how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
14984 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
 schmol
join:2001-12-26
Windsor, PA | reply to CadesDaddy
Re: theft! It comes down to this, WHAT THEY DON"T KNOW, WON'T HURT THEM". Once the service is in my house, I can do with it what I want. What are they going to do, enstate a full force of Cable Internet police that come to your house and checks your connection for sharing. I'm sure you're talking about Comcrap err, I mean Comcast. This company is a monopoly and the government wont do anything about it. I have no other choice for service other than Comcast.:( | |
| reply to CadesDaddy
SGM you say "Theft (also known as stealing) is, in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent." I have to debate that by saying that most ISP's that I know of are leasing you your service based on the TOS, therefore it is not your legal "property" to go outside that agreement. The only "service" (or product) that you own is what is dictated by the TOS that you agreed to, and unless it is OK to share by the TOS (I have to keep stating that because of the people who keep bringing up that their ISP allows it, which I again feel is fine) sharing your connection with somebody outside your residence is not your property thereby you are stealing. (to be nice I'll say "in my opinion)
And you are referring to collaboration, so can I assume that you feel that leaching is in fact theft? | | |
|
 tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | reply to schmol
 :D:D Are you like 14 or something? You sure have the mindset of that generation. Here, I will make it easy.
"V. Customer will not connect the WOW equipment to any computer outside of Customer’s Premises." I can bet that "WIFI" is included/considered. And just because you can intercept someone elses signal, doesn't mean it's ok. Do some internet searching on the issues monitors that could pickup 800mhz cel phone ranges. Get busted with a receiver that picks up those channels and you've just did a felony.
I can bet that 90% of the ISP's have TOS like this. But I'm sure you turn your nose up at EULA's too so you just keep on doing what your doing.  | |
TheWiseGuyDog And ButterflyPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
Yonkers, NY
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to BronsCon
said by BronsCon:You pay for kilobit/second, that's right. If I wish to share some of my kilobit/seconds I may, just like kilowatt/hours. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Now the analogy holds. First, if the TOS governing your connection allows sharing you of course can share.
But No you are absolutely incorrect, your analogy does not work at all. You don't pay a different amount based on usage as you do with electricity. You pay a monthly fee for an Internet connection, the cost does not vary with the number of bits or bytes as with Electricity. There are rules you agree to when you use any service, if you don't follow those rules, as poundjd  said it is pretty simple, it is at a minimum contract violation and if the state you are in has laws governing Theft of Services, depending on the actual law, it is almost certainly a crime.
--
Dog and Butterfly | |
| reply to CadesDaddy
said by CadesDaddy:ISP's...have specific rules in their TOS ... against colloborating (yes I know, not all) and this of course also rules out leaching, because their SERVICE is for the RESIDENCY that they sold it for. "Residency they sold it for" being the key term. When you split off your neighbor to get free cable TV or leach into their WIFI, or collaborate with them to get it free - AND TOS FORBIDS THIS - then this is THEFT. You are stealing a servcice not sold to you plain and simple this is the same as stealing a product. This is bad marketing. This kind of crap develops a very bad reputation for the cable companies. Add to that the complaints about how experienced techs aren't making much money working for the cable companies...
Right now, internet access is sold by megabits per second - 1.5, 3, 4, 6, etc. You get that many megabits per second, and you may also get a written or unwritten, hard or soft data transfer limit per month, or per day, or so on.
Cable theft used to be when you had to pay for extra TV's and you didn't - either by splitting into a line, or buying a black-market set-top box with premium channels, etc... things like that.
For that matter, the cable companies could all of a sudden say "no routers" - (many feel that the TOS's can be interpreted that way anyway) - and applying this "violation of TOS equals theft" concept would mean that home networking or using a wireless ethernet adapter within your own house would be theft (a felony criminal offense) if you subscribe to cable internet, yet it would not be any offense at all if you subscribe Covad or Speakeasy, etc...
