On 2003.03.28 15:57 Dustin Puryear wrote: > At 03:43 PM 3/28/2003 -0600, you wrote: > > > I agree. If you get a consumer service and the ISP blocks web serving and > so forth then I don't see an issue. If you want to run a service that could > potentially use up the full bandwidth 24x7 then get a higher grade of service. >
So just what is my $40/month Internet Service Provider selling? Potential service? Very few web servers use lots of bandwith, not even active ones such as the BRLUG. Email does not eat that much either, unless you are a spammer but blocking incomming mail does nothing for that problem. Want to charge me more because I use apt-get? The only people who actually use ALL of their bandwith 24x7 are warrez losers who use bots to collect movies they will never watch and software they will never run. I did not see anything in my contract about blocked ports, though I've paid careful attention to it's ever degenerating terms. There are lots of things $40 a month can buy. The only reason Cox gets away with such lame pricing schemes is because they have a monopoly. They do offer a "higher grade of service" for us meer "consumers" over the same lines thought the same box. It costs $75/month for something slower than a DSL. I doubt they will have many takers and believe that they could be earning more money being less greedy. Clueless, just the kind of thing you would expect from someone that runs their network with Windoze. A windoze virus was the excuse they used to block ports in the first place, by the way. Things are better in places like Chicago where they had six broadband companies offering service. Monopolies where none are needed are harmful. Unregulated natural monopolies are equally harmful. The world is a poorer place for all the blocks and crimps Cox puts on it's lines. There's content that's not being shared, money wasted on external servers and time to move the information to them. We are swiftly moving to a world that has universal connectivity but a limited number of publishers. The situation is only required to protect current publishers. It's stupid and people will find a way around it. The ultimate route around Cox will obsolete Cox.
