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@0x1b.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:13:12
To: Main PLUG discussion list<
plug-discuss@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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
(text/plain)