4 ms·
Have these anti-server ToS clauses ever been enforced? To me it seems like a “cover your ass” clause they put in there to be able to disconnect people who put
by Nextgrid 5y ago
Have these anti-server ToS clauses ever been enforced?
To me it seems like a “cover your ass” clause they put in there to be able to disconnect people who put undue stress on a shitty oversubscribed asymmetric network by hosting a very popular and heavy website, or if they notice a large business website being hosted and need an excuse to force the company to upgrade to a business-grade plan. It does not necessarily mean they’ll enforce it religiously without a good technical & financial justification.
As long as your overall usage remains within the bounds of a typical home user, you’ll be fine. Keep in mind that nowadays home users use a ton of upload bandwidth for things like cloud storage/backups and don’t get cut off even if they saturate the pipe for hours, so you have a pretty wide margin to play with. Torrenting and P2P also use upload heavily and have been around for decades without many horror stories that I know of (the main problem with torrents is copyright infringement and not bandwidth usage).
A self-hosted personal website or some apps (Nextcloud, etc) for personal usage will be a drop in the bucket compared to the above.
- gruez 5y ago> Have these anti-server ToS clauses ever been enforced? AFAIK some ISPs block common ports (eg. 80/443). That sounds like "enforced" to me.