http://johnnyvonline.com/2006/05/25/hr5417/ Share, Converse, Stimulate Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:47:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://johnnyvonline.com/2006/05/25/hr5417/comment-page-1/#comment-365 Anonymous Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:13:00 +0000 http://johnnyvonline.com/?p=428#comment-365 Hey what a great site keep up the work its excellent. <a HREF="http://loans.gqaz987.be/great_lakes_college_loans.html" rel="nofollow">»</A> Hey what a great site keep up the work its excellent.
»

]]> http://johnnyvonline.com/2006/05/25/hr5417/comment-page-1/#comment-364 Mr. TeX Sat, 27 May 2006 08:03:00 +0000 http://johnnyvonline.com/?p=428#comment-364 Ok, I will assume the "materially degrading" argument, but for the most part, I am continuously streaming my own mp3 collection to my office so that I can listen to music while I work, at a 96Kb stream. So that would lead me to believe that I am not being a pain, as my upstream bandwidth is 386kpbs. Now, they would probably bring the hammer down with the fact that I send 2-3 Gb files to my clients about every 3 days, so they will claim a bandwidth problem there, but that argument could be sidestepped by the fact that those files are moving over ftp/sftp protocols which are not being hosted on the active server. Rather the traffic from my site is originating from the clients, and my purchased server is the server in the situation. The HTTP traffic to my home server is negligable, getting hits really only from my office as I use a php derived page to control the mp3 stream, and occasionally to browse my photo collection which is technically hosted in the same application. Ok, I will assume the “materially degrading” argument, but for the most part, I am continuously streaming my own mp3 collection to my office so that I can listen to music while I work, at a 96Kb stream. So that would lead me to believe that I am not being a pain, as my upstream bandwidth is 386kpbs. Now, they would probably bring the hammer down with the fact that I send 2-3 Gb files to my clients about every 3 days, so they will claim a bandwidth problem there, but that argument could be sidestepped by the fact that those files are moving over ftp/sftp protocols which are not being hosted on the active server. Rather the traffic from my site is originating from the clients, and my purchased server is the server in the situation. The HTTP traffic to my home server is negligable, getting hits really only from my office as I use a php derived page to control the mp3 stream, and occasionally to browse my photo collection which is technically hosted in the same application.

]]> http://johnnyvonline.com/2006/05/25/hr5417/comment-page-1/#comment-363 Mr. O Fri, 26 May 2006 23:19:00 +0000 http://johnnyvonline.com/?p=428#comment-363 I read the bill and i think you are right Mr. Tex. I read the bill as saying, as long as what you are serving is not illegal or damaging its fair game. I read the bill and i think you are right Mr. Tex. I read the bill as saying, as long as what you are serving is not illegal or damaging its fair game.

]]> http://johnnyvonline.com/2006/05/25/hr5417/comment-page-1/#comment-362 Wm D Fri, 26 May 2006 18:58:00 +0000 http://johnnyvonline.com/?p=428#comment-362 Does using bandwidth "materially degrade other users' utilization of the network"? Does using bandwidth “materially degrade other users’ utilization of the network”?

]]>