Not only would I have no problem if one of my customers wanted to run
such a server on our network, but I would be tempted to run one myself.
Our position is, what you do with your bandwidth is your business. If
it's illegal, sooner or later the authorities will notify us. The only
time we block anything is to protect the integrity of the network. For
example, we block port 25 on certain levels of service to protect
ourselves and customers against the (many) virus-infected computers out
there.
I've never understood why other providers attempt to restrict types of
traffic. It's doomed anyway - people will always find a way around any
restrictions.
Thanks for giving me a new topic for my blog! :-)
Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299
Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. company-wide fax: +1-775-348-9412
http://www.greatbasin.net my efax: +1-775-201-1553
Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
I was curious to know if anyone else in the area was running a Tor
server of any kind. I'm even more curious to know if anyone is running
an exit server, and whether your ISP has given you any grief about it.
As usual, I was noticing that Charter's ToS basically says you're really
only supposed to use your bandwidth for surfing the web--preferably to
commercial sites where they get kickbacks--and not much else.
I'm more than a modest privacy advocate, and basically wanted to know
what my other options would be if Charter pulls its usual schtick. I
*did* check the Clearwire ToS, but they're almost as bad--even for their
so-called "commercial" links.
I'd also be interested in a clueful but inexpensive Xen- or OpenVZ-based
virtual hosting provider, if anyone has some recommendations. I don't
think UML-based providers would be able to provide the flexibility to
run a useful Tor server, but that's just my $0.02.
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
