how-to block ads
|
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: 
| What are the terms of the contract?
Is this guy subject to bandwidth tiering at all?
I'm curious.
You can't be a bandwidth hog per se if no definitions of it are made evident in the contract.
I think that what you do with a backbone circuit after it's delivered to you is your business.
The fact that these companies are trying to get all of this legislation and trying to impart all of these tactics to dictate to consumers how to use a service that they BOUGHT and PAID for is absolutely ridiculous.
It's just another tactic of big business to control consumer habits.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | When did all this mumbo jumbo turn from civil litigation to criminal proceedings? | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Post 9/11 enabling of the federal government to intercede in activities such as this were granted under the Patriot Act.
It's only a matter of time before they try to brand this guy as a terrorist.
The inferences to criminal behavior are no coincidence.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
GuggyFresh
join:2001-03-06
Sterling, VA |  reply to tomkb
I'm sure the terms of service exclude reselling (or giving away) someone else's service (bandwidth) as your own. Where I come from that's called theft. It's mostly illegal. | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| said by GuggyFresh:
I'm sure the terms of service exclude reselling (or giving away) someone else's service (bandwidth) as your own. Where I come from that's called theft. It's mostly illegal.
Oh gee, how to respond to this without starting another one of those great "It's my bandwidth! No it's not!" debates... It seems like these are popping up even more frequently now that cable companies are squeezing their customers even more...
I believe I've said it before on this board, and I'll say it again... When you pay for bandwidth, it essentially becomes yours to use. This is even more so the case if you're subjected to monthly download caps. (Who am I kidding? If... haha.. when is more like it) 
If I've paid for service that allows me to download up to 1 gigabyte of information per month on my service plan, and I only download 500 megabytes, why shouldn't I be able to share my service with my next door neighbor who only wants to use up 100 megabytes by checking his email every 5 minutes? Simply because a monopoly says I can't? That's BS, and we both know it. This can be compared to having an extra 100 minutes to use on your wireless phone, and lending it to your friend for a weekend because you know you won't use those minutes. You've purchased it; you have a right to say who uses it.
Now, in a case where bandwidth caps are not (yet) enforced, the same logic can be applied. The person has paid for a service; what s/he does with that service is his/her own business, so long as it does not substantially adversely affect the network. (and NO, sharing your connection with your neighbor via 802.11b does NOT adversely affect the network) If hacking activity or DoS attacks are traced to that connection, then shut it down. Otherwise, leave the person alone-- it's none of the cable company's business.
A good analogy here would be purchasing access to a PPV event, and then inviting the entire neighborhood over to watch while throwing a party. There's nothing wrong with that... Or is cable company going to start having the FBI investigate backyard barbecues next?  From the stories coming out late last week, it would appear that they (the FBI) seem to have nothing better to do... (and I thought hunting terrorists was a priority...) 
It's time the cable companies started thinking rationally about their service and stopped nitpicking and trying to grab every last penny they can out of their consumers. Only then will it make even the slightest iota of sense to side with them.
--
"Objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are." - Meat Loaf, Bat out of Hell II | |
NYCNotPir8
@167.153.x.x | reply to BrianDamage
I actually was one of their subscribers and they have such clauses that they could sue him under, including "redistributing or reselling the service" and "setting up a server". It sucks, but they're covered. | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Redistribution is a gray area. This is why they are making such a fuss.
Like was explained, when compared to other services, like cellphone usage, where you get xxx number of minutes per month, it is yours to do with what you please. Anyone you choose could use the minutes because you paid for them.
Same as the analogy with PPV movies, etc.
Did anyone out there order the Lewis-Tyson fight and invite 10-20 friends over, drink beer, and eat while watching Lewis pound the snot out of Tyson?
The service was yours to do with as you please (view it at your discretion). Are they going to come out with some provision that says that you are "illegally distributing" the fight to your friends because none of the rest of them ordered or paid for it, or because you paid for it and then took a collection to help defray your personal expense?
That's the way things are going to be if we let this company succeed over this person in question.
Corporate control over dissemination of consumer protections for the sake of grubbing up every last penny must be halted, this company's argument dissolved, and the solution made public so that they can be made an example of.
There are provisions that disallow certain activities because of the causitive damage potential.
If they can prove such damage(s) have occurred then more power to their argument.
