no server rule revisited [Was: Re: Thou shalt not question Comcast]

[gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org (Jerry Feldman)]

As I mentioned, I know that Comcast and its previous incarnations in=20
this region as ATTBI, MediaOne and Highway1 had that restriction in the=20
consumer agreement, but, according to a VP the no server intent was=20
primarily to prevent things like IRC servers and web servers for a=20
couple of valid reasons. One reason was that cable TV systems were=20
originally designed as one-way, and that the upload channels were=20
similar to the modem reverse channels. But, at the same time, hey=20
provided space for their customers to have their own web pages. The=20
other reason was security and overall bandwidth. In general, having an=20
ssh server or a mail server was fine as long as it was not abused.

One problem is, as you state, the rules are written by bureaucrats. The=20
second is that rule enforcement and interpretation is done by relatively =

low-level employees.
It is very difficult to try to write a rule that conveys the actual=20
intent. The same applies to laws and regulations. This is why we have=20
judges. In a case, the judge can view the entire situation and apply=20
some judgement where a cop is supposed to see things very black and=20
white. In a business, we have policies and procedures. Many times=20
someone will apply a policy in terms of "you can't do that", but a=20
manager is supposed to use both common sense and judgement.

On 11/26/2008 09:29 AM, Jack Coats wrote:
> My best basis for understanding is: they are not an ISP in their mind, =

> they are a 'cable company', and have
> not made the mental and philosophical transition.  I guess one could=20
> 'harden' their connection to make
> fingerprinting more of an issue, or make it look more like a 'supported=
' OS.
>
> But only allowing two OSes, basically the ones oriented to the more=20
> 'non-computer types', does seem a
> bit much, but it also shows their rules are written by bureaucrats and =

> not people with a broader technical
> understanding.
>
> We can blow off steam at them, but the real question is:
>
>   How can we live by our rules by making them think we are playing thei=
r=20
> game their way?
>
> Defining what they think their game is, I would guess, is
>   1) appear to use a supported OS
>   2) appear to not use 'excessive bandwidth'
>   3) appear to not be providing 'undesirable services'
>
> Now, how can we 'appear' to be model 'cable' citizens?
>
>  =20


--=20
Jerry Feldman <gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846