TW's astandard DNS rollout is despicable and everything, but still: It might be argued that one should no more depend on their ISP for DNS than they would for email. Might I recommend 4.2.2 1 - 4.2.2.6 and/or OpenDNS? Anyone else got any easy to memorize DNS server IPs or something of the sort?
-Sean
Related link: http://ask.metafilter.com/22161/DNS-servers-with-easytoremember-IP-addresses
On Tuesday 26 February 2008, cragos@gmail.com wrote:
TW's astandard DNS rollout is despicable and everything, but still: It might be argued that one should no more depend on their ISP for DNS than they would for email.
Unfortunately, we are forced to pay for these additional services no matter how much we don't need them. Though DNS is more of a network resource to optimize bandwidth usage than a service. To solve this, people should be better informed on how to change DNS servers when the ISP has issues like this. When these hacks start costing the ISP money (in bandwidth hitting the net), maybe they'll reconsider.
Might I recommend 4.2.2 1 - 4.2.2.6 and/or OpenDNS?
The primary use of OpenDNS is that they do this exact thing people are complaining about the ISP doing... And before anyone says "you can turn that feature off", note RR lets you turn it off as well.
Anyone else got any easy to memorize DNS server IPs or something of the sort?
Root servers work for me.
You are not supposed to use the root servers. As a user, you are supposed to use the 2nd to 4th Tier at least. Same thing goes for top level time servers. You can, but if you do, it makes you an ass.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Luke -Jr <> wrote:
Anyone else got any easy to memorize DNS server IPs or something of the sort?
Root servers work for me.
On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Brian Kelsay wrote:
You are not supposed to use the root servers. As a user, you are supposed to use the 2nd to 4th Tier at least. Same thing goes for top level time servers. You can, but if you do, it makes you an ass.
Feel free to complain when 2-4th tiers are reliable, stop screwing with the data, and support more than the minimal ICANN TLDs.
Seriously, typo spam is annoying, but it's minor. A monopoly public utility like Comcast being allowed to filter traffic, block ports, and monitor content is a serious breach of public trust. If you're in a Comcast-only neighborhood, you need to contact the municipality that Comcast holds it's local charter from and give them unmitigated hell.
And comcast's actions are minor the vast majority of their customers, obviously. Whether you consider it 'minor' or not, it's still absolutely unneeded. What if they started adding advertisements to the bottom of web pages as you load them? It would be 'minor', but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. There is no reason to excuse them for doing something because it's less bad, just as you do not excuse thieves because there are murderers out there.
Whether people like it or not, the ISP's own the IP ranges that they serve. They can implement this type of functionality. Whose to say that there may be some less educated users out there that would benefit from a "feature" such as this. And if a user really doesn't like what they are doing they can always switch to another ISP. If there is not another cable ISP then switch to DSL. There are other options available to most users of the internet.
As for censorship and control of the internet by an ISP like Comcast, this is a standard practice in most countries outside of the US. The US has the most lenient internet access laws in the world. There are a lot of countries that have a single ISP servicing the entire country and they have proxy servers that block huge amounts of content. I lived in a country at one time that blocked any site that had the word "sex" in the URL. A friend of mine who was an alumni of Middlesex University in England could not access his colleges web pages because of it. The ISP that serviced the country was also the telephone company. They blocked all access to any IP Telephony ports or online telephone services. They had the right to do that because they owned the IP addresses they were servicing.
I think the US is far from being a controlling entity on the internet. And as for Comcast, from a marketing standpoint, they implemented a "feature" that would be helpful to a majority of their subscribers.
Phil
-----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of feba thatl Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:13 PM To: Jonathan Hutchins; kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: RoadRunner nonsense
And comcast's actions are minor the vast majority of their customers, obviously. Whether you consider it 'minor' or not, it's still absolutely unneeded. What if they started adding advertisements to the bottom of web pages as you load them? It would be 'minor', but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. There is no reason to excuse them for doing something because it's less bad, just as you do not excuse thieves because there are murderers out there. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Well, I don't know about other people here but I paid for a connection to the Internet. When the $$$ changes hands from me to the ISP then *I* own that IP address. As such I demand the ISP provide me with complete and total access and not interfere with my traffic. And if I buy 1.5M up, 875 down then I should be able to use that much bandwidth 24x7 if I wish.
