 
vknight775
join:2001-12-08
Etobicoke, ON | How much do you want to bet... ...that FBI storm troopers, CIA, NSA, KGB, Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, Viet Kong, and the Obsidian Order break down his door in less than 72 hours?
Screw finding Osama Bin Laden...let stop all free wireless access points! | |
|  | andreo
join:2001-03-30
Des Moines, IA | Re: How much do you want to bet... You beat me to it! I was just going to say they should send in the FBI. They've got nothing better to do these days. | |
| | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Re: How much do you want to bet... said by andreo:
You beat me to it! I was just going to say they should send in the FBI. They've got nothing better to do these days.
Actually, some parts of the FBI are still working overtime on the fallout from September 11. However you have the politics of upper management and the fact that a lot of what they find can not be applied because it 'discriminates' against people of middle eastern cultures (DUH!). Then you have congress and the rest of our elected rulers doing their garbage. And lastly, the US of A is still almost a free country (unless you are a deep pocket), although the banning of the pledge of allegiance may have us all following the atheist religion of the old communist regime.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by vknight775:
...the Obsidian Order...
Wow, I'm surprised anyone still remembers Deep Space Nine. Such a shame its gone.  | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: How much do you want to bet... DS9 kicked arse.
Lexx ended. Darn, but Farscape is still kicking some booty. | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus |  Re: How much do you want to bet...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: How much do you want to bet... Obsidion order or the NSA, hmm if both having equal tech dont know who id fear more, both can make people simply disappear.
--
Student by day, Wizard by night, allways a gamer. | |
| | |
vknight775
join:2001-12-08
Etobicoke, ON | I loved that show. It's going to take me a couple of seasons to get used to John Archer.
Okay, I'll admit, that was a bit off the subject of the thread... | |
| | | | 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA |  OMG
Personally I love the ST:TNG --> Have about 3/4 of the episodes on my PC.
Hey we need a DSLR forum for trekkie stuff! | |
| | | | | | | schyfe
join:2002-01-08
West Palm Beach, FL | LOL, the Obsidian Order, you don't want to meet them!!! | |
| | | | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY |  Love the logo at the bottom
"Time Warner Cable - New York At Its Best"
Scary thought isn't it? I think OOL is better... | |
| | 
NYCnotPir8
@167.153.x.x | Re: Love the logo at the bottom Yeah but Cablevision's cable TV SUCKS. | |
| | | infolynx
Infolynx
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Englewood, NJ | Re: Love the logo at the bottom Have Dish network for TV optimum online for cable modem only way to go | |
| 
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: | Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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:
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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 | 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
The EVIL TRIO- Obama, Pelosi, and Dodd
Premium
join:2002-03-05
Purcellville, VA
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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:
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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:
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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:
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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
| 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
The EVIL TRIO- Obama, Pelosi, and Dodd
Premium
join:2002-03-05
Purcellville, VA
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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:
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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:
| 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
The EVIL TRIO- Obama, Pelosi, and Dodd
Premium
join:2002-03-05
Purcellville, VA
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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 | |
| | | | | | | |
Jimbo Jones
@67.104.x.x
| 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 | |
| | | | | | |
Kylow
@167.1.x.x | "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. | |
| | | | | | 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| [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 | Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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 | Re: What are the terms of the contract? SOUP NAZI! | |
| | | | | wkendrvr
join:2001-07-09
Greensboro, NC
| 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:
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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..... | |
| | | | 
danc694u
And Your Point Is?
join:2002-01-10
Moody, AL
| 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. | |
| |
NYCNotPir8
@167.153.x.x | 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:
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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
| 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:
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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..... | |
| | | | schyfe
join:2002-01-08
West Palm Beach, FL | Re: What are the terms of the contract? | |
| | | |
NOVA_Guy
The EVIL TRIO- Obama, Pelosi, and Dodd
Premium
join:2002-03-05
Purcellville, VA
| 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 | |
| | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: What are the terms of the contract? 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 | |
| | | |
Kylow
@167.1.x.x
| Well, if you're talking about prosecution, you may have a point, but if you're referring to whether or not they can cancel his service, they undoubtedly have a clause that states something like "We may terminate your account at any time, with or without cause." If they terminate the account of everyone who they find to be redistributing, people will stop doing it, or at the very least, there will be a marked decrease in the amount of wifi sharing going on. | |
| | | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| Hey I have a great idea.... Interesting how they have selected this poor fellow to harass. For those of you not living within the Time Warner Money Zone they are pushing their digital TV service and every single person I know says it does not work well. Channels constantly going out, poor signal.... The RoadRunner Internet cable works great. I have a shell account with my old ISP but they push the digital TV service on you like crazy. I am not a television person. Part of Road Runners deal is you either pay 60 dollars for a basic tv account with Road Runner or for 44 dollars you get it with their Standard tier of cable television. I took the standard because I would be paying more otherwise. I watch the news so I like the basic service. I had to go up. I just went back down to basic because if you use Earthlink/RR internet than you can have just good old basic analog service and all you Time Warner police out there it works the best, the analog service and I only want the basic channels. I am not a TV head. Head smead,dead, dread, cable WI-Fi fled the cred bed. Oh pity poor Pontius. You Time Warner people, when are you going to quit being such jackasses and love us here in New York? We love you and the cable RoadRunner service. Seriously it is the shit. To bad your company is so pathetic. Stop harassing us. Provide good service por favor... How about keeping your focus there Mr. Big Gorilla sending threatening letters to us .
Dear Road Runner service. It has come to my attention you have been overcharging me and providing terrible service. That makes you in violation of Article 001 of the Me service contract your repair person signed which promised me a great signal otherwise I get 50,000 dollars from you. So Time Warner I have a question to ask you? Where's my money? huh? huh? huh? huh? Got it? huh? huh? huh? | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
MortySnerd
join:2001-07-26
Mclean, VA
| I wouldn't want them sucking my bandwidth Let's face it: If any of us had a guy like this on our node, causing us counter strike ping times above 60ms or downloads below 2000kbps, we'd be crapping cinder blocks. Some cable networks can barely handle the e-mail load. (As for the FBI invasion this guy is about to face, that is just as asburd, and I'm not here to endorse that kind of tactic.)
Just remember that these kinds of activities, while pretty cool and fun, take up a LOT of resources that aren't getting paid for. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| djrobsd
join:2002-01-24
San Diego, CA
| The guy advertised it on his website It wasn't hard for RoadRunner to figure out. The guy advertised he was giving away internet access to anyone in his neighborhood via his website. Check out the link to "his website" up above.. He did take the page down that talked about it, but that's cuz he got in trouble.
Honestly guys, you're not paying for bandwidth when you have a cable modem or DSL service. In fact, you're not paying for bandwidth until you buy a T1 internet connection or higher. When you get a T1, they GUARANTEE the 1500kbps bandwidth to you, and it's yours to do with as you please, including selling web hosting and such.
However, when you get a cable modem or DSL service, the bandwidth is AVAILABLE to you to use, but it's not 100% yours, and you can't tell me for $40 bucks a month they can afford to give you 2-3 megabits, when the telcom companies all charge 500-800+ a month for a T1 line.
To me, this is the same thing as buying cable TV or DSS satellite service, and then running a wire through the wall to your neighbor next door, or worse yet, re-transmitting the signal via some wireless video transmitter so your neighbors can all watch TV for free. It's theft of service.
While I don't normally side with big companies, in this case I do have to say they are justified in asking this guy to remove public access to their network.
However, if he wants to run a wireless LAN from his house, that's fine - you should be allowed to hook more then one computer at your house up if you want to. He just needs to install the proper measures to make sure only AUTHORIZED users inside his house are able to use it. | |
| | 
Rally1
join:2000-06-12
Irvine, CA
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: The guy advertised it on his website quote:
However, if he wants to run a wireless LAN from his house, that's fine - you should be allowed to hook more then one computer at your house up if you want to. He just needs to install the proper measures to make sure only AUTHORIZED users inside his house are able to use it.
what is "proper measures " no off the shelf 802.11b LAN is going to be truly secure. | |
| | | | |
NOVA_Guy
The EVIL TRIO- Obama, Pelosi, and Dodd
Premium
join:2002-03-05
Purcellville, VA
| Re: The guy advertised it on his website said by methuselah1879:
What defines "reasonable use"? What defines the limits at which you can utilize the service that some company provides? Are there definitions, or is it really just a vaporous cloud that the companies can change on a whim?
Based upon how I've seen most cable companies act, reasonable use would be defined as whatever puts the most money possible out of your pocket and into theirs while allowing them to provide a bare minimum service. It's companies like Time Warner that epitomize this characterization with their overboard reactions like we're seeing here.
The limits are, unfortunately, arbitrarily set at this point. A reasonable standard could/would/should be allowing a person to use resources to the point just before s/he starts substantially degrading the experience for everyone else on the node. This level of use, however, can change from network to network, as some cable companies do a better job with their service than others.
