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

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

David Kramer wrote:
> Matthew Gillen wrote:
>> Same thing happened to me a few months ago (search the archives of this list).
>>  Except I dragged it out a few days by convincing them to take the port 25
>> block off a couple times.  But ultimately the same outcome.  I ignored their
>> warning about running web, mail, and ssh servers (oh, the horrors!), and while
>> I was out of town on business travel, they shut off my internet access for
>> "abuse".
>>
>> I ended up buying some hosting on 1and1 for my web site, and using dyndns'
>> mailhop service to get my mail.
>>
>> Still makes me mad.
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding your point of view.  You decided to go
> with a cheap service that explicitly forbids you to run servers, then
> you run servers, and are mad at them when they block the servers?
> They're enforcing the agreement you signed up for.  Why are you mad?
> 
> Sorry to be so objective about this, but if running a server is
> important to you, then get internet access that allows servers.

That's a fair question.  My contention is that cannot call yourself an
"internet service provider" if you have that restriction.  But let me
enumerate some of the issues:
 1) the TOS when I originally signed up for the service didn't include that
clause.  They added it at some arbitrary time, and didn't notify me of the
changes (they expect you to check their website and re-read the TOS every day
or something)

 2) I'm not asking for "support" for running my servers, I'm just asking that
they don't interfere with me (and I'm perfectly happy dealing with DNS in a
DHCP environment on my own); the only support calls they've ever gotten from
me was when my connectivity was completely down.  By analogy, how many of you
have Comcast or Verizon, and yet don't use one of their "supported" OSes
(Windows or MacOS 10.x)?  What if one day they did OS fingerprinting on your
box and figured out you weren't running one of their "supported" OSes, and
shut off your service?  Would you be mad? If so, why?

 3) it's nonsensical: there are tons of applications that would fall under
their definition of a "public server".  For example, they've been told that
they can't block bittorrent traffic, but a bittorrent client acts as a public
server (in the sense that people you don't know are connecting from your
machine and downloading from you).
   a) since many internet applications act as servers, or could be interpreted
that way, any enforcement of a "no server rule" is, to quote a Comcast
executive's testimony to the FCC, "arbitrary and capricious".

 4) the traditional argument against allowing servers was that it implied you
would be a bandwidth hog.  It's clear now that file-sharing eats up more
bandwidth than even moderate-traffic web-sites.

I would go even further, and say that allowing ISPs to have "no server rules"
stifles innovation.  Let's say I'm developing a service like what MarkW is
doing.  How can I be sure that my customer's ISPs aren't going to interpret my
app as a "public server"?  And even if they don't /now/, there is no
protection for me that they won't change their mind at some arbitrary point in
the future (perhaps when they develop a competing service).  It would be
ridiculous to ask my customers to pay twice as much for the same bandwidth to
their ISP to get a "business" account, just to ensure that their ISP doesn't
harass them.

I could go on and on, but I think I've hit the high points.

>> As soon as it's convenient for me, I'm switching to the lesser of two evils
>> (Verizon FIOS).
> 
> How will that help in the long run?  Verizon FiOS forbid servers too.
> You'll likely face the same problem with them eventually.

You're right, it won't help. It's just that I now have a hatred for Comcast
and I want to be petty (and take my $120+/mo for phone/tv/internet to their
competitor).

> I used SpeakEasy for many years as a satisfied customer, until Verizon
> prooved so incompetent they couldn't keep my copper running clean.  Now
> Business, which allows any servers I want.

I have a philosophical problem paying for a level of support and reliability
that my family pictures web site just doesn't need, simply because there are
no levels of service in between "residential" and "business".  Plus all the
stuff I said above (oh, and Speakeasy doesn't service my neighborhood, I
looked long and hard and my only options are Comcast and Verizon).