dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8526
share rss forum feed


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


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..
·TekSavvy Cable
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:
·WIND Mobile
·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.


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.

34764170

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.

34764170

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.


ArthurWinslo

@rogers.com
reply to 34764170

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.



Getr3al

@bell.ca
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:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable

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



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

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.


mlerner
Premium
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.


mlerner
Premium
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.


Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Kitchener, 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.

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


rodjames
Premium
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.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Taylortbb

taylortbb ... this is the land of lawyers and interaction between TSI and the incumbents.

You never know what the interactions have been on other matters that might for example provoke the lawyers to say "You'd better include the AUP info they want just in case".

Sometimes you have to make compromises that have next to nothing to do with what you're negotiating to actually GET what you want. For example imagine this exchange ...

TSI - "We want higher speeds for our customers"
Bell - "Well, that means you'll max out our links so you ain't getting them"
TSI - "Say we put in AUP stuff to ensure nobody gobbles too much"
Bell - "OK"

Then lawyer looks at AUP and finds this no server clause and says "Yup that's needed along with "Can't overload network" clause" and hey presto, both clauses are now in TSI's AUP. TSI tells Bell "Yup, done" and Bell implements higher speeds.

The incumbents care about the fact that an AUP is implemented and the nature of that AUP ... they probably just want to know that certain issues are covered and take it on faith that it was done.

The bottom line though is that it's there specifically with TSI, and it may NOT be there specifically with others ... that's the way it goes.

As to Rocky promising to get rid of it ... have you been fortunate to have never made a promise that in the end you couldn't deliver on?



dbusguy

join:2003-03-03
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to TSI Marc

Really disappointing to see this added. When I left Rogers cable for Teksavvy dsl back in 2007 (?) one of the things I asked was are servers allowed. It was even advertised back then that they were. Luckily I no longer run one but makes one wonder what else will be slipped in in the future.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

Why "luckily"? If you run one now, and as long as you don't go crazy or brazenly and openly admit to it, nobody's gonna come after you. Although port 25 blocking is being done, not to stop you from running a server as such but to stop spambot software that all too many customers are getting infections from.


HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

For example imagine this exchange ...

TSI - "We want higher speeds for our customers"
Bell - "Well, that means you'll max out our links so you ain't getting them"
TSI - "Say we put in AUP stuff to ensure nobody gobbles too much"
Bell - "OK"

I think the more likely scenario is that TSI's over zealous legal counsel threw everything but the kitchen sink in when overhauling their AUP and TOS.

Bell does not have any sort of restriction on using GAS for servers. They wouldn't need it - the DSL aggregation network isn't upload constrained.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13

Ahh but is there anything hidden in the tarrifs?


HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5

said by sbrook:

Ahh but is there anything hidden in the tarrifs?

Nope

»www.bce.ca/aboutbce/regulatory/t···410_____
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


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

We deal with 7 different incumbents. We have more cable users than DSL.

It's not a question zeal. It's more of a practical question. Do we do 7 AUPs? What a nightmare that would be.

I can tell you that I'm not a very litigious person.. It would have to be something very serious to get me to enforce such things.

The history of how this was borne stems from when we started doing cable. Anybody doing cable *is* subject to such policies, whether they know it or not. At the time, we just needed to cover the bases...

Going forward, as I continue to wrap my head around things since taking full control.. I can promise that if there's a way to simplify it or if its a case of one technology vs. another where it might be easy to incorporate.. Ill be happy to do that. Right now, to divert much energy to this, when there's really no problem, to the degree that people have faith in us... I think would just be a waste of resources when so many other things need attention.. To really do this right, it will take a great deal of time and resources.

Not trying to down play this but if it were a simple thing.. I'd gladly change it... Even just doing that is a big deal now.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



waiting

@videotron.ca
reply to mlerner

said by mlerner:

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.

heh well it really doesn't matter what people think, or how they feel. The CRTC said it's all ok to shove Bell's AUP upon Bell resellers.

These filings were bounced back at GiC and the CRTC so often that I am lost finding all the relevant info on what's applicable and what isn't anymore. Rocca @ Start could likely help sort out the correct filings for all this. Might all be found under the last UBB filings. The cable companies acceptable use was in this, Bell's was in various filings.

As far as I can recall, the cable companies biggest beef was if a so-call indi used their network for iptv. Videotron directly came out to forbid it. I no longer recall what terms Rogers came out with (Acanac should know this since they are rolling out IPTV).

So there was a difference. Bell (which TSI's ToS is based upon) put user "control" terms in place, while the cable co's weren't as anal and instead put terms in place to control their network & TV revenue stream instead of the users, like Bell did.

Like I said above, I don't think TSI was even reselling cable at the time. So the Bell forced AUP/ToS is actually applicable to DSL only. But TSI kept it for everything, which makes sense. Imagine having 4 different ToS's?


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

The CRTC doesn't make the law. Now TekSavvy can enforce an AUP and Bell can disconnect whoever they like simply because they have control over the copper loop but wholesale end user customers have not given consent to the AUP and TekSavvy has not instrcuted users of Bell's AUP therefor it could be thrown out of court since the user has not given consent or been presented Bell's AUP upon activation.

Expand your moderator at work