nanog mailing list archives
Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
From: Christian Kujau <lists () nerdbynature de>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 19:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider?
https://packetstream.io/support#q33
Customers should ensure that their use case does not violate the ToS of the service they are using.
So, I guess it's up the the customer caring about that... C. -- BOFH excuse #107: The keyboard isn't plugged in
Current thread:
- My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?), (continued)
- My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Ross Tajvar (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Tom Beecher (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mark Seiden (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? John Levine (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Owen DeLong (Apr 26)