Personal insults don't contribute anything useful, Dustin, and you should know better. I sound the way I do because I care about freedom, which is the primary attraction of free software.
Your arguments for blocking port 25 are interesting (indeed, I have subscribed to your newsletter), but they are your own. Cox uses other reasons, mostly based on the inadequate security of Microsoft operating systems: http://tinyurl.com/ytjer4 If Cox has greed as a motivator, they don't mention it and I don't think it's paid off for them. Charging different amounts for different bits on the same pipe is both technically and morally wrong. The legal theory of common carriers is explained in nauseating detail here: http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm but you don't have to delve into laws made for railroads and shipping to understand the issues. When I pay for bandwith, I should be able to use it as I chose. One bit is not different than another. Cox's business plans cost twice as much to start and provide less bandwith than residential plans. http://www.coxbusiness.com/pdfs/cbi_gl3p.pdf Keeping me from using bits that I pay for is just wrong and I don't think it's been a commercial success either. You have showed me cheaper hosting options that have better bandwith. Non free networks will eventually destroy free software because it inhibits people's ability to cooperate and share their changes. If the big ISPs get away with this on home networks, it's only a matter of time before they do so elsewhere. Arguments about ISP choice are spurious in the heavily regulated duopoly system that's been set up. The choices are equally non free and Cox, from what I've read, is one of the better providers. The people who set it up did not really care about user freedom and the result is something that's lurching back to the bad old Ma Bell days. There are few actual choices here in Baton Rouge and fewer in other places.
