Friendly ISPs in the Boulder area WAS: Re: [lug] AT&T blockinghttp??

[Benjamin Manthey]

I'm not sure if they have exactly what you want, but look at Dimensional
Communications. They're Denver based and are very helpful.
http://www.dimensional.com


--Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: lug-admin at lug.boulder.co.us [mailto:lug-admin at lug.boulder.co.us]
On Behalf Of Nick Golder
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:41 PM
To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
Subject: Friendly ISPs in the Boulder area WAS: Re: [lug] AT&T
blockinghttp??


This is a good time for me to post my question.  I might possibly be
moving to the Boulder area and have been trying to find a DSL ISP that:

1) is "alternative OS" friendly... none of this proprietary PPPoE crap
that requires "their" client software for authentication

2) is friendly to those that want to run their own servers off of the
bandwidth that they are forking the bucks out for

3) offers an IP block [or netblock] of around 8 static IPs 

Currently (here in Iowa), I can pick up a 768kbps up/~1.5Mbps down
connection with 8 static IPs for about $135/month.  I am hoping that
Boulder has similar offerings that are competitively priced.

I am sure that somebody on this list can tell me who to stay away from
and what company would be a good fit. TIA -Nick

On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 12:57, r.wheaton wrote:
> Hello,
>     I recently just moved out here from north carolina, and have been
> taking a lot of pictures with my dig. camera.  I have been posting
them 
> on my delegated 10MB through my AT&T cable modem account.  Well, that 
> space has run dry.  And, what i'd like to do is just host them
straight 
> off my cable modem.  I've noticed that my IP doesn't change that much,

> and with the help of dyndns.org it seems like the best way for my 
> friends and family back home to see my pics.  Well, I got it all set
up, 
> and I can see it fine, but no one outside of AT&T's network can.  Is 
> AT&T blocking this traffic somehow??  I read on their site that they 
> don't want you to host any type of server, but this seems kind of 
> ridiculous.  I can understand if I was getting mass amounts of
traffic, 
> but this is very small.  I sucessfully did this fine from my
timewarner 
> cable modem when I was back in NC and it worked great.  
> 
> So, I guess what I'm wondering is, has anyone seen the same thing, or
> does anyone know of a way around it?  I tried to simply just run
apache 
> at a different port (8080), but still to no avail.  Thanks in advance.
> 
> respectfully,
> -rtw
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug


_______________________________________________
Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug