ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to N O Y B
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service
said by N O Y B  :ISPs have every right to enforce the TOS you have agreed too: 1) by blocking outbound traffic from servers being operated on residential service. 2) by blocking customers who provide their residential service to third parties by hosting and distributing content for them. So get over it and start abiding by the TOS you have agreed too. Then there will be no issue. Your posting history shows that you have some form of vendetta against any definition of server other than your own, even when some very talented people have explained to you in detail what may/may not be a server.
Why is that?
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL
·ViaTalk
 ·Cox HSI
| Nearly everything is a server.
Saying you cannot run a server in your TOS is like saying here's a 5,000mbit optical fibre connection, but you can only browse webpages and check your email.
Hosting a Warcraft III game is banned by the ToS/AUP. Using VNC is banned by the ToS/AUP. Using Bittorrent to download the latest edition of Linux Mint is banned by the ToS/AUP.
Give me a break. Their adverts indicate I can do above things, voiding their own ToS.
A couple lovely snippets from my ISP's page selling their HSI [emphasis by me]:
# PowerBoost
* Cable modem technology that gives you a boost of speed for video, photos, music and any large file access
ANY large file access. Implies I can access the large file any damn way I want.
Great for Gaming
Which means it is not against the "no servers" rule to host a game of WarIII, Starcraft, D2 (all of those Blizzard games act as a server), or run a Battlefield 2 server for friends. You can't call it great for gaming if you can't play with your friends the way you'd like.
As for them allowing VNC... their own little esupport tool is a derivative of VNC. They are breaking their own rule? I'm aware that their version may act as a client and not a server, but that doesn't make it any less obvious that a big fat blanket "no servers" rule should not exist in any way shape or form.
--
"Did you know that when one little panda pulls on another little panda's underwear, that's sexual harassment? That makes me a sa-a-a-a-ad panda." --Sexual Harassment Panda |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski :Your posting history shows that you have some form of vendetta against any definition of server other than your own, even when some very talented people have explained to you in detail what may/may not be a server. Why is that?
Oh yes some very talented people who tried to justify BTs by claiming browser are servers too because of cookies. And when I called them on it they could not dispute me. You all are grasping at straws to justify your violation of the TOS you have agreed too.
|
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR | reply to Tsume
The issue is not with you accessing files any way you want. The issue is with you running a server to host them for third parties.
|
|
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL
·ViaTalk
·Cox HSI
| said by N O Y B :The issue is not with you accessing files any way you want. The issue is with you running a server to host them for third parties. If the way to access the file automatically includes that caveat, that isn't my problem.
--
"Did you know that when one little panda pulls on another little panda's underwear, that's sexual harassment? That makes me a sa-a-a-a-ad panda." --Sexual Harassment Panda |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
edit:
November 28th, @07:13PM
| said by Tsume :If the way to access the file automatically includes that caveat, that isn't my problem.
Correct. It is the problem of the persons hosting the content you are accessing. Which in the case of bit torrents it is likely being "throttled" due to the person hosting the content being a on a residential service and thus violating their TOS.
|
|
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL
·ViaTalk
·Cox HSI
| Where in the ToS, or in the law even, does it say it is okay to pretend to be someone else? I believe that's forgery, and is against the law. That's what they are doing with the RST packets.
--
"Did you know that when one little panda pulls on another little panda's underwear, that's sexual harassment? That makes me a sa-a-a-a-ad panda." --Sexual Harassment Panda |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
|
said by Tsume :Where in the ToS, or in the law even, does it say it is okay to pretend to be someone else? I believe that's forgery, and is against the law. That's what they are doing with the RST packets.
I nor anyone else here are who you need to convince of that. File a law suite if you think they are engaging in illegal conduct. Then you will be given the opportunity to convince those who can actually do something about it.
|
|
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL
·ViaTalk
·Cox HSI
| said by N O Y B :said by Tsume :Where in the ToS, or in the law even, does it say it is okay to pretend to be someone else? I believe that's forgery, and is against the law. That's what they are doing with the RST packets. I nor anyone else here are who you need to convince of that. File a law suite if you think they are engaging in illegal conduct. Then you will be given the opportunity to convince those who can actually do something about it. Sadly I probably wouldn't, the age of the judges in our court system suggests they'd have a hard time understanding the abuse of the technology. |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
edit:
November 29th, @04:49PM
| said by Tsume :said by N O Y B :said by Tsume :Where in the ToS, or in the law even, does it say it is okay to pretend to be someone else? I believe that's forgery, and is against the law. That's what they are doing with the RST packets. I nor anyone else here are who you need to convince of that. File a law suite if you think they are engaging in illegal conduct. Then you will be given the opportunity to convince those who can actually do something about it. Sadly I probably wouldn't, the age of the judges in our court system suggests they'd have a hard time understanding the abuse of the technology.
