Community webserver?

[Tony Hammitt]

OK, so I'm in an area where SWBell has said that they will not be
offering DSL because they will not be running a T3 to the local
office.  Are you saying that all I have to do is claim that I'm
a business (true) and they _have_ to upgrade their local office?

I don't really understand.

If something like this were the case, I'm already all set up with
equipment, dual pIII box, 10/100 switch, battery backup, tape
backup...  I just don't want to have to pay $2000/mo for a T1.

SWBell told me to go to hell when I asked about DSL.  I'm confused.

TIA,

Tony

Dave Parker wrote:
> 
> Not strange at all.  The biggest problem I think would be TPC
> (The Phone Company).  If you're in a Southwestern Bell area then
> you'd probably be better off contacting Birch, BUT - the FCC has
> 'directed' the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) to make
> DSL available to competitive '...providers of high speed Internet
> access and other data services.'  This can even be an analog voice
> line where the low freq portion carries the voice traffic and is
> administered by the ILEC, and the high frequency portion of the
> same wire pair can carry the high speed xDSL traffic and be
> leased from the ILEC by a local ISP and re-sold to you.  I think
> that if you could demonstrate that you were a business (license,
> tax-id, bus. cards, etc.), that there's not much they could say
> to anyone wanting to get DSL, put a server in their closet, and
> host websites.  In fact, this would be the perfect setup for
> the KCLUG, where the organization could share the costs and
> members could have accounts (not dialup, necessarily) and/or
> websites/pages and host collaborative projects.
> 
> This is an intriguing idea.  I have DSL now (272K SDSL) in an
> area where the ILEC does not offer the service, but is expected
> to soon.  I'd be very interested in something like this, and could
> even host it, but I'm really busy with other projects right now
> and it would take me a while to get it all set up.  I'm definitely
> interested in talking about this, though.
>