If the motivation is strictly greed, then it is baseless.
I will not have a provider tell me that I can't do what I want with a service I've paid for.
If I order DSL and want to run a NAT router spoofing DHCP addresses to 10 computers behind it, then that is my business, and no one else's.
Same with the 802.11 argument.
As long as no network outages or real degradation in the performance of the network is noted and documented, then no cause exists to pursue, aside from the greed associated with their motivation.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| reply to BrianDamage
There is one thing many of you do not seem to grasp.
A company selling a service has the right to dictate how that service is going to be used. The way a service is to be used is usually contained in a TOS/AUP that becomes binding upon acceptance of the service in question.
If you violate those terms, the service can be taken away from you and you can be prosecuted for violating those terms.
It's very simple, if you do not want to abide by the the rules laid down by the service provider, find a service by whose terms you can abide. If you can't find a provider by whose terms you can abide, become one yourself. You however are not in a position to unilaterally change the terms by which you acquire some other company's service.
These arguments that some people spout about how I paid for it and so I can use it any way I see fit make me laugh. You can only use the service for which you paid within the parameters of the Terms of Use/Acceptable Use Policy in force for that service.
Remember, the non-enforcement of a particular provision of a TOS/AUP does not render the rest of that document powerless. Those provisions can be enforced capriciously or systematically. It makes no difference at all.
Read the Terms of Use/Acceptable Use Policy that governs your residential internet connection. You will find that much of what you do with it is not permitted under those documents. It is only a matter of time before those provisions are enforced for the $45 product you are using.
If you don't like the enforcement of those policies, tough. You agreed to them already when the first bit was transfered over your service providers wires. Your only recourse upon enforcement is is to find a service that will allow you to do the things that your previous service did not, or pay your current provider for the level of service that permits those activities.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| These arguments that some people spout about how I paid for it and so I can use it any way I see fit make me laugh. You can only use the service for which you paid within the parameters of the Terms of Use/Acceptable Use Policy in force for that service.
I don't have problems with TOS contracts.
However, it is "redistribution" that is a gray area.
If this guy was doing what he is doing while profiting from it, then it would be a clear-cut case.
But he isn't. Therefore, everything behind his Airport can be construed as his equipment or network. As such, his network is his to do with what he pleases, as long as his private networking configuration(s) does not cause excessive bottlenecking, system damage, or other carrier network disruption.
It would seem that the carrier cannot prove anything in relation to these reasonable claims.
The only thing they are enflamed about is that other folks are piggybacking on this guy's network, or are part of his network, and not ordering the service for themselves. It's pure greed.
Now, when his network reaches a point where network disruption is evident, and they can document and prove it, then shut him down.
Until then, leave him alone.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to NOVA_Guy
quote:
If I've paid for service that allows me to download up to 1 gigabyte of information per month on my service plan, and I only download 500 megabytes, why shouldn't I be able to share my service with my next door neighbor who only wants to use up 100 megabytes by checking his email every 5 minutes? Simply because a monopoly says I can't? That's BS, and we both know it.
While I can understand the sentiment of your statements, the fact does remain that you AGREED to the terms and conditions of service which clearly PROHIBIT this behavior- whether or not you paid for it is at that point a moot point.
Boogie | |
schyfe
join:2002-01-08
West Palm Beach, FL | reply to BrianDamage
You couldn't have said it better than that Preach On!! | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to boogie74
I see the "legalese" point of view.
I suggest that people more closely read terms of service before signing on.
But, specific clarification of the vagueness of these same terms of service would also serve to clear a lot of this mess up before it even starts.
Consumer protections need to be preserved, also.
Also, something these carriers should realize also is that when you lock in consumers to long contracts for broadband or any other service, then it becomes the workable option for longer periods, thereby necessitating the need for the service to be expandable.
If a customer wishes to network off of the connection, he should not be penalized.
But, the forces at work here are such that because competition is such a a far cry from what it was even a year ago, with fewer and fewer providers, means that the ones that remain see that they can impose these regulations on customers that they would not have been able to before because too much competition exists.
So I say, when competition, and I mean true competition, is allowed (legislatively and politically) to make a real comeback, you will see these crazy restrictions much more specific and less prohibitive in content.
Current atmosphere in the good ol' US of A makes all of this possible.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| said by BrianDamage:
I see the "legalese" point of view.
