dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8608
share rss forum feed

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

Teksavvy forbids running servers

From the Acceptable Use Policy:
»teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy/pol···e-policy

said by Teksavvy AUP :

You are prohibited from using the Service for activities that include, but are not limited to:
...
"Unless you have purchased Services that are specifically designed and authorized to support such functionalities, operating a server in connection with the Services including but not limited to mail, news, file, gopher, telnet, chat, web, or host configuration servers, multimedia streamers, or multi-user interactive forums".

When did that manage to creep in, undetected by most of us?


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2

Are they still using an old Bell lawyer to write these things?


mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to mlord

This did all get discussed back in 2011,
and at the time TSI Rocky claimed "Server stuff's been fixed."
Apparently not, it seems.

»TekSavvy's new AUP bans servers?


Swingtrade

join:2012-11-07
Saint-Hubert, QC
reply to mlord

lol
next thing you know you cannot use a vpn or host a mumble server..
you cannot use a file server? what i cannot setup a ftp? REALLY?


mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

1 edit
reply to mlord

Really, it's 2012 people. Way beyond the time that ISPs like Teksavvy should be including explicit permission to run servers as part of the AUP, rather than banning them.

I may have to go back to ncf.ca, where running servers has always been a feature: »www.ncf.ca/ncf/registration/dsl/#q23

At least start.ca doesn't explicitly ban them (yet) like Teksavvy does.
»www.start.ca/about/terms


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to mlord

said by mlord:

This did all get discussed back in 2011,
and at the time TSI Rocky claimed "Server stuff's been fixed."
Apparently not, it seems.

»TekSavvy's new AUP bans servers?

New sheriff in town - Marc's in-charge now.
Rocky is out.
So, new policy???


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

Nope.. Whatever is there has been there for some time... Not sure when it might have been changed last. Maybe back in Feb?
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
reply to mlord

Could that be for "cable" customers? TSI might just be passing along the Rogers/Cogeco AUP for those customers.....or it might have been introduced because of that...



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

I was thinking the same... I'll have to check... It's all very legal type stuff.. Never know what will get thrown at us anymore these days.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



TSILiz
Premium
join:2012-08-20
kudos:6
reply to mlord

The title of this thread is misleading. Yes, that is in the acceptable use policy. It is in there in the event that a customer risks the overall health of network and experience of other users. This clause allows us to make sure that negative activity is stopped.

Our customers can and do run personal use servers. Residential Internet service with limited upload is inherently not suited to run a server. For personal use, it generally doesn't result in abuse or exploitation of the network more than "normal" use would. As such, we don't enforce the policy, however, it is there to protect the majority of users against the few bad apples that may seek to abuse the system.



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

That sounds pretty good. Hehe just checking with legal too though.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


Guru

join:2008-10-01
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSILiz

said by TSILiz:

The title of this thread is misleading. Yes, that is in the acceptable use policy. It is in there in the event that a customer risks the overall health of network and experience of other users. This clause allows us to make sure that negative activity is stopped.

Our customers can and do run personal use servers. Residential Internet service with limited upload is inherently not suited to run a server. For personal use, it generally doesn't result in abuse or exploitation of the network more than "normal" use would. As such, we don't enforce the policy, however, it is there to protect the majority of users against the few bad apples that may seek to abuse the system.

+1 glad you explained it!

I think mlord is just after the policies! There is a reason why it's a residential service, for personal use.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to mlord

That would be a major PITA if we can't run home servers for whatever reason. I've been working up to doing just that eventually.

Plz don't let it be so. Its not like we're running data centers.

I'd feel so much better running my own Website/Forums/Blogs or whatever at home on my own equipment instead of in the untrusted cloud. Ofc the plan was to run benign stuff here at home and find a colo for heavier end things like an IRCd for instance on an appropriate host designed for that sort of thing somewhere down the road when I got my home set up completed and operational.

--
You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect.
Twitter:Merv Chat:irc.teksavvy.ca



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

No intention of doing anything like that.... This has been there for a long time.. Nothing new here.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


Cloneman

join:2002-08-29
Montreal
kudos:4
reply to mlord

no one ever gets kicked off their ISP for running servers... anywhere...

especially because many normal desktop apps run in server mode.

is there are reason for this pedantic thread?


Guru

join:2008-10-01
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by Cloneman:

no one ever gets kicked off their ISP for running servers... anywhere...

especially because many normal desktop apps run in server mode.

is there are reason for this pedantic thread?

Ye, mlord is too paranoid and prolly wants to host a pron site from home. lol


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to TSI Marc

Legal answer: "Some incumbent AUPs prevent the use of servers. You asked me which ones and I still have to check."

I'll follow up once I find the references in the tariffs...
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


alpovs

join:2009-08-08
reply to mlord

How can "a customer risk the overall health of network and experience of other users" with such a miserable upload speed on cable?



Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

almost as if connection speeds were designed that way....


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

No intention of doing anything like that.... This has been there for a long time.. Nothing new here.

The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.
If you have no intent to use it then simply remove it.

If you don't then it clearly communicates that you do have intentions to use it.

I knew what Rocky's intent was and he committed to remove it. What/who stopped him?

What's your intent, Marc? Just askin' "for the record".

