| I thought most of those clauses related to hosting web sites rather than
| races....are you sure you're not being paranoid?!  ;o>
| Ben

DEDICATED
| server.  I occaisionally host races...my son sometimes hosts Half Life
| games.  But we don't leave it on for hours unattended.  Now this 'may' be

| and they complain..there is always dsl...
|   I'm pretty much in the mindset, they want my $30 dollars..soon to $36
more
| than they want to chase down a server or two on their systems.
| dave henrie

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
F1 hcp. +24.63...F2 +151.26...

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
F1 hcp. +24.63...F2 +151.26...

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

--

Fester

Real life is not black and white. We can all play it safe, make calculated
decisions, or just say wtf and go for it.

Being a for profit entity, their first priority is to take your money and so
have a disincentive to dump you. But if you are not prepared to run that risk
then you've made the right decision not to host races.

My guess is they won't bother you if you host races as long as you don't have
some kind of full time server running.

Marty

| >It is not the downloading Eldred but the uploading & this is why I
| >am capped at 525kbs/a sec.. At least this is what they told me!!

| That's stupid.  Wouldn't you be taking the same amount of bandwith either
| way(up or down)?  I admit I don't know as much about ISPs as I should...
|
| Eldred

| try cutting me off for something that lame, we'd have to rumble!  Not
| calling you a liar, BTW Thom...
| --
| Fester

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
F1 hcp. +24.63...F2 +151.26...

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

I'm sure some IP guru will let me have it if I get this wrong, but I
believe that the MAC address is a LAN address.  Once your packets leave
your local LAN and get onto the wider Internet, your original MAC address
is lost.  When your packet arrives at a server on the other end, the MAC
address that the server sees on the packet is that of the last router
that handled the packet, and put it onto the server's LAN, not yours.

Even if this were not true, there are plenty of network devices (the
Linksys Cable/DSL router that I have for instance) that will let you
change their MAC addresses anyway.

        Marc

Most "broadband cable suppliers" do not wish to have end-users run servers.
It is very difficult for them to distinguish "which kind of servers"
should/shouldn't be used. So... they simply say "no servers".

Meaning as an example:

Newsgroup Servers.

They are standard equipment in most Operating Systems (Windows NT/2K, Linux,
BSD, etc.). As such, very easy to setup.

The thing is, newsgroup servers (of any popularity) consume HUGE amounts of
bandwidth, and can do so 24/7.

So... you are paying for an "average end user use fee". When you throw a
server on the system, it throws their whole "financial/useage averages" out
the window.

ALL ISPs base their pricing based on "average use". You can purchase an
alternative "business license" which will 'usually' remove such limitations
(since youa re now paying more, and the ISP's useage averages are
maintained/afforded).

They (ISPs) BANK on the fact that you sleep, work, etc. Meaning, in 'most
cases' the user is only using teh service say 30% of the time. But... you
throw a server on there, and you could be using the bandwidth/services 100%
of the time. This throws everything out of whack.

As for joining a race (not hosting), on a server/client config, you are the
client, and do not break the User License. Even if you host a "Peer-to-Peer"
race, you are still 'technically' a "client". You may use just as much
bandwidth as if you hosted a server, but the ISP still knows that you will
have to sleep/work some of the time, and that it won't be a "sustained high
bandwidth useage" scenario. The fact that you use as much (even more in some
cases) bandwidth than a server would/does, simply makes you one of those few
that they do not make money on. No worries for them, they have 20 people
standing beside you who use it maybe 10% of the time. So, when you average
out everyone's "useage" amongst those 20 people, it all even out.

Servers on the other hand... they don't sleep/work/eat/etc. They are there
capable of sucking up the ISP's bandwidth (which the ISPs themselves pay
for... in bulk mind you...) 100% of the day. THIS is why they don't like you
hosting "servers"... it hurts them financially, unless you purchase a
"business license".

They are VERY vigilant in seeking servers (they'll sniff certain ports on
random machines, and wait for a response). If they sniff the NNTP (newsgroup
server port) and the sniffer gets a response, that means you are running a
server (a no-no in teh User Agreement). Same goes for e-mail servers,

of how much bandwidth you are using (unless you connect through their
proxy -- this straight from the mouth of my buddy who works as a tech for
them here in Van).

The reason:

costs more... because of the potential bandwidth consumption.

Anyways... bottom line is that those ISPs also buy the Bandwidth from the
Fibre guys. When you start to chew up all their bandwidth, and pay a nickle
for it... they lose money... which is not good business.

Now to talk about something a bit OT.

We know that the User Agreement forbids "Servers". Now we look at the
"technical classification of a Server". It is a standalone application that
hosts information that "clients" connect to. Meaning... the Server
holds/controls the entire transaction.

