> > 256k? They doubled the speed from a dismal 30 kilo-bytes/second to 60 > kilo-bytes/second. Yes, I just tested it again to verify.
How are you checking your speed? When we say that our upload cap is 256k, we mean 256 kiloBITs per second, not kiloBYTEs per second. If you're showing 30 kiloBYTEs outbound, then you're about right (256 / 8 = 32). > > I don't think this is a technical issue at all. At Home did just fine > without crimps, despite Napster and the Windoze worms of the day. What's > changed between then and now? What kind of technical issues drove them to > dhcp instead of simpler static ip addresses? How you get your IP is of absolutely no consequence, after you've gotten it. No conspiracy involved. In fact, Scott Harney can tell you how pitiful @HOME's security was (he's probably posted it here already, maybe the archives have it). Cox's setup is way more secure, trust me. > How about port blocking? > Looks to me like Cox has had to bow to other, stronger interests. As far as the blocked ports go, that is because Windows machines were getting owned by wirms, viruses, kiddie scripters and spammers. Grandma has no need of running a mail or web server (ports 25 and 80, the ones that are blocked), but so many of the Windows machines out there were blasting the net due to nimda and friends that the industry as a whole decided to block these non-essential services. If you're technically able to intelligently run these services, Cox will sell you a business account without these ports blocked. Respectully, Joey Kelly < Minister of the Gospel | Linux Consultant > http://joeykelly.net "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous." --- David Bradley, the IBM employee that invented CTRL-ALT-DEL
