Using Comcast to Host Web Site

[Clark W. Griswold, Jr.]

I developed a web site and would like to host it with my own computer
at home. I am thinking using Comcast Cable broadband as my ISP. Does
Comcast allow web host? Anyone has experience? Anyone has any other ISP
suggestions? I am in California.

You really need to reconsider. I gave up hosting on my own computer
several years ago. There was a literally continuous stream of attacks
from around the world. Even though I was using a Linux based machine
as my host, it was still a pain to review the logs and keep up with
all the patches. I shudder to think what it would be like on a Windows
machine.

Comcast used to ban hosting on local machines. Don't know if they've
relaxed that or not.

Comcast does allocate some web space for home users on their servers,
but you do have to go to the control panel and activate it. Not sure
what their rules are regarding business use and the amount of
bandwidth they permit though.

I would recommend a hosting company like www.1and1.com. They sell very
reliable low volume web hosting for a few dollars a month. No security
hassles and they have really easy upgrades for bandwidth and space if
you need it.

(No connection, no referral -- just a satisfied customer.)

[T. Sean Weintz]

I developed a web site and would like to host it with my own computer
at home. I am thinking using Comcast Cable broadband as my ISP. Does
Comcast allow web host? Anyone has experience? Anyone has any other ISP
suggestions? I am in California.
Thanks.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did you ask Comcast about their rules
on this? PAT]

Unless you spend about $250 for their business service with a static
address, then officially no, you can't. They can terminate your service
if they catch you at it -- it's in their TOS. No servers.

However, in reality, if the site is non-commercial and there is not
that much traffic to the site, you can probably get away with it.

[Bit Twister]

I developed a web site and would like to host it with my own computer
at home. I am thinking using Comcast Cable broadband as my ISP. Does
Comcast allow web host?

Comcast High-Speed Internet Acceptable Use Policy
http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

XIV. Should answer the question.

[Rob Stampfli]

Comcast has been blocking port 80 (HTTP) for a while now, and they've
recently started blocking port 25 (SMTP) as well. IMNSHO, it's only a
matter of time before they start blocking all syn packets and charging
extra for ANY incoming connection, but for now you can do it with some
workarounds.

With cable's relatively limited upload speed, I can readily understand
blocking inbound port 80, where the traffic distribution is highly
skewed towards outbound packets. But why inbound port 25? It can't
be to prevent spam from infected PCs since they don't use it. Inbound
port 25 can only be used to receive mail and one could argue that
whether you receive your mail via SMTP (port 25), or POP or IMAP or
otherwise, the bits have to eventually flow in one way or another.

So, why block port 25? The only answer I can come up with is "just
for spite".

For that matter, the whole concept of "no servers" has always seemed
flawed to me: Technically, sshd and telnetd are servers. Does Comcast
really desire to have a policy of preventing one from contacting a
home machine when they are travelling?

Rob Stampfli

[Michael D. Sullivan]

Post by Rob Stampfli

Comcast has been blocking port 80 (HTTP) for a while now, and they've
recently started blocking port 25 (SMTP) as well. IMNSHO, it's only a
matter of time before they start blocking all syn packets and charging
extra for ANY incoming connection, but for now you can do it with some
workarounds.

With cable's relatively limited upload speed, I can readily understand
blocking inbound port 80, where the traffic distribution is highly
skewed towards outbound packets. But why inbound port 25? It can't
be to prevent spam from infected PCs since they don't use it. Inbound
port 25 can only be used to receive mail and one could argue that
whether you receive your mail via SMTP (port 25), or POP or IMAP or
otherwise, the bits have to eventually flow in one way or another.
So, why block port 25? The only answer I can come up with is "just
for spite".

I suspect it's *outbound* port 25 that is blocked, to prevent zombie
machines and active spammers from using their own SMTP servers to send
email directly to their victims' ISPs' MTAs. Many ISPs block outbound
port 25, requiring most users to go through the ISP's SMTP server to
send email, which can have limits imposed in an effort to deter spam.

It could also be a block of inbound port 25, to prevent zombie
machines from acting as open relay SMTP servers, but if outbound port
25 is blocked, those zombies couldn't send the mail that is sent to
them for relaying, so there is no need to block inbound port 25.

Post by Rob Stampfli
For that matter, the whole concept of "no servers" has always seemed
flawed to me: Technically, sshd and telnetd are servers. Does Comcast
really desire to have a policy of preventing one from contacting a
home machine when they are travelling?

I suspect the "no servers" rule is like the rule against going 56 in a
55 zone, the rule against loitering, or the rule against parking too
close to or too far from the curb -- it allows selective prosecution,
so to speak. It gives the ISP an excuse to terminate a spammer or
zombie owner without having to prove much of anything, because it
could make the same finding against anyone.

Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD (USA)
(Replace "example.invalid" with "com" in my address.)

[Robert Bonomi]

Post by Michael D. Sullivan

Post by Rob Stampfli

Comcast has been blocking port 80 (HTTP) for a while now, and they've
recently started blocking port 25 (SMTP) as well. IMNSHO, it's only a
matter of time before they start blocking all syn packets and charging
extra for ANY incoming connection, but for now you can do it with some
workarounds.

With cable's relatively limited upload speed, I can readily understand
blocking inbound port 80, where the traffic distribution is highly
skewed towards outbound packets. But why inbound port 25? It can't
be to prevent spam from infected PCs since they don't use it. Inbound
port 25 can only be used to receive mail and one could argue that
whether you receive your mail via SMTP (port 25), or POP or IMAP or
otherwise, the bits have to eventually flow in one way or another.
So, why block port 25? The only answer I can come up with is "just
for spite".

I suspect it's *outbound* port 25 that is blocked, to prevent zombie
machines and active spammers from using their own SMTP servers to send
email directly to their victims' ISPs' MTAs. Many ISPs block outbound
port 25, requiring most users to go through the ISP's SMTP server to
send email, which can have limits imposed in an effort to deter spam.
It could also be a block of inbound port 25, to prevent zombie
machines from acting as open relay SMTP servers, but if outbound port
25 is blocked, those zombies couldn't send the mail that is sent to
them for relaying, so there is no need to block inbound port 25.

Unfortunately, that is *NOT* true.

Spammer use of "asymmetric routing" has shown there _is_ a need for
blocking inbound port 25, as well.

Post by Michael D. Sullivan

Post by Rob Stampfli
For that matter, the whole concept of "no servers" has always seemed
flawed to me: Technically, sshd and telnetd are servers. Does Comcast
really desire to have a policy of preventing one from contacting a
home machine when they are travelling?

I can't speak for Comcast specifically, but (at least some) other providers
with a 'no servers rule' *do* intend that, as well as prohibiting the
'bandwidth hogging' uses like a music download service..