I suggest that people more closely read terms of service before signing on.
How much clearer does it need to be?
5. Subscriber Conduct.
(a) The ISP Service as offered and provided under this Agreement is a residential service offered for personal, non-commercial use only. Subscriber will not resell or redistribute (whether for a fee or otherwise) the ISP Service, or any portion thereof, or otherwise charge others to use the ISP Service, or any portion thereof. Subscriber agrees not to use the ISP Service for operation as an internet service provider, for the hosting of websites (other than as expressly permitted as part of the ISP Service) or for any enterprise purpose whether or not the enterprise is directed toward making a profit.
Source: »help.twcable.com/html/twc_sub_agreement.html
If you are going to set up a Wi-Fi network, you better make damn sure that you are the only one able to access it.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| reply to BrianDamage
I don't have problems with TOS contracts, in general. It's like buying a house and having a homeowners association; it helps keep life bearable for all those in the neighborhood-- so that idiot that we all have living down the street from us can't paint his house pink... In this case, the TOS exists to ensure that all subscribers have as good an experience as possible. Without a TOS, a single individual could suck up 25% of the bandwidth of a single node, leaving many without acceptable levels of service.
However, it seems that in this case, the provisions of the TOS are being enforced only for the sake of profit and greed. This is when a TOS contract gets ugly and unfair, and goes overboard. It's like the homeowners association coming around and telling you that you can't put blue carpet in your second floor bedroom that can't be seen from the street-- basically, it's none of their business. It's like the homeowners association telling you that you can't have sex with your girlfriend at your house-- it's none of their business. And it's like the homeowners association telling you that you can't run a home business from your house-- it's none of their business. (getting the picture?)
In all the above examples regarding the homeowners association, what you're doing ONLY affects you. It only becomes their business when what you do affects others and the value of their homes (like painting your house pink or letting your home become run-down).
It should be the same with any TOS regarding the use of services. As long as what you do only affects you, it's none of their business. Just as it's none of the cable company's business who I invite over to my house for a PPV event, it's none of their business who I invite to use my broadband connection-- so long as it isn't negatively impacting anyone else's experience. No matter what the TOS says.
Now, in this case, I would agree that the guy was asking for it, advertising free 802.11b connectivity on his web site and all. But the fact remains that when I pay for something-- be it a service, an item, or a combination thereof-- it remains my right to enjoy it the best way I see fit.
This TOS is like a Verizon Wireless saying that the only person allowed to use your cell phone is you, and that letting your friend use the phone to make a call is a violation of the TOS that results in theft of service. Who are they kidding here? A 6 year old child is capable of seeing the stupidity inherent in this crap.
Who is hurt in this case? Nobody. Let me repeat that: NOBODY. So long as the rest of the users are not negatively impacted, I don't see any point to this part of the TOS-- other than putting more money into a greedy company's pocket. Boo, Road Runner. Shame on you.
--
"Objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are." - Meat Loaf, Bat out of Hell II | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to NGOwner
That's pretty clear.
That's also why I said that folks should actually read the TOS before signing on.
However, a point I was trying to make is that this TOS for example, is far too restrictive as to how the service is used.
But, because of lack of choices, people will sign on and then abuse the service sometimes, even if the provider has suffered no real repercussions from it, which in this case, they haven't.
Choice an competition would help to put a real dent in this kind of behavior, because if there was real competition, then companies are far less likely to have such restrictive provisions in their TOS in order to lure the most customers.
This is just another effect of monopoly of the broadband market, but I am not trying to cast off those who would just steal anyway.
Some people will always steal things.
These corporations are not beyond it either. I think this case is still mostly about greed and nothing else.
[text was edited by author 2002-07-01 17:00:26] | |
alex4life
Alex4life
Premium
join:2001-06-22
Delta, BC
| reply to NOVA_Guy
said by clrankin:
A good analogy here would be purchasing access to a PPV event, and then inviting the entire neighborhood over to watch while throwing a party. There's nothing wrong with that... Or is cable company going to start having the FBI investigate backyard barbecues next? From the stories coming out late last week, it would appear that they (the FBI) seem to have nothing better to do... (and I thought hunting terrorists was a priority...)
I'm not sure about PPV events, but I do know that if you rent a movie, and invite your entire neighborhood over, it becomes a public viewing, and is prohibited by the terms you agreed to buy/rent the movie. I know this is true, because my elementary school almost got sued for having a movie day in the gym.
