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

[me-5yx05kfkO/aqeI1yJSURBw at public.gmane.org (Matthew Gillen)]

Jerry Feldman wrote:
> In general, having an 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
> second is that rule enforcement and interpretation is done by relatively
> low-level employees.

I'm convinced that what they're doing now isn't just some manager in their
abuse department with his head up his ass (or being strict in interpretation
of the rules), but a top-down directive to keep the service as "client-only"
as possible.  I have no doubt that you're correct about the original intent
and spirit of the rule.  But every indication I've seen (bandwidth throttling,
port-scanning, etc) leads me to believe that the original 'spirit' has
evaporated.  You couldn't do the things their doing right now (e.g. Sandvine),
on the scale they're doing them, without buy-in from the top.

Note that my service was shut off when they port-scanned my system (twice, a
week apart) and found an ssh server.  They had no idea whether I was abusing
it, or even /using/ it.  They didn't care.   I talked to several managers at
customer support, and they all agreed that the "Abuse dept" was doing what it
was supposed to do.

Matt