Will your ISP provider charge you for hosting your own server?

[Sesquipedalian]

Hi,

 

I set up my computer so that I could host my own public internet server that is accessed at an IP address rather than domain name.. if I get traffic will my ISP provider charge me for it?

 

Thanks.

[Daniel0]

Why don't you ask your ISP? There is no way we can know as each ISP has its own policies. They may or may not require you to upgrade to a corporate account or something like that.

[corbin]

It's in their Terms of Service, I'm sure.  If they have website (an ISP without a website would be ironic), I'm sure their ToS is on there.

[Mchl]

If you're asking about my ISP, then no. They will not charge me extra. I just have limited monthly bandwidth within my plan, and if I exceed it, my connection speed drops to 56kbps.

[Stooney]

If you're asking about my ISP, then no. They will not charge me extra. I just have limited monthly bandwidth within my plan, and if I exceed it, my connection speed drops to 56kbps.

 

That would be awful.  How much do you get a month?  I have both 16Mb Cable and 1.5mb DSL without limits.  Although Comcast did start the 250Gb/month limit in October, I don't get close though.

[.josh]

In my ISP's ToS (Charter):

 

Customer may not establish a web page using a server located at Customer’s home. Customer will not use, or allow others to use, Customer’s home computer as a web server, FTP server, file server or game server or to run any other server applications or to provide network or host services to others via Charter’s network. Customer will not use, or allow others to use, the Service to operate any type of business or commercial enterprise, including but not limited to, IP address translation or similar facilities intended to provide additional access. Customer will not advertise that the Service is available for use by third parties or unauthorized users. Customer will not resell or redistribute, or allow others to resell or redistribute, access to the Service in any manner, including but not limited to wireless technology.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that you will find something similar in every other ISP's ToS.  Everybody else under the sun charges you extra to have a 'business' or 'commercial' account; why not your ISP?  It's the de facto standard that if you are somehow making money off of someone else's product/service, they want a cut.  Hosting something 'public, for free' is usually classified under such an account, just the same.  Doesn't matter if you're not making money off it.  You could be lying.  Even if you aren't, just because you forgo potential money, doesn't mean they are obligated to be likewise altruistic. 

 

If you claim your ISP has no such restriction, I'd go reread the fine print. 

 

 

[corbin]

I'm pretty sure I've violated all of my ISP's terms.  Oops.  No really.  Oops.

[Daniel0]

Customer will not resell or redistribute, or allow others to resell or redistribute, access to the Service in any manner, including but not limited to wireless technology.

 

Does that mean that you are violating ToS if you are too stupid to encrypt your signal?

[.josh]

Customer will not resell or redistribute, or allow others to resell or redistribute, access to the Service in any manner, including but not limited to wireless technology.

 

Does that mean that you are violating ToS if you are too stupid to encrypt your signal?

 

Dunno...arguing your ignorance might actually keep you from being in violation.  Or at least, keep your ISP from taking some sort of action on you, if they do indeed consider it so.  I mentioned just such a situation with my mom a while back, in some thread or other.  Her ISP did cut her off initially, but they reinstated her service after she talked to them.  Dunno if they took pity on her or if her ignorance in the matter did indeed mean she was innocent.  I didn't ask her. 

 

Regardless, I don't think I'd be violating ToS simply because it was unencrypted.  Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure an event involving said unencrypted LAN would have to actually take place, before they could even consider whether it was breach of contract or not.  But even still, what if someone manages to crack it?  They couldn't blame you for that.  Or they shouldn't, anyways.  I'm looking at that word "allow" and I'm thinking it boils down to your intention(s) in the situation. 

[Daniel0]

But I suppose that if they wanted to be asses then they could just terminate a such person's account. How are you going to prove that you were ignorant and didn't leave it open for public usage intentionally?

 

Any wireless router I've ever used and/or setup has always presented me with a guide advising me to turn encryption on though, so I fail to see how some people don't do it unless they perhaps are buying enterprise grade routers where you expect a certain level of competency of the end users.

 

But even still, what if someone manages to crack it?  They couldn't blame you for that.  Or they shouldn't, anyways.

 

I wouldn't imagine anything would happen. You wouldn't be charged with murder if I stole your gun and shot someone with it either.

 

I suppose you're right though. Leaving my door unlocked (or even letting someone in) doesn't mean that everybody may steal my shit.

[.josh]

But I suppose that if they wanted to be asses then they could just terminate a such person's account. How are you going to prove that you were ignorant and didn't leave it open for public usage intentionally?

 

How am I  going to prove my innocence?  Dunno how you guys do it over there, but over here, law is innocent until proven guilty.  All I have to do is say I was ignorant.  Burden of proof is on them. 

 

Any wireless router I've ever used and/or setup has always presented me with a guide advising me to turn encryption on though, so I fail to see how some people don't do it unless they perhaps are buying enterprise grade routers where you expect a certain level of competency of the end users.

 

You know, that's the very first thing I asked my mom when she called me.  She bought her wifi router and it did indeed come with an install cd and it does indeed have a wizard but she swears she didn't remember it asking anything about encryption.  Don't get me wrong, I love my mom, but old people are...I don't want to say stupid, but they're some kind of something.  I mean, I 'guess' it's possible the wizard did not mention securing it, but I mean come on, wtf ever. 