Next point, you could use the comparison of sharing a net connection with others to splitting your cable. Both probably won't have an effect on the cable company, except the potential loss of business. If it is illegal to split your cable, then it would also seem that it's illegal to share your internet connection. THIS IS ONLY IF THE TOS SAYS YOU CAN'T SHARE, though.
I could see getting mad if a company just suddenly decided no one was allowed to share their connection, and changed their TOS and started enforcing it, but in almost all cases, this has been written in the TOS since the beginning. I'm all for customer rights over those damned big companies, but you can't honestly think it's right to share a $40 a month service with your entire neighborhood. Where does it end then? Your street? your block? Your entire city?
--
"Nothing fits better than a dead man's shirt" -Jimmy James. Visit the Canadian Forum! | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to NOVA_Guy
quote:
However, it seems that in this case, the provisions of the TOS are being enforced only for the sake of profit and greed. This is when a TOS contract gets ugly and unfair, and goes overboard. It's like the homeowners association coming around and telling you that you can't put blue carpet in your second floor bedroom that can't be seen from the street-- basically, it's none of their business. It's like the homeowners association telling you that you can't have sex with your girlfriend at your house-- it's none of their business. And it's like the homeowners association telling you that you can't run a home business from your house-- it's none of their business. (getting the picture?)
In all the above examples regarding the homeowners association, what you're doing ONLY affects you. It only becomes their business when what you do affects others and the value of their homes (like painting your house pink or letting your home become run-down).
It should be the same with any TOS regarding the use of services. As long as what you do only affects you, it's none of their business. Just as it's none of the cable company's business who I invite over to my house for a PPV event, it's none of their business who I invite to use my broadband connection-- so long as it isn't negatively impacting anyone else's experience. No matter what the TOS says.
I'm a bit lost as to how you come to these conclusions. By the same token, one might as well say, "Even though it's illegal, I should be able to sell or give away my prescription pain killers or ADD medication (in layman's terms, "speed" or "amphetamines") to my friends looking to use the drugs recreationally."
If you pay for a product and agree to use it according to a list of rules and regulations, you can't just break some of them because you don't like what they say or mean. It is NOT greedy of a company to ask its customers to pay to use the product that it offers; NOR is it greedy to ask them not to re-distribute the product or service to others. Companies are in business for profit- if they weren't, people wouldn't have employment. I hope for your sake that the company you work for stays profitable (in other words, ripping off customers by overcharging them) so that you can still get a paycheck.
Boogie | |
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to BrianDamage
quote:
I believe I've said it before on this board, and I'll say it again... When you pay for bandwidth, it essentially becomes yours to use.
Says who? Because I pay city taxes, does that mean I have the right to drive on the road at whatever speeds I see fit? Because I buy the all you can eat Sizzler buffet for $7.99 does that mean I can also feed 10 of my close friends and family with all the food since it's all available for the taking?
Responsible use. It's not a difficult concept people. Sharing your broadband connection with strangers outside your premises is not what residential broadband was intended for, and it's frankly sad to see that ISPs have to spell it out for you.
But if you do insist on ABUSING the service, don't come here moaning about blocked ports, slower caps, mile long AUPs and metered data usage. You'll have brought it on all by yourself and other users will have to suffer for it.
-- Rob | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| reply to alex4life
said by alexthepsycho:
I'm not sure about PPV events, but I do know that if you rent a movie, and invite your entire neighborhood over, it becomes a public viewing, and is prohibited by the terms you agreed to buy/rent the movie. I know this is true, because my elementary school almost got sued for having a movie day in the gym.
That's almost funny... I can see the MPAA and Disney going after an elementary school principal over the showing of Snow White in court. Talk about bad PR... And I guarantee that they wouldn't want me as a juror on that case. I'd side with the defendant, regardless of what the law says. (as with this Pledge of Allegiance "under God" crap in California, common sense must prevail over the senseless)
Question: at what point does it become a public viewing? Is it if I invite 2 friends over? How about 20? What if it's shown at a family reunion? Again, fair use and common sense needs to prevail.
said by alexthepsycho:
I'm all for customer rights over those damned big companies, but you can't honestly think it's right to share a $40 a month service with your entire neighborhood. Where does it end then? Your street? your block? Your entire city?
