how-to block ads
|
GuggyFresh
join:2001-03-06
Sterling, VA |  reply to tomkb
Re: What are the terms of the contract?
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 | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| 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 | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| 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. | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| 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! | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| 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! | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to NOVA_Guy
quote:
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)
You'd be surprised- there are many bars as well with the name "Grumpy's" or "Sleepy's" that are sued by Disney for copyright infringements.
The fact of the matter is that people are trying to get out of having to pay for cable modem service by having their neighbors set up a Wi-Fi network. The intent is to obtain a product or service without paying for it.
If you pay for a PPV event and invite 20 friends to watch it, it is a bit different than paying for cable modem service and giving your neighbor free and unmonitored access to it so that they don't have to pay for the service.
A closer analogy to the situation would be if you got cable ISP service and invited your neighbor over to use your computer in the same room with you while you both surf the web on the same exact sites. You are then enjoying the same service together at the same time. Otherwise, you are just trying to get the service without paying for it- hence it is stealing.
Here's a suggestion- PAY for the service like everyone else, BE HONEST about it and you won't have to worry about being sued.
Boogie | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| said by boogie74:
You'd be surprised- there are many bars as well with the name "Grumpy's" or "Sleepy's" that are sued by Disney for copyright infringements.
Again-- Disney shouldn't expect to convince me of their "loss" if I'm ever sitting on a jury hearing one of these arguments. It's nonsense, and it's time that we as consumers took appropriate action to label it as such.
said by boogie74:
The fact of the matter is that people are trying to get out of having to pay for cable modem service by having their neighbors set up a Wi-Fi network. The intent is to obtain a product or service without paying for it.
If you pay for a PPV event and invite 20 friends to watch it, it is a bit different than paying for cable modem service and giving your neighbor free and unmonitored access to it so that they don't have to pay for the service.
Perhaps people are trying to get out of paying for service, perhaps not. Neither you nor I are capable of truly determining that. Regardless, the person who's running the Wi-Fi hub is paying for access; hence the cable company has already gotten their pound of flesh for a broadband connection. Provided that this connection isn't being abused, I don't see the point in them simply getting more and more from several different people for the same level of service. That's just plain nonsense.
Paying for a PPV event and inviting friends over is essentially what you're doing with sharing Wi-Fi with your neighbors. You've purchased a service from the cable company and you, along with others, are enjoying the benefits of said purchase. In either case, the only folks who are enjoying these benefits are ones who have been openly invited to do so, and the cable company has been paid for providing these benefits.
said by boogie74:
A closer analogy to the situation would be if you got cable ISP service and invited your neighbor over to use your computer in the same room with you while you both surf the web on the same exact sites. You are then enjoying the same service together at the same time. Otherwise, you are just trying to get the service without paying for it- hence it is stealing.
Bzzzt, wrong... The connection has already been paid for by someone, and is not being duplicated in any way (sharing is different than copying). There has been no theft, just cooperation among two or more people.
said by boogie74:
Here's a suggestion- PAY for the service like everyone else, BE HONEST about it and you won't have to worry about being sued.
If cable companies were HONEST, treated their consumers with the respect they deserved, gave their consumers the service they paid for, and didn't price gouge at every chance they got, then your suggestion would probably be better received by most. I believe that once people get these basic things from their providers the problem will go away.
--
"Objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are." - Meat Loaf, Bat out of Hell II | |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to alex4life
[QUOTE=alexthepsychoI'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.[/QUOTE]
Yes.. the world has gotten out of hand... WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A PURCHASER AGREEMENT WITH A MOVIE? One day I will go to burger king and will have to sign an agreement saying I cannot share fries with my girlfriend, but instead must pay them $1 extra for that right. | |
Kylow
@167.1.x.x | reply to NOVA_Guy
"I'd side with the defendant, regardless of what the law says."
With this attitude, the plaintiff could strike you without using one of their strikes. You would never be a juror. | |
Kylow
@167.1.x.x | reply to joako
Actually, funny story. I was visiting New York and we went to Carnegie Deli. Listed on the menu was a 3 dollar charge for sharing entrees, and a 1 dollar charge for sharing soup. | |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null | SOUP NAZI! | |
wkendrvr
join:2001-07-09
Greensboro, NC
| reply to NOVA_Guy
Sure you can get a ppv and invite your friends over. That is not what was happening. He was advertising to anyone that he had this access point. It was on his website. So if you changed your analogy to include advertising that you were showing it for free in the local newspaper, then you would be a little closer to accurate. And sharing your bandwidth does degrade the network as they are working on the premise that you are not using your access 24 x 7. If you are trying to get dedicated service on the cheap, expect them to not want to comply. | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Yeah, he made a mistake by advertising so much info about his wireless network configuration.
At the very least he should have withheld key information that would have established the link to his carrier.
A network like that should have been confined to a small circle of friends and not advertised if we wanted to keep it on the QT.
Arrogance is causing him a lot of grief.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
Jimbo Jones
@67.104.x.x
| reply to boogie74
All I have to say is that I pay $30 a month for cable modem, and I have practically unlimited bandwidth even though all of my neighbors have the same provider. I am completely happy paying this much for my service granted I continue to get this great connection. Are people so cheap that they won't pay $30 a month for a sweet service.
I HIGHLY recommend WIDEOPENWEST.COM!!!!!!!!!
But let the people share their connections | |
danc694u
And Your Point Is?
join:2002-01-10
Moody, AL
| reply to GuggyFresh
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.
Does this include letting your neighbor use your PC and connection at your home, if he isn't a subscriber? Say ...just for some homework research that was taking too long on his dial up?
Seems like it should, since he effectively would be STEALING. He should buy his own, instead of borrowing yours.
Broadband Nazi = RIAA
--
A bird doesn't sing because he has an answer. He sings, because he has a song. | |
|
