ago
  > My ISP (sonic.net) doesn't block anything, specifically including port 25 I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting it is incorrect that many ISPs block port 25?
  - brokenmachine 9y ago
    I think he/she was just making the point that not all consumer ISPs block port 25.
    - rosser 9y ago
      Yes. My comment was an existence proof against 'dataflow's assertion that "Port 25 is only blocked if you don't pay for the premium service of having it opened."
      - mehrdadn 9y ago
        >>> My ISP (sonic.net) doesn't block anything, specifically including port 25, and I'm not paying them a premium to do so. > My comment was an existence proof against 'dataflow's assertion that "Port 25 is only blocked if you don't pay for the premium service of having it opened." You got my statement entirely backwards. I said port 25 is blocked only if you don't pay for it to be opened. This is logically equivalent to "if port 25 is blocked, then you can pay for it to be opened". In other words, your payment is a sufficient condition for it to be opened, but it's not necessary because not every ISP will have blocked it in the first place. (You missed the word "only" in my sentence.)
        rosser 9y ago
        It's been many years since I studied logic (but, as a philosophy undergrad, it was required), so I may be wrong here, but ISTM that your construction is an "iff" — "if and only if". But whatever. If I mistook your meaning, my apologies. Regardless, I think port blocking is orthogonal to Net Neutrality, and that it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. That is, specifically: it's about prioritization not blocking.
        mehrdadn 9y ago
        Yeah, no, I didn't mean an "iff" when I wrote "if". As a general rule of thumb, it's safe to assume everybody understands that there are exceptions to every rule (yes, including the very rule that there are exceptions to every rule). Furthermore, it's unhelpful to contest minor points like this when they're not germane to the argument being presented. Nothing in the point I was trying to get across would have changed even if I had neglected the exceptions out there. > Regardless, I think port blocking is orthogonal to Net Neutrality, and that it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. That is, specifically: it's about prioritization not blocking. I'm sorry, so are you saying that as a consumer you would consider it net-neutral if they blocked everything except Facebook unless you paid an additional fee, as opposed to merely de-prioritizing that traffic? You're fine with blocking but not with prioritization?!
nl 9y ago
Port blocking isn't something that is generally considered part of the net neutrality discussion. Yes, you can make a case that it is. But the OP was accurate: NN is mostly about pay-to-play prioritization of content.
stevenhuang 9y ago
It's an analogy. It gets the point across. Yes, as you've pointed out, there are exceptions, but then you'll be ignoring the spirit of the argument. The point is that it shouldn't matter what services are used, everything should be priced the same, companies should not be able to bribe an ISP to prioritize their traffic instead of their competitors.