[CLUE-Tech] newsfeed

[Jeremiah Stanley]

> This is to stop folks from running porn sites off their cable modem
> and linux box!

I can't honestly think of why you would want to do that. Having been 
around a moderately successful porn site I know that the bandwidth that it 
requires is excessive. I would think that limiting that you cannot run 
http or ftp traffic is more of an avoidance move to not get sued by RIAA 
of some similar group for being a big farm for Evil Bastard Media Pirates. 
Granted that is how it was done before napster was around...

But point taken here, it makes good sense business wise to save on the 
bandwidth on this specific policy. What I am at a loss to understand is 
the fact they limit running a mailserver. My roommate blows more of their 
bandwidth on South Park episodes in a week than I have gotten emails for 
the last three years...

> Seriously, I think the point is not to make @home like a 'real ISP'
> but to realize this is a broadband consumer product.  Since we share
> the access (and it is non-commercial access) then the more folks that
> run internet services (like a porn site) from their @home consumer
> account will just eat more bandwidth from the rest of us
> 'non-commercial' users.  @home wants you to host a 'real' web site via
> a 'commercial' @home account or some other ISP.

Correct.

> BTW - This may be one reason cable is slightly cheaper (and more
> available) than DSL - shared access.  

That I think is arbitrary. I've moved alot in the last few years around 
the Denver area and I've only lived in one apartment that could get both 
@Home and DSL (that isn't iDSL). But it is much cheaper than my last 
broadband connection, and I would recommend it to any casual internet user 
(I consider myself more of a power user).

JStanley
-- 
When confronted by a difficult problem, you can solve it more easily by
reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"