ISP's that block port 80

[Kevin Darcy]

Jeff wrote:

>Well this sure started a lively conversation!  I had no idea and I
>learned more about
>SRV in the process.
>
>So with all the debate and people seeming to want this feature, is
>anyone in the freeware
>world working on a browser solution to this problem that some of us
>could offer our
>services for?
>
>My original problem is that I cannot afford a business high speed line
>JUST so I can
>have access to my website on an alternate server when the one I
>generally trust goes down
>or has issues.  All I wanna do is have an alternative client for a few
>days until problems
>are resolved on the original server.
>
>My personal opinion, especially after reading all the articles isnt so
>much a technical
>issue (all technical issues can be overcome on way or another) as it is
>a conspiracy for large companies to make us pay for port 80 and other
>priveledged ports.
>
>After moving into a new subdivision 11 months ago now all Im stuck with
>is Cox high speed cable here in Phoenix, AZ.  Qwest (the phone
>provider) isnt DSL capable yet.  They told me it should be available 3
>months ago and Im still waiting.
>
>In this age of software design, hacks, etc, I would think someone,
>somewhere, would
>have overcome this issue by now, especially seeing as how DNS already
>contains
>the infrastructure for ports!
>
I don't necessarily agree with the conspiracy theory. Even from a purely 
technical standpoint, it's good to have certain services use certain 
ports in an orderly, predictable. It makes troubleshooting, 
traffic-shaping, etc. easier that way. Imagine if DNS, for instance, was 
commonly run on arbitrary ports all over the place. Even if there was 
some sort of "dispatch" mechanism in place, so that DNS clients and 
servers would know how to talk to each other on all of these different 
ports, it still adds layers of unnecessary complexity, and heaven help 
the schmuck that needs to troubleshoot a problem.

This is not to say that I agree with service providers blindly blocking 
ports, mind you. If their concern is *capacity* then this is a very 
blunt-instrument way of dealing with the issue. They should be able to 
incentivize/dis-incentivize traffic hogs without blocking particular 
ports for all of their customers.

We're getting quite off-topic now...

                                                                         
                                 - Kevin