Time Warner threatens subscribers using open WiFi

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://rickt.org/stuff/soho_wireless/twcnyc/">http://rickt.org/stuff/soho_wireless/twcnyc/</a><br /><br />"Time Warner Cable of NYC sent me a nastygram on June 25, 2002, instructing me to cease and desist from allowing anyone to access my wireless access point. There was also several threats, ranging from slightly veiled to just outright nasty threats about being sued, FBI criminal investigations, etc etc."<br /><br />You can download copies of the letter at the link above. What a joke. <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif" />

[stevew]

With all do respect, why is it a joke? Is it just you accessing it or others also? Are you violating their Acceptable Use Policy? Just curious.

[mookie123]

I think it's a typical broken promise of 'all you can eat' internet access until we say it ain't so.

Actually I find it amusing that the demise of telecom company lies in their offering ever competitive cheap broad band access.

[dma1965]

This has got to be the most insane threat I have ever seen in my life!!!
Does this mean that anyone who inadvertantly either forgets to set WEP encryption, or just prefers not to use encrytption is guilty of a crime? Are we now expected to construct wireless "fences" to keep people with WiFi cards out of our transmission range? How about music ? Can the RIAA potentially sue us if we decide to play a purchased track loud enough for the neighbors to hear? Would that be considered an unauthorized public performance? How about if someone picks up a wireless transmission of a DVD playing over a wireless video sending unit? Big business is getting out of control. If you ask me, they deserve every attempt everyone makes to subvert their protection schemes. This is the kind of crap that makes people, like me, give up on any attempt to create an environment of fair use in their perspective. How can anyone take Time Warner seriously if they think they can pull this crap???

[Joff]

I doubt that they are concerned about criminal activities. I think they are just pissed off that they are not making extra $$$ from it. I can't tell you what I think of these profit making sharks since they would sue me too.

I must sadly say, they probably have the law on their side. Especially with the actual terrorist climate. I fear that you will have to stop being kind. After all, that's what they are complaining about: offer a free service to the community.

You have my moral support and I say thanks to you for sharing your broadband connection with others. I just hoped that the we could leave in a world where poeple would come before money.

[kennyg]

I think you folks are blowing this out of proportion. Your "all you can eat" access it contingent on a reasonable subscriber usage as is the price, now if you want to allow access to all the people in you building, you can charge them and pay the high fees that ISP's do. Or they can raise all of our rates and for go caring...

Now, I'll grant you the wording was a bit heavy, but being it's New York, this is about the kind of letter that works there.

kenny

[JonnoB]

I believe it is a waste of time for a company the size of Time/Warner to go after people like this, but at the same time, it is their right to do so. The subscriber undoubtedly signed an agreement to get this service and thus agreed not to share the connection with others.... so he is in breach of contract and probably breaking a few laws as a result of that breach.

Alternatively, he could switch to another provider, and if none available, establish his own WiFi ISP service and give it away... too costly I am sure - but those are the market dynamics if he wants to play.

[Jason Dunn]

COST OF CABLE MODEM CONNECTION =

Total bandwidth piped into area by provider
divided by
(Number of users + average bandwidth consumption)

Time Warner is going about this in the wrong way, but if this guy wants huge bandwidth that he can share any way he wants, he should pony up $1000 a month for a T1. If everyone shared their connection with another person, our rates would double or more - it's simple math. As the recently cable modem bankruptcies have shown, there's not a huge profit margin in high-speed access.

[DaleReeck]

No offense Jason, but cable companies are greedy scumbags. I have cable modem plus a full cable package and I pay $130 a month. If they can't make a go on it based on rates like that, that's too bad. My service is Adelphia. Adelphia is in the toilet because of mismanagement and downright criminal conduct, not people stealing their services. They claim that is why they lose money. But if they didn't have this to blame, they would find something else to blame rate raises on. I have no sympathy for Adelphia.

[Joff]

I have other views.

I think that everyone who subscribes to broadband services should also be allowed to use other's broadband access if they wish to share it. In this way, we could build up a large wireless coverage area at no extra cost to the ISPs. Everyone pays its monthly bill but also has the convenience of being able to connect while away from home. In return, this same person pays his broadband subscription and also permits other users to use his wireless acces point.

I think this business model would work if everyone plays by the rule. It would benefit the ISPs because all the users pay their monthly bill. It would benefit the users by offering them wireless access while away from home. And this would also benefit the wireless industry by selling more wireless equipments. Let's face it ISPs are not financially capable (or willing?) to offer wide area coverage. This approach seems reasonable.

To prevent fraud (I mean shameless users not subscribing and still enjoying broadband access at no cost), a database of subscribed users would be consulted prior to giving access to users.

What do you think?

[Hans the Hedgehog]

You people and your silly "all you can eat" ideas. He accepted the use policy when he subscribed. Period. It is a contract. Just because we want all our cable viewing and broadband activities to be free and open, they are a business... greedy or not, that's what they are! I love to hear everyone here protect a greedy, manipulative, monopolistic company like MS when they are trying to protect their revenue with illegal practices, strong-arm techniques, FUD, and what have you; yet they jump all over a company for doing the same. :roll:

With all this talk of warchalking and what not, it seems to me that the tech community has become a bunch of spoiled little theives who want their connection, irregardless of the consequences. :evil: Sure, it would be a wonderful world if we all had a 'net connection where ever we were, just like some fantasy out of a Gibson novel... but who is going to pay for this? The companies that warchalkers are ripping off, the state, the gov't? Who?

Cable is not free. Just like you cannot share your cable access with your neighbors, you cannot share your broadband connection. Just because the technology exists does not make it right. This is just another case of a geek finding a tech loophole and getting smacked down for it.

Just my (soon to be irrationally flamed) opinion,
Hans.

[jjjwicks]

I guess everyone keeps glossing over the "criminal activity" statements in the letter. Yea, Time Warner is worried about losing $$$$, but if you were a terrorist in NYC and wanted to send information to your contacts via the Internet, the best way is to put a laptop in your car and drive around to get a good 802.11 signal. We had a access point in our office that was open to visitors until we found out that some people were visiting some really nasty sites using company bandwidth. While we were able to grab their MAC address, all that person has to do is change 802.11 cards and we will never know who it was.

Last thing that I would want is to have the FBI knocking on my door because e-mail messages sent through my access point are detailing attacks on America. Even worse, I would hate to be investigated for trafficing in child porn because some pervert sent the files through your portal. While a thorough investigation will clear your name, having to pay a lawyer to defend you will cost big $$$$, not to mention having to explain to your family and employers why the FBI thinks your traffic kiddie porn. Remember that you are in NYC, who knows what kind of sites people are going to.

You could sniff all the traffice going through your portal, but I hope that you have 100GB of storage for the logs. Sniffing traffic would also make you worse than the government, since they need a warrant to do so.

Bottom line, if you really want all of NYC to have free internet access, become an ISP.

[mookie123]

I am sure that's exactly what the government wants, control every access point. And they think the Chinese government is evil holding responsibility of every ISP on the world's evil content.

come on now...

Isn't this a case of balancing between better information access for everybody and stopping unethical use of information.

...think back to the early days of internet, if someone wants to use resource he can, but he has to take care of it too. The community sets the rule, everybody else backs off.

What's next? passing a law banning home made neighborhood open wireless entworking because some teen goes antisocial?

[Sslixtis]

I agree with both jjjwicks and Hans the Hedgehog 100%. And if anyone believes that this letter doesn't in fact have real teeth after the FBI has been warning about an Al-Qaida plot to use Cyber-Terrorism against US facilities: Nuclear power plants, Mass transit, Etc... they are truely self-delusional! It doesn't really matter what AOL Time Warner (Evil Megacorp Scum, IMHO) REALLY wants, the FBI has caught alot of criticism for not being proactive concerning the threat that was percieved before 9-11, you can bet if they err this time it will be on the side of "security". I do not think that there is really anyway to stop cyber-terrorists from gaining access (anonymous or otherwise) to the Net, however there is no sense in making it any easier either. The fact is whatever anyones opinion on the matter, realistic cost analysis, moral stance on lying and cheating (he did agree to their subscription agreement) or anything else. He is inadvertantly (one hopes) providing enemies of the US with a means of attack. I personally do not think the FBI is going to be too understanding of any of those concerns either when they hammer this guy. Just a thought. Remember "Only the paranoid survive!" :D

[jeffmd]

wow, are people really this stupid? i guess so..

if you read the letter (and understood it) you would see it was not time warner with the heavy legal threats, but saying what the US government would do in such a case where your wireless network is the dead end of an attack.