Unfortunately, right now it just appears that most of the stuff regarding consumer rights, consumer fair use, and consumer expectations being fulfilled when it comes to cable broadband are vague, if existent at all. That's why cable companies can get away with calling the FBI when you uncap your modem and threatening to sue you and label you a terrorist if you share your broadband connection with your neighbor who just wants to check his email.
--
"Objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are." - Meat Loaf, Bat out of Hell II | |
|
kuop1
@attbi.com
thumbs down from:
NickD 
| Thumbs Up to TWC! Go get'em TWC! Theft of Service raises the monthly rates for us all. | |
| | | 
grunteled
Puffy And Prickly
Premium
join:2001-06-13
Kansas City, MO
clubs: | Re: at&t sux too.. Makes you wonder how many BB customers monthly rates it takes to fly over cities sniffing for 802.11b. I mean really, it's just silly. | |
| |
NOVA_Guy
The EVIL TRIO- Obama, Pelosi, and Dodd
Premium
join:2002-03-05
Purcellville, VA
| The real story behind those black helicopters.. :) I can see it now:
"AOLTW1 to base. AOLTW1 to base. It looks like we've got one at First and Main. We're picking up his transmissions from here, and it looks bad. Better send reinforcements."
"Base here. The trucks are rolling as we speak. The FBI has been informed, and their special agents are on the way."
As the security force surrounds the building, the people in the neighboring buildings begin to wonder... Is it a terrorist? Were they planning another attack on New York City? Were they going to blow up a bridge? A tunnel? Could they have a lead on Osama Bin Laden?
Two helicopters buzz overhead as the snipers move into position on the surrounding buildings, and then the lead agent begins to speak through the bullhorn:
"We have you surrounded, Dark Knight. There's no escape. We know where you are, and have a warrant for your arrest. Drop your mouse and keyboard to the ground, and come out with your hands up."
The FBI arrives and assesses the situation. "This is getting more serious. We've detected that his neighbor has just checked her email using his connection," agent Sculder says to Agent In Charge Mully. "There's no time for negotiations; someone might try downloading an MP3 next. Better take him out."
The snipers, sitting in position on the neighboring buildings, open their cases and pull out laptop computers. They boot up and join the Quake game that the 802.11b offender is playing, quickly fragging him to death while the AOL-Time Warner security forces invade the apartment and take the 16 year old's cable modem. The FBI then moves in, confiscates all computer equipment, and leaves-- not charging the youth with anything.
Down in the van, the AOL-TW security forces hook up the cable modem. "We've got a live this time, gentlemen," Squad Leader Turner says. "He was not only sharing his connection so that his neighbor could check her email. It also looks like he could have uncapped his modem some day, given the proper software and time."
"OK, we'll charge him as a terrorist under the Patriot Act," Special Agent Sculder says. Moments later, the youth is led from the building to join the thousands of others who have been incarcerated for allowing others access to their networks.
"By my calculations, we've forced two new people to subscribe today," Squad Leader Turner says. "And the operation has only cost us $27,000."
--
"Objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are." - Meat Loaf, Bat out of Hell II | |
|
jsdfja
@xtraport.net
| michael powell doesn't buy it Quote from michael powell (fcc chairman, not that the fcc decides such things)
"I don't think it's stealing by any definition of law at the moment. The truth is, it's an unintended use."
»216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:K2···ie=UTF-8 | |
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: michael powell doesn't buy it Wow, the first anonymous posting I've given a thumb... Good article. Thanks. | |
| shankerwi
join:2000-09-19
Milwaukee, WI
| I'd be embarrassed to share TW's Bandwidth | |
| |
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I'd be embarrassed to share TW's Bandwidth Yes, yes, but if I choose to disregard the contract, am I not in breach of contract? Clearly a civil matter, not a criminal one.
As a landlord, if my tenants sign a lease and later decide they wish to move out, yes I can sue them, etc.. go see the judge, but it's a civil matter with a lawsuit. If I call the police and say "my tenant skipped out, I want them arrested", they would tell me to pound salt.
where is the difference? Where do you draw the line? | |
| | |
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | Re: I'd be embarrassed to share TW's Bandwidth or better yet, what if the tenants decide to stay without paying, still a civil matter.
Bin Laden must be laughing his ass off. I can't believe the FBI has this kind of time on there hands. | |
| 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Your network versus theirs
I recall Comcast's ToS indicated that you could not use the service as an "end-point" on a "non-Comcast LAN."
