AT&T Southwest → Re: from sbc epc sales rep: why not offer 1 static

Heres the site for the yahoo TOS and it also has a link for the acceptable use agreement
»sbc.yahoo.com/terms/

Does that link apply to business accounts? All I could find referred to "non-commercial" accounts. I realize that most of the folk here are in that category, but not all of us are and I'd like to know what the TOS for my business account allows...

I think it does but dont quote me on it since it mentions stuff about multiple IP accounts ect.. I'll do some more checking for ya.. try this link it under legal info..
»support.sbcglobal.net/

Wound up at the same place, and found that it explicitly prohibits use of the service for commercial purposes. In that case, what's the point of paying extra for a business account? It also explicitly prohibits use of the service for hosting any sort of web, Email, or FTP server. I suspect that the intent is to prohibit anyone from going into competition as an ISP, but it's certainly written in a way as to make any business use of the service a violation of the terms...

However, the web page that describes the service I got has this to say: "It's perfect for anyone looking to support a work-from-home or small office LAN, host a Web or email server, or reliably upload documents." Obviously the two statements contradict each other unless there's a different TOS document for business accounts!

[text was edited by author 2002-12-19 17:17:40]

As far as I know there is, it is more legal mumbo-jumbo than anything...

jimkyle and cccmtech, I think you are getting too wrapped up in the "non-commercial" and "make a profit" words here. Running a server doesn't imply anything about commerce or profits, or even the attempt to make a profit. A server is a server even if it's just a hobby.

But I had a question a while back about the "static before May 2000" clause that I never did get an answer to. I have a single static IP but I got it AFTER May 2000 and I run a server but I don't make a profit (although I do charge my customers a small fee) ... The TOS as I have been able to find doesn't cover the situation one way or another. That would be fine but it makes me nervous, I can't afford to have the service pulled because of some vague technicality. Not that I think that's likely at all, don't get me wrong, I just wish it was a bit more clear.

If I'm driving 65 in a 65 mile zone then I expect to be OK. If I'm going faster then I have to keep my eyes open. But if there are no speed limit signs I don't want to discover that I've been doing 65 in a 25 mile zone like some of those Southern states do!

FWIW,
Bill

The "non-commercial" comes straight from the official terms of service. I'm trying to find out if there's a separate TOS document for business accounts; so far there hasn't been any sign of one.

To use your analogy, one sign (on the sales page) says "Minimum speed 50 MPH" while one just beyond it (the TOS page) says "Speed limit 5 MPH" with the result of a Catch-22 situation.

I think this is simply an oversight on the part of SBC's legal beagles, and it has no effect at all on the vast majority of users who have the "standard" residential service. For such accounts the TOS is quite clear: no servers permitted except for single static IP accounts issued prior to May of 2000. Looking at the sales pages for the 768-1500/256 5-static accounts, the major difference between the residential and business sales pages are that the business account costs $20/month more, and the blurb says it's ideal for those wishing to run servers from home offices (my situation). The problem is that I can't find a TOS document that spells out this permission!

If the same TOS, prohibiting servers, applies, then it means I'm being charged $20/month for NO added capability -- and that I'll be attempting to downgrade to a residential account, or seeing what alternatives I can find...

I'm quite happy with SBC otherwise, but I don't want to be violating the terms of any agreements while paying to prevent that situation from happening. If I'll be in violation, then why pay the added fee?

We are in 100% agreement about how vague and unspecific the TOS is. I have the "business" DSL, which is how I got the one static IP, and I work out of my home. As far as I am concerned I have dotted all the i's and crossed all my t's to say that, yes, I am using this for business purposes.

One of the reasons I disqualified Comcast cable was that they specifically disallowed VPN access over their network. As I need VPN to do my work that meant I could be in direct violation of their TOS or find another job. As I didn't care to take the risk I went elsewhere. But with the dynamics of this Yahoo move I haven't been able to clarify my situation well enough to make me comfortable.

I guess they have set their concentration on "home" users and have not spent much time considering the TOS as it applies to people like us. Now as long as they don't wade in and start dropping service for "violations" then I'm OK with that, I'm just not comfortable without a clearer understanding between myself and SBC. I, too, am quite happy with SBC and won't consider moving someplace else as long as things work as well as they do.

My comment re "commercial" and "server" were more to point out that "commerce" and "server" are unrelated and that the TOS seems to join them. I could be an active eBay trader, using my DL line for lucrative "commerce" and not run a single server. Or I could be a hobbiest running a web or email server with huge loads and not be commercial at all. The question to SBC would be: is it the "commerce" or the "server" part that you wish to restrict for the (presumably) cheaper services?

Perhaps the question really is too difficult to answer cleanly and easily and that's why it ends up not being answered at all?

Bill