Or look at it another way - unofficial set-top cable boxes pre-programmed for premium channels on the black market have been always treated as contraband - cable splitters in the possession of people adding additional TVs for free against the terms of the TOS could also be considered contraband - satellite TV providers have stirred up quite a controversy by suing people who purchase smart card equipment for any reason - considering it is likely to be contraband. However, wireless routers or any routers are generally not considered or thought of as contraband (except on some college campuses), and it will give cable companies a bad reputation if they attempt to create a world where the use of a router in a private residence precipitates a felony conviction.
This "violation of TOS equals theft" concept would make it worse for the cable companies, hence worse for the employees. The law can define theft, but the real question is not what the law is, but how do we create laws; how do laws get to be laws, how do laws get changed; updated; eliminated; improved. There has got to be a moral or ethical backbone that ENCOURAGES discussion, that encourages creativity and innovation in defining new concepts and coming up with new laws. Laws have to come from somewhere.
In the long run, these conceptually challenged definitions of what defines theft are only going to create problems. Rather than argue what they ARE, I give my opinion - I feel that we ought to have the scenario of sharing wi-fi outside of the residence be treated as a violation of TOS, not theft. Cancel the account, suspend the account, whatever. Unless, of course, the ISP doesn't view it as a violation of TOS in the first place.
More specifically, throwing people in jail for things like this is more likely to lead to a situation where the cable techs get paid even less, whereas loosening up the restrictions in the TOS, eliminating restrictive data transfer limits, and focusing on creating a high-quality, high-performance network INSTEAD of a high-performing stock is more likely to create a situation where the cable techs are getting paid more.
It's important to talk about what the law IS, because we care about each other as human beings and we don't want others to get in trouble for stupid crap. It's important to share our opinions about what we feel the law SHOULD BE, because laws have to come from somewhere, and it's important to try to be part of that process. | |
| reply to CadesDaddy
Said by CadesDaddy:
"but if you think they are a monopoly you couldn't be further from the truth.
You, sir, are very incorrect. In the majority of the country, Most Cable Companies are City Backed Monopolies as they are the only approved Cable company to operate within that city, sanctioned by the City government (in many cases, the Cable company wrote the regulations for the City to make them the only game in town). The same can be said for most Telephone Companies.
If the cable companies feel any competition now, that's because Satellite TV came on the scene and City Governments can't regulate them. (Although they try by imposing regulations that outlaw satellite dishes) | |
 adsldudePremium,Ex-Mod 2003-9
join:2000-11-10
Colorado
kudos:1 | reply to CadesDaddy
FYI - This thread made the BBR Front Page this morning! | |
gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA | reply to cacroll
Care for some cheese with your WHINE? | |
| reply to CadesDaddy
Sharing internet connection with your neighbor is usually a breach of your contract with that cable or DSL provider as long as it is written in the contract which it usually is. Also, one reason why the public frequency band wireless technology like 802.11 a, b, or g were developed for short range broadcasts was to limit distance range that wireless can be provided and to keep the overlapping of frequencies in crowded areas to a minimum. The issue enforcing the anti-sharing part of their contracts is out of control of the broadband companies for now and I doubt you will see any invasion of privacy of them snooping your wireless transmissions frequencies to see who is using the wireless signal. The privacy issue though has become a concern as the broadband provider's have developed new contracts in the past few years claiming the right to shut down your service at any time for just about any reason. However thankfully we have not heard of them abusing this yet but with all the RIAA P2P lawsuits in the past several years this issue has become a bigger problem for the providers as they struggle to know who is using their service at any given time. | |
 cacrollEventually, Prozac becomes normalPremium
join:2002-07-25
Martinez, CA | reply to JoshNJ
said by JoshNJ:said by cacroll:said by russotto:I don't think that's theft either. Well, really depends on how the TOS is written A TOS is a civil contract. Theft, which involves loss of physical property, is a criminal charge. Big Cable can write their TOSs all they want, they are writing contracts, they are not writing criminal law. Sharing your network connection may be a TOS violation, and you (the connection owner) may get TOSed. But neither you, nor the leech, can be brought up on criminal charges for Theft. Due diligence requires that you, the connection owner, secure your connection. By not doing so, you invite a civil charge of contributory negligence. » www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9026080 | |
| reply to Spicerunner
spicerun, I have to say that I'm sorry, you have been misinformed about the cablecompany being a monopoly.
