dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

That would be a major PITA if we can't run home servers for whatever reason. I've been working up to doing just that eventually.

Plz don't let it be so. Its not like we're running data centers.

I'd feel so much better running my own Website/Forums/Blogs or whatever at home on my own equipment instead of in the untrusted cloud. Ofc the plan was to run benign stuff here at home and find a colo for heavier end things like an IRCd for instance on an appropriate host designed for that sort of thing somewhere down the road when I got my home set up completed and operational.

--
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
No intention of doing anything like that.... This has been there for a long time.. Nothing new here.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


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

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

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc
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".


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


waiting

@videotron.ca
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 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.


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.


waiting

@videotron.ca
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.