Comments on: Net neutrality push expected to resume in Congress

Agreement reached in AT&T-BellSouth merger could set the stage for renewed action on Capitol Hill.

[thenet411]

Don't trust 'em

Ya know, it's funny. Tied for the number one spot on my list of the most distrusted things in the world are the U.S. Government and the telecommunist companies. The huge company this merger will produce is EXACTLY why they were broken up in the 80s! And they're gonna let it happen again?

Ed Whitacre CANNOT be trusted! No matter what he says in public, he intends to (and will stop at nothing to achieve) gain complete and total control over the majority of U.S. consumer Internet connections. Once he has that, he will then use it to push his own agenda. Quietly at first, then like a bull in a china shop.

Ed Whitacre MUST BE REMOVED from his post before this merger is allowed to go through. Or, mark my words, AT&T will become (even more than now) the single biggest threat to a free Internet since Al Gore.

[Ken_Liou]

ATT/SBC is doing it already

if you have SBC/ATT DSL at home or business, you may not be
able to access SMTP server other than the one SBC/ATT provid.

try it, "telnet smtp.mail.yahoo.com 25"

if you can not get any respond, you are blocked by SBC/ATT

SBC/ATT will tell you they are protecting you, in fact they are
restricting you from using non-SBC/ATT sendmail server, spam
can still get to you and there is nothing to do with which
sendmail server you are using.

Talk to SBC support, see what kind of the story the can come up
with. I know it took me 2 hours to get them to remove my
restriction after all the denying.

[thenet411]

Actually...

I agree with this one. With so many idiot consumers out there being infected by botnet software, this is an excellent idea. This prevents compromised computers from becoming zombie computers to send SPAM.

And to have the port 25 block removed is a simple form you fill out and it takes about 24 hours to have the block removed.

In this ONE area, SBC/AT&T should be commended.

[scottk0640]

not related

A lot of ISPs block outgoing port 25 traffic for the spam-tastic
reasons already listed. It has nothing to do with prioritizing
streaming media packets over other packets, which is the issue
with net "neutrality."

[jabbotts]

isn't Yahoo's smtp on a non-standard port?

As I recall, from setting up Thunderbird last evening, Yahoo's smtp is on a non-standard port requiring username/password to send though I can't remember off hand if they also make use of any encription.

Also, Google uses a port other than 25 for smtp due to the use of username/password and encrypted connection on the encryption's standard port.

[disco-legend-zeke]

Ask your SMTP provider for an alternate port.

Blocking or restricting port 25 has become a standard in the Industry in the effort to stop spammers.

Independant and alternative mail providers all offer alternate ports for outgoing mail transport.

just use the ATT smtp server (which has problems with other spam filters) or, better, ask your email provider for an alternative port.

i have a lot of trouble with the lack of net neutrality here, but this specific case is more or less universal.

the proper solution would be an open port 25 plus active proscecution of spammers, but until our government does something to stop spammers, blocking port 25 IS an effective stop-gap.

[zanzzz]

Beware The Fine Print

It is my understanding that there is an exception to the limited time agreed upon net neutral behavior promised. A separate streaming video service is exempt. Apparently this service is over the company's network and somehow is not considered "internet".
This leads me to wonder what happens when AT&T decides in the future to engage in traffic shaping and bit prioritizing for streams only within it's net. At what point does this behavior become unacceptable? If they can restrict the monkey business to within just their vast network is that ok?

[amigabill]

what happens if they trash this pledge?

> AT&T said that for 30 months after the merger's
>closure, it would not provide or sell "any service
>that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any
>packet" transmitted over its pipes based on its
>"source, ownership or destination."

And what will be done if they fail to honor this promise? Will the merger be undone? I'd really like to know that something significant will be at stake to motivate such a huge company to abide by this if it shall be a condition for merger approval.

[stlwest]

January 2057 - The FCC Finally Protects Consumers Choice

What about naked DSL, shouldn't services be available without requiring bundling of services? Hey I want DSL and Vonage not DSL bundled with a phone line and another phone line from Vonage. Or why can't I just pick the channels I want from my cable company, If Pizza Hut can do it why not the cable and satellite companies.

Baby's crawl faster than the FCC, not to mention walk and run.

Net Neutrality means if you are a network provider selling me a circuit, hook me up and don't mess with my ****. The big network providers see people making all this money using the Internet in new and inovative ways. The big telco's who are moving all that traffic around are jealous and want a piece of the action(they've forgoten they are already getting paid for the circuits) and they aren't really interested in inovating or competing head to head. They want to use QOS to break the connection they sold you and want to charge extra for your VOIP phone to work, then if you want video well excuse me we need to talk, cha ching add on a You Tube surcharge.

Yeah, you'll pay if there is no protection from the multi-billion dollar network providers manipulating network traffic flows so they can protect thier own service offerings and jack you for more cash.

[disco-legend-zeke]

If it's NOT NEUTRAL, it's NOT INTERNET!

anyone selling a data network product that is not neutral is commiting fraud if they use the INTERNET trademark. (yes, Internet is a trademark)