Re: [libreplanet-discuss] ISPs that block port 80

[Dr. Tom McKellips]

I would take this blockage of outbound traffic on 80 and 443 one step
further, free speech is one thing, but the other effect is interstate
and international commerce is being randomly restricted by what is now
essentially a utility provider. While the Internet was in it's infancy,
it was not a necessary tool for society; the telephone and electric
started in the same general ways. Today the Internet as grown to
something some of the population depends on for an income and in some
case survival. 
Therefore technically the Internet has become a public utility and an
Internet provider is a provider of a public utility. Public utilities,
which were regulated by states, were not allowed to discriminate in
providing that utility to a person (you still had to pay the bill,
unless some type of mitigating circumstances). The Internet provider
which is blocking certain ports is creating a discrimination, therefore
negatively affecting ones quality of life. What needs to be done is get
government to recognize the ISP as a public utility provider and stop
them from any type of discrimination (human or technical).

Dr. Tom McKellips
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 17:17 +0200, Thomas HARDING wrote:
> That's obviously stupid, as any malware deposit on any location would 
> provide same effect.
> 
> No MIM is needed, that's as exactly as Threatened(trusted) Computing.
> 
> 
> Le 01/05/2017 à 20:39, Kees Epema a écrit :
> > In my opinion there are other solutions for ISP's to prevent 
> > malware/viruses than blocking port 80.
> > Maybe these ISP's only support https on 443? Regarding privacy concerns 
> > over unencrypted protocols like port 80, that seems to me no bad policy.
> >
> > One of the main reason for existence of ISP's is to support http and https 
> > traffic?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 1 May 2017 13:33:48 -0400
> > Steven Sullam <steve@stevesullam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What are people's opinions on this? ISPs block 80 on consumer internet
> >> connections purportedly to prevent the spread of malware and viruses. I
> >> think it is in infringement on free speech. I have had ISPs in Hawaii
> >> and Missouri where this isn't done and you are free to run your web
> Steven is in reason here:
> >> server on port 80.  I am aware that the current chairman of the FCC is
> >> against the open internet, so I am swimming against the tide. :D
> >> Steve
> >>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss