[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?

> On Apr 25, 2019, at 09:10 , Mark Seiden <mis at seiden.com> wrote:
> feeling cranky, are we, job?   (accusing an antispam expert of spamming on a mailing list by having too long a .sig?)
> but itâ??s true!  anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except for ICANN GAC representatives) all accept that. 
> to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious how the AUPs of carriers try to disallow bandwidth resale while permitting
> cybercafe operations and other â??free wifi" (where internet service might be provided for patrons in a hotel or cafe)

Business internet contracts usually donâ??t prohibit resale, or, they place different limits on it. Residential contracts usually flat out prohibit it.
At least in theory, I would expect most cybercafe and other such operations to have a business class of service from the ISP.
> wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon)
For residential end users, it probably does violate the ToS, but itâ??s unlikely such violation would be easily detected or enforced.
> other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn gateways
Unless youâ??re doing something illegal or making money selling your bandwidth, most things like this probably arenâ??t technically violations of the ToS.
> i suppose they could just try to disallow resale or allow on-premises use even if revenue is received.  the Fon business model seems pretty comparable to me.

I agree â?? Iâ??m pretty sure that both the Fon model and the packetstream model are probably ToS violations for most residential services.

Fon is unlikely to get noticed by most ISPs.

Packetstream seems a lot more risky, IMHO.


> On Apr 24, 2019, 10:51 PM -0700, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net>, wrote:
>> Dear Anne,
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:07:51PM -0600, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
>>> How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider?
>> Can you perhaps cite ToS excerpts from one or more major providers to
>> support your assertion?
>>> Anne P. Mitchell,
>>> Attorney at Law
>>> GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
>>> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
>>> Legislative Consultant
>>> CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
>>> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
>>> Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
>>> Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
>>> Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center
>>> California Bar Association
>>> Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
>>> Colorado Cyber Committee
>>> Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
>>> Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
>> Are you listing all the above because you are presenting a formal
>> position supported by all these organisations about ToS? Can you for
>> instance clarify how signing of as a director for the Denver Internet
>> Exchange shapes the context of your ToS message?
>> Or, perhaps you are listing the above for some kind of self-marketing
>> purposes? If that is the case, please note that it is fairly uncommon to
>> use the NANOG mailing list to distribute resumes. I know numerous
>> websites dedicated to the dissemination of work histories, perhaps you
>> can use those instead of operational mailling list?
>> Regards,
>> Job
>> ps. RFC 3676 section 4.3

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190426/b829b6dd/attachment.html>