Anybody with a deep wallett can pay franchise fees for however big of a chunk of the town/county that they want to enter into which thereby also gives them access to the right of ways for laying their cable.
I have numerous examples of this being a fact - just maybe not in your hometown. | |
 DaarkenRara AvisesPremium
join:2005-01-12
Southwest LA
kudos:1
·Cox HSI
| From my point of view, its the executives who "work so hard" and earn 5x's as much as you. That's where the theft is.
The US broadband providers charge alot more then most of the other broadband providers in the world. If you want to blame theft, you blame the executives and managers who are paid a ton of $$$ and most of them do not work half as much as a tech or installer, yet they still reap the high benefits and pay packages. Sure sometimes it's fair, but most of the time it isn't.
Let the users share thier internet, most of the time it's slow and capped anyway. Besides, wireless sharing is slow anyway. | |
TheWiseGuyDog And ButterflyPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
Yonkers, NY
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| reply to cacroll
said by cacroll:A TOS is a civil contract. Theft, which involves loss of physical property, is a criminal charge. Incorrect!! There are states that have Theft of Service Laws, theft does not have to be of property to be a crime in these states.
»www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/l···ices.htm
said by uslegalforms:
Such laws generally classify the crime as a misdemeanor or felony according to the value of the services stolen. Specific amounts vary by state. Local laws should be consulted for specific requirements in your area. The following is an example of a state statute dealing with theft of services:
--
Dog and Butterfly | |
| reply to CadesDaddy
would it also be theft to share broadband with my daughters coputer in another room? and is it only restricted to wireless?
what about a good old fashioned lan party is that theft?
in a nutshell this is a silly topic. if I wanna run a network wirelessly with a friend its frankly none of the cable company's business
--
Remember, the closer you get to the light, the longer your shadow becomes. | |
TheWiseGuyDog And ButterflyPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
Yonkers, NY
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
1 edit | Normally the TOS allows you to share it with your own family, within the same residence. Unless the TOS specifically prohibits routers or sharing among your family it can not be considered theft.
Here is an example of a case where users were arrested for theft of services. If read it thoroughly you will see that one individual got off because uncapping was not specifically prohibited in the TOS.
»Uncappers Day in Court
The seventh, George Runner, only recently received his day in court. According to a report published yesterday, the case against Runner has been dismissed, because Runner apparently was not properly informed by Buckeye that he could not modify his modem. Wirtz confirmed for us that the company's acceptable use agreement failed to clearly disallow the modification of their modems. READ YOUR TOS for what is permitted. Prohibited.
Edit
change permitted to Prohibited above.
--
Dog and Butterfly | |
masrotaj
join:2003-07-09
Fort Lauderdale, FL | reply to RandomDragon
Wow every time I use a computer (to access the net via someones broadband connection)other than my own ,by your definition I would be stealing .So when I access my dad network from my own to give remote assist I would be stealing his bandwidth. Your premise sir is not well thought out I suggest you rethink
John | |
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to cowboybob
said by cowboybob:would it also be theft to share broadband with my daughters coputer in another room? and is it only restricted to wireless? what about a good old fashioned lan party is that theft? in a nutshell this is a silly topic. if I wanna run a network wirelessly with a friend its frankly none of the cable company's business You would think, but you should have a read of your TOS. It might be spelled out there that you cannot even have a local network of PCs sharing the connection (less rare today, but clearly not impossible.) Wireless sharing becomes more problematic for some ISPs/Broadband companies because it can represent a real loss in revenue. If you end up providing access to 2-3 people around your house or apt. then those people have no need to buy service from the ISP. So, you see some ISPs putting limits into their TOS. "Theft" is probably the wrong word (but a word that might get used by the ISP)
How the ISP would know, now that's a different thing. If you saturate your pipe 24/7, that can get the attention of an ISP.
