You would think that all the bad things I have supposed to have done they would at least have sent me a note saying that they are looking into things.
Maybe they are not really concerned that I was running a webserver on my Internet connection?
By the way, I am no longer doing so.
In these days of streamed media and downloading the least of an ISP's concerns are what subscribers are doing with their broadband connections. The connection of a server, a webserver or just a personal cloud, is not likely to overly stress the network. This would depend on the popularity of the website and whether it was a commercial enterprise.
If the server were a business then they may care as they are loosing revenue as you should be using a "proper" host and not a "subscriber connection".
In the past Rogers offered a facility to host your own webspace. This was dropped (I am not sure when, but in the last 3 years). In the absence of that facility I cannot see that they could complain that you are using your subscriber connection to host a personal website.
However, the reasons for not using a Rogers, or other ISPs subscriber connection, is that it leaves you vulnerable to those that take exception to what you post and think that telling the website author that they are reporting them to their ISP is going to stop them posting opinions on them that they don't like is going to stop them.
Rogers do have an "abuse" department, but this seems to be more concerned that you are abiding by your E.U.L.A. w.r.t. downloading copyright material. What Rogers does is to forward the letter from the copyright holder that detected an illegal download. Rogers don't really care what you download, but as they own the IP address that is detected, they are the ones that receive the copyright infraction notices.
Rogers are, or should be, more concerned with the RIAA and MPAA than they would be with tin-pot companies that don't like what bloggers are saying about them on the Internet.
Maybe they are not really concerned that I was running a webserver on my Internet connection?
By the way, I am no longer doing so.
In these days of streamed media and downloading the least of an ISP's concerns are what subscribers are doing with their broadband connections. The connection of a server, a webserver or just a personal cloud, is not likely to overly stress the network. This would depend on the popularity of the website and whether it was a commercial enterprise.
If the server were a business then they may care as they are loosing revenue as you should be using a "proper" host and not a "subscriber connection".
In the past Rogers offered a facility to host your own webspace. This was dropped (I am not sure when, but in the last 3 years). In the absence of that facility I cannot see that they could complain that you are using your subscriber connection to host a personal website.
However, the reasons for not using a Rogers, or other ISPs subscriber connection, is that it leaves you vulnerable to those that take exception to what you post and think that telling the website author that they are reporting them to their ISP is going to stop them posting opinions on them that they don't like is going to stop them.
Rogers do have an "abuse" department, but this seems to be more concerned that you are abiding by your E.U.L.A. w.r.t. downloading copyright material. What Rogers does is to forward the letter from the copyright holder that detected an illegal download. Rogers don't really care what you download, but as they own the IP address that is detected, they are the ones that receive the copyright infraction notices.
Rogers are, or should be, more concerned with the RIAA and MPAA than they would be with tin-pot companies that don't like what bloggers are saying about them on the Internet.
- The CIRA Interested Party query form - Getting the CIRA to "give out" information on a Domain owner
- How to obtain a Court Order to determine the user of an IP address
- The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act
