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

[Dhruva B. Reddy]

I signed up with Telocity almost two years ago, which has since been
acquired by DirecTVDSL.  I get 720kb/s up and down, 1 static IP for
$50/mo. I have been down 3 times (once for not paying my bill) since I
was hooked up in January of 2001.

The DSL service is great.  The only issue I have is with the atrocious
service from the billing department (which contributed to my last
outage).  Tech support is quite nice--I have never run into trouble for
running my Linux boxen behind my Linksys firewall.  I have also had no
trouble running Gnutella and offering several services (HTTP, SSH, CVS).

There is, however, some strangeness.  If I go to directvdsl.com and
check the availability of service in my home, it says that I am not
eligible!  Also, I am in Denver, so I don't know how well Boulder is
served.

As most of you are probably painfully aware, Trujillo/Nachio/? & Co. have
ensured that you will not find a deal like I have today.  Needless to
say, I will guard this setup with my life.

-d

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 at 13:40 -0500, Nick Golder soliloquized thusly:
> 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
> 

-- 
"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish
we didn't." Erica Jong (b. 1942); US author