No, AT&T is Not Blocking Ports Used by Bitcoin Several users have been writing in to share this this conversation over at Reddit alleging that AT&T has "effectively banned Bitcoin." This would otherwise not be worth mentioning, except for the fact that it appears to now be popping up at a number of different websites. The proof? Apparently it all originates with this post to the Bitcoin developer mailing list, in which a user proclaims AT&T confessed to "secret firewalls" buried in AT&T U-Verse DVRs: quote:

To make this even more absurd they refused to turn the firewall off because it is their equipment. So effectively they can firewall any port they want even if the customer asks them not to, in the unlikely event the customer figures it out. Diabolical! By DVR I'd presume they mean the AT&T U-Verse gateway, since a DVR records TV programs, and a gateway manages network functionality. And while ISPs can often engage in port shenanigans, AT&T assures me that nothing untoward is going on in this instance. Diabolical! By DVR I'd presume they mean the AT&T U-Verse gateway, since a DVR records TV programs, and a gateway manages network functionality. And while ISPs can often engage in port shenanigans, AT&T assures me that nothing untoward is going on in this instance. "We do not block port 8333/tcp or attempt to block bitcoin nodes for our customers," AT&T tells DSLReports. "Any customer experiencing a problem should contact AT&T customer care." Historically if companies are up to no good and want to lie about it, they simply won't respond for a request for comment. So yes, while AT&T does occasionally do DVR U-Verse gateway firewall (see Historically if companies are up to no good and want to lie about it, they simply won't respond for a request for comment. So yes, while AT&T does occasionally do dumb things , a nefarious plan to prevent you from connecting to the Bitcoin hive mind likely is not among them. The real solution? The user likely needs to simply correctly configure hisU-Verse gateway firewall (see image ) to ensure traffic is flowing. Perhaps commenters have some additional advice or can identify the real culprit? Chupacabra, perhaps?







News Jump Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 16 comments



Napsterbater

Meh

MVM

join:2002-12-28

Milledgeville, GA 4 recommendations Napsterbater MVM Sounds like another Claim we had on this site just a few days ago. Centurylink throttling Neflix.



No proof, no real information, just accusations, test were aimed at the wrong host, etc. No proof, no real information, just accusations, test were aimed at the wrong host, etc. jim302

Premium Member

join:2006-04-15

Holly Springs, NC 200.5 11.8

2 recommendations jim302 Premium Member Don't jump to conclusions... I don't expect everyone in the world to understand networking, firewalls, NAT, etc. But it does bother me when someone makes a claim like this without understanding what is really going on, especially now that everyone has to jump on the "OMG net neutrality this is illegal" bandwagon without verifying things first.



The original story should have never taken off... the U-verse DVR plays no major role in your home network... unless you have other TV receivers, and then its only purpose is to provide remote DVR functionality on those receivers. Anyone familiar with U-verse would know this. Everything runs through the Residential Gateway (RG)... Internet, TV, and Phone. The RG is a router that can connect to ADSL2+, VDSL, or FTTH (via an Ethernet link to the ONT) depending on the exact model and what service you have. If someone mixed the functions of these devices up, there's a good chance they may have something configured improperly... for example, if they have their own router the AT&T CPE should be in DMZ Plus mode (2wire/Pace) or IP Passthrough (Motorola/Arris) so their router gets a public IP and most ports unblocked. Of course, this is just one of several potential places where something could go wrong.



AT&T does still block some ports, mainly Windows file sharing related ports and port 25 outbound. There's no reason why Windows file shares should be exposed to the Internet. Blocking port 25 outbound is a bit more controversial, but is blocked due to infected PCs sending spam. At one point IPv6 tunnels were broken but I don't think this was intentional, this was just buggy firmware and a misconfiguration. I'm not defending the IPv6 tunnel problems, by the way. mikemacman

join:2004-05-29

Saint Paul, MN 2 recommendations mikemacman Member Confused User



»lists.linuxfoundation.or ··· 862.html This user clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about. He sent a follow-up email saying that he discovered his computer is on a "private subnet" which isn't allowing outside users to connect to him. 99%+ of all computers on a residential internet connection behind a router have a private IP#. He needs to forward the appropriate ports or use UPnP to configure his router correctly. I'm not a fan of most large ISPs, but I don't support starting a witch hunt over a confused user.