> On Apr 25, 2019, at 09:10 , Mark Seiden <m...@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 it’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 “free wifi" (where internet service might be > provided for patrons in a hotel or cafe)
Business internet contracts usually don’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 it’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 you’re doing something illegal or making money selling your bandwidth, most things like this probably aren’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 — I’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. Owen > On Apr 24, 2019, 10:51 PM -0700, Job Snijders <j...@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