Imo road runner has every single right to protect their ass too, #1 there loseing money on bandwidth being used by non paying customers that normaly would not be wasted, and #2 security issue and anonymouse attacks are very much indeed an issue.

Now if your wireless network is protected and password encrypted, you should have nothing to worry about, infact theres no possible way road runner would know about your access point unless it was public and they were able to get on it and lookup the ip by transmitting a packet over it.

[don996cab]

This is total B.S. from the cable company. They provided a "promised" service at a price, so they should live with it.

Their service contract does restrict what sort of equipment you can use within your own home. How you choose to handle the bandwidth with WI-FI is within your own right. THEY CANNOT FORCE you to password protect your network to prevent bandwithd theft. Just like a car insurance company cannot FORCE you to lock your car.

If they have a problem with technology, then they should explicitly state in their contract that users cannot use wi-fi equipment. Since they did not, users are allowed to do whatever they wish. Of course, wiring your next door neight to have access your network is illegal. However, broadcasting your bandwidth so that you can use it wherever you are is prefectly acceptable!

How you choose to protect your own network is also up to you. If the technology exists and the cable company does not restrict you from having your own private network, then you are not doing anything wrong.

[ghoonk]

Hi guys,

I think we've gone slight off tangent here... we're missing the oringinal issue, which is that Time Warner Cable is threatening legal action against someone who has broken an agreement. It's that simple.

Guys, no matter how you argue the point, Time Warner Cable does have a right to enforce the agreement, which clearly states, in simpler terms, no sharing.

While we all take it for granted to 'share' cable or other forms of broadband access among family members via routers, it's a whole different story when one runs his own hotspot for membes of the public who may not have signed up for TWC's services.

What Rick T is complaining about is akin to a party of 50 going to a diner, ordering one all-you-can-eat and sharing it with the other 49. This just isn't right, and definitely unfair for the diner as well as other patrons.

Conceptually, I do not feel that this is an inaccurate analogy, since it is, in effect what Rick T has done.

Look beyond the now-fashionable 'anti-Corporation' stand so many of us are so trigger-happy about, and look at the case in point. Someone just broke the rules, and when faced with punishment, goes whining to the public, trying to play on YOUR sentiments.

If YOU were charging your neighbours a token fee to use WiFi and YOUR network, and some punk kids come along and RIP YOU OFF, what would YOU do? It's not about Time Warner Cable vs the little guy. It's about rights and wrong.

So Time Warner's legal folks pulled the boilerplate 'you broke an agreement' letter on Rick T. Tell me they didn't have the right to. Wouldn't you?

[ghoonk]

Don, while I do agree that there is nothing in the contract that defines your chocie of equipment, it does clearly define SHARING.

Fact is, Rick T was openly sharing his access. He did NOT implement any specific security measures such that only he or specific users could access that network. He made it open and free, and that's where he crossed the line.

If TWC charged for his bandwidth, do you think he would have put in appropriate measures to limit access? I'm quite sure he would have.

He tried to rip off his service provider and got his dues. Honestly, serves him right. Frankly, TWC should have just prosecuted him instead of going for a cease-and-desist letter. That should warn smart-ass punks against such a childish act. He's lucky, with all the bad press he's tring to stir up, they don't go after him for anything more than a breach of contract.

I hope all broadband ISPs in NYC get wind of this guy and ban him from unlimited broadband access.

[Will T Smith]

I have other views.

I think that everyone who subscribes to broadband services should also be allowed to use other's broadband access if they wish to share it. In this way, we could build up a large wireless coverage area at no extra cost to the ISPs. Everyone pays its monthly bill but also has the convenience of being able to connect while away from home. In return, this same person pays his broadband subscription and also permits other users to use his wireless acces point.

