 TSI MarcPremium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:15 | reply to pablo
Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers So, yeah. I Double checked quickly and that provision has to stay there as is.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy |
|
pabloMVM
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 |
|
Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
 ·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| 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
|
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| 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
|
|
| 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! |
|
| 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. |
|
mlord
join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:10 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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. |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
·TekSavvy Cable
| 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. |
|
brad
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. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to ArthurWinslo
said by ArthurWinslo :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.
And those filters are not on the modem. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:It's not a point of view mlord, it's a fact of life.
He's just going out of his way to make himself look like an idiot. |
|
| reply to brad
Brad do you even know what you're talking about?
The ip filters are set from the tftp configuration file the modem downloads from the CMTS after it gets it's DHCP lease. In that tftp config file contains ip filters pertaining to port 25 as well as other specific ports that are not going to be named on here. |
|
| reply to ArthurWinslo
All the ISPs have rules in their AUP against piracy, we have yet to hear anyone getting kicked out, same thing with servers, get real OP, feels like you just want to troll the TekSavvy employees |
|
mlord
join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:10 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| Personal attacks are unnecessary, guys. I'm just raising awareness here that Teksavvy has not followed through with the promise Rocky made last year when this first came up. Many of us (all of us?) thought he had followed through.
I run servers, and I like to comply with my ISP's rules.
That's why I've been with Teksavvy for so long.
Cheers |
|
 Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3
 ·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by mlord:Personal attacks are unnecessary, guys. I'm just raising awareness here that Teksavvy has not followed through with the promise Rocky made last year when this first came up. Many of us (all of us?) thought he had followed through.
I run servers, and I like to comply with my ISP's rules.
That's why I've been with Teksavvy for so long.
Cheers
I believe this thread is a good awareness for anyone looking to run a server. Both Marc and Elizabeth confirmed what i wanted to know.
These forums are browsed by several bully types that seem to think personal attacks are how you treat people. Why? Because it's on the Teksavvy part of the forum. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to alpovs
said by alpovs:How can "a customer risk the overall health of network and experience of other users" with such a miserable upload speed on cable?
I could think of one way, if you set up a peer to peer mesh network with a handful of cable users degrading upstream bandwidth. That can be considered abuse. |
|
mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to waiting
said by 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).
Let me set the record straight on this.
The Bell AUP is all unproven bullshit. First of all they don't provide transit so Bell being my ISP is complete garbage. Second when I signed up, I ONLY acknowledged TekSavvy's AUP, not Bell's. Third, no one has yet to challenge it but I suspect Bell would get in hot water if they ever tried to use it against a wholesale end user customer.
So you can take the AUP and shove it because as far as I'm concerned, it is inadmissible for wholesale end customers. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| 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.
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.
Do you really think Bell or Rogers cares what the independent's AUP says? If they don't like your server they're disconnecting you when they want to. Bell and Rogers probably have never read TekSavvy or Start's AUP. As far as they're concerned you're bound by their AUP, and they will disconnect you without a moment's notice regardless of what ISP you're a customer of. Assuming of course they care, which evidence suggests they don't (even for their own customers).
--
Taylor Byrnes |
|
 rodjamesPremium
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON | reply to mlord
Anything I run public-facing is at my datacenter appliance. The home server has been firewalled all get out, and only runs lan appliances. |
|
