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

[Jeff]

You could take a look at netrack.net.  I have them for residential DSL 
service and they're pretty good and alternative OS friendly.  They have 
lots of different packages, along with some value-added resellers that 
might have a package to fit your needs.

-Jeff

lug-admin at lug.boulder.co.us wrote:
> 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
>