I think this business model would work if everyone plays by the rule. It would benefit the ISPs because all the users pay their monthly bill. It would benefit the users by offering them wireless access while away from home. And this would also benefit the wireless industry by selling more wireless equipments. Let's face it ISPs are not financially capable (or willing?) to offer wide area coverage. This approach seems reasonable.

To prevent fraud (I mean shameless users not subscribing and still enjoying broadband access at no cost), a database of subscribed users would be consulted prior to giving access to users.

What do you think?

Have fun implementing the software and hardware. Also I doubt that this would withstand legal challenge as it would be a collection of low funded hippie-hackers vs BIG DATA. Doesn't matter if they're right they'll shut you down with money.

I'm not fond of information companies. They charge way to much and bleed the profit off through accounting scams. The cost for data services are WAY to high in a packet switched environment (vs circuit switching dedicated lines).

However, it is necessary to provide bandwidth under certain conditions. It is reasonable to expect cable subscribers to limit access to personal use and not resell or offer that service to others.

I think a "ShareNet" is a great idea. However, it must be based on TI-T3 lines rather than consumer oriented broadband. In effect the "ShareNet" must be to ISPs what Credit Unions are to Banks. A consumer run Co-Op whose goal is to provide member services instead of generating profits.

Actually such a model would be excellent for Cellular services as well. Lash a station to your roof and get free service. Good offer as long as the security is there. Your neighbors would pay subscriptions to the co-op which supported the maintenance and T1 fees.

With wireless technologies, it is now feasible for consumers to force BIG DATA into submission. Point to point wireless linkups make it possible to string large wireless networks together without aquiring right of ways and utilizing the best locations for Antannaes, in the neighborhoods where they'll be used.

[Pony99CA]

I think we've gone slight off tangent here... we're missing the oringinal issue, which is that Time Warner Cable is threatening legal action against someone who has broken an agreement. It's that simple.

Guys, no matter how you argue the point, Time Warner Cable does have a right to enforce the agreement, which clearly states, in simpler terms, no sharing.

While we all take it for granted to 'share' cable or other forms of broadband access among family members via routers, it's a whole different story when one runs his own hotspot for membes of the public who may not have signed up for TWC's services.

What Rick T is complaining about is akin to a party of 50 going to a diner, ordering one all-you-can-eat and sharing it with the other 49. This just isn't right, and definitely unfair for the diner as well as other patrons.

Conceptually, I do not feel that this is an inaccurate analogy, since it is, in effect what Rick T has done.


BINGO! That's the exact analogy I was going to use to refute that foolish "all you can eat" posting earlier. It is all you can eat, not all you and your friends can eat.

I have my own WiFi network, and was toying around with the idea of allowing others to access the Internet using it. However, this topic made me see that not only is this wrong, it's a really bad idea.

Since the day I installed my network, I like to think I've been smart. I set my own SSID so that people wouldn't be able to access my network with some default settings, and I changed the admin password from the default to prevent access to the control program. Later, I enabled WEP and also limited the number of DHCP clients that can connect to my network to three (the number of people living here). And I live in a semi-rural isolated city.

I think if somebody lets anybody share their bandwidth, they are likely violating the user agreements they signed. However, if they don't voluntarily share their access, but somebody hacks into their network, I think they could explain that to their ISP and the ISP should show some understanding, especially if the user takes reasonable precautions like I did.

Bottom line is this guy got caught cheating and is now whining about it. Here is part of what he posted on Politech:


I've not seen anything on Politech regarding this specific issue before, but my roommate just called me and let me know that Time Warner Cable of NYC has just sent me a snotty letter basically telling me to shut off my public access point immediately - PERIOD - as its not allowed according to the contract I signed to get their cable service.

I don't have the letter in front of me, but if you're interested, I can get
it to you this evening.

Not only is he whining, he's posting to some public group before he even saw the letter.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

This is total B.S. from the cable company. They provided a "promised" service at a price, so they should live with it.

...

