On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:26 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:12:05 -0800, > bruce <bedouglas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > i've frequently run services ssh/vpn/http/smtp/etc... over the network, > > knowing full well that i might be going against their service docs... > > You know, if some company is selling "internet" access they shouldn't be > blocking ports, putting in hidden proxies or similar crap. If there are, > they should be selling web access instead. > > > i've also known that i could get the biz level system to be able to legally > > run these services. sometimes, i haven't had the cash, others not the time > > to setup the biz accounts... > > Worst case it's breach of contract. Violating a TOS isn't illegal in itself. > > > but don't confuse your running a service with somekind of "individual > > freedom" thing... > > It wouldn't be a big deal if there was real competition in the ISP > business. But because there isn't and in some areas of the US, you can't > get real internet access without paying exhorbitant fees. (Essentially > making you buy an unneeded level of support that is normally or required > by businesses.) ---- the cable companies in the US typically sell a residential Internet package which requires that you not run a mail or web server as part of their terms of service and typically block inbound access to ports 25 & 80 to those customers. Many also block port 25 outbound access to all but their own SMTP servers. In exchange for this 'crippled' Internet service, they charge roughly 1/3 the cost of a 'business' based Internet service which doesn't block anything at all. It seems reasonably fair to me. Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
