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

[D. Stimits]

Nick Golder 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

The AT&T cable service down/up load rates vary, but my area is 512kbps 
up, 1.5Mbit down. If you own the hardware, it is roughly $45/month for 
the Internet service, plus whatever television service fee. If you apply 
for service through Circuit City, the install fee is free, and they seem 
to usually have other bonuses, e.g., rebate coupons on monthly fees. The 
service at my location is reliable, and does not use any proprietary 
technology...ordinary dhcpc does the job. The one caveat is that they 
have a "virtual technician" program which runs only on windows, it aids 
in setup there. The main part which a pure-linux install would have to 
be in pain from is figuring out the browser settings to get to their 
non-routeable activation web site...I forget now, but the one-time 
activation required some special proxy setting in the browser. The IP's 
are not guaranteed static, but they rarely change. For an extra 
$5/month, you can have a total of 5 IP addresses (based on MAC address 
of your NIC). FYI, the initial thread that started this is based on AT&T 
cable/broadband. If you plan on having cable television already, I think 
the cost is very good when available.

D. Stimits, stimits AT attbi.com

>
> 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
>