[cel]

> No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

Could this put an end to ISPs blocking ports 80 and 25 for home servers?

[zerocrates]

The "no blocking" and "no throttling" requirements are both subject to the exception for "reasonable network management."

I wouldn't be too sure that the FCC wouldn't see preventing or restricting server usage on residential connections as "reasonable." The general thrust of the way they talk about the internet is somewhat rigid and one-way, even in this document. They go out of their way to note that the proposal is for consumer internet access, and not the services offered to "edge providers" (though they leave open the possibility that the courts might force them to treat both the same).

[dragonwriter]

> I wouldn't be too sure that the FCC wouldn't see preventing or restricting server usage on residential connections as "reasonable."

Bittorrent is peer-to-peer where each peer is both server and client, and the FCC very early on -- even before attempting to adopt general open internet regulations -- ruled that throttling bittorrent wasn't "reasonable network management". This seems to be a fairly strong indicator that preventing servers on "residential" connections would not generally be reasonable network management.

[wtallis]

They'll almost certainly still be able to block open mail relays, but it sounds like port 80 is about to be set free. Expect carrier-grade NAT to become even more common in retaliation.

[cheald]

> They'll almost certainly still be able to block open mail relays

On what grounds? Open mail relays certainly get abused, but there's nothing inherently illegal about them or the traffic they serve.

[wtallis]

I expect an explicit allowance for this, because that's the easy way out and there really isn't the political will for anything else.

[TheSisb2]

Increase spam in general by misconfigured mail servers getting hacked and IPs getting blacklisted.

[nandhp]

It seems like NAT would be a blatant example of blocking access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

[wtallis]

IPv6 exists and works, and if we're going to expect our ISPs to get with the times we should be prepared to do so ourselves. NAT for IPv4 is ultimately unavoidable and thus excusable, but that doesn't mean that they can't use it to make the transition to IPv6 rougher on people who still need IPv4.

[ykumar6]

Upstream speeds vs downstream speeds will still likely be governed by the laws of economics