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

1 recommendation

reply to Cloneman

said by Cloneman:

no one ever gets kicked off their ISP for running servers... anywhere...

especially because many normal desktop apps run in server mode.

is there are reason for this pedantic thread?

The first rule of running a home server is that no one talks about the home server. Questions can only give the rules more teeth. ;-p

More seriously perhaps the wording can be changed a bit to differentiate between personal use and "harmful" use.


waiting

@opera-mini.net
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

Legal answer: "Some incumbent AUPs prevent the use of servers. You asked me which ones and I still have to check."

I'll follow up once I find the references in the tariffs...

this goes back a bit
Bell filed during both the throttle hearings and speed match that tsi's customers are subject to bells ToS.

so this is where this comes from.

There has been topics or disussions of this in the Cdn broadband forum


rodjames
Premium
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON
reply to mlord

I have had my server running for years now without a problem...


mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

2 edits
reply to TSILiz

said by TSILiz:

The title of this thread is misleading.

No, the AUP is very clear about it, and it says the title of this thread is 100% accurate. It has only been that way since 2011, though. Prior to that there was no such clause, and the lack of the clause is what has driven a lot of us to sign up with Teksavvy: The "home server friendly ISP".

If that will no longer be the case, I'll be moving along thanks.
I'm not hosting "p0rn" or anything unusual. Just running a very low bandwidth personal web server, personal email, and a spattering of other things including ssh and inbound vpn for when I'm away from the house.

Those are all very clearly "servers", and very clearly forbidden in the new AUP (2011).

Cheers


waiting

@videotron.ca
reply to waiting

Forgot to add;

the Bell ToS (or AUP) that all TSI customers are bound by is on the CRTC's website. I do believe I copy/pasted it some place in the Cdn broadband forum back when it happened.

TSI is going by the book, which is cool. Many other ISP's out there are not and pretend this never happened. So every Bell reseller has this same ToS. Whether they show it or not. TSI is just more upfront on this part.

Back then we suggested that they include in their ToS that this is forced on them by Bell. But they didn't.

Anyhow, now you know the history of this.



waiting

@videotron.ca
reply to rodjames

said by rodjames:

I have had my server running for years now without a problem...

Well yeah. Bell would have to punish all their customers before anyone else's or it would break the CRTC rule on discrimination.

In addition to this, if Bell started making files on people in relation to "captured" protocols and so forth and putting this under people names, I'm sure there would be a privacy issue that would come out of it.


waiting

@videotron.ca
reply to waiting

Here is the last know link to the CRTC filed ToS. For some reason the CRTC removed the original link from their site... maybe to pretend it never existed while they approved it.

»/r0/downloa···/aup.pdf

So the server thing applies to bell resold DSL. As far as I can recall, Videotron, Rogers et al did not impose this (that I can recall). So if this is correct, TSI should state that ToS is for DSL only (at the time they didn't resell cable that I can recall).



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by TSI Marc:

No intention of doing anything like that.... This has been there for a long time.. Nothing new here.

 
The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.

If you have no intent to use it then simply remove it.

If you don't then it clearly communicates that you do have intentions to use it.

I knew what Rocky's intent was and he committed to remove it. What/who stopped him?

What's your intent, Marc? Just askin' "for the record".

 
Surely a clause like "We reserve the right to terminate service to any customer who by any means causes data traffic sufficient to disrupt our network to occur" would be a strong enough catch-all condition to indirectly cover (ab)use of servers.

= = = = = = = = = =

BTW, Marc, I'm available if your legal department needs a fresh face and PoV.


Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Kitchener, ON
reply to mlord

said by mlord:

said by TSILiz:

The title of this thread is misleading.

No, the AUP is very clear about it, and it says the title of this thread is 100% accurate. It has only been that way since 2011, though. Prior to that there was no such clause, and the lack of the clause is what has driven a lot of us to sign up with Teksavvy: The "home server friendly ISP".

If that will no longer be the case, I'll be moving along thanks.
I'm not hosting "p0rn" or anything unusual. Just running a very low bandwidth personal web server, personal email, and a spattering of other things including ssh and inbound vpn for when I'm away from the house.

Those are all very clearly "servers", and very clearly forbidden in the new AUP (2011).

Cheers

There's a problem with that, if the incumbent ISPs have gotten this approved in the tariffs (which multiple people, including TekSavvy legal via Marc have confirmed) then there's no ISP for you to switch to. I don't think you can do much better than multiple TSI staff saying they have intention of enforcing it. Any other independent who doesn't put it in their AUP hasn't changed the fact you're using a tariffed service where servers are prohibited.
--
Taylor Byrnes

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

If the ISP expressly forbids it (teksavvy), they can terminate service at any time without notice, and therefore without leaving time for the subscriber to seek alternatives. So suddenly no internet at all, requiring about 10 days to get reconnected elsewhere.

If they don't expressly forbid it (start.ca), or do explicitly allow it (ncf.ca), then one can reasonably expect advance notice from them if they decide they no longer want to allow it. Giving time to move services elsewhere, or to simply comply with the change in AUP by stopping the servers. Without losing internet connectivity completely.

That's an important difference.
Important enough to factor into ISP selection.