By Philip Churchill on October 24th, 2007
Which ISP's have Restrictions on using a Server at Home and/or are blocking ports?
With the latest information about ATT, Comcast and Time Warner using or about to use data filtering, we thought it would be a good idea to collect some data from you. In our forums we have opened a thread regarding which ISP’s have Restrictions on using a Server at Home and/or are blocking ports. The information we need from you is:
- The name of your provider?
- Type of service it is? Either Satellite, Cable, Broadband, Dial-up etc.
- The name of your providers package?
- What country you live in?
- What ports are blocked if any?
- Any other relevant info?
Please post each entry under a new topic here.
By collecting this information, we can hopefully guide others into choosing the best ISP’s that do not block ports or have restrictions in regards to Windows Home Server.
Share this WHS Article with Others:
I would suggest the opposite too. I use ViaWest as my ISP in the Denver area with Qwest as the line provider. ViaWest also serves Phoenix, Las Vegas and Seattle. I use Qwest Pro package. Nothing filtered. Excellent.
I should have added this is at a residence and the service is residence class.
Why NOT just run your website on port 443, using SSL?
I am willing to bet most ISP don’t block port 443, due to the banking and financial websites conducting business with their customers, right?
Why wouldn’t WHS end users want to host SSL websites too?
Isn’t a SSL website more secure than plain open read anything?
I already run a NAS, and it uses SSL and TLS encryption services, which I would recommend when governments and corporations spy, or whatever word you want to call it.
WHS seems like a poor excuse, mostly because nobody has posted one “Dam” thing about how everyone on this planet will want to connect external or remote data, such as eSATA hard drives, without having WHS format them!
Tell your customers, when they want to share say a 1TB eSATA hard drive with their WHS, by plugging it in, you delete everything. Why would anyone want to copy 1TB or more to your WHS server in the frist place, since WHS is suppose to be about sharing your data, files, video and music, right?
Why is nobody talking about how WHS restrict your data? NTFS, which as everyone knows is ALL proprietary source code!!!
Meaning, even if got your ISP to no filter or block, your data is still held hostage! Meaning your WHS will NOT play nice with other computers and networks, and in a few years will be totally obsolete.
As I see it, there is no need to make end users go out abd buy or purchase yet another computer to just host their files…
It’s way cheaper to just backup your data on external USB hard drives, and for those with money obviously a RAID configuration is the way to go…
WHS also has no protection to back itself up, so in the event your WHS hard drive fails, given time, your downtown will be long, as compared to Acronis third party solutions which can restore on new hard drives within a few minutes…
And last, must we all activate, validate and worry that our 4TB of data is at the mercy of $M still?
So if you don’t make constant payments, will this mean your rights to access your own data is revoked?
Linux offers better methods, open sourced, and why faster, cheaper and more efficient.
Sorry, you can flame-bait me now… 😉
Ps. Instead of WHS, check out Synology’s NAS… etc…
Window Home Server can experience an unexpected or ill timed reboot which can result in a “database inconsistency” error which can be impossible to recover from without losing all your backups.
Ask yourself, do you really want to trust all your server data to this sort of protection?
Thanks again to Microsoft…
John M,
Thanks for your comment. The “database inconsistency” error occurs only in a very small number of cases. But if you follow the advice detailed here before re-booting WHS, then all will be fine untill this issue is resolved.
Thanks Philip,
Hopefully, the WHS update will address this issue, as reported for Nov 27th, 2007 to be made available.
Hi John,
Yes, this issue should now be resolved.