That sucks.  I'm sure most people are violating at least one of these.  How strongly are these rules enforced.  So far I've only heard of Shaw complaining of high bandwidth usage.  Has anyone heard of web-servers, ftp-servers, dhcp servers.... being directly targeted?  That means that IPCop, Smoothwall, Apache.... for home use is actually violation the Shaw agreement?  Man, I feel like I'm in that McDonalds commercial *stealing* the BigMac.

BTW does anyone know if you can track total upload and download bytes with IPCop, traffic graphs aren't quite enough to show the total for the month........ err just curious, not for my home account or anything. ;-)

Curtis Sloan wrote:
I had a bit of a time finding the usage policy, so I thought I'd provide a
link and some documentation relevant to the discussion:

https://secure.shaw.ca/policy/Use-Policy.asp

"8.  Users must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict,
inhibit or degrade any other customer's use of the Services, nor represent
(in the sole judgement of Shaw) an unusually large burden on the network
itself, such as, but not limited to, peer to peer file sharing programs,
serving streaming video or audio, mail, http, ftp, irc, dhcp servers, and
multi-user interactive forums. The guidelines for Bandwidth Usage/month for
each business service package are the following: SOHO - 50 GigaByte;
Professional - 70 GigaByte; Business - 100 GigaByte (combined download and
upload). The guidelines for acceptable web site traffic include 300
MegaByte/month for Professional and 500 MegaByte/month for Business hosting
packages. Residential services do not have specific guidelines of this
nature as the Service is not intended for business applications. Shaw
reserves the right to set specific limits for Bandwidth Usage and charge for
excessive Bandwidth Usage for residential Services at any time. In addition,
users must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict, disrupt,
inhibit, degrade or impede Shaw's ability to deliver the Services and
monitor the Services, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network
services."

and...

"The residential Shaw Services are designed for personal Internet use. You
may not use the residential Shaw Services for commercial purposes. You may
not run a server in connection with the Shaw Services nor may you provide
network services to others via the Shaw Services. Examples of prohibited
servers and services include, but are not limited to, mail, http, ftp, irc,
dhcp servers, and multi-user interactive forums. Some Business services may
be exempt from these limitations."

HTH,
Curtis

-----Original Message-----
From: todd almond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: October 14, 2003 12:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: (clug-talk) isp blocking ports


The occasional game server probably wouldn't even be detected, but as
far as pop/imap goes the Acceptable Use Policy cops are sticklers for
the letter of the law.

Curtis Sloan wrote:

  
My definition of "service" is defined as busy, anonymous public or
    
organized
  
access (not necessarily "business" or "corporate").  For example, I
    
wouldn't
  
feel bad about running a game server on weekends, but running a DS 24/7
would break the spirit of the law.  Same would go for an e-mail server (for
example) -- I would feel okay forwarding my own DNS domain account and
running POP3/IMAP, but hosting a bunch of busy mailboxes would break the
spirit of the thing.

Is this how Shaw sees things too?

Curtis

-----Original Message-----
From: todd almond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: October 14, 2003 10:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: (clug-talk) isp blocking ports


If it is suspected that someone with a residential or SOHO account (no
servers allowed) is running a service then a port scan will be done.
Usually high bandwidth usage is a clue.

Curtis Sloan wrote:



    
Do they also do the odd port scan, or only if there is suspicious
      
bandwidth
  
usage?

Curtis

-----Original Message-----
From: todd almond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: October 13, 2003 10:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: (clug-talk) isp blocking ports


Nope, no port blocking. Except for a brief period when the blaster worm
was out, port 135 was shut-off.
(I'm a TSR there...)

Jon Copeland wrote:





      
does anyone know if shaw blocks, among other things, port 80?
and if they are is there a way around this?  im looking at hosting a LOW
TRAFFIC picture gallery for my family around the world and i'd like to
accomplish this using my existing infrastructure and not incur any
additional costs.

jon









        


      


    

-- 

Jason Louie BSc. CPSC
Web Applications Developer
Sorex Software Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to