dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
20

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

Taylortbb to sbrook

Premium Member

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.

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

TwiztedZero

Premium Member

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.

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

Taylortbb

Premium Member

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.