[tor-relays] Sitevalley is no longer Tor-friendly

Roman Mamedov rm at romanrm.ru
Thu Jul 18 18:10:33 UTC 2013

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:02:29 -0400
krishna e bera <keb at cyblings.on.ca> wrote:

> On 13-07-18 11:51 AM, mick wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:49:46 -0400
> > Tom Ritter <tom at ritter.vg> allegedly wrote:
> > 
> >> Sending this out, as I suspect I am not the only person running a node
> >> on SiteValley, as they have pretty good bandwidth for pretty cheap.
> >>
> >> I had inquired in the beginning if they allowed Tor, and they said
> >> yes, but if we get too many abuse complaints we'll shut it down.  So
> >> maybe 4 or 5 abuse complaints later they did indeed give me the
> >> ultimatum to shut it down or get shut down.  So I made them give me a
> >> new IP address, and made it into a middle node.  (The new IP was
> >> because I was thinking of making it a bridge.)
> > 
> > Hmm. Pretty crummy AUP. And /very/ crummy treatment of a customer.
> > 
> > I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I
> > think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity. 
> Makes me wonder if there is some kind of legal pressure being applied to
> American ISPs to disallow Tor and similar services and infrastructure.
> Or perhaps owners of some ISPs are polarizing toward the PATRIOT act
> side especially after the Snowden thing.

Maybe they just realized they can't actually offer unmetered bandwidth as they
advertise, and Tor is about the only application that can readily eat all
bandwidth you'll give it, no matter what.

Tom, out of curiosity how much did you manage to transfer per month before
being shut down?

With respect,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20130719/d2310e6a/attachment.sig>

More information about the tor-relays mailing list