Otherwise it is like renting a house but having the landlord say you can only use 50% of the living room and they are going to be intercepting and maybe modifying your USPS snail mail. I doubt anyone would stand for that. And I dont care what they do in other counties. This is the United States of America and I care what they do in THIS country.
James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com writes:
Well, I don't know about other people here but I paid for a connection to the Internet. When the $$$ changes hands from me to the ISP then *I* own that IP address.
If you believe this then I don't think you read your terms of service. Even the DHCP server that gives you your IP calls it a lease. :)
Go to http://www6.comcast.net/terms/subscriber/ and look for the paragraph entitled "Additional Provisions Applicable To High-Speed Internet Service" read paragraph 1b and then come back and tell us all that again.
Here is what it says in case you don't really want to look it up:
"Ownership of Addresses. You acknowledge that use of HSI does not give you any ownership or other rights in any Internet/on-line addresses provided to you, including but not limited to Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses, e-mail addresses and Web addresses. We may modify or change these addresses at any time without notice and shall in no way be required to compensate you for these changes. "
It's actually interesting reading as to what they are allowed to do and what you are NOT allowed to do as far as use of the internet via Comcast.
________________________________
From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of James Sissel Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:37 PM To: kclug@kclug.org Subject: RE: RoadRunner nonsense
Well, I don't know about other people here but I paid for a connection to the Internet. When the $$$ changes hands from me to the ISP then *I* own that IP address. As such I demand the ISP provide me with complete and total access and not interfere with my traffic. And if I buy 1.5M up, 875 down then I should be able to use that much bandwidth 24x7 if I wish. Otherwise it is like renting a house but having the landlord say you can only use 50% of the living room and they are going to be intercepting and maybe modifying your USPS snail mail. I doubt anyone would stand for that. And I don't care what they do in other counties. This is the United States of America and I care what they do in THIS country.
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Phil Thayer wrote:
Whether people like it or not, the ISP's own the IP ranges that they serve.
Since when? Last I checked, all IP subnets were *leased*, not sold.
They can implement this type of functionality. Whose to say that there may be some less educated users out there that would benefit from a "feature" such as this.
Blocking *my* traffic does not benefit any individual directly. It benefits the company's bank account because they don't need to support the bandwidth that traffic used. Usually ISPs meter traffic by the GB instead (often allocating far too little), but a far better approach would be to simply equal-share low priority traffic.
And if a user really doesn't like what they are doing they can always switch to another ISP. If there is not another cable ISP then switch to DSL. There are other options available to most users of the internet.
Not in the US. Cable and DSL companies are given a regional monopoly. DSL services (1-7 mbps) are not Cable services (5-12 mbps).
As for censorship and control of the internet by an ISP like Comcast, this is a standard practice in most countries outside of the US. The US has the most lenient internet access laws in the world.
That doesn't make it right.
On Thursday 28 February 2008, James Sissel wrote:
Well, I don't know about other people here but I paid for a connection to the Internet. When the $$$ changes hands from me to the ISP then *I* own that IP address.
What IP address? Some ISPs assign out of a private subnet and use NAT. Most certainly don't give a static assignment anymore.
As such I demand the ISP provide me with complete and total access and not interfere with my traffic.
Sounds reasonable, though prioritizing traffic isn't interfering.
And if I buy 1.5M up, 875 down then I should be able to use that much bandwidth 24x7 if I wish.
Most people don't buy dedicated lines. Most only offer *up to* x mbps. Dedicated 24/7 bandwidth is expensive, almost never worth it.
Otherwise it is like renting a house but having the landlord say you can only use 50% of the living room
More like renting a room in a house that has a common area for all tenants-- or more often, a common pool.
