Pretty much all Residential ISPs forbid commercial use over their connections. However not everyone actively enforces it (e.g. port blocking).
It's really there for the event a subscriber significantly abuses their connection (like hosting a website that generates a large volume of traffic). Residential service is for residential use. I don't see a problem with someone hosting an FTP server that they share with a dozen people, or hosting game servers and whatnot. I'm sure Google doesn't mind it either. But in the event someone decides to be frugal and use their $70/mo connection to host a bunch of a websites, generating a consistently large volume of traffic, yea... I'd shut them down too and stand firmly behind that language outlined in the TOS.
In the end, this is very standard language that pretty much all Residential ISPs include within their TOS. It's there as a technicality for most in the event there is serious abuse. No one should be using a Residential connection for something that requires a large volume of traffic while generating revenue. Otherwise we'd all be paying more for internet access at home. Not to mention this should really be an obvious restriction on both sides. Using a Residential connection with no firm SLA for business-use is about as dumb as it gets.
I still find it somewhat comical that people have something to complain about when they're receiving a symmetrical 1gbps connection for $70/mo. I'd imagine the use of a VPN would pretty much solve the whole "commercial-use" concern anyways. Google wouldn't inquire with the subscriber unless they were saturating the connection 24x7.
2013-Jul-31 11:13 am: ·
P Ness You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already Premium join:2001-08-29 way way out
You're being provided "Residential" service. If you're not using it in that manner, it's considered abuse. It's fairly straight forward really. You're paying less money for an internet connection based on the assumption you're not using it to generate revenue.
Also, you're not being restricted on how much you use necessarily. It's the purpose of use that's being questioned.
I suppose you could always get by these restrictions by ordering DIA from a carrier, but 1gbps would probably run you low-mid 4 figures a month. $70/month seems awfully cheap now, huh...
Networks are engineered on the assumption that typical conditions mean NOT 100% of customers running at 100% capacity at 100% of the time. A 1G "residential" connection would cost a LOT more under those conditions. I suspect online businesses operate at or near those conditions (or at least, they need to capability of doing so), hence the price differential. Am I missing something here?