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

[Jack Coats]

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
>
>