djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to vpnuser
Re: what about private servers?
quote:
Sending email, IMs, files to friends, uploading a webpage to a server or even posting on message boards
From a technical standpoint, one could define a server application as one which waits for and accepts a connection on a port. You can do all of the above things without a server connection. The only minor exception to that rule is standard mode FTP - it will open up a port and the remote service connects to it.
Servers are forbidden by the AUP, yet they don't block the majority of the ports used to run servers. If they really wanted to stop them altogether, they could pretty easily, but choose not to. As long as you don't create a problem, it's not likely that they're going to notice or take action.
Personally, however, I hate the "no-server" clauses in the AUPs. I shouldn't have to feel like an "abuser" because I want to log into my PC at home when I'm away, or because I want to log into my PVR's scheduler (all using piddly amounts of bandwidth, compared to p2p). Those sorts of things are part of the exciting world of always-on access. If Comcast doesn't want people running high traffic and/or business websites from their residential connections, why can't they just specify that and "legalize" servers that are used responsibly?
-- Rob
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
CatScratch
Premium
join:2003-09-10
West Jordan, UT
·Vonage
| Like many threads before this one have stated, Comcast doesn't really care if you don't "abuse" the bandwidth. They do of course want to add the clause for the right to boot that one "abuser". Run your server apps responsibly and if you truly are a getting 'business' trafic, go with a different option. |
