[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
And that is the conundrum here I think. It's very difficult (for me) to
reconcile "NET NEUTRALITY!! PROVIDERS SHOULD BE DUMB PIPES!" with "Hey
providers, this company is trying to do something sketchy, you should take
action to stop it from working."
Reselling bandwidth/access to your residential internet connection isn't
(to my knowledge) breaking any criminal LAWS. It's only violating the ToS
between you and your provider, to which they have a remedy of canceling
your account if they decide to. (Maybe there's civil action there? I
dunno.) So for anything not violating laws I'm not sure I want ISPs
interfering with traffic at all.
On the flip side, maybe ISPs can be pragmatic about this, and send warnings
to people who may start using this..."service". Give them a heads up that
they appear to be doing something that is in violation of the ToS, and if
they continue, their account might be canceled. Be a nicer method than just
0 to canceled in one go.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:12 AM Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <
> amitchell at isipp.com> wrote:
>> > On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>> > It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding.
>> I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream
>> doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do.
>> If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come
>> after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just
>> running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I
>> am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or
>> And *that* is *exactly* my concern. Because those users...('you' in this
>> example)...they have *no idea* it is causing them to violate their ToS/AUP
>> with their provider.
>> And this in part, is my reason for bringing it up here in NANOG - because
>> (at least some of) those big providers are here. And those big providers
>> are in the best position to stamp this out (if they think that it needs
>> stamping out).
> So providers should stamp this out (because it is â??badâ??) and support
> customers who are running TOR nodes (because those are â??goodâ??). Did I get
> that right?
> Matthew Kaufman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...