Callcentric service still blocked [telecom]

[Bill Horne]

It's been almost a month now, and my Callcentric service is still out.

I've tried a few "VPN" providers, without success: ProtonVPN, and
"Perfect Privacy," among others. None of them have worked, and I don't know
why. What used to be a telephone on my living room table is now a
paperweight, not useful, not usable.

The news channels I watch via streaming media, such as Reuters, CBS,
and even the TV station in Charlotte, show frequent gaps and
buffering. NetFlix and Amazon Prime video, likewise, grow less and
less usable as the noose tightens. One person, who called me from a
number identified as "Galaxy Cablevision," told me that the problem
could be addressed by paying for a fixed IP address. The message from
Zito Media is clear, although not subtle: "Pay more."

I'm tempted to say "'Twas always thus, 'twill ever be." I'm tempted to
shrug my shoulers and remind my self that the nation I fought for in
Vietnam is run for the benefit of the ruling class, and admit that my
skillset is now dated and (in this case) ineffective. I'm tempted to
give up and put up with marginal cell phone coverage and getting-
worse-by-the-day Internet service, and with having offerings that
compete with Zito Media's version of VoIP being blocked and rendered
useless.

Well, I may be aged but I am not yet dead, and not likely to give in.

I want to try to appeal to the government here in North Carolina,
which might be responsive, given that it's an election year, even
though I doubt any "solution" will survive the election. I'm trying to
think of a way to catch Zito Media in the act, in the hope that having
actionable evidence will curb their arrogance and trickery in the long
term.

If any of my readers know how Comcast was caught blocking ports, and
what means were used to gather the evidence that was used to prove
those actions, please tell me. If any of you have the training and/or
equipment needed to gather that evidence, please contact me offline.

Bill Horne

--
malassimilation
at
gmail
dot
com

[Marco Moock]

Am 23.09.2022 um 16:08:31 Uhr schrieb Bill Horne:

> told me that the problem could be addressed by paying for a fixed IP
> address. The message from Zito Media is clear, although not subtle:
> "Pay more."

Do you have IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity? IPv6 is faster because no NAT
is needed.

There are still many IPv4-only servers that are only accessible slowly
because NAT routers are overloaded, especially when using CG-NAT or
DS-Lite.

[Bill Horne]

I had never heard of "Cee-Gee-NAT" until Zito Media took over the
local Cable TV & Internet provider: I was surprised that anyone would
want to implement any more "NAT" solutions, especially with IPv4 IP
addresses going for princely sums while IPv6 addresses are practically
free.

But, c'est la vie: "The only constant is change." I would use IPv6 if
it solved the problem, but a quick check of Callcentric's DNS records
indicates that they have no "AAAA" (IPv6) addresses, but if IPv6 at my
end would solve the problem even though it would have to be converted
to IPv4 at some point, I'd still be interested.

I rang the Zito Media "Sales" line a few minutes ago. After I
listened to a brusque recorded demand that I only bother their
salesmen when I wanted to buy something, instead of "for any other
reason," the man who answered listened to my civil request for a quote
on an IPv6 address then transferred me to another employee who was not
a native English speaker, and the second person said something that
sounded like "your internet is not working, yes?" and then hanged up
on me.

It took three calls, but I finally reached someone who believed that I
wanted an IPv6 address: she told me that they don't offer them.
However, for $10 per month I could get a static IPv4 address, and I'm
going to try one and see if the man at Galaxy Cablevision can make
good on his implied promise.

Bill

[Marco Moock]

Am 27.09.2022 um 18:39:18 Uhr schrieb Bill Horne:

> It took three calls, but I finally reached someone who believed that
> I wanted an IPv6 address: she told me that they don't offer them.
> However, for $10 per month I could get a static IPv4 address, and
> I'm going to try one and see if the man at Galaxy Cablevision can
> make good on his implied promise.

Is it possible to switch to another ISP?

Not providing IPv6 in 2022 is stone age. IPv6 is publicly routed for
more than 10 years and standardized since the end of the 90s.

[Bill Horne]

I really do envy you, sir: countries in Europe enjoyed the benefits of
ISDN service while "Mother Bell" was refusing to offer it in the U.S.,
and the citizens of the European Union Could have ADSL circuits which
were adapted to work with ISDN, instead of in place of it, as was the
custom here in this country.

By the way, there are no alternative to the "new" owners of the Cable
TV franchise here in my town: Frontier Communications, which I thought
was the ILEC in this area, says they don't serve my neighborhood.
Spectrum, Viasat, and TDS, ditto. There's a microwave-based ISP in
Asheville, NC, but I'm not on a line-of-sight to any of their access
points up here in the hills. It's a shame: they've helped out my ham
radio club with preparations for emergency communicaitons, and I'd be
happy to have their transceiver on one of my towers, but I've got too
many hills in the way.

Bill

--
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)

[Doug McIntyre]

Bill Horne <malassimi...@gmail.com> writes:
>I had never heard of "Cee-Gee-NAT" until Zito Media took over the
>local Cable TV & Internet provider: I was surprised that anyone would
>want to implement any more "NAT" solutions, especially with IPv4 IP
>addresses going for princely sums while IPv6 addresses are practically
>free.

But thats exactly why ISPs implement Carrier Grade NAT, because the
new guard that has formed (after the old guard let everything drop and
rot) don't have the IPv4 resources needed to serve every customer, and
they've done that math that buying a big box to do CGNAT and hide
everybody behind the tiny pool of IPv4 addresses they have is cheaper
than buying enough IPv4 addresses to handle their customer needs in
the traditional sense (well, at least since the rise of NAT and hiding
all onprem networks behind the single IP NAT gateway came about, not
the original intent of the internet of pure peer-to-peer network from
any node to any node, because only IPv6 can make that model work
again.

If they can provide "good enough" service to 99% of the customers,
thats all they are going to do. They aren't trying to serve all
customers with all services that they expect, or at least they may
fool themselves that nobody needs all services, just the limited
set that their big CGNAT box can do.

--
Doug McIntyre
do...@themcintyres.us