[olug] Cox and Web Servers

[Daniel G. Linder]

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