Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
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 '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 '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 their 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? Matthew Gillen wrote: > 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). > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |