dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
24

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

Taylortbb to mlord

Premium Member

to mlord

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

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).

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

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

HeadSpinning

Member

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.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Ahh but is there anything hidden in the tarrifs?
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

said by sbrook:

Ahh but is there anything hidden in the tarrifs?

Nope

»www.bce.ca/aboutbce/regu ··· 410_____

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

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.

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

Taylortbb to sbrook

Premium Member

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.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to TSI Marc

Member

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.

TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON

TwiztedZero to Taylortbb

Premium Member

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.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to HeadSpinning

Premium Member

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.

Worm words
@videotron.ca

Worm words to HeadSpinning

Anon

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

HeadSpinning to TSI Marc

Member

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...
mlord
join:2006-11-05
Kanata, ON

1 edit

mlord to Worm words

Member

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

Worm words

Anon

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 Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

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.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to TSI Marc

Premium Member

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 Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Sure.. When we deal with it thoroughly like I promise to do eventually.. I'll be happy to discuss it then
Expand your moderator at work

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

Taylortbb to TwiztedZero

Premium Member

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.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to MaynardKrebs

Member

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.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

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

HeadSpinning

Member

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.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

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
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned) to MaynardKrebs

Member

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

True dat

Anon

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.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Right but painting CNOC as bad because some of its members may have different views on this isn't the right way to go...

Those who are in favor of that.. Can still do that if they want and I'm sure some do.

The purpose of CNOC is to pool resources together because its just very disruptive to our businesses if we spend too much time on that stuff.. I think we're a prime example of this... I've described this in my latest blog post..

We were certainly never in favor of UBB and I think that's been pretty clear... Yet we were one of the key players in setting up CNOC...

Don't forget that by creating CNOC it also raised the knowledge level of many indies.. Sometimes some people hold certain views when they don't have all the facts.. Once they have a better view of things, their views tend to change. In general, I believe that the vast majority of time CNOC's views are in line with the interest of consumers.. Maybe one day that will change but right now I would say that opposing CNOC can only hurt consumers.

CAIP.. Well, if that worked so well CNOC would never have come about.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned) to True dat

Member

to True dat
said by True dat :

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.

For most of the indie ISPs the end result of UBB was bad, period. End of story.

If anything it was welcomed because it was the suck less of the two options but it was/is still really bad.

The rates that were decided upon are still crazy insane and need to be revised.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to True dat

Member

to True dat
said by True dat :

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.

The point is that the incumbents should not have downstream control over the packages and pricing offered by independent ISPs. We should be free to offer whatever packages we want at the retail level without the incumbents controlling how services are offered.

A similar comparison would be a sugar supplier telling you that although they will sell you sugar, you MUST sell it in individual teaspoon sized packages, just like they do.

Capacity Based Billing was a victory in as much as it allows independent ISPs to package services however they want to - albeit the capacity rate is absurd.

As near as anyone can tell, it was derived by back computing $/GB in to $/MBPS based on a synthetic conversion value that attempts to represent the impact in speed at peak period of downloading a certain volume of data.

They might as well be trying to convert furlongs per fortnight in to megabits per second.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Actually, some manufacturers DO control packaging and things like warranty. Some variants of products must be sold in their original packaging. Some versions of the same products are packed specifically for some stores to sell at different prices with different warranty. There are a lot of products you will see "Not for retail sale" or "Not for individual sale"

They have a great deal of *influence* over price now creating the MSRP ("Suggested") when not so many years ago it was the MRP.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

said by sbrook:

Actually, some manufacturers DO control packaging and things like warranty. Some variants of products must be sold in their original packaging. Some versions of the same products are packed specifically for some stores to sell at different prices with different warranty. There are a lot of products you will see "Not for retail sale" or "Not for individual sale"

They have a great deal of *influence* over price now creating the MSRP ("Suggested") when not so many years ago it was the MRP.

This is perfectly acceptable when you're selling the manufacturer's brand, and they don't have a monopoly over the supply of the inputs.