While they're fiddling with the pricing structure, why can't they offer customers the right to run servers? I have ATTBI, and I'm prohibited from running servers (HTTP, FTP, etc.). This limitation to consumer broadband has great implications for my ability to publish or run a small home business, and I suspect it will impact the future of the net if most large broadband providers also prohibit customer servers. I'm willing to pay more (even >$100 per month) for the right to run an HTTP and FTP server, even if they cap the bandwidth; but so far my pleas have fallen on deaf corporate ears. I realize they may need to upgrade/enhance hardware to support billing and bandwidth-capping of customer servers, but that's why I'm willing to pay more. For the record, DSL and business broadband is not available in my neighborhood, and T1 is prohibitively priced. Are consumer broadband internet systems going to become two-way communications pipes? Or merely one-way delivery vehicles for the latest Hollywood dreck?
Slashdot Mirror
While they're fiddling with the pricing structure, why can't they offer customers the right to run servers? I have ATTBI, and I'm prohibited from running servers (HTTP, FTP, etc.). This limitation to consumer broadband has great implications for my ability to publish or run a small home business, and I suspect it will impact the future of the net if most large broadband providers also prohibit customer servers.
I'm willing to pay more (even >$100 per month) for the right to run an HTTP and FTP server, even if they cap the bandwidth; but so far my pleas have fallen on deaf corporate ears. I realize they may need to upgrade/enhance hardware to support billing and bandwidth-capping of customer servers, but that's why I'm willing to pay more.
For the record, DSL and business broadband is not available in my neighborhood, and T1 is prohibitively priced.
Are consumer broadband internet systems going to become two-way communications pipes? Or merely one-way delivery vehicles for the latest Hollywood dreck?