[Daniel0]

But I suppose that if they wanted to be asses then they could just terminate a such person's account. How are you going to prove that you were ignorant and didn't leave it open for public usage intentionally?

 

How am I  going to prove my innocence?  Dunno how you guys do it over there, but over here, law is innocent until proven guilty.  All I have to do is say I was ignorant.  Burden of proof is on them. 

 

Yeah, we are innocent until proven guilty, the fact that you left it open even though the ToS explicitly prohibited it remains. Sure, you could claim ignorance, but I could also claim that I didn't know shooting you could kill you. It's just a matter of whether your ignorance is believable or not. If you were considered an experienced user then it would be difficult to believe you didn't know. If, however, you weren't then the aforementioned guide would tell you, and if not then at least it would be written somewhere in the manual. If you claim to be an inexperienced user of that type of equipment then it would be logical to assume that you would read the manual to figure out how to use your equipment properly. I know most people do not bother with manuals, but that isn't really an excuse in my opinion. Otherwise every single crime or contractual breach could be voided by ignorance.

 

I'm quite sure your insurance company wouldn't cover your losses if someone stole your things if you forgot to lock your door. In Denmark they wouldn't, and here a locked door is what separates burglary from theft.

[.josh]

the fact that you left it open even though the ToS explicitly prohibited it remains.

 

Ah but the ToS does not specifically prohibit you from having an insecure LAN.  It specifically says "... allow others to ...". 

 

Sure, you could claim ignorance, but I could also claim that I didn't know shooting you could kill you. It's just a matter of whether your ignorance is believable or not.

 

Right.  But burden of proof remains on them, regardless of how believable it is.  You can sit on the stand and tell the court you didn't know shooting someone could kill them.  That may sound absurd to most people, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand.  Prosecution would still have to prove you are lying, no matter how silly or stupid your claim is.

 

If you were considered an experienced user then it would be difficult to believe you didn't know. If, however, you weren't then the aforementioned guide would tell you, and if not then at least it would be written somewhere in the manual.

 

They aren't psychic.  They don't know what my experience level is.  That's why they have to prove it. 

 

If you claim to be an inexperienced user of that type of equipment then it would be logical to assume that you would read the manual to figure out how to use your equipment properly. I know most people do not bother with manuals, but that isn't really an excuse in my opinion.

 

Those two sentences contradict each other.  If most people do not bother with manuals, then it would not be logical to assume one would read the manual.  But nonetheless, making a statement like "most people do not bother with manuals" is speculation, and would be treated as such, in court.  The only reason I point out the inconsistency is because you believe that most people don't bother, and yet say it's logical to assume that they would. 

 

Otherwise every single crime or contractual breach could be voided by ignorance.

 

Oh come on now.  Again, I don't know how things go over on your side of the ocean, but over here, you can buy innocence.  All you have to do is figure out the price tag for the crime.  Yeah, that's not how it 'officially' goes, but without exception, you see it happening every single day.  And it's not really so much about buying innocence per se, it's finding the right loopholes and hoops to jump through.  You can walk out a free man for virtually everything.  You just have to say the magic words. 

[Daniel0]

the fact that you left it open even though the ToS explicitly prohibited it remains.

 

Ah but the ToS does not specifically prohibit you from having an insecure LAN.  It specifically says "... allow others to ...".

 

I suppose that depends on how you interpret it. Leaving it open creates a kind of "ACL-allow" for people to use it in the "Can X do this? [Yes/No]" sense where the default is "Yes".

 

Right.  But burden of proof remains on them, regardless of how believable it is.  You can sit on the stand and tell the court you didn't know shooting someone could kill them.  That may sound absurd to most people, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand.  Prosecution would still have to prove you are lying, no matter how silly or stupid your claim is.

 

I meant your own perception of your experience. If you consider yourself experienced then you should know. If not, then you should have RTFM because that's what its for - figuring out how your product works and how you are supposed to use it.

 

If you claim to be an inexperienced user of that type of equipment then it would be logical to assume that you would read the manual to figure out how to use your equipment properly. I know most people do not bother with manuals, but that isn't really an excuse in my opinion.

 

Those two sentences contradict each other.  If most people do not bother with manuals, then it would not be logical to assume one would read the manual.  But nonetheless, making a statement like "most people do not bother with manuals" is speculation, and would be treated as such, in court.  The only reason I point out the inconsistency is because you believe that most people don't bother, and yet say it's logical to assume that they would. 

 

I don't think it's contradictory. A manual is meant to be read if you do not already possess the knowledge it contains. You may for instance find that the manual of your microwave says that you shouldn't dry your pets in it. Apparently that is sufficient to protect the manufacturer from lawsuits. This sets a precedent for that it would be logical to assume that the end user would have read the accompanying manual of a product. It's your own choice if you choose not to read important information in the same way that we still punish people who broke our rules here even if they didn't bother to read them.

 

If you genuinely didn't know, and there was nowhere in the product (or the things that follow the product (e.g. manual)) stated that not encrypting the signal would enable everybody within range to use it and that it could potentially create a security risk, then you would have a good case, but I think most manuals (or installation guides) say this. Checking this would be fairly easy in the case of a dispute. If the manual didn't mention this then it sucks.

[.josh]

The point is that the language of the ToS dictates rules for actions, not 'states of being.'  Whether my LAN is secure or not is moot.  It's a matter of whether or not it was actually used for something that's against the ToS.