Access
Does anyone care that the customer agreements for Verizon's and Comcast's broadband services say You Can't Run a Server? (and We Reserve the Right To Change Any and Every Aspect of Your Online Access and This Agreement Without Notice?)
I know that internet users don't necessarily want freedom of action. Heck, the internet looks dark and dangerous to many people. But in light of the Markoff and Waldrop books I exclaimed over earlier this week, I'm feeling bolder. How can the provision of online access be so easily constrained? There isn't a whisper of a mainstream media murmur about this.
Maybe it doesn't matter — maybe running a server is something that only extremists would do. But don't we want to defend the (lawful) actions of extremists?
And if these limitations stem from bandwidth worries, why aren't there concerns about the absence of significant players who can both provide symmetric broadband access and support the freedom to run servers? Why not have cheap “no server” broadband available to most of us, and slightly more expensive “you can run a server” broadband available for other (ordinary, non-enterprise) people?
And how about those easily-amendable subscriber agreements? The argument must be that Verizon-SBC/Comcast-TW have no incentive to make their customers angry — so they'll be reasonable and we needn't worry.
But I'm worried anyway.
++++++
Verizon 3.6(E): If you subscribe to Broadband Service. . .You may not use the Broadband Service to host any type of server personal or commercial in nature.
Comcast 5(b): Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Service is for personal and non-commercial use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, “web hosting” or other similar applications, for any business enterprise, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network.
(by the way, how can Comcast ensure that no subscriber runs a “business enterprise”? I'll bet lots of people do business using Comcast broadband.)
Comments
7 Responses to “Access”
Got something to say?
You hit on it with your last sentence. These contracts aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on, because they are mostly uneforceable from a practical standpoint. Sure Comcast, Verizon, et al could technically speaking starting blocking ports and k-lining subscribers the instant they put up an ftp server, but it isn't cost effective for them long-term or short-term. The most pernicious thing they can do without losing subscribers or seriously alienating people is to cap upstream bandwidth - and it is the bandwidth that they ultimately care about - not liability for users who run servers, customer support costs, or some nefarious political agenda to squelch speech, or whatever it is you think motivates them.
Thanks, that's helpful.
Susan
Keep in mind that over the last few months many ISP's *have* begun blocking ports, specifically Port 25. Now, many ISP's (including Optimum Online) require that you use their mail server in order to send mail. This was done to cut down on spam being sent through compromised machines. off of but I can't…could you help me?”). It's been done and it hasn't caused a backlash.
To have a free, open port 25 you must do exactly what Professor Crawford asks about, namely, get the “business” (read: 3-4x more expensive) plan.
How many were affected and cared about it? I did but I know of no others in my circle of friends. Blocking ports won't make them lose subscribers (”Hi ISP, I'm trying to download
-Adam
Yes, it does really irk me that I can't run a server from my home machine. I have Verizon DSL. I have a router, and behind it a RedHat linux machine, a windows machine fully patched and virus/spyware scanned, and two Macs on the network. Yet they don't trust me? What are they really afraid of?
The contracts also have the wonderful provision that you can't share your connection with others. So technically I couldn't remove the password from my wireless router. It would be nice to have the option to split the cost with a neighbor.
This has always bothered me about access accounts. I don't run a server, but it's on my list of things I'd like to learn how to do. And if not at home, then where?
The last time I changed jobs, port 25 restrictions that weren't transparent left me thinking I'd sent everyone I knew my new contact info. In fact, hardly any of the messages got through, as I discovered over time.
I object to the restrictions, but what I really object to is the lack of transparency.
The two biggest problems I see with such clauses is that if enforced as implied, legitimate non-server traffic could be blocked and such blocking is easy to get around. For example, I can open an SSH session (SSH is like telnet, but secure) to my PC at home in order to perform some kind of maintenance task. Or, I might purchase software to put on a computer that monitors my home, a strictly non-server, non-commercial application. The smart thing for any ISP to do is to sell 'X' amount of bits per second for 'X' dollars, and if a customer runs an SMTP server that turns into the spam relay from hell (SRFH), then that customer ends up with no bandwidth for their own enjoyment. In such a situation, the SMTP server would probably end up blackholed, and then they'd have their bandwidth back, but no email. Verizon wouldn't really lose a thing, except risk being blamed for their customers' mistakes (like running an SMTP server without spam prevention measures). What's worse, being blamed for some customers' mistakes, or being seen as providing conspicuously lower quality of service to everyone? That's verizon's call, I guess.
Hmm. Let's see: I'm a self-employed graphic designer, using a Mac which can function as an FTP server to transfer the often, very large (relative to what is reasonable emailing size), customer graphic files.
Yes, these clauses could hinder my ability to run a home-based business, and limit my ability to share documents.