If they have a problem with technology, then they should explicitly state in their contract that users cannot use wi-fi equipment. Since they did not, users are allowed to do whatever they wish. Of course, wiring your next door neight to have access your network is illegal. However, broadcasting your bandwidth so that you can use it wherever you are is prefectly acceptable!


We agree as far as you go with the details (except for the "B.S." part). What you conveniently neglect, however, is that Rick Tait was not broadcasting the bandwidth so he could use it anywhere, but so that anybody could use it. The contract promised him a service, not the whole world.

People with your attitude may get what you suggest -- contracts that forbid anybody from using a wireless network at all. Is that what you really want?

Steve

[Pony99CA]

I am sure that's exactly what the government wants, control every access point. And they think the Chinese government is evil holding responsibility of every ISP on the world's evil content.

...

...think back to the early days of internet, if someone wants to use resource he can, but he has to take care of it too. The community sets the rule, everybody else backs off.


Yes, think back to the early days of the Internet. Who had access to it? Colleges and the government. Even in the early 90s, how many individuals had access to the Internet at home? How many even wanted access before the World Wide Web?

As for your comment about the government, who helped create the Internet and controlled it back in those days? Oops, the government (DARPA). Don't you hate when facts get in the way of paranoia?

Like it or not, ISPs have helped make getting Internet access easy, and they do deserve to be paid for that access.

Steve

[don996cab]

The letter states that he is "reselling or redistributin" his service.

There is nothing in his service agreement that prohibits him from setting up a wi-fi network. Again, how he chooses to manage his network within his domain is up to him. NO ONE CAN FORCE him to protect his network.

Wi-fi is a technology that broadcast the network in a 300ft radius. He is NOT actively sharing it with anyone. This technology is by designed. But anyone with the proper equipment can can siphon that signal for their own use. How he chooses to secure his network is entirely up to HIM.

If the cable company has a problem with this, they should hire a guy to sit outside his apartment and arrest anyone using his network illegally.

If the cable company agreed to take his money for unlimited bandwidth usage, then that is what they agreed upon. They should change their contract to keep up with current technology, or implement bandwitdh limits (which some company are doing).

I have unlimted cellular minutes on weeknights and weekends. Does this mean I can't let people use my cellphone to make calls during these periods? Of course not!!

I bought a music CD, does this mean I can only play it when I am alone? Of course not!!

I recently bought the Pay Per View Mike Tyson Fight. Does this mean I have to move my TV away from my window, so that passerby cannot see the fight? Of course not!!

I have car insurance, should the insurance company tell me how to maintain my car? Of course not!!

The great thing about living in a capitalistic market is competition. Someone else will come along and provide the service, whether it be DSL, or another cable provider.

He should be applauded. He's paying for a service out of his pocket, and using it to its limit. If it werent for people like him, wi-fi probably would never have taken off outisde of the corporate environment. Now companies are taking notice and providing it in pda, laptops, starbuck, airports, hotels, etc.

What the cable company should do is take advantage of this movement, give them discounts for broadcasting their cable network via wi-fi. Then resell it or offer it as Cable Hot Spots to all of their subscribers. Now the cable company have an opprotunity to expand outside of the home, and provide roaming services similiar to cellular companies.

Again Do you want Cable Companies or any company telling you how to manage your own private network??? Of course NOT!

[EllenBeeman]

I'd suggest getting a DSL line and actually =reading= the terms of your service agreement before you create an open node. While you may dislike this, if what the guy is quoting from the service agreement is correct, you're about to get switched off.

[mookie123]

regarding, only YOU in all you can eat can use the bandwith,
Does it mean only SINGLE person can use the bandwith? I cannot share with my wife, kids, or friends, or if I be nice to acquintances or stranger? wireless or otherwise? That's a reasoning only ISP on a dole can think of.

on security, develop tool and increase public awareness, shutting down and limiting access to the entire system is NOT the answer. (what makes you think there is no way to track criminal in public access, and that the NSA is not scanning every electronic traffic? The world is MUCH smaller than you think)

If business cannot make money based on their superfluous promise on "all you can eat" term, then that's tough for them, they should change their business model instead of throwing lawsuit but yet continuing same old false advertisement habit.