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 14:25 -0600, Luke -Jr wrote:
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Phil Thayer wrote:
And if a user really doesn't like what they are doing they can always switch to another ISP. If there is not another cable ISP then switch to DSL. There are other options available to most users of the internet.
Not in the US. Cable and DSL companies are given a regional monopoly.
Actually that ended before you were born Luke. Now the what was termed ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Company) a.k.a. ATT, and the Cable companies have a virtual monopoly based on "cost-of-entry." Example, my ISP (Everest) has been constrained from expansion by a lack of capital funds to a small geographic footprint within the KC Metro area.
I will grant you that there are some regional governments that limit access to public right-of-way, but I'm pretty sure the Telecom Act removed the ability of cities to grant sanctioned monopolies to single providers.
Rick
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Richard Piper wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 14:25 -0600, Luke -Jr wrote:
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Phil Thayer wrote:
And if a user really doesn't like what they are doing they can always switch to another ISP. If there is not another cable ISP then switch to DSL. There are other options available to most users of the internet.
Not in the US. Cable and DSL companies are given a regional monopoly.
Actually that ended before you were born Luke. Now the what was termed ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Company) a.k.a. ATT, and the Cable companies have a virtual monopoly based on "cost-of-entry." Example, my ISP (Everest) has been constrained from expansion by a lack of capital funds to a small geographic footprint within the KC Metro area.
I will grant you that there are some regional governments that limit access to public right-of-way, but I'm pretty sure the Telecom Act removed the ability of cities to grant sanctioned monopolies to single providers.
Rick
Whether it's legally or materially enforced is irrelevant. It's still a monopoly.
Actually, it is not a monopoly. A monopoly would be a company that has exclusive ownership of a commodity through either legal privilege, command of supply, concentrated action, exclusive control/possession or has a commodity that is controlled by that one company. None of these fit what TW or Comcast have. None of them have exclusive control of the internet. Now, if a company is not able to or is unwilling to sacrifice their companies future to raise capital to expand their infrastructure to enable them to do more business, then they are the reason for the other companies having what appears to the public as a monopoly. I would say that in today's world there are few, if any, true monopolies in the US.
If you look back at AT&T before it was broken up into the "baby Bell" companies, that was a monopoly. If you had a complaint with AT&T then, you were told that was the way it was and if you didn't like it "use another telephone company, oh wait, there isn't one, too bad for you," click (not even a bye or have a nice day.) They did have exclusive rights and privileges and had command of the supply and infrastructure. That's why they were broken up into smaller companies.
Phil
Whether it's legally or materially enforced is irrelevant. It's still a monopoly. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Friday 29 February 2008, Phil Thayer wrote:
Actually, it is not a monopoly. A monopoly would be a company that has exclusive ownership of a commodity through either legal privilege, command of supply, concentrated action, exclusive control/possession or has a commodity that is controlled by that one company. None of these fit what TW or Comcast have.
TW and Comcast have exactly that in their regions.
None of them have exclusive control of the internet.
They have exclusive control of cable internet access in their regions.
If you look back at AT&T before it was broken up into the "baby Bell" companies, that was a monopoly. If you had a complaint with AT&T then, you were told that was the way it was and if you didn't like it "use another telephone company, oh wait, there isn't one, too bad for you," click (not even a bye or have a nice day.) They did have exclusive rights and privileges and had command of the supply and infrastructure. That's why they were broken up into smaller companies.
That's how it is with cable internet. There is no other choice. If you get Earthlink Cable, the only differerence is your email address-- you still get connectivity from and pay Time Warner.
--- Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday 26 February 2008, cragos@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else got any easy to memorize DNS server IPs or something of the sort?
Root servers work for me.
I haven't set up DNS on a server in awhile, though back then RedHat Enterprise came with a list of root servers.
Where does one find a list of root servers?
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
-
Brian Kelsay -
cragos＠gmail.com -
feba thatl -
James Sissel -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Kyle Sexton -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr -
Phil Thayer -
Richard Piper