4 ms·

I'd think that most ISP's terms and conditions don't specify the amount of bandwidth used for hosting public websites. They just don't allow server use in gener

by dakna 6y ago

I'd think that most ISP's terms and conditions don't specify the amount of bandwidth used for hosting public websites. They just don't allow server use in general, so it's a grey area and it could be enforced if needed.

_wldu 6y ago
The ISPs happily allow brute-force bots to smash away at anything that provides remote access (SSH, RDP, VNC). Why would a web server be considered different?
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Because they can nail you on a TOS violation.
  - _wldu 6y ago
    A web server is no different from a SSH server. Many of the edge devices the ISPs provide have them built in.
    - somehnguy 6y ago
      That changes nothing about it being a TOS violation. I don't particularly agree with it, but thats what it is.
      - deathanatos 6y ago
        The point this parent comment is trying to make is that they're both technically ToS violations (both are running servers), but with the SSH server, there's a whole lot of traffic that the ISP could do something about (the botnets), and the owner would love it (not having my network constantly attacked would be good). If an ISP is concerned about traffic volume, take out the botnets hammering away at the doors — the occasional guy's private website getting slashdotted is small, temporary potatoes.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
This got me interested. In UK, just checked my ToS with my isp, and i have nothing of the sort. It does, however, have a policy against 'excessive usage', which is left conpletelt undefined and they have a policy of 'Acceptable Content' which is equally vague and ill-defined. So I guess they do have recourse if i started hosting a pornsite and it became popular, but that's about it.
snazz 6y ago
One of my friends got a ToS warning from Comcast for doing something similar. Usually, they seem to only enforce the rule against pirates and people using a ton of bandwidth, but it's not a good idea in general.

by dakna 6y ago

_wldu 6y ago

The ISPs happily allow brute-force bots to smash away at anything that provides remote access (SSH, RDP, VNC). Why would a web server be considered different?

blaser-waffle 6y ago
Because they can nail you on a TOS violation.
- _wldu 6y ago
  A web server is no different from a SSH server. Many of the edge devices the ISPs provide have them built in.
  - somehnguy 6y ago
    That changes nothing about it being a TOS violation. I don't particularly agree with it, but thats what it is.
    - deathanatos 6y ago
      The point this parent comment is trying to make is that they're both technically ToS violations (both are running servers), but with the SSH server, there's a whole lot of traffic that the ISP could do something about (the botnets), and the owner would love it (not having my network constantly attacked would be good). If an ISP is concerned about traffic volume, take out the botnets hammering away at the doors — the occasional guy's private website getting slashdotted is small, temporary potatoes.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

This got me interested. In UK, just checked my ToS with my isp, and i have nothing of the sort. It does, however, have a policy against 'excessive usage', which is left conpletelt undefined and they have a policy of 'Acceptable Content' which is equally vague and ill-defined. So I guess they do have recourse if i started hosting a pornsite and it became popular, but that's about it.

snazz 6y ago

One of my friends got a ToS warning from Comcast for doing something similar. Usually, they seem to only enforce the rule against pirates and people using a ton of bandwidth, but it's not a good idea in general.