> 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

Reply via email to