Free Webhost

[Stephen]

You forget the biggest reason Cox has their firewall

To save bandwidth and therefore money


On 5/10/09, dorian.monroe at cox.net <dorian.monroe at cox.net> wrote:
> Nice thought, but really, I don't think this is even viable.  I'm sure the
> hackers would be all for that though.  Oh goody!  Now 95% of the people
> using cox are unprotected from everything!  And the isp's responsibility
> would be limited to their modem (cpe).  Can't get to your email?  Yeah, we
> only provide bandwidth now so you have to provide your own email, but you
> can set up your own server!  Can't get to the internet?  Well we can see
> that your modem is functioning properly, must be a problem with your
> internal network... Verify that your IP/subnet/gw is configured properly.
> G'bye!  Mom & pop just want to be able to get on the internet to check their
> email and browse a bit.  Their bandwidth would likely go down with the
> hundreds (thousands?) of port scanners that would be hammering their Windows
> ME box constantly.  Why to they have to pay MORE and have to purchase extra
> equipment (router since they likely don't have one for their one pc) and
> learn about security when they don't have to, need to, or want to?
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed <plug at 0x1b.com>
>
> Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:13:12
> To: Main PLUG discussion list<plug-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
> Subject: Re: Free Webhost
>
>
> Would anyone like to start a state initiative that limits our ISPs to
> managing only the bandwidth of their service as provided to users
> (enforcing Network Neutrality), require that all customers must be
> provided only static IP addresses, and full port ranges* - with rare
> technical & temporary exceptions granted by the corporation
> commission, the option to the customer of IPv6 or IPv4 at no cost
> diffrerential as of 2010, and finally that any customer that is
> experiencing a "to the property line/to the wall" monopoly on wire or
> optical line based service may elect to be covered under a corporation
> commision managed, rate & service monoply controle.
>
> oh, and any physical network infrastructure may not be replaced unless
> it has the identical regulatory regime and third party accesses as the
> prior infrastructure, with the most liberal (open access) being
> propogated forward into any improved infrastructure - with all prior
> infrastructure (wire to fiber - this is you) grandfatherd
> retroactively. Public services must be under a ratchet when it comes
> to increasing access to the channels, there is no ethical reason to
> improve our infrastructure and lock in our citizens into a monopoly.
> this is simply incremental servitude and a public bad. a kickback at
> best, a fraud on the state at worst.
>
> *if you need to have ports blocked, pay a bit extra, it's a service -
> not the base condition. one of many that could be offered
>
> just sayin' this should not be a problem for Arizonans - and probably
> the only thing that might save Arizona from becoming the west's most
> backward state.
>
> or you can just be meat on the hoof for out of state interests. its
> plantation technology and bad.
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Lisa Kachold <lisakachold at obnosis.com>
> wrote:
>> Well, only linux type people would try to hammer down a vague requirement
>> (cox use) out of sheer ethical intent, when the rest of the world equates
>> stipulations this non-specific as a license to steal!
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:06 PM, James Mcphee <jmcphe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't remember them specifying hardware vs software servers.  I think
>>> we're assuming software servers in this case.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Stephen <cryptworks at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> server desktop and workstation are simply a role definition of how a
>>>> computer is used
>>>>
>>>> regardless of OS/Hardware.
>>>>
>>>> It is our need to specialize hardware fro the roles and those needs
>>>> that makes it common for people think that the hardware is what
>>>> defines a role.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Lisa Kachold <lisakachold at obnosis.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Well, "server" under Linux is vague (since a desktop is certainly as
>>>> > powerful), however the business use stipulations also are
>>>> > unreasonable,
>>>> > unenforceable, and the description certainly doesn't cover home
>>>> > business or
>>>> > remote access for work purposes, as well?
>>>> >
>>>> > Many people run Windows MSN Entertainment "servers"; by definition
>>>> > TIVO
>>>> > or
>>>> > MythTV is a server?
>>>> >
>>>> > ---> Lisa Playing Devil's Advocate!
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Judd Pickell <pickell at gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Depending on how you construe Server, I think that most people would
>>>> >> be in
>>>> >> violation of this, considering the vast amount of software that runs
>>>> >> a
>>>> >> process continually that listens on specific ports and responds to
>>>> >> requests..
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Sincerely,
>>>> >> Judd
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Lisa Kachold
>>>> >> <lisakachold at obnosis.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I believe we all have our interpretation of laws and rules in
>>>> >>> America;
>>>> >>> unless there are consequences?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Actually, you agree with the Acceptable Use Policy that you will not
>>>> >>> run
>>>> >>> a "server".  It also addresses business use in a vague way (doesn't
>>>> >>> everyone
>>>> >>> use their home office for "business")?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Commercial Use. The Service is designed for personal, non-business
>>>> >>> related use of the Internet and may not be used for commercial
>>>> >>> purposes. You
>>>> >>> may not resell or otherwise charge others to use the residential
>>>> >>> Service.
>>>> >>> You agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet
>>>> >>> service
>>>> >>> provider, or for any other business enterprise, including, without
>>>> >>> limitation, IP address translation or similar facilities intended to
>>>> >>> provide
>>>> >>> additional access. Cox Business Services offers commercial Internet
>>>> >>> services.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Servers. You may not operate, or allow others to operate, servers of
>>>> >>> any
>>>> >>> type or any other device, equipment, and/or software providing
>>>> >>> server-like
>>>> >>> functionality in connection with the Service, unless expressly
>>>> >>> authorized by
>>>> >>> Cox.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://www.cox.com/policy/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Bob Elzer <bob.elzer at gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> My interpretation of the AUP, is that they don't want you running
>>>> >>>> then
>>>> >>>> "Next Slashdot" or "Face Book", with lots of traffic.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> If you are only going to use it for personal access, and maybe to
>>>> >>>> show
>>>> >>>> family photos to friends, then I don't think it would be a problem.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Are we talking Hundreds, Thousands, or 20 visitors ?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> ________________________________
>>>> >>>> From: plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>>>> >>>> [mailto:plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of
>>>> >>>> James
>>>> >>>> Finstrom
>>>> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:30 AM
>>>> >>>> To: Main PLUG discussion list
>>>> >>>> Subject: OT: Free Webhost
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> So I have cox at home so I obviously would violate the AUP self
>>>> >>>> hosting
>>>> >>>> and frankly I am cheap... wait no frugal. Anyway I would like to
>>>> >>>> find a
>>>> >>>> place to host my domain free but without ads or if it has ads it
>>>> >>>> allows
>>>> >>>> choice of placement in the design.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I use the page for:
>>>> >>>> Public display of personal projects (usually involving LAMP
>>>> >>>> components
>>>> >>>> and libcurl is a definite desire)
>>>> >>>> Personal home page and info
>>>> >>>> Code dumping of projects and shell scripts for peer review.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I imagine traffic will be low as I am not that popular of a person
>>>> >>>> but
>>>> >>>> you can never have too much storage or bandwith..
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> James Finstrom
>>>> >>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> James McPhee
>>> jmcphe at gmail.com
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> www.obnosis.com (503)754-4452
>> "Contradictions do not exist." A. Rand
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from
rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button.

Stephen