Am 27. Jan, 2002 schwätzte Lisa Winkler so:
> Cox has the right to decide on whatever usage policy they like and enforce
> it however they like. If you don't like it you don't have to subscribe to
> their service.
What about those of us, for whom cox has a monopoly? It it will once they
become available? I fear that your appraisal of their right to decide their
policy will stll remain the norm :(. Personally, I say they shouldn't be
able to limit stuff until other providers are available via their cable.
They're using public access to get to our houses, so they should have to
provide public access.
> What is truly sad is that there have now become 2 categories of net
> connections: "internet for dummies" (i.e., @home) and "internet for
> clueful people" (i.e., speakeasy, or business connections). "internet for
> dummies" is not really a bad thing if you really fall into this category,
> and all you do is browse the web and read email. It's just a pain in the
> ass for us "clueful people". And "internet for clueful people", while
> providing you with fewer "services" (not blocking ports), costs a whole
> lot more.
Not necessarily with dsl. deru.net and fastq will allow you to run services.
I think inficad will do so again with the new ownership as well. getnet
might also be OK.
> Cox's policies irritate me too. But I am too cheap to pay $100/month or
> so for a "clueful" connection with acceptable speeds. So I subscribe to
> their service, whine occasionally, and try to get around the stuff I don't
> like.
If I get connectivity via cox, should they finally after 4 years of promises
actually grace me with service, I plan on running services other than dns
over ssl only. https and smtp over ssl. I will put a port 25 box as an mx
elsewhere for those that won't use port 465. That box can then relay to my
ssmtp box.
ciao,
der.hans
--
#
http://home.pages.de/~lufthans/ http://www.DevelopOnline.com/
# Magic is science unexplained. - der.hans
(text/plain)