[Tfug] why not cable?

[Ammon Lauritzen]

keith smith wrote:
> How can you tell what ports are blocked?  Also I recently was looking
> at one of the SMTP servers and the config file showed an alternate
> port of 467 or something like that.  So if port 25 is blocked can't I
> just set my pop client to use that port instead of port 25?

How can you tell which ports are blocked?
1 - They tell you if you dig through the faqs on their site.
2 - Any traffic sent over those ports mysteriously vanishes ;)

pop != smtp

SMTP is sending mail, POP3 is an inferior way of retrieving it. Cox
doesn't block pop or imap. Also, to send mail, the smtp server you relay
through doesn't generally matter so much - it's like the post office
where you drop a letter off.

In order to send mail from a cox connection, set your mail client to use
smtp.west.cox.net as the outgoing server and then use any number of
incoming servers you feel like.

> Wouldn't 53 be blocked also?  With alternate ports such as 8080
> instead of 80 with port 53 open I can still run a named
> server....ETC.

Last I checked, they weren't blocking 8080 or 53. Again, their concern
isn't crippling your connection so much as preventing common virii and
preventing you from running a high traffic server off of their service
while paying for a residential account :)

> Also I thought all DSL providers block some ports.  I used to do tech
> support for a DSL hardware vendor.  As I recall port 25 was blocked
> but could be unblocked upon request. Not sure about other ports.

No, DSL providers are their own companies. There is no universal arms
treaty that they've all signed or anything. It's very much their own call.

> I use Cox and they block port 25 so I had to use their SMTP server
> back when I used to POP.  I use webmail now.

If you're just sending mail, using their smtp server isn't any big deal.
In fact, it is generally recommended to use your ISP's smtp server
regardless of who you're going with (unless you're running your own
server, in the which case you should use it). So, when connected to the
university network, use their smtp server, when connected to DakotaCom,
use theirs, etc...

In the event that Cox's smtp server goes down, or in the even that
you're annoyed at it for some reason, you can still use ssl connections
to smtp servers that run on port 465. Gmail's is one example. But if
you're using gmail, why not just use the web client? :)

> I also wonder why DSL is only $21.95/mo, while cable is $40/mo.

DSL isn't just $22/mo. You have to write a check to the phone company
every month as well as one to your ISP. When Qwest advertises $27/mo DSL
prices, they're advertising service with MSN as your ISP.

And you get substantially reduced bandwidth for your money (barring the
weird overcrowding complaints that some people seem to have in areas).

>From the numbers I'm seeing on Qwest's web page, assuming you were only
paying $32/mo for 5mbit downstream, that'd be a good deal when compared
to $50/mo for 6mbit with Cox. I don't know what ports are blocked with
the MSN service, but I'm assuming it's just as draconian as Cox's rules.

If you don't want to go with MSN, the fee is curiously enough $38/mo to
Qwest plus whatever your ISP charges. And your ISP isn't necessarily
going to give you the bandwidth that Qwest unlocks on your connection -
You could pay the phone company for a 5mbit connection but only get
2mbit from your ISP. Or, you could find an ISP willing to give you 7mbit
but find yourself incapable of breaking T1 speeds on the connection
Qwest provides. It's all relative and stuff.

Ammon