On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 08:56, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > On Wednesday 10 September 2003 09:40 am, Andrew Hunter wrote: > > Whence the "yuck"? I admit that I don't know too much about cable vs. > > DSL, besides the usual coax vs. phone line implementation, but it seems > > that the two are vastly superior to dial-up and carrier pigeons. Why is > > DSL preferable? > > Last I checked into cable modems when it was AT & T, you could not run servers > (web, mail, ftp, etc), the IP address was not static, and AT & T had to be > your ISP. A lot of people such as myself want to be able to run a web server > on our connection. That's what I do with knine.net. (Good old Xmission) > And AT & T as an ISP, nowayman.
I had cable with AT&T one summer and they seemed to be actually blocking port 80 so I couldn't run a webserver from home except on some other port, now I have cable with comcast and they don't block anything. It's still a dynamic IP address, but I've had the same one for about 4 months. Their policy officially states that you can't run "any servers" but I asked the tech support guy about this (I used an ssh server for remote access as an example and I think he even knew what I was talking about) and he said as long as I'm not chewing up a ton of bandwidth they don't really care. I run my little web site from home now. Bryan ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
