5 ms·

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) pre

by 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?!
        rosser 9y ago
        > You're fine with blocking but not with prioritization?! ...and you think I was mischaracterizing your comment? No-one I've ever seen on the Anti-NN side is talking about blocking either content or traffic. That would be antithetical to the narrative that doing away with it is a "freedom" issue, and which has somehow been spun into the crazy notion that NN entails censorship. They're talking about prioritizing — or, rather, de-prioritizing — content whose provider doesn't pay for a fast-lane. Bringing blocking into the discussion distracts from the actual issue. To then double down on that and make the utterly unsubstantiated leap to inferring that I might somehow be okay with blocking content but not prioritizing it — when I specifically said "I think port blocking is orthogonal to Net Neutrality", never mind that this entire sub-thread was about blocking ports, not content — is fatuously specious. If that's the kind of discourse you have to offer, I'm done here. EDIT: phrasing.

by rosser 9y ago

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?!
        rosser 9y ago
        > You're fine with blocking but not with prioritization?! ...and you think I was mischaracterizing your comment? No-one I've ever seen on the Anti-NN side is talking about blocking either content or traffic. That would be antithetical to the narrative that doing away with it is a "freedom" issue, and which has somehow been spun into the crazy notion that NN entails censorship. They're talking about prioritizing — or, rather, de-prioritizing — content whose provider doesn't pay for a fast-lane. Bringing blocking into the discussion distracts from the actual issue. To then double down on that and make the utterly unsubstantiated leap to inferring that I might somehow be okay with blocking content but not prioritizing it — when I specifically said "I think port blocking is orthogonal to Net Neutrality", never mind that this entire sub-thread was about blocking ports, not content — is fatuously specious. If that's the kind of discourse you have to offer, I'm done here. EDIT: phrasing.