dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed


waiting

@videotron.ca
reply to waiting

Re: Teksavvy forbids running servers

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).



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

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.