BUT:

What if you could host a "Game Server" without it "technically being a
'Server'" in the normal classification. We need look no further than
Gnutella, which basically honed in on the Napster crowd after the demise,
and were impervious to the same litigation, because it is not a "server
based system". Meaning, Gnutella simply created the software, and in turn it
creates a giant "sub-network" of "PEERS". Peers are not "servers"
technically, so it escapes all the litigation and UA no-nos, but it still
serves the same purpose.

We are working on (and days away from completion) on a similar system, that
should basically leave your ISPs "holding the bag" on those stupid User

anyways...), and that UA is basically the same as all the rest of them. We
are not classifiable as a "server" so, we can maintain all "server-type"
advantages, without jumping into the same bag of limitations.

Hope it helps in understanding why, and I'll keep ya posted on progress of
our project shortly.

Cheers,

Schumi

--

Fester

| The problem is in your User Agreement.
|
| Most "broadband cable suppliers" do not wish to have end-users run
servers.
| It is very difficult for them to distinguish "which kind of servers"
| should/shouldn't be used. So... they simply say "no servers".
|
| Meaning as an example:
|
| Newsgroup Servers.
|
| They are standard equipment in most Operating Systems (Windows NT/2K,
Linux,
| BSD, etc.). As such, very easy to setup.
|
| The thing is, newsgroup servers (of any popularity) consume HUGE amounts
of
| bandwidth, and can do so 24/7.
|
| So... you are paying for an "average end user use fee". When you throw a
| server on the system, it throws their whole "financial/useage averages"
out
| the window.
|
| ALL ISPs base their pricing based on "average use". You can purchase an
| alternative "business license" which will 'usually' remove such
limitations
| (since youa re now paying more, and the ISP's useage averages are
| maintained/afforded).
|
| They (ISPs) BANK on the fact that you sleep, work, etc. Meaning, in 'most
| cases' the user is only using teh service say 30% of the time. But... you
| throw a server on there, and you could be using the bandwidth/services
100%
| of the time. This throws everything out of whack.
|
| As for joining a race (not hosting), on a server/client config, you are
the
| client, and do not break the User License. Even if you host a
"Peer-to-Peer"
| race, you are still 'technically' a "client". You may use just as much
| bandwidth as if you hosted a server, but the ISP still knows that you will
| have to sleep/work some of the time, and that it won't be a "sustained
high
| bandwidth useage" scenario. The fact that you use as much (even more in
some
| cases) bandwidth than a server would/does, simply makes you one of those
few
| that they do not make money on. No worries for them, they have 20 people
| standing beside you who use it maybe 10% of the time. So, when you average
| out everyone's "useage" amongst those 20 people, it all even out.
|
| Servers on the other hand... they don't sleep/work/eat/etc. They are there
| capable of sucking up the ISP's bandwidth (which the ISPs themselves pay
| for... in bulk mind you...) 100% of the day. THIS is why they don't like
you
| hosting "servers"... it hurts them financially, unless you purchase a
| "business license".
|

|
| They are VERY vigilant in seeking servers (they'll sniff certain ports on
| random machines, and wait for a response). If they sniff the NNTP
(newsgroup
| server port) and the sniffer gets a response, that means you are running a
| server (a no-no in teh User Agreement). Same goes for e-mail servers,

idea
| of how much bandwidth you are using (unless you connect through their
| proxy -- this straight from the mouth of my buddy who works as a tech for
| them here in Van).
|
| The reason:
|

restrictions,

only
| costs more... because of the potential bandwidth consumption.
|
| Anyways... bottom line is that those ISPs also buy the Bandwidth from the
| Fibre guys. When you start to chew up all their bandwidth, and pay a
nickle
| for it... they lose money... which is not good business.
|
| Now to talk about something a bit OT.
|
| We know that the User Agreement forbids "Servers". Now we look at the
| "technical classification of a Server". It is a standalone application
that
| hosts information that "clients" connect to. Meaning... the Server
| holds/controls the entire transaction.
|
| BUT:
|
| What if you could host a "Game Server" without it "technically being a
| 'Server'" in the normal classification. We need look no further than
| Gnutella, which basically honed in on the Napster crowd after the demise,
| and were impervious to the same litigation, because it is not a "server
| based system". Meaning, Gnutella simply created the software, and in turn
it
| creates a giant "sub-network" of "PEERS". Peers are not "servers"
| technically, so it escapes all the litigation and UA no-nos, but it still
| serves the same purpose.
|
| We are working on (and days away from completion) on a similar system,
that
| should basically leave your ISPs "holding the bag" on those stupid User
| Agreements. Details will be coming soon, but we have already passed the

| anyways...), and that UA is basically the same as all the rest of them. We
| are not classifiable as a "server" so, we can maintain all "server-type"
| advantages, without jumping into the same bag of limitations.
|
| Hope it helps in understanding why, and I'll keep ya posted on progress of
| our project shortly.
|
| Cheers,
|
| Schumi

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
F1 hcp. +24.63...F2 +151.26...

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.