Best of the ISP-Lists

The Napster Saga 3:
A Server Is a Server Is a Server?

Does the Napster 'client' software constitute a server? Are ISPs right to ban it on this basis? What are the deeper issues here?

[May 1, 2000]

On ISP-Tech in April 2000, WW kicked off a lengthy discussion by posting a link to a news story about a San Diego ISP banning Napster:

The headline: "San Diego ISP bans Napster, threatens accounts even though the threatened users had not exceeded bandwidth limits."

In the article, a representative of @Home affiliate Cox Cable, was quoted as saying,

"Many users are unaware that Napster is a server. It enables users to share files between computers directly, which is in direct violation of the @Home acceptable use policy."

This provoked considerable comment—about various dimensions of the statement.

[CFB wrote] "Taken literally, that means that FTP, HTTP, and e-mail attachments are also against the acceptable use policy because they enable users to share files between computers directly.

[WW carried this argument forward] "So are ICQ, other 'messenger' type programs, and many of the new 'community' programs that let people surf the Web together, since those programs 'listen' for connections on ports, thus acting like servers. The whole 'no server' concept is out, especially for broadband users, but even for dialup. It's an anachronistic rule that was meant to stop people from camping on lines. With 'broadband, always-on' services, this isn't an issue."

Other respondents disagreed with this interpretation:

[MKS wrote] "These programs don't work at the server level (i.e., server-to-server) like Napster does."

[PF chimed in] "We don't allow servers either, but we're specific about what a 'server' is. Basically, FTP and HTTP are the big problems. We allow technology like ICQ, Napster, and IRC because they need those services to operate properly."

But the concern likely underlying @Home's server prohibition policy —massive increases in upstream traffic—potentially affects all broadband ISPs: If you sell end users "big pipes" today, based on typical usage patterns, this may leave you vulnerable to escalating upstream bandwidth costs in the future.

[AB summed up this point] "I have the potential to use lots of bandwidth, but I don't because most modems can only use so much. My fear is that a year or so into a DSL rollout, the current '2k of bandwidth' user is going to be captivated by 'the next bandwidth-soaking app'—like Napster or whatever—and BAMMO! the average becomes 8k per user overnight.

"What if AOL rolled out IM 2001 complete with 16-channel video conferencing? That would be 16 little windows at 2k per. Someone will develop the business plan and IPO another ad-supported software thingy, and it'll be you and me holding the bandwidth bag.

"I'm not saying the sky is falling, I'm just trying not to get hit with a large cloud if it does. I am looking for the next world where the sky is firmly attached. It may not exist, but I'd hate to miss it if it does."

—End

Related stories:
The Napster Saga 1: To Meter or Not to Meter?
The Napster Saga 2: Drowning in Success?
The Napster Nightmare