---------
Personally, I like the idea of electronic cloud as communication model myself rather than this ISP with gateway controled by ever fewer node. Communication will be just like "talking" except the medium is electromagnetic with wireless transceiver.

screw this "pipeline" model with some priest controling each entrance, and some fear monger yelping every minute next to it.

[Sslixtis]

don996cab -I have car insurance, should the insurance company tell me how to maintain my car? Of course not!!

-I bought a music CD, does this mean I can only play it when I am alone? Of course not!!

-I have unlimted cellular minutes on weeknights and weekends. Does this mean I can't let people use my cellphone to make calls during these periods? Of course not!!

-how he chooses to manage his network within his domain is up to him. NO ONE CAN FORCE him to protect his network.


Insurance-Actually, they do have the right in some states. You have to have a vehicle inspection to be insured(prove your car isn't a death trap). It's sad when you have to legislate common sense. Not that it's actually that common.

Music-Napster, ever heard of it?

Cloned cell phones ARE illegal even if YOU do not mind if everyone uses YOUR access. And when they arrest you for a crime that they can prove had YOUR phone number attached to it, how would you feel then?

As far as the NO ONE CAN FORCE him to protect his network...wanna bet?? That's like saying no one can force you to wear clothes, which while somewhat true omits the fact that if you try it they will throw your butt in jail.

The bottom line here is that this guy is screwed. He can't win, period. He is not only in violation of his service contract (that I bet he didn't even bother to read, like all those accept/decline software licenses) but Federal Law as well. I don't know about the state of NY but I wouldn't be surprised.

[DaleReeck]

I think one of the issues is intent. After reading the news topic, I can't really determine if he is intentionally allowing others to use the network or if people are gloming on without his knowledge or permission.

If it is intentional, then I can see why this wouldn't be right. Time-Warner is heavy handed, but I get their position. You shouldn't be intentionally sharing your network. But if we set up Wi-Fi nets and people are using them to get free internet without the suscriber's permission, then Time-Warner can you-know-what itself. In the latter situation, Wi-Fi without encryption is legal and unauthorized access is just a bad side-effect. If Time-Warner wants this to stop, let them go to Congress and ask for laws requiring encryption. But to lean on the users (probably because it's easier and cheaper than getting the laws changed) is weak.

I have a Wi-Fi hub in my house and I do not intentionally allow anyone access. If someone drove by though and decided to scam my connection, I should not be required to shut down access.

By the way, from a technical point of view, wireless encryption protocol (WEP) is implemented very poorly and causes problems with a lot of different equipment.

[TomB]

The "All You Can Eat" entitlement mentality is starting to get me very worried.

*Pay for one connection and "share it" with a dozen people in your building.
*Rent one DVD and rip and "share it" with some friends on-line.
*No more trips to the record store for a CD, find someone with the MP3s and download them on a "P2P share."

Am I one of the few people who worry about what happens when people can no longer make money from the work and services they provide others?

[Sslixtis]

Here is what he agreed to. Dear lord, I would never agree to that crap. He is soooo screwed in the eyes of the law. The only thing this agreement doesn't give ATW the right to do is take his firstborn male child (might be in the fine print somewhere)!



http://www.timewarneraustin.com/services/roadrunner/rr_terms.asp

[mookie123]

Tomb: if it is ALL you can eat, than eat is ALL you can eat within the boundry of law.

otherwise, don't say it is "all you can eat". (wan't America Online get busted for something related to this before?)

[Will T Smith]

regarding, only YOU in all you can eat can use the bandwith,
Does it mean only SINGLE person can use the bandwith? I cannot share with my wife, kids, or friends, or if I be nice to acquintances or stranger? wireless or otherwise? That's a reasoning only ISP on a dole can think of.

on security, develop tool and increase public awareness, shutting down and limiting access to the entire system is NOT the answer. (what makes you think there is no way to track criminal in public access, and that the NSA is not scanning every electronic traffic? The world is MUCH smaller than you think)

If business cannot make money based on their superfluous promise on "all you can eat" term, then that's tough for them, they should change their business model instead of throwing lawsuit but yet continuing same old false advertisement habit.