Then I think you will just have to learn to live with it. Because they are well within their right of enforcing the TOS residential customers have agreed to abide by.
|
|
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL
·ViaTalk
·Cox HSI
| said by N O Y B :Then I think you will just have to learn to live with it. Because they are well within their right of enforcing the TOS residential customers have agreed to abide by. Yes, they are perfectly able to enforce their Tos, if it is lawful. What they are doing is not, and I hope you can see that. What they are doing is forgery.
Learn to live with it? My bittorrent works and so does my eMule (encryption), so I guess I will. If/when that stops, then I'll have to look further... by then though I bet net neutrality laws will have been passed and we will be on a more fair (to the user and to the ISP) billing system (10/month for 2GB cap, 20/month for 25GB, 30/mo for 50GB max, 50/mo for 100GB Max, 75/mo for 175GB, 100/mo for 300GB... etc, you get the picture. Just an example). |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
|
Whether or not method of enforcement they are currently using is legal or illegal is something that will have to be determined in the justice system. Personally at best I think the method is slimy. But even if it were determined to be illegal, they would just use a different method. Such as dropping or significantly delaying packets.
|
|
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL
·ViaTalk
·Cox HSI
| said by N O Y B :Whether or not method of enforcement they are currently using is legal or illegal is something that will have to be determined in the justice system. Personally at best I think the method is slimy. But even if it were determined to be illegal, they would just use a different method. Such as dropping or significantly delaying packets. Very true, and a very sharp observation. It just so happened for the ISPs that Sandvine was there and that's just how it was done. They don't care how it's done, as long as it saves them bandwidth. The real issue is that the ISPs are not getting more money from those who use more bandwidth, and users who use virtually no bandwidth are overpaying and subsidizing users like myself who occasionally will blaze through ~100GB a month.
Right now it's like saying $50 dollars to fill up your gas tank. You would say "But my motorcycle only has a 4 gallon tank!!" They say too bad, that's the rate structure. Then you've got an increasing amount of SUV drivers with 30 gallon tanks the gas stations lose tons of money filling, more and more each year as the drivers of SUVs increase. They say no fair, they're using too much! They can only have a 4 gallon tank like the motorcycles!! *cry* I know, let's reduce the size of their gas tanks to 4 gallons! Brilliant. Now they can only drive 10 miles a month. The equivalent to not being able to use your internet connection the way you'd like.
What's happening is that the ISPs are not changing their pricing structure like they need to. Net neutrality laws would virtually FORCE them to do so, and that is why I am in support of them. They would have no way to run around dropping packets and delaying traffic instead of offering something they'd make a profit on.. and they would not have to waste $ on expensive shaping hardware. |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
edit:
November 29th, @05:56PM
|
There is yet another aspect. And that is that ISPs are losing out on business customers due to them using the services of many residential service customers to host their content via bit torrent servers.
Also I doubt net neutrality would not prohibit the use of such methods for the purpose of preventing unauthorized usage that violates TOS.
The way I view it is that if the customer breaches TOS then the ISP has no service level obligation to the customer. But they want the customers money so rather than terminating service they put measures in place to prevent the unauthorized, undesirable, residential TOS violating, usage.
|
|
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL
·ViaTalk
·Cox HSI
| ISP's need to differentiate between their Internet offerings for Business and Residential services the same way they do for phone service.
You'll not see a residential phone customer disconnected for hosting a 3 way call, or talking on the phone 10x more than the average Joe. You'll really only see that if the phone is literally in use 24/7.
Blocking usage of servers is no longer practical for what residential customers wish to do with their connections. They need to find a productive, rather than limiting, way to make their business offering more appealing to businesses. |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
edit:
November 29th, @08:47PM
|
Their business and residential services are already differentiated.
|
|
