dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
19
technocar2
join:2009-05-29
Brampton, ON

technocar2 to nitzguy

Member

to nitzguy

Re: [Internet] No cable to "rural" Cambridge location. Really?

So are you saying it doesn't violate AUP?

nitzguy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON

nitzguy

Premium Member

said by technocar2:

So are you saying it doesn't violate AUP?

I'm saying how can it?....the connections in question act simply as part of your LAN, with my connections on that segment of the LAN, they have IP addresses in the same subnet as mine....my Ubiquiti Nanostation m5's have an IP of 192.168.1.27 on one side and 192.168.1.28 on the other side so that I can access the web admin for each device, but again, it all acts as part of my LAN, so I don't know how it can violate an AUP.

Its unfortunate to the OP that LOS isn't going to work due to terrain levels, the equipment is quite good and they do work quite well even without line of sight directly and even through walls (at one point on the other end I had the device mounted inside and it was still able to get good signal strength, in the 300mbit/sec range between the 2 points, I have an old WRT54Gv3 that has its own access point because I only have 6mbit DSL out there so it works ok for my parents when they want to be in the "shed" and still have wireless access). (its more like a really big fancy garage than a shed).

EDIT: To the OP, I'd say that you're in some bad luck situation, unless you're going to end up being in a subdivision their "ROI" for your cable connection is that they'd never get what they'd have to install out of your $100/month services....its probably 20k or so....

I remember working with the 'Blue Cable Network' and we had a request for an installation, it was pulling the equipment simply 500m down the street in question and the quote was $6k.....he was some well to do financial guy, so he did it.

So, unless you're financially well to do, I'd say good luck .
technocar2
join:2009-05-29
Brampton, ON

technocar2

Member

said by nitzguy:

so I don't know how it can violate an AUP.

It violates AUP because of the end result. If the end result is such that you end up sharing with or reselling to a third party then it violates AUP. The violation is based on the end result not how the end result is achieved. So it does not matter if the connection is on your LAN.
cepnot4me
join:2013-10-29
L0C 1K0

cepnot4me

Member

This is the truth. However. Unless your using as much bandwidth as an entire city block, Rogers or Bell will never bother you.
People that include Internet or cable when they rent a room or basement apartment breach this all the time. They get left alone about it unless they start making waves over something.

It's like driving too slowly, yes it's illegal, but rarely is anyone pulled over and charged for it.

nitzguy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON

nitzguy to technocar2

Premium Member

to technocar2
said by technocar2:

said by nitzguy:

so I don't know how it can violate an AUP.

It violates AUP because of the end result. If the end result is such that you end up sharing with or reselling to a third party then it violates AUP. The violation is based on the end result not how the end result is achieved. So it does not matter if the connection is on your LAN.

So, to extend your logic, when your friend comes over with their iPad or hop onto your network with your iPhone or Android or other device, you're in violation of the AUP.

So remember, never let your friends devices on your network because they are a third-party and are violating the AUP. This also extends to your uncle and aunt as well, your cousins, if you want to read directly into it...anyone but you....maybe you need to order 2 more connections for your significant other and your 1 child?...and another connection for each child.

Does that make sense?
cepnot4me
join:2013-10-29
L0C 1K0

cepnot4me

Member

You can provide service to direct relation or common law people. If your friend is jumping on to use it, it's sort of falls into the common law or direct relation category.

Reselling. (Charging someone any amount for use of your connection) is the violation.

If you open a back yard speakeasy and sell moonshine but provide free wifi to your customers, that is a violation.

If you want to read directly into it, Google the legal disclaimer. It's more exact.
cepnot4me

cepnot4me

Member

Correction, "relation" not necessarily "direct" relation. In law, cousin, uncle, step brother, etc. Basically "not a stranger to you".
cepnot4me

cepnot4me

Member

And really who in their right mind, wants to give someone else service in an account under their name.

Example
My neighbor throws me $20 a month for my wifi.
Then he goes ahead and downloads/uploads child pornography.
OPP track the IP, and I've got myself in quite the mess haven't I? Sure, I roll over on my neighbor. But it's still going to be linked to me, my name all over something like that.

Not worth it.

nitzguy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON

nitzguy

Premium Member

said by cepnot4me:

And really who in their right mind, wants to give someone else service in an account under their name.

Example
My neighbor throws me $20 a month for my wifi.
Then he goes ahead and downloads/uploads child pornography.
OPP track the IP, and I've got myself in quite the mess haven't I? Sure, I roll over on my neighbor. But it's still going to be linked to me, my name all over something like that.

Not worth it.

You're right...of course I wouldn't do something like that with someone I didn't know.

I was simply trying to provide the OP an option for his high speed woes....that's all. He said it was a relative of his who was 11km away so hopefully he would ensure that he could trust this relative...I have some relatives I wouldn't trust, but some I would trust with my life...so I guess in life YMMV.