Right Dustin,
The phone company is also very willing to sell you a T1 line. Most
contracts these days are dynamic - the contractor retains the right to
change it at any time and this seems to be what COX have done. The
COX/@HOME service was always aimed at "home" users who, for the most
part, used their connection for browsing the net and email when the
service was introduced. P2P and web/ftp/chat servers were rare when
the original @HOME service was introduced and they were quite clear in
their terms that this was not for commercial use. So I don't see a
big problem with COX attempting to reign in the major bandwidth hogs
by blocking ports - it's really the only option, given the network
design.
If you don't like the COX service then you are free to sign up with a
phone company. ADSL (which limits the upload speed by design) seems
to be a less restrictive environment simply because the potential for
server abuse is lower.
Frankly $40/month for ADSL is a steal if you think back to when we
paid that for a 19k2 connection and were the envy of the
nieghbourhood.
Edmund Cramp
--
http://www.emgsrus.com/graffiti.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> Of Dustin Puryear
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:05 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [brlug-general] COX lawsuit
>
>
> I'm not sure that I would label Cox Broadband a monopoly as
> they do have
> competition from DSL and satellite. Also, to be frank here,
> it's their
> cable. At worst you can argue a breach of contract if they
> are restricting
> service that you have already paid for. I would bet though
> that they have a
> clause in their customer service agreement or AUP about the use of
> bandwidth and privileged ports.
>
> Also, I think that it's becoming more evident every year
> that $40 a month
> for this kind of service is not making anyone rich. From
> what I've read $40
> a month really just covers the cost of providing the
> service for any
> broadband provider. Anyone else have any data on this? Scott?
>
> At 09:38 AM 3/31/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >General mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://oxygen.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
>
>
> ---
> Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Puryear Information Technology
> Windows, UNIX, and IT Consulting
> http://www.puryear-it.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
>
