James Sutherland wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> from the quill of James Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> That's the policy my cable co runs, more or less: no "public" servers
>>> (no anon-FTP etc), but SSH, FTP (users only), password-protected WWW etc
>>> is fine. Seems reasonable, IMO.
>> Why does it sound reasonable? You are paying for bandwidth. Why should
>> you tolerate being told what you can do with it?
Agree. If they're unhappy about your bandwidth, they should have capped it up
front.
> They prohibit (ab)use of the connection for running public servers.
> Running publicly accessable WWW or FTP sites IS abuse, IMO, and SHOULD be
> prohibited.
Eh? That's as brain-dead as forbidding ssh servers. An internet connection is an
internet connection. I should be able to run games, web servers, napster
clients, whatever I damn well please over it. If the ISP is unhappy about people
doing this, they need to put per-byte useage charges in up front.
Many of the ISPs here in Oz name their accounts things like ``unlimited'' (a lie
in reality since the communication medium limits you) by which they mean
unlimited bytes, unlimited time. If they don't mean it, they don't say it. If
they say it but don't mean it, I'm off to the Ministry of Fair Trading ASAP.
I use web, FTP and for that matter ssh to transfer data in and out of my machine
all the time. I simply wouldn't use an ISP that prevented that.
--
We're not surrounded, we're in a target-rich environment!
