[olug] Cox and Web Servers

[Daniel G. Linder]

[Oops, this bounced the first time... --Dan]
> William E. Kempf wrote:
> [snip..]
> > But the fact of the matter is, I have legitimate reasons to
> > run a web server
> > that are not business related in any way, so to require a
> > business-account
> > to do so is wrong.
> 
> True, I would like to have the ability to setup the personal 
> web server on my wifes computer and have a static 
> http://homecomputer.myhouse.com
> and let her and my Mother-in-law view the latest photos of 
> our daughter by just copying the files to a local directory.
> 
> > Then they should revoke all of our e-mail accounts, since
> > there's a larger
> > danger for trojans there.  I'm sorry, but I don't buy this argument.
> 
>   True, but that is different.  If you were running an e-mail 
> /server/ on your home machine which was open as a relay then it could 
> be churning up a lot of bandwidth.
> 
>   I will agree that e-mail Trojans/viruses are just as big of 
> a problem
> but there is only so much Cox can do before their security practices
> would start to border on illegle (scanning of packets, checking the
> to/from fields, etc.).
> 
> > The "BUSINESS ORIENTED" (shouting was yours) offerings are
> > overpriced for
> > the use I have here.  And the purposes for which I'd use a
> > web site are
> > unlikely to effect the amount of bandwidth I use in any
> > significant way, and
> > are valid "HOME-USER ORIENTED" tasks, not "BUSINESS ORIENTED"
> > tasks for
> > which I should be charged a higher premium.  Cox is certainly
> > welcome to
> > throttle my bandwidth consumptions in any way to ensure this,
> > but simply
> > blocking ports doesn't solve the issue of bandwidth (since
> > users can use
> > other ports, or run other servers that will be MUCH more
> > bandwidth hungry
> > than HTTP).  These arguments are cop outs, and not valid reasons for
> > blocking ports.
> 
> [Apology time: I forgot that ALL CAPS is shouting, I was 
> using the caps to ensure that people saw the differences between the two 
> lines....  I wish /bolding/ would actually work in ASCII e-mails, but that is a
> different thread! --Dan]
> 
>   I think that both of us have the same reason for wanting a 
> web server /at home/ -- to share files with friends and family.  And 
> you're right, /this/ use is not nearly the load that a e-commerce web site 
> would be.  Again, it would be impossible/tough to have an automated 
> process within Cox filter "family photo" web sites out of the "e-commerce" 
> web sites auto-magically...
> 
>   As a side note, the throttling bandwidth is a layer 2 level action
> that is done at the /cablemodem/ level.  Since the 
> cablemodems can't see layer 3 and higher, it couln't throttle the HTTP traffic 
> while letting e-mail/websurfing/etc go through unthrottled.
> 
>   As you and other great debaters have said, "we'll agree to 
> disagree" on this fact. :)
> 
> > In any event, the link to the dyndns FAQ looks like it will solve my
> > problem.  So despite the blocking I'll be able to accomplish
> > what I want.
> > (Which, BTW, means that port blocking has addressed neither
> > security nor
> > bandwidth concerns, basically proving my stance here.)
> 
>   Keep us informed on the dyndns and tell us how it works.
> 
> Dan