Never fear, we are on the precipice of Nationwide Wifi: http://www.fastcompany.com/news/2008/11/4-cheap-nationwide-wifi.html http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007921.html Why mandate what is already available in competition? I.E. Any free company can now provide competition; they just need the media [co-ax cable, rj11] (like USWest). We already have your solution; it's called dial-up. Bandwidth and support costs are managed in these ways, at least for the most part. People like us are only perhaps 5% of the population. On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:55 PM, 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 < > lisakachold@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 > >>> >>> 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 > -- www.obnosis.com (503)754-4452 "Contradictions do not exist." A. Rand