---------
Personally, I like the idea of electronic cloud as communication model myself rather than this ISP with gateway controled by ever fewer node. Communication will be just like "talking" except the medium is electromagnetic with wireless transceiver.

screw this "pipeline" model with some priest controling each entrance, and some fear monger yelping every minute next to it.

I thought about this angle on "who" you could share your access with.

The way I reason is that Cable and phone are billed on the basis of a billable address. That is, you send the bill to someone living at a particular address. A utility will NOT bill multiple customers at the SAME address.

From this perspective, you could share your bandwidth with anyone who you live with. Roomate, spouse, children, personal guests (not tthe wandering through types), etc.... Your neighbors, apartments or otherwise, would be off limits since they have their own billable address and must pay for their own phone, electric, water, etc...

Off hand, I think that broadband providers should regulate the "all-you-can eat" model by charging for the size of your plate. In this scenario, your bandwidth would be throttled at different increments (128k, 256k, 512k ... etc...) Those with higher bandwidth needs would pay more. Such throttling would make connection sharing prohibitive as your neighbors would end up sucking all the utility from your service.

Those who truly want to become an ISP should pay for the high bandwidth that they use.

[mookie123]

not a practical definition, in fact it's counter intuitive to the basic idea of wireless communication where the entire idea of easy intelink and control lies at the operator instead of some other entity.

If Time warner can't make money on "all you can eat" idea, they shoudl change the business model, and go with bandwith load.

Incidentally, there is an article in recent scientific america about cheap gigabyte network as a solution of last mile fiber optic connection.

So this entire story about cable and DSL operators gone mad might just be a passing nostalgia soon, since everybody can just build their own highspeed local network and doesn't depend on current type of current "last mile" high speed access provider.

cheers,
technology is moving fast, leaving those block heads behind.
Good riddance.

[Steven Cedrone]

I must be a greedy bastard.....

As soon as I had my wireless network up, I locked it down using WEP and MAC access control. For $50.00 a month, my neighbors can pay for their own broadband access. Also, I am paraniod about what someone can do using my ISP.

Add to this the fact that it is a breach of contract....

Just my .02....

Steve

[don996cab]

Its not about greed or being a bandwidth hog. TWC is charging this person of "reselling and redistributing" his account to others.

I strongly disagree. He is well within his right to setup up a wi-fi network, and no one, including his ISP should tell him how to secure his own private network.

Yes, people can steal his bandwidth, but that is up to him to secure his own home, his own network, his own property.

Yes, the cable company can cancel his contract because his network poses a financial/legal risk to them. But if that is not his intention, but the limitation of the wi-fi equipment, who is ultimately responsible? The equipment and its technology isnt illegal. Or do you prefer to have every big corporation telling you how to run your life, limit your personal choice and freedom? Reneging on services because their business model sucks doesnt make sense!

How would you feel if cable companies started limiting you to what website you can or cannot visit. What programs you can or cannot run because it goes through their network? What if they banned all subscribers from using napster, morpheus or kazaa?

Everyone who has subscribe to a cable modem or DSL service should be alarmed at how easily these companies are threatening to limit your choices. Instead of just sitting there like corporate sheeps, following the company mantra.

The internet is for everyone, not just for the government and university who initially created it. Now that everyone knows how vital it is, the second phase is about being connected everywhere and anywhere. Not just for the people who can afford it. Wi-fi hot spot is a step in that direction.

[hollis_f]

He is well within his right to setup up a wi-fi network, and no one, including his ISP should tell him how to secure his own private network.
Even if I did agree with this, it matters not one jot.

The user agreed to a contract.
That contract specified certain limitations on the service.
The user exceeded those limitations.
Therefore, the user has broken the contract.

If he wanted to set himself up as an ISP then he should have signed up to a service that allowed him to do so.

[Pony99CA]

The letter states that he is "reselling or redistributin" his service.

There is nothing in his service agreement that prohibits him from setting up a wi-fi network. Again, how he chooses to manage his network within his domain is up to him. NO ONE CAN FORCE him to protect his network.

Perhaps not, but they can prevent him from redistributing it.

