You forget the biggest reason Cox has their firewall To save bandwidth and therefore money On 5/10/09, dorian.monroe@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 > > Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:13:12 > To: Main PLUG discussion list > 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 > 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 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 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 >>>> 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 >>>> > 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 >>>> >> >>>> >> 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 >>>> >>> 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@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us >>>> >>>> [mailto:plug-discuss-bounces@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@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@gmail.com >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@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@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@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@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 --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss