Kimball Larsen kimball at
Fri Nov 12 21:38:03 MST 2010

On Nov 12, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Von Fugal wrote:
> I like Clear, they provide what I need and not much more, at a price I
> can appreciate. The webserver guy didn't like them. Yes, he should have
> read their terms (which I did do, sparsely). Yes, the salesman should
> have said "those services are open (but not port 80)". If web server was
> SO important to him, why didn't he ask that as one of his FIRST
> questions?

As the aforementioned webserver guy (idiot to some) I'd like to point out that I DID specifically ask about port 80 as one of my first questions to the salesman in the store as well as over the phone to their national call in center.  I also briefly skimmed their TOS, but missed the bit about restrictions on port 80, as I had already been assured twice that there were no restrictions at all.

> There is plenty of blame to go around. It doesn't make the
> webserver guy stupid, it doesn't make Clear evil and nefarious.

I never said that they were evil or nefarious... the point of my blog post and in my warning to Von was to make noise about the fact that you will likely be given an uninformed version of reality by the sales staff, and I thought Von would appreciate knowing what he was getting into from someone who once tried.  I'm glad that Clear will meet his needs.

> There are plenty of reasons to block port 80 alone above any other port.
> 80 is the defacto firewall subverting port. A webserver is (apart from
> torrenting) the easiest way to use excessive uplink bandwidth. Clear is
> a home internet provider, it is engineered so that 90% of its bandwidth
> is allocated to download, and if someone uses too much upload it does
> hurt everyone. You might disagree that blocking port 80 is a poor way to
> keep a handle on uploads, but that is their policy.

Interestingly, Clear (frequently termed a "home internet provider" in this thread) offers business plans as well.  But those also can't use port 80 - and they are quite expensive.

> Just because an ISP (or whatever company) has a policy you dislike
> doesn't mean they did it for no other reason than to be evil and spite
> you. 99% of their customers probably don't care at all. It does not give
> you a right to force them through whatever ill conceived governmental
> coercion to provide you with what you want. You want something, go PAY
> someone to provide it for you. There is no right to a service.

Bingo.  I found another provider who was very clear about what they were willing to provide, and at what price point.  I am currently very satisfied with my setup, and willing to pay for it without complaint.

-- Kimball

More information about the PLUG mailing list