Wi-fi is a technology that broadcast the network in a 300ft radius. He is NOT actively sharing it with anyone.

Ummm, how do know that he's not actively sharing it? If he is telling his friends (or anybody not living with him) about his free access point, he is actively sharing it. As I said earlier, it's a matter of intent.

Here is what Rick Tait himself wrote:


Time Warner Cable of NYC has just sent me a snotty letter basically telling me to shut off my public access point immediately....

He himself called it a "public access point", which seems to indicate the intent to share it.


He should be applauded. He's paying for a service out of his pocket, and using it to its limit. If it werent for people like him, wi-fi probably would never have taken off outisde of the corporate environment. Now companies are taking notice and providing it in pda, laptops, starbuck, airports, hotels, etc.
What a load! He should not be applauded. Claiming people like him are the reason WiFi took off is ridiculous. Geeky residential users have long wanted a fast networking system that didn't require them to run wires. WiFi is the first technology that is allowing that (other wireless networks were too slow, I think). The market has been there for a long time.

I bought my WiFi network not because of hotspots (I hadn't even really considered those), but so I could put my daughter's laptop on the Internet easily. Now she doesn't have to dial-in or hook her computer to a phone jack. I bet most of the individual 802.11b adopters share my reasons (sharing computers with family), not yours (easier Internet access for the public). (My ISP also knows about this, and has given me E-mail addresses for everybody here.)


What the cable company should do is take advantage of this movement, give them discounts for broadcasting their cable network via wi-fi. Then resell it or offer it as Cable Hot Spots to all of their subscribers. Now the cable company have an opprotunity to expand outside of the home, and provide roaming services similiar to cellular companies.

What you should do is stop telling a company how to run their business. If they're not doing anything illegal, they get to run it their way. What you should do if you don't like the way things are working is start your own 60s touchy-feely ISP that allows sharing bandwidth anyway people like. That's what capitalism is all about -- making money the way you want.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Personally, I like the idea of electronic cloud as communication model myself rather than this ISP with gateway controled by ever fewer node. Communication will be just like "talking" except the medium is electromagnetic with wireless transceiver.

I'm sure we'd all like that. Who wants to pay for anything?

I'd like my newspaper to be free. News would be just like the town square except the medium is paper.

I'd like my telephone service to be free. It would be like talking, except the medium is wires (or cellular).

Of course, who is going to pay for all this? Do you want the government to set up all of this for free? (I wouldn't mind, actually.) Do you want to pay the taxes for that? (That's where I start to mind....)

Steve

[Pony99CA]

I thought about this angle on "who" you could share your access with.

The way I reason is that Cable and phone are billed on the basis of a billable address. That is, you send the bill to someone living at a particular address. A utility will NOT bill multiple customers at the SAME address.

From this perspective, you could share your bandwidth with anyone who you live with. Roomate, spouse, children, personal guests (not tthe wandering through types), etc.... Your neighbors, apartments or otherwise, would be off limits since they have their own billable address and must pay for their own phone, electric, water, etc...

I came up with this same idea myself. In the case of an ISP, it could also be done another way. People authorized to use the connection are those with their own unique E-mail addresses.

What Don and Mookie don't seem to get is the concept of "theft of services".

Where I live, they used to have unlimited garbage pickup for each house, and everybody in the city was required to have garbage service. Suppose one family decided to save money and just put their garbage cans next to their neighbor's cans. That's not directly hurting the neighbor, because they have unlimited pickup.

But it is hurting the garbage company, because they aren't getting the revenue that they should be getting. And if enough people did this, it might indirectly hurt the neighbor when the garbage company had to raise rates. Or it could hurt the employees of the garbage company when they had to lay people off because they didn't have enough money (or demand) to pay them.

Now, can we cut the garbage that Rick Tait hasn't done anything wrong?

Steve

[mookie123]

"authorize to use the net???" ehrrr...ok

what's next? authorize to speak and use a medium?

Telecommunication technology does not have the same "tragedy of the common" situation like colecting garbage. What makes you think Time warner is essential to the survival of the system instead of maybe a hindrance? if you like the Time Warner communication model, go a head nobody is complaining. It's your money and your internet convinience.

