dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8501
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

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:26

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


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

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

said by sbrook:

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 ...

[snip]

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?

I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying that it doesn't matter which independent one switches to. If Rogers says that independents are bound by their AUP then Rogers will disconnect someone who breaks it. It doesn't matter whether the independent put it in their AUP, as far as Rogers is concerned everyone is bound by theirs. If it's in the tariffs (which it appears to be) then negotiations don't really factor into it, there's no provider you can go to. Switching to Start (for example) doesn't gain you anything even if their AUP doesn't say it, they're still bound by the same tariffs.

I've made promises I couldn't deliver on, but I'm not sure I get your point. I understand completely why TekSavvy can't deliver, it's in the tariff, and I consider that a reasonable excuse. I don't favour banning servers, but when it's in the tariff I don't get the big deal being made here. Take it to the CRTC, not TekSavvy.
--
Taylor Byrnes

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

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

said by TSI Marc:

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

Its definitely being over zealous. Instead of covering off every base for every situation with one policy, a less zealous and less overreaching approach would be to include language in one AUP for each of the different cases.

It could still be accomplished with one AUP - just language to handle the different cases.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


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

said by Taylortbb:

I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying that it doesn't matter which independent one switches to. If Rogers says that independents are bound by their AUP then Rogers will disconnect someone who breaks it. It doesn't matter whether the independent put it in their AUP, as far as Rogers is concerned everyone is bound by theirs. If it's in the tariffs (which it appears to be) then negotiations don't really factor into it, there's no provider you can go to. Switching to Start (for example) doesn't gain you anything even if their AUP doesn't say it, they're still bound by the same tariffs.

And lets suppose an Incumbent decides that appart from 'servers', that they'll also disconnect anyone using fileshares, netflix, VPNs, Ftp's, etc. pretty much anything they decide against could be stuffed into a AUP oh boy... its not like they actually listen to net neutrality laws, they're only concerned about their bottom line.
--
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


Selenia
I love Debian
Premium
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to mlord

I have time warner cable here in the States. Their acceptable use policy also forbids it and has for years. I have run servers on them for a total of over 10 years, and was pretty much told by top level technicians that I was okay doing this. All my servers are appropriately secured. They stated that they would only enforce it if it negatively impacted the network or cause a network security issue and explicitly said that they were not worried about me because they know that I know what I'm doing. They have held good to their word over the course of 12 years. 10 of them running servers on them and the other 2 being stuck on Verizon who didn't care either. I can see the reason for these clauses. Without them we would have every moron on the planet running insecure servers which would impact the security and integrity of the network. Or possibly hosting illegal content. They need legal ground to cover themselves in such an instance.
--
A fool thinks they know everything.

A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.

There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either.



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to HeadSpinning

said by HeadSpinning:

It could still be accomplished with one AUP - just language to handle the different cases.

For sure... In the mean time though, there's good cause for having that language there... This is all stuff that's already been in effect for months and months and harmed nobody. With time we'll double back... as it is important.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


Worm words

@videotron.ca
reply to HeadSpinning

said by HeadSpinning:

said by TSI Marc:

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

It could still be accomplished with one AUP - just language to handle the different cases.

AUP's have enough language in it to bring people in a loop. Adding more legalese and worm words to touch base on every situation just confuses people more.

said by sbrook:

As to Rocky promising to get rid of it ...

I don't recall Rocky ever saying they were going to get rid of it. Nor any promise to that effect.

Where is this promise?

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

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

said by TSI Marc:

For sure... In the mean time though, there's good cause for having that language there... This is all stuff that's already been in effect for months and months and harmed nobody. With time we'll double back... as it is important.

I understand completely that you're not enforcing that portion of the AUP for DSL customers, and have it in there to address the issue of Cable. I also think the brouhahah over the issue is somewhat overblown, since nobody here has ever heard of a case of TSI enforcing that provision. Not withstanding, I can take a pretty good guess at who drafted the language in the AUP, and I stand by my position that it should have been taken care of when it was drafted. That would have saved having to double back...
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

mlord

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

1 edit
reply to Worm words

Click for full size
Rocky's promise.
said by Worm words :

I don't recall Rocky ever saying they were going to get rid of it. Nor any promise to that effect.

Where is this promise?

See the link in the top few posts of this very thread.


Worm words

@videotron.ca

said by mlord:

said by Worm words :

I don't recall Rocky ever saying they were going to get rid of it. Nor any promise to that effect.

Where is this promise?

See the link in the top few posts of this very thread.

Ah, I missed that. But still, no promise. Now I understand what HeadSpinning stated about who wrote it.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

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's promise.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

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

said by TSI Marc:

Anybody doing cable *is* subject to such policies, whether they know it or not.

Chapter and verse, please.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

Sure.. When we deal with it thoroughly like I promise to do eventually.. I'll be happy to discuss it then
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Expand your moderator at work


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

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

said by TwiztedZero:

said by Taylortbb:

I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying that it doesn't matter which independent one switches to. If Rogers says that independents are bound by their AUP then Rogers will disconnect someone who breaks it. It doesn't matter whether the independent put it in their AUP, as far as Rogers is concerned everyone is bound by theirs. If it's in the tariffs (which it appears to be) then negotiations don't really factor into it, there's no provider you can go to. Switching to Start (for example) doesn't gain you anything even if their AUP doesn't say it, they're still bound by the same tariffs.

