Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: discussion: December 1999:
[aclug-L] Re: High-speed server access
Home

[aclug-L] Re: High-speed server access

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: aclug-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: High-speed server access
From: Carl D Cravens <raven@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:42:45 -0600 (CST)
Reply-to: aclug-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Jonathan Hall wrote:

> There is nothing in SouthWind's terms and conditions that says you cannot
> run a web server (or any other type of server) on one of their standard
> dialup accounts, to my knowledge.  I just reviewed the terms and conditions,
> and found nothing to prohibit it.

Unless they've changed their policies (and I've been given no notice that
they have, and they're supposed to give a certain amount of notice before
doing so) they have a "no keepalive" policy... you're technically not
allowed to defeat the timeout.

"We reserve the right to suspend or terminate a user's account at any time
for any reason. Some examples of what may result in the suspension or
termination of a user's account:" 

"Automating any communication over the connection to our systems for the
purpose of bypassing any time-out policy on an idle line."

Automated, unattended redialing was considered bypassing the time-out
policy. ("Was" and possibly only by some of the owners.)  Despite it not
being entirely clear, running a server off of a dial-up account was
considered a violation.  There was quite a bit of stuff that was never
written down... something I objected to, but I could never get the owners
to put some of our "unwritten policies" in writing.  Like the working
definition of "personal use" never got written down because the owners
couldn't agree on what was acceptable sharing and what wasn't.

I worked there for three years, and as an administrator for most of
that.  They rarely *enforced* their policies, but they have them.  I once
questioned why we didn't enforce our policies on someone who was *three
minutes* short of continuous connection for an entire month.  This is the
kind of user that caused session limits to be implemented.  But I never
got a good answer... they would rather punish innocent users with session
limits than enforce their policies against a user who uses over 700 hours
a month... the guy essentially got the service of a dedicated modem for
$20 a month.  

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Don't anthropomorphize computers.  They hate that.


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]