Maybe not your entire neighborhood or city, but how about as far as you can share without negatively impacting on others' broadband connections? Again, it comes down to being able to do what you want with the service you've bought.
Reasonable restrictions need to be put in place, but you can't honestly argue that cable company broadband AUPs and TOSs place reasonable restrictions on their users. You can't even run a single server on their network, or telecommute from home in some cases... Quite honestly, this is part of the reason why I switched from cable modems to a DSL connection.
The key word is REASONABLE. When cable companies start creating AUPs and TOSs with the consumer in mind first (and not corporate greed first), then things may change and people may not be so cavalier about sharing broadband connections with the rest of the block.
But until that happens, more power to the Broadband Robin Hoods out there! Time to head back to Sherwood Forest...
--
"Objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are." - Meat Loaf, Bat out of Hell II | |
methuselah1879
join:2001-03-06
Groton, CT
clubs:
| quote:
I'm all for customer rights over those damned big companies, but you can't honestly think it's right to share a $40 a month service with your entire neighborhood. Where does it end then? Your street? your block? Your entire city?
Actually, I think it's just as correct as using a wired network in your home and having a bunch of people over for a surf party.
Suppose, for example, that I have 10 computers hooked up to my home network, used mostly for SETI crunching, etc. Imagine the following scenarios:
1) I surf, by myself, on one machine on my net
2) I surf, by myself, on one machine on my net while another machine on my net is using wget to retrieve pages that I am interested in for offline viewing. Effectively, the automated computer is a separate user no? Does this conflict with TOS / AUP?
3) 2 above, plus another person (let's say my son), surfing at the same time...am I now 3 users?
4) 3 above, plus another person (let's say my girlfriend), playing bzflag, what now?
5) take 3 above, and add any arbitrary number of users on my home network, let's say all ten machines are now operating on the net, through one common access point. No servers are running, but all the machines are using bandwidth. Furthermore, let's assume that the my bandwidth usage is nowhere near full capacity (i.e. all web surfing, no downloads), does this violate the TOS / AUP?
6) apply 5 above, and then make the network wireless, where the partiers are located in houses next door to me.
If the load on my net is not significant -- what then becomes the real issue for the cable companies? The real issue at that point becomes loss of revenue. Are you stealing from the provider? If you are not charging for your network access (whether wired or not), does this constitute stealing customers (i.e. profit) from the provider? Or are you merely trying to have a good time with your friends.
7) Suppose I have a friend who wants to check his email when he is at my house. Does allowing him (an entirely different person, who did not, nor does not have a subscription with my provider) access to my network to check his mail via the web, constitute a violation of TOS / AUP?
If 2, 3, 4 or 5 does not violate the TOS / AUP, then what is the problem? Moreover, is "redistribution" covered when the distribution chain is within the home wherein the service lies? If so, at what point (i.e. number) does it become redistribution and not simply efficiency. Should I, a broadband subscriber, be limited to one machine, by myself, on my net, like the old dial-up "don't dial up from 2 different locations, as that violates your TOS" adage?
I posed a question recently that I don't think anyone has answered yet: suppose a wireless net is setup such that the public website advertises an email address (an automated remailer) that, when queried, provides the password for wireless network access. So this covers the "public advertising" of the network access. Now suppose that the person seriously considers anyone who accesses his network with the password to be his friend. Taking the above examples of friends on networks, when does the AUP / TOS come into effect?
I guess it's all moot, as long as consumers continue to be sheep and believe everything a corporate entity tells them is true, then people will always get bullied about by corporations.
Just because it is in the TOS does not make it correct; nor does it mean that we, as consumers, only have the option for switching providers. We also have more "subversive" ways of achieving the same ends. It seems to me that "subversive" things are what make new laws happen. The subversive attitudes of individuals / groups of individuals with the same goals are what make things happen.
Ah, whatever...
Kill your TV
»www2.localaccess.com/hardebeck/
»www.turnoffyourtv.com/
»www.killyourtv.com/
Think for yourself, read a book, take stock of the beauty that is the human being, not the garbage that is the corporate entity. Am I a humanist - nah, just tired of all this bickering over what amounts to nothing more than noise. No more care anymore in this country, just greed.
Baaaaaaaaa.
Peace
--
If it's na' scottish...it's CRAP! | |
|
