Blocking data for a good cause
By Scott Bradner
Network World, 06/07/99
When I get Internet service, I want full Internet service - but
that's not what you get from some ISPs.
Some providers block or control their customers' abilities to use
some protocols. This has been a bone of contention for us
Internet purists for quite a while. But in some cases, blocking
might just be reasonable.
One of the things that made the Internet what it is today is the
freedom 'Net users have to experiment. With the Internet, most
applications are run on a user's own computer. If you and I want
to create an application and run it over the Internet, we can do
just that. We do not need permission from ISPs, a government
agency or phone company. Any blocking of data flows by ISPs
limits this freedom.
But some ISPs insist on blocking some types of data. One thing
many cable TV-based ISPs block is the set of protocols used by
Windows for its "Net Neighborhood" feature. This makes
a lot of sense because if this traffic is not blocked, you can
peer into your neighbor's computer. (As a Mac user, this does not
affect me one way or the other.)
A particularly galling type of blockage is one in which an ISP
limits the ability of a user to send e-mail. In such a case, the
ISP sets up a filter that only lets the user send e-mail to the
ISP's message server. This is frequently done in the name of
preventing unsolicited bulk e-mail, otherwise known as spam.
The ISP programs its message server to refuse to forward e-mail
that is being sent to thousands of destinations or limits the
amount of mail that an individual can send per day. This limits
one's ability to use that ISP to distribute spam.
This sounds like a socially responsible thing to do, but it can
be a real danger. All of the user's mail has to go through a
server that the user does not control and one that records to
whom the mail is sent. In addition, a dishonest ISP employee has
a very easy place to eavesdrop on the mail.
AT&T WorldNet seems to have a better idea. The ISP puts this
type of messaging restriction on new accounts, but the
restriction can be removed after the account has been in place
for awhile.
The normal way that a spamartist works is he uses a freetesting
account, often with afalse name and credit card infor-mation, to
send a batch of spam.The spammer then never uses the account
again.
AT&T's model can stop this practice. By restricting bulk
mailings for a certain time, AT&T can collect the account
billing information it needs to track down customers in case they
send spam at a later time. This messaging restriction is one with
which I can live.
Disclaimer: Harvard does not restrict most things, such as ego.
But the above is my support for some restrictions.