On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> from the quill of James Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > That's the policy my cable co runs, more or less: no "public" servers
> > (no
> > anon-FTP etc), but SSH, FTP (users only), password-protected WWW etc
> > is
> > fine. Seems reasonable, IMO.
>
> Why does it sound reasonable? You are paying for bandwidth. Why should
> you tolerate being told what you can do with it?
They prohibit (ab)use of the connection for running public servers.
Running publicly accessable WWW or FTP sites IS abuse, IMO, and SHOULD be
prohibited.
> Next, when they start telling you what web sites you can and can't visit
> with the bandwidth you are paying for, is that going to "sound
> reasonable"?
Completely different situation.
> OK, maybe that one is far fetched. But this is not: When you try to
> use your paid for bandwidth to receive constantly streaming content
> (say streaming video) and they elminate that from the allowable use is
> that going to "sound reasonable"?
Constantly maxing out a *SHARED* Net connection is abuse.
> The problem is that your cable co. has over-subscribed their customers
> to the bandwidth they are providing and now they are back-peddling to
> try to fix the problem. This over-subscription is called fraud in other
> businesses.
Interesting. Perhaps you'd like to tell every other company on earth about
that? Airlines ALL do it, unless you are actually leasing the entire
aircraft as a single unit; buffet restaurants do it; ISPs all do it; banks
all do this with cash. Find me a company which DOESN'T!
James.
