nanog mailing list archives
Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
From: "K. Scott Helms" <kscott.helms () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 15:30:05 -0400
After all, it worked for Napster.... Scott Helms On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87@Spark> you write:-=-=-=-=-=- feeling cranky, are we, job? (accusing an antispam expert of spammingon a mailing list by having too long a .sig?)but it’s true! anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except forICANN GAC representatives) all accept that.to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious howthe AUPs of carriers try to disallowbandwidth resale while permitting • cybercafe operations and other “free wifi" (where internet servicemight be provided for patrons in ahotel or cafe) • wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit forallowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon)• other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes andopenvpn gateways To belabor the fairly obvious, residential and business service are different even if the technology is the same. For example, Comcast's residential TOS says: You agree that the Service(s) and the Xfinity Equipment will be used only for personal, residential, non-commercial purposes, unless otherwise specifically authorized by us in writing. You are prohibited from reselling or permitting another to resell the Service(s) in whole or in part, ... [ long list of other forbidden things ] Their business TOS is different. It says no third party use unless your agreement permits it, so I presume they have a coffee shop plan. (The agreements don't seem to be on their web site.) I'd also observe that coffee shop wifi isn't "resale" since it's free, it's an amenity. As to how do these guys think they'll get away with it, my guess is that they heard that "disruption" means ignoring laws and contracts and someone told them that is a good thing. R's, John
Current thread:
- Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 24)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Paul Ferguson (Apr 24)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Job Snijders (Apr 24)
- 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 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? K. Scott Helms (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Tom Beecher (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 25)
- RE: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? adamv0025 (Apr 26)
- 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? William Herrin (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Rich Kulawiec (Apr 27)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mike Hammett (Apr 27)
- 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? Matthew Kaufman (Apr 26)
- 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? Mike Hammett (Apr 26)