dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8709
share rss forum feed

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

1 recommendation

reply to Cloneman

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

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.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
Not trying to stoke the fire.. but, if this were to ever happen... odds are that it would be coming from the incumbent. in that case, they would have the right to just cut off also.. in either case.

I don't think it's us that's really the issue...

Once I know more, I'll post. I think it's pretty straight forward what I personally think... having to live within the confines of the box that's been defined for us is just an entirely different thing.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

JeanInNepean

join:2012-09-19
Nepean, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy TekTalk
·voip.ms
·Primus Talkbroad..
reply to Cloneman
"no one ever gets kicked off their ISP for running servers... anywhere..."

Ah! So you think! Back in the early days of cable internet (Rogers @home service), I got my service suspended when they found out I was running an email server at home. I don't think even Rogers suspends accounts for running servers anymore though.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
reply to mlord
Running a server? Huh? Wha?

I have no recollection of the events to which you are referring.



Mike

pablo
MVM
join:2003-06-23
kudos:1
reply to TSILiz
said by TSILiz:

Our customers can and do run personal use servers.

Elizabeth is exactly right: I've been running a web server since 2005. I used to run an email server as well but I finally switched to using Google Applications.

Cheers,
-pablo
--
openSUSE 12.2/KDE 4.x
ISP: TekSavvy Bonded DSL; backhauled via a 6KM wireless link
Assorted goodies: »pablo.blog.blueoakdb.com


EUS
Kill cancer
Premium
join:2002-09-10
canada
Reviews:
·voip.ms
It seems things have changed drastically from '05 when if memory serves in '05 the TOU allowed servers. It's sad the incumbent can now dictate what TS customers can and cannot do on their network.
That being said, even with the TOU change, who here really thinks that TS is going to start punting people off the network?
--
~ Project Hope ~

pablo
MVM
join:2003-06-23
kudos:1
Hi,

As I said, I'm still running the web server ... seven years later.

Nemo888

join:2005-12-25
Canada
reply to mlord
It's rather all encompassing and draconian.

A server is a physical computer dedicated to serve the needs of other computers on the network.

Hell I do that every time I fire up a Bit Torrent client. I run a server 24/7 sometimes to get my ratio back up. It's a very convenient rule to ban file sharers.

I miss Rocky.


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to mlord
I run 2 servers at home (testing purposes), 1 of them is linux and the other is windows.

Runs perfectly fine, except port 25 for outgoing mail is blocked, but that's fine. There is no way for Rogers/TSI to block these servers.As long as I don't exceed my monthly bandwidth, "servers" only refer to a specific kind of hardware (that ultimately serves a particular purpose) so unless Marc is at my house....He has no way to tell what is running off a server and what is running off a laptop.

We have nothing to worry about, even if it is an official policy.
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


GOTEKKY_JP

join:2005-12-12
Saint-Laurent, QC
reply to mlord
In a context where TSI is paying $20 000 per Gbps to Bhell & sons I think it's only fair that they have such terms.

pablo
MVM
join:2003-06-23
kudos:1
reply to d4m1r
Howdy,

I'm going to guess port 25 is blocked because you don't have a static IP. I have a static IP and all ports are wide open.

Cheers,
-pablo
--
openSUSE 12.2/KDE 4.x
ISP: TekSavvy Bonded DSL; backhauled via a 6KM wireless link
Assorted goodies: »pablo.blog.blueoakdb.com


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
So, yeah. I Double checked quickly and that provision has to stay there as is.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

pablo
MVM
join:2003-06-23
kudos:1
said by TSI Marc:

So, yeah. I Double checked quickly and that provision has to stay there as is.

Of course, it's sensible. That's how you hold people accountable. Sure, you might be able to goof around with chasing the DHCPD's log but it's far easier to make it mandatory that all ports are open /only/ if you have a static IP.

I need my static IP because some clients prefer it when remotely accessing their servers.

Cheers,
-pablo
--
openSUSE 12.2/KDE 4.x
ISP: TekSavvy Bonded DSL; backhauled via a 6KM wireless link
Assorted goodies: »pablo.blog.blueoakdb.com


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

So, yeah. I Double checked quickly and that provision has to stay there as is.

And why is that? Mandate by Rogers? Was it a recent addition to the AUP or has it been there for a while?
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to TSI Marc
Sorry for double post but I would think start.ca would also have to have it in their AUP then but they don't

--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting

Aens

join:2012-11-09
reply to pablo
It wouldn't matter if it were rogers or anybody else. It makes good business sense to have it in a AUP/TOS agreement. Think about this from the other point of view. If someone were abusing their service in a way that impacted other customers, you need legal cover in order to deal with the problem.

It is like saying, why have a law about no bicycles on sidewalks and yet no cop does anything about it? It's there so that if/when some moron plows into a bunch of small kids, there is a framework in place to prosecute. Saying they can terminate service for certain activities doesn't mean they will do it on every occasion.

Or another example. Say you are renting your basement out and the tenant doesn't believe in using toilets. If you don't have a clause in your agreement about the tenant having to act like a human being, then you would be stuck. The tenant can come back at you in small claims for unilaterally terminating the contract or some other bs.

Bottom line is, it is there to protect teksavvy from abusive customers, but it's existence does not correlate to enforcement. As we've clearly seen from testimonials in this thread, they don't care unless it becomes a problem!


ArthurWinslo

@rogers.com
reply to mlord
Port 25 is only blocked by ip filters. If any of you have a diagnostic based modem you can turn off those filters and go about your business.
Expand your moderator at work

mlord

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

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

said by TSI Marc:

So, yeah. I Double checked quickly and that provision has to stay there as is.

Very unfortunate, that point of view.
You guys have already taken some massive hits in goodwill.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
It's not a point of view mlord, it's a fact of life.

It's pretty simple ... no AUP clause forbidding servers, incumbent can terminate TPIA services for ALL that TPIA's customers ... not just the infringer.

The reality is that as long as nobody pushes the envelope by saying running a full blown NNTP server on their connection, nobody's gonna raise a ruckus at Rogers or the TPIA. If they did, chances are Rogers will ask the TPIA to deal with it ... who will enforce the term in the agreement.

It's been several years now since Rogers has been seen to actually enforce many of the clauses in their AUP, including the Notice and Notice of copyright infringement.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to mlord
said by mlord:

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.

Any ISP can do that anyway with or without said allowance.