3 ms·

> This isn't a new thing and has precisely nothing to do with net neutrality Wouldn't a net neutrality proponent say that blocking traffic to/from an IP is non

> This isn't a new thing and has precisely nothing to do with net neutrality Wouldn't a net neutrality proponent say that blocking traffic to/from an IP is non-neutral regardless of reason?

kelnage 8y ago
I hope most net neutrality proponents would not say that it implies that all providers must allow all traffic through their network, regardless of whether it is malicious or not. If they do believe that then it turns out I’m against net neutrality.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > malicious Careful, that's a subjective term. Not that I disagree w/ ISPs protecting their own networks, but we often can't have it both ways unless it's more clear what malicious means. Tor traffic can appear malicious as was probably the case here.
  - kelnage 8y ago
    Of course it is - unless we’re going by the relevant RFC, in which case we can simply define it as traffic with the evil bit set ;) But net neutrality is, in its essence, a subjective term. At the end of the day, it would be down to the courts as the final arbiters of what is malicious or not, should it come to that.
sandworm101 8y ago
There are thousands of little blocks installed and removed daily. Often it is an automatic response to suspicious traffic or a notice and is removed before any human really notices. Such things are only a violation of net neutrality if done in bad faith to block specific content. Or if the block persists beyond the need. Your home router is probably blocking some inbound traffic right now without you noticing. That's what firewalls do. Without active blocking of evil or poorly-configured networks the internet would be much less safe/fast/enjoyable than it is.
ryanlol 8y ago
Maybe? But I have a very hard time believing anyone would have associated this with NN in 2016. The current NN proponents were not going after ISPs for stuff like this under the guise of NN pre-repeal. Nobody was upset about the port 25 blocks. Suddenly all connectivity issues on the internet have become NN issues, despite the fact that NN regulation clearly had zero effect on these issues.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Nobody was upset about the port 25 blocks. I am. I want to run a mail server from home. I want to run a web server from home. I have the up speed, but my ISP either makes it hard or puts in their terms that I can't. If nobody minds that SMTP inbound blocked, will they similarly not mind when their other favorite bi-directional communication system stops working because it is blocked? If the ends of the spectrum want to handle reputation management, open relays, spam, etc they can. Now of course I don't conflate this with the modern view of NN, simply because doing so would dilute its efforts. But, for me ideally, I would like all targets/bytes/ports/packets to be neutral in transit.
soldierof4chan 8y ago
This would easily fall into one of the many permitted exceptional cases.

> This isn't a new thing and has precisely nothing to do with net neutrality Wouldn't a net neutrality proponent say that blocking traffic to/from an IP is non-neutral regardless of reason?

kelnage 8y ago

I hope most net neutrality proponents would not say that it implies that all providers must allow all traffic through their network, regardless of whether it is malicious or not. If they do believe that then it turns out I’m against net neutrality.

kodablah 8y ago
> malicious Careful, that's a subjective term. Not that I disagree w/ ISPs protecting their own networks, but we often can't have it both ways unless it's more clear what malicious means. Tor traffic can appear malicious as was probably the case here.
- kelnage 8y ago
  Of course it is - unless we’re going by the relevant RFC, in which case we can simply define it as traffic with the evil bit set ;) But net neutrality is, in its essence, a subjective term. At the end of the day, it would be down to the courts as the final arbiters of what is malicious or not, should it come to that.

sandworm101 8y ago

There are thousands of little blocks installed and removed daily. Often it is an automatic response to suspicious traffic or a notice and is removed before any human really notices. Such things are only a violation of net neutrality if done in bad faith to block specific content. Or if the block persists beyond the need. Your home router is probably blocking some inbound traffic right now without you noticing. That's what firewalls do. Without active blocking of evil or poorly-configured networks the internet would be much less safe/fast/enjoyable than it is.

ryanlol 8y ago

Maybe? But I have a very hard time believing anyone would have associated this with NN in 2016. The current NN proponents were not going after ISPs for stuff like this under the guise of NN pre-repeal. Nobody was upset about the port 25 blocks. Suddenly all connectivity issues on the internet have become NN issues, despite the fact that NN regulation clearly had zero effect on these issues.

kodablah 8y ago
> Nobody was upset about the port 25 blocks. I am. I want to run a mail server from home. I want to run a web server from home. I have the up speed, but my ISP either makes it hard or puts in their terms that I can't. If nobody minds that SMTP inbound blocked, will they similarly not mind when their other favorite bi-directional communication system stops working because it is blocked? If the ends of the spectrum want to handle reputation management, open relays, spam, etc they can. Now of course I don't conflate this with the modern view of NN, simply because doing so would dilute its efforts. But, for me ideally, I would like all targets/bytes/ports/packets to be neutral in transit.

soldierof4chan 8y ago

This would easily fall into one of the many permitted exceptional cases.