Anyway, check the TOS (and/or AUP) and be done with it. If you cannot follow the TOS, live dangerously or get a different ISP. | |
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| reply to JoshNJ
You need to reread that line. It says nothing about usage. A kilobit/second is a throughput measurement, not a usage measurement. A time measurement combined with a kilobit/second is a usage measurement. I'm allowed 4000/384 kilobit/second for a 30 day period. Do the math:
30 days * 24 hours = 720 hours
720 hours * 60 minutes = 43200 minutes
43200 minutes * 60 seconds = 2592000 seconds
2592000 seconds * 4000 kilobit/second = 10368000000 kilobits of allowed download bandwidth in a 30 day period
2592000 seconds * 384 kilobit/second = 995328000 kilobits of allowed upload bandwidth in a 30 day period
If I wish to share some of my 10368000000/995328000 kilobits, my 'allowed' usage, I'm certainly allowed to. If I were to re-sell this bandwidth, I would certainly be in violation of my TOS, or that of any other ISP with half a brain, yes. But if I can't share my bandwidth across a network which I own and monitor, are you implying that I would have to maintain an internet account for my computer, my laptop, my mom's computer, my media center system, my research system in the garage and my work system in my office? You see, it's trivial to run CAT-5 to another building, as I had to do with my garage and office, which are not attached to my house. It is also within my rights to do so, regardless of what the building is or who owns it, provided said owner has given me permission and I am not profiting from doing so.
Furthermore, there is an exception to my ability to profit from this. If I am providing other services via my network, for example, file storage and media streaming (licensed, of course) or whatever services I may choose to provide, I may charge for these services. The fact that my internet connection is available via the same network is inconsequential.
Also, one would be allowed to ask (not require) any user of their network to pay a small fee to cover their usage of the shared internet connection, so long as this fee does not exceed that person's usage (on an account where you bay for throughput rather than bandwidth, this would be the percentage of bandwidth used by this user, of the total bandwidth used) or the total bill divided by the number of users sharing the connection. I'm fairly sure you are able to pick which of these methods you use so long as you are consistent with which one you use and can prove that you are not making a profit and are applying the total collected toward the account. Not an expressly written law, but there is no law that I am aware of regarding this. It seems to be implied by the resale of services clauses in most TOS.
In the case that my ISP would deem that cable coming out of the side of my house and entering another building a violation of their TOS, well, then it would seem time to find a new ISP, as I do own both of the buildings I have run ethernet cables to and I did run those cables prior to getting their service.
Additionally, those cables are used to provide network services other than internet and would remain in place and in use even in the absence of an internet connection. It's my private network and I may do with it as I please, including using it as a gateway to another private network which my private network has been allowed to access (yes, my ISP was made aware of my network prior to the installation of their equipment). If they suddenly decide I'm in violation of their TOS for something they knew about before they began providing service to me, they're in the wrong. If they tell me I cannot expand my private network, which I own, operate, monitor and maintain, they are in the wrong. If I leave my network open to the general public, I am in the wrong. If I profit from other peoples' use of their network via mine, I am in the wrong. If they provide me with an overpriced internet connection that I only have because there are no other options in my area (satellite, but that's MORE expensive) and share it with my neighbor via an ethernet cable run from my office to their home and they're paying half the bill, so that my ISP is actually getting paid in full every month, it's a win-win-win situation. My neighbor and I both win, we get internet for a little less. MY ISP wins, they get to keep a customer who otherwise may not have been able to afford their service.
So long as I'm allowed to do this, and yes, they know, and yes, there is a clause in the TOS regarding resale of their services, I will stay with them even after a less expensive and faster option becomes available to me in the next couple months (I'm on cable right now, DSL will hit in the next month or two according to SBC). If it becomes and issue with my ISP who has been knowingly and willingly allowing it then I will find a new ISP. | |
| reply to drnet
You mean wireless ROUTER not wireless modem. | |
 sargeeldSgm RetiredPremium
join:2002-12-16
Raeford, NC | reply to tc1uscg
Using a descrambler to gain access to channels you have not paid for is theft, no doubt. Read my posts again (I was the one who talked to the lawyer) and you will hopefully understand. If I take from the cable company without paying for it then it is definitely theft (ie. descrambler or hooking in without paying). However, if I am paying for the service and share it with you through my box then it is not theft but is most likely a violation of their TOS. I do not know how many more ways I can say it to try to make you understand, so I am just going to bow out here and let you guys continue to debate what should be a dead issue. | |
|