I kinda laughed at this. First off, define the "end-point." Second define a "non-Comcast LAN."
I would argue that just as with telephone service, their network ends at the demarc which is at the outside of your house. Therefore, anything located inside the house is a "non-Comcast LAN" and by design, connecting the hardware in the standard, accepted way, violates their ToS.
Even if you say it goes up to the modem, the modem acts as a router, and is therefore again the endpoint of the network.
They were trying to say you can't setup a home network because they want to charge you for another IP address....but obviously the lawyers had no clue how their stuff actually worked.
K.
--
The slackjaw gaze of true profanity, feels more like surrender than defeat - If culture is the curse of the thinking class
RUSH "Ceiling Unlimited" 2002 | |
| | |
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Re: Crumpled! Ahahahaha purple jello. dude you have a great name. | |
| | | | | | | N6NVR
join:2002-01-10
Brea, CA
| Re: Crumpled! Ahahahaha Look at the initials by the signature. He might not have gotten the nastygram from the main kahuna himself. Looks like the Secretary signed a form letter for da boss.
That may be why he is pissed. They didn't even think he was worth a real nastygram. They pooped on him by proxy. He was just one of several bugs to be stepped on at the same time. What disrespect when he was feeling so unique and smart in beating the big guy. | |
| 
Penguins
Have You Played Atari Today?
join:2001-12-01
Cleveland, OH
| The BIG difference that everyone is ignoring. The reason the cable-tv to internet analogy is invalid is that the cable company does not own or have the exclusive rights to the data they are providing.
Unlike cable TV, where you are essentially agreeing to private viewing of privately owned content, no last mile provider can claim any kind of ownership of the data they are providing.
They dont own the internet and once you obtain the data from them, they cant stop you from redistributing it.
Now there are very vague laws that prohibit the retransmission of 'any cable company service'. I dont believe this law should apply to retransmission of downloaded data since the cable company has no ownership or exclusive contractual right to broadcast it.
Upstream is another matter... thats probably theft of service since the upstream delivery service was contracted to a specific person. | |
| | wkendrvr
join:2001-07-09
Greensboro, NC
| Get a clue folks, its not yours to give away!! You folks crack me up. You piss and moan when you can't get 3000kbs download speeds, but you want someone to leave an open access WAP around for someone to suck down the bandwidth? Can't have it both ways. I have no problem with someone wanting to share bandwidth, but I do when it is MY bandwidth he is sharing!! If he was sharing the cable tv service all of the neighborhood, no one would even question his actions. And the fact that they don't own the internet is a non-issue. They own the access method that you are using and they can control what you can and can't do with it. If you don't like it, go get a dedicated circuit for megabucks a month and do with it as you wish. | |
| | TechieRoy
join:2002-01-31
Oklahoma City, OK | Re: The BIG difference that everyone is ignoring. Hmmmm...
How about if I run a spliter and phone line to 20 houses in my neighborhood? (Technical hurdles withstanding)
Think they would be upset if 20 customers called and cancelled because they all now shared one phone line? | |
| | ksuderman
join:2001-10-21
Poughkeepsie, NY
| said by Penguins:
Unlike cable TV, where you are essentially agreeing to private viewing of privately owned content, no last mile provider can claim any kind of ownership of the data they are providing.
They dont own the internet and once you obtain the data from them, they cant stop you from redistributing it.
Yes they can, at least over their network. They are not claiming ownership of the content they are saying that you can't redistribute the service they provide to you, and that is perfectly enforcable. You did sign a contract didn't you?
If you don't believe me then get yourself cut off and take TWCNYC to court to force them to re-install service. At best you'll get laughed out of court, at worst you'll get in trouble for filing a nuisance lawsuit.
If you want to become an ISP there are several companies that would be more than willing to run a T1, T3, OC48, etc cable to your residence for thousands and thousands (and thousands) of dollars per month. You can redistribute that to your hearts content. If you want to pay ~$40 per month you have to agree to a certain set of rules... and then follow them or risk losing your service.
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.
No it's not, it's a terrible analogy. If you want to share your internet connection in that fashion then invite all your neighbors to your house to watch over your shoulder while you surf the net. Sharing you internet connection in that fashion is just fine.
Hosting a public wireless network to share your internet connection is the same as wiring your neighbors house to share your cable TV or phone line. You can end up with the police at your door for that! | |
| | | |
|
|
·
AT&T Doing Flyovers on CA to search for WiFi?lol