And lets suppose an Incumbent decides that appart from 'servers', that they'll also disconnect anyone using fileshares, netflix, VPNs, Ftp's, etc. pretty much anything they decide against could be stuffed into a AUP oh boy... its not like they actually listen to net neutrality laws, they're only concerned about their bottom line.

I didn't say Rogers' AUP was reasonable, just that cable customers are bound by it rather they like it or not. Changing that is something for the CRTC, TekSavvy changing their AUP doesn't change the tariff. All it would do is give those running servers (which I must point out includes myself) a false sense of security.
--
Taylor Byrnes

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

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

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by TSI Marc:

Anybody doing cable *is* subject to such policies, whether they know it or not.

Chapter and verse, please.

TPIA is pretty restrictive. There are all sorts of conditions in the TIPA tariffs that do not exist in the DSL world.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

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

said by HeadSpinning:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by TSI Marc:

Anybody doing cable *is* subject to such policies, whether they know it or not.

Chapter and verse, please.

TPIA is pretty restrictive. There are all sorts of conditions in the TIPA tariffs that do not exist in the DSL world.

@Marc:
"....whether they know it or not"
What kind of ISP wouldn't know it?

------------

@HeadSpinning:
Any restriction on sharing what said conditions are? Or is that beyond our pay grade and beyond understanding of our feeble unwashed minds?

It might be something the Competition Bureau ought to know about in detail......or are CNOC members content with being just a 5-6% market share forever?

Maybe we, the great unwashed masses, would like to ensure that our use is not unduly restricted as customers of indies by the actions of incumbents - whether we choose, today, to avail ourselves, or not, of the benign lack of enforcement of provisions in some AUP of some incumbent. 99% of indie customers probably never would consider running servers, but the 1% who do would like the certainty of not having the legs cut out from under them because their ISP is feeling heat from an incumbent - the same bastards we ran from in the first place.

Seems to me that the last time we lowly peons got involved (UBB), a better outcome was had than leaving things solely in CNOC's {cough}{cough} capable {cough}{cough} hands. Of course, CNOC's opinion on that may vary, seeing as how most CNOC members were OK with whatever UBB deal could be cut with Robellus as long as CNOC members made a buck - customers be damned.

Maybe another 500,000 signature petition is in order. Just sayin' - hypothetically, of course.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

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

said by MaynardKrebs:

@HeadSpinning:
Any restriction on sharing what said conditions are? Or is that beyond our pay grade and beyond understanding of our feeble unwashed minds?

Since we don't do TPIA, the last time I looked at that stuff was a couple of years ago. I don't remember all the details, but I do remember not liking the conditions when I looked at it.

Cogeco does state that their AUP is applicable to TPIA customers.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

@Marc:
"....whether they know it or not"
What kind of ISP wouldn't know it?

------------

@HeadSpinning:
Any restriction on sharing what said conditions are? Or is that beyond our pay grade and beyond understanding of our feeble unwashed minds?

It might be something the Competition Bureau ought to know about in detail......or are CNOC members content with being just a 5-6% market share forever?

Maybe we, the great unwashed masses, would like to ensure that our use is not unduly restricted as customers of indies by the actions of incumbents - whether we choose, today, to avail ourselves, or not, of the benign lack of enforcement of provisions in some AUP of some incumbent. 99% of indie customers probably never would consider running servers, but the 1% who do would like the certainty of not having the legs cut out from under them because their ISP is feeling heat from an incumbent - the same bastards we ran from in the first place.

Seems to me that the last time we lowly peons got involved (UBB), a better outcome was had than leaving things solely in CNOC's {cough}{cough} capable {cough}{cough} hands. Of course, CNOC's opinion on that may vary, seeing as how most CNOC members were OK with whatever UBB deal could be cut with Robellus as long as CNOC members made a buck - customers be damned.

Maybe another 500,000 signature petition is in order. Just sayin' - hypothetically, of course.

WOW
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

Seems to me that the last time we lowly peons got involved (UBB), a better outcome was had than leaving things solely in CNOC's {cough}{cough} capable {cough}{cough} hands. Of course, CNOC's opinion on that may vary, seeing as how most CNOC members were OK with whatever UBB deal could be cut with Robellus as long as CNOC members made a buck - customers be damned.

Except the end result for UBB was still pretty damn bad.


True dat

@videotron.ca

said by 34764170:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Seems to me that the last time we lowly peons got involved (UBB), a better outcome was had than leaving things solely in CNOC's {cough}{cough} capable {cough}{cough} hands. Of course, CNOC's opinion on that may vary, seeing as how most CNOC members were OK with whatever UBB deal could be cut with Robellus as long as CNOC members made a buck - customers be damned.

Except the end result for UBB was still pretty damn bad.

For some it was bad maybe, for other CNOC members it was very welcomed.

Even CAIP stated that many of the so called indi's were all in favour of UBB and profiting off of it. This was not hidden.