[e2e] Re: crippled Internet

Jon Crowcroft J.Crowcroft at cs.ucl.ac.uk
Wed Apr 18 07:43:59 PDT 2001

god forbid anyone provide CONTENT if they are not a 
specially HI paying customer :-)

god forbid anyone serve public domain MP3s, just in case they migh
accidentally serve copyrighted ones too

god forbid the users actually use bandwidth. might mess up the
business caswe for reselling it for a profit even
with IP header overheads

btw: define "visible performance degradation" without defining
_multiplexing_ :-)

i dunno......seems to me like these AUPs are approaching telco-ville
at an alarming rate....

note: i dont think someone provides an IP (or "Internet Service") if
they don' allow symmetric connection setup -  is this one for the
"trades description" again?

(would someone like to start a phone company that allows outgoing
calls only  -? not much of a business case:-)

In message < at>, RJ Atkinson typed:

 >>At 00:25 18/04/01, Vernon Schryver wrote:
 >>>What about the following words from 
 >>>http://www.home.com/support/aup/ ?
 >>>    You may not run a server in connection with the @Home
 >>>    residential service, nor may you provide network services to
 >>>    others via the @Home residential service. The @Home
 >>>    residential service includes personal Webspace accounts for
 >>>    publishing personal Web pages. Examples of prohibited uses
 >>>    include, but are not limited to, running servers for mail, http,
 >>>    ftp, irc, and dhcp, and multi-user interactive forums. 
 >>>I've seen reports that say that @Home employees interpret those words as prohibiting any program that does a passive TCP open, 
 >>>but that they also say that the AUP is not heavily enforced.
 >>        The AUP gives them legal aircover to shut down bandwidth
 >>hogs that are bandwidth hogs due to improper servers.  The most 
 >>common case I know of was folks with GNUtella or illegal (due 
 >>to copyright law) ftp/http servers with MP3s.  @Home only checks 
 >>for bandwidth hogs when there are performance complaints about 
 >>a specific residential subnet.  When there is a bandwidth hog
 >>identified due to that circumstance, there is nearly always
 >>(in my experience, it was ALWAYS an MP3 server) an inappropriate
 >>server.  For folks like most of us, @Home doesn't check or care
 >>about a small ftp or http server, provided it doesn't cause
 >>other customers to have visible performance degradation.
 >>        I might wish the US legal system were other than it is,
 >>but it is what it is.  The legal system drives the AUP text,
 >>not the actual practices of the operator.
 >>rja at inet.org



More information about the end2end-interest mailing list