servers on @home

rudeboyz

unread,

Nov 14, 2001, 12:58:41 PM11/14/01

to

This is what my @home subscriber agreement says about servers.

"(b) FTP/HTTP Service Setup
Customer should be aware that when using the service to access the internet
or any other online network or service, there are certain applications, such
as FTP (File Transfer Protocol) server or HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer
Protocol) server, which may be used to allow other service users and
internet users to gain access to Customer's computer. If the customer
chooses to run such applications, customer should take the appropriate
security measures. neither At&t or @home network shall have any liability
whatsoever for any claims, losses, actions, damages, suits, or proceedings
resulting from, arising out of or otherwise relating to the use of such
applications by Customer, including without limitation, damages resulting
from others accessing Customer's computer." Now does that say i can run a
server (but being warned about the security issues) or does it say Not to
run a server, against the aup.

Bob Mergner

unread,

Nov 14, 2001, 2:19:25 PM11/14/01

to

The agreement posted at
http://home-members.excite.com/m_policies/acceptablepolicy.html says:

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. For information about @Work products for
commercial or network services purposes, including commercial-grade remote
LAN access, please see http://work.home.net.

The agreement posted at http://www.home.com/support/aup/ says:

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. For information about @Work products for
commercial or network services purposes, including commercial-grade remote
LAN access, please see http://work.home.net.

This is the acceptable use policy. I don't know about a "subscriber
agreement"

"rudeboyz" <dans...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:lhyI7.19579$gQ1.8...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...

James Knott

unread,

Nov 14, 2001, 10:40:05 PM11/14/01

to

rudeboyz wrote:

My take on this, is that they allow limited access, but not a publicly
available server. i.e. you can remotely access your computer or share
files with a friend, but you can't let anyone access it.

--

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.

James Knott

unread,

Nov 14, 2001, 10:42:31 PM11/14/01

to

However, my agreement is with Rogers, not @home, and the Rogers AUP
allows access in terms similar to the original message. Also, Rogers
and many other companies are cutting ties with @home, so the @home AUP
will soon become irrelevant.

Bob Mergner wrote:

--

Randy Day

unread,

Nov 14, 2001, 11:31:24 PM11/14/01

to

I had ATT@home installed today. I was asked to sign a "Customer Agreement"
document, which stated, among other things, that I have received a copy of
the latest "Subscriber Agreement" and that I agree to be bound by the
"Subscriber Agreement". Today I did, indeed, receive a document entitled
"Subscriber Agreement" that contains the wording quoted by rudeboyz below.
In addition, it contains no wording that prohibits servers. In particular,
the "Prohibited Uses of the Service" section of the agreement prohibits
things like unlawful purposes, copyright infringement, activities that
disrupt the service, and connecting the modem to computers outside the
customer's premises. However, no where does it prohibit servers. In
addition, the "Customer Agreement" that I signed states that in the case of
conflict between the "Subscriber Agreement" and any other "Agreements", the
"Subscriber Agreement" shall "control." The "Subscriber Agreement" states
that ATT@home can, from time to time, modify the Subscriber Agreement and
will notify me via email and online annoucements to such changes.

I received the Subscriber Agreement today. I have not subsequently received
any annoucements or emails of recent changes to the Subscriber Agreement. I
would argue that I am not currently prohibited from running servers. Of
course, ATT@home is free to change their terms at will, and being the only
cable game in town, I would have to take it or leave it.

Randy-

"Bob Mergner" <bmergner@home.-nothankyou-com> wrote in message
news:1tzI7.216719$5A3.80...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...

Randy Day

unread,

Nov 14, 2001, 11:44:00 PM11/14/01

to

Huh? How do interpret this to mean that the customer may run servers as long
as only the customer accesses the servers when the wording includes "which

may be used to allow other service users and internet users to gain access

to Customer's computer."?

Incidently, this paragraph is in a section entitled "Service
Characteristics" and is clearly intended to alert the Customer to the
dangers of being hooked up to the Internet as part of the effort to idemnify
ATT@home from liability. This is not in the "Prohibited Uses" section of
the agreement.

Randy-

"James Knott" <the.lights.are....@home.com> wrote in message
news:pOGI7.188744$YL3.57...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...

rudeboyz

unread,

Nov 14, 2001, 11:47:37 PM11/14/01

to

unread,

Nov 15, 2001, 12:53:38 PM11/15/01

to

your agreement is with both.

James Knott

unread,

Nov 15, 2001, 10:11:59 PM11/15/01

to

I signed on with Rogers and was given a Rogers AUP. I was not given an
@home AUP. Anyway, for me it's irrelevant, as I don't run servers that
are accessable beyond my local network and I'll be off @home one week
from today. My new address will be on rogers.com.

scott wrote:

--

Charles Newman

unread,

Nov 26, 2001, 3:42:52 PM11/26/01

to

Well, the problem lies with two conflicting rules.
One allows remote access, but the other says no servers.
My particular franchaise told me no HTTP severs, but
FTP servers would be OK, as long as I allow no more
than one user at a time in from the outside, and that I
had to use a port other than 21 to put my FTP server
online.
Different cable companies and franchaises will
interpret the conflicting rules in their own manner. So
check with your cable company for their interpretation
of the rules.

"rudeboyz" <dans...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:lhyI7.19579$gQ1.8...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...

Charles Newman

unread,

Nov 26, 2001, 3:58:06 PM11/26/01

to

From what the original poster said, it appears that
whatever cable company he is on, has decided to allow
servers on their part of the system, although the @Home
AUP says not to do so.
I can go onto one of several proxy lists on the
Internet, and and as many as 75 @Home customer
connections, nationwide, that are running proxies
in violation of the AUP, and that the cable companies
appear not to be doing much about it. Enforcement is
up to the local cable companies. That is why you hear
of, say Cox, enforcing that part of the AUP much more
strictly, than, say AT&T.
I can go to one adult chat server, and find someone
operating a server, on their cable connection, offering
free downloads of certain adult videos (nothing
"hardcore", just some spanking oriented stuff), and the
person doing this is doing this off her @Home
connection, and has been doing it for some time. She
is bascially running a server, in violation of the AUP.
Obviously, whatever cable company she is on, has
decided not to enforce its AUP, becuase of the size of
some of the downloads (some approaching 17 meg),
the excessive bandwidth use would had to have caught
somebody's eye at the @Home service by now.
Either her cable company, or @Home has decided to
not be vigorous in enforcing that part of the AUP. I
notice that downloads from her server only run at about
128K max. Has @Home put a cap on bandwidth in
some areas or something? I don't download from her
very often, but every once in a while, I may watch a
video or two from her.
And she has been doing this for some time. Has
@Home really gotten that lax in enforcing the AUP or
something?

"Bob Mergner" <bmergner@home.-nothankyou-com> wrote in message
news:1tzI7.216719$5A3.80...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...