Cable Modem / Router / Wireless

[Technomage-hawke]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007 12:17, Darrin Chandler wrote:

>
> Another thought is that it's really hard to think why people need to run
> servers out of their house. If you have a virtual Linux server somewhere
> then you can do all your stuff there, and (client) ssh into it. Or set
> up a VPN. That way you can buy the cheapest bandwidth at home and still
> run services. Something along these lines was attempted by Brock with
> epfarms.org (with *absurdly* low prices), but it had mixed results for
> whatever reasons. It seems epfarms is still going, and could probably
> use more people. They don't have shared hosting, but with some
> involvement that might be a possibility. It surely doesn't hurt to ask.
> See http://www.epfarms.org/contribute.shtml for info.

There is a problem with cox.
you are bound by the AUP/TOS. you aren't even allowed to run a vpn as a client 
(absurd, isn't it?). this would make life rather difficult if you were 
telecommuting from home on a cox service connection. 

I have had more than a few clients who do run vpn (client) from home on cox 
(for one reason or another) and if they had to cease that, they'd lose their 
jobs in a hurry. this looks to be one of their more 'unenforcable' points of 
the contract ATM.

Now, a new point with cox (and some others): they are starting to regulate 
encrypted traffic in some areas by use of 'traffic shaping'. I have seen this 
first hand with a friend of mine in Kansas. The shaping routine they are 
using relegates ssh (and other encrypted protocols) to the lowest possible 
priority on the circuit. this makes it rather difficult for him and I to 
share small files (>10MB). This appears to be a trend with larger cable ISP's 
(like rogers).

Anyway, the point is that ISP's are demanding far more control of their 
bandwidth (even though they were the ones that oversold in the first place). 
Still, this does not jive with the "unlimited downloads" advertisements that 
cox has been marketing of late.