Link to Original Source
Yep... clearly there's a some confusion about bandwidth v. usage.
My understanding was that Comcast capped my usage (I have a "Blast Plus" account) at 250GB/month. Seems to reset every month at 0000Z on the first.
I monitor my own usage fairly carefully, I think last month I was a bit over 300GB. But: Comcast announced that they are temporarily suspending enforcement of their cap - as of May, 2012. They have indicated that they are going to replace the cap with "new approaches", but there doesn't seem to be any mention of this since that date.
There's clearly tension between the cost of the plant necessary to support large users of data and the profit of the corporation. Without diving into that debate, I will relate what I've heard in discussions with a few other technically-oriented customers: they really didn't engineer their network to support any significant level of symmetric usage (it's designed for some multiples of download traffic over upload traffic), and the whole question of traffic shaping was a response to an actual "fear" that their network would be trashed by BitTorrent users.
I don't know whether that's actually true. But I do know that ultimately, all resources on the Internet are shared, and that without sufficient bandwidth there is lots of potential that won't be attained. I have some level of sympathy for the idea that someone may have to be throttled to keep costs for usage roughly equal for all customers of a particular class, or that pricing might have to be "reasonably" adjusted based on usage - especially peak usage (I do offsite vaulting exclusively between 0100 and 0500 local time).
I'd hope that Comcast and the other ISPs realize that the only way they are going to be able to make their business case to their customers if they operate transparently - and I know that's not the initial strategy for any large corporation. I don't think most people have an issue with paying "reasonable" fees - but, again, in the telecomm/service industry in general, that's generally how things are priced.
They are going to have to figure out how to make some profits on what anyone reading this already considers a "utility" - they sure aren't getting revenue from my pageviews of the ads on their home page. However, I've heard too many stories of how Internet connectivity delivered as a pure utility (especially by non-profits such as municipal governments) provides better service, higher bandwidth (sic) and lower costs than investor-owned corporations; if I could vote (if it were practical in my section of Boston) for that, as a public good, it'd make this discussion go away.
This may or may not be helpful.
I have my own server running WebDAV. It's "stock" Apache, the DAV module is included. A couple of people have mentioned Subversion, but of course that overlays functionality that may not be necessary or practical. DAV is fairly simple, and dedicated to supporting an essential set of semantics for accessing files.
The reason this may not be useful to you is that my primary use of the server has been as my "remote" fileserver, for Mac and Windows clients. In some sense, it'd be easier if I wanted to set up CIFS (Samba) or AFP (Apple), but neither of these work all that great when you have significant latency, which is the case if the server isn't right there physically to where you're working. Many iOS apps have taken to being written to directly talk to things like Dropbox, or WebDAV. That may not be true about the Android Apps that you care about. I agree with the premise that Dropbox doesn't give a warm fuzzy security feeling, though the functionality is very nice.
Setting up WebDAV on Apache, secured with TLS, isn't all that difficult. The protocol works well in a high-latency environment. The one technical issue that I've found is that there aren't good solutions for access control - it's not easy to set up multiple user accounts for one server and enforce separate access for those users. I've looked at a few kludges but nothing that seems satisfying.
Depending on your specific need, though, don't rule WebDAV out.
Link to Original Source
What's interesting is that the context was a document that was going back and forth as a negotiation with a client. My first impulse is to suggest that sending what is effectively "code" (dynamically-modified content) is probably not a great idea if you're trying to come to an agreement with someone. There have been issues in general (likely not as serious these days with modern antivirus applications) with malware-in-a-Word-document, but more to the point does one really know what you're sending to someone if the document itself can change without user intervention?
It looks like there's a community that has generated macros to aid in formatting legal documents, which is all well and good. But I wonder whether this functionality extends to trusting one's partner not to modify the document (let's say, for the sake of argument, that this would be an inadvertent side-effect). After all, we've all been through negotiations with lots of marked-up and changed documents, and we're supposed to do a full proof-check before affixing our signature — but it does seem worrisome to me.
Or am I being impractically paranoid? Does anyone work with organizations that have guidelines in this area?"