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

Thu Apr 25 19:21:27 UTC 2019

In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87 at Spark> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>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)
>• wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon)
>• other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn 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