dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
36
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

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.

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


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

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.

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.


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


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

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

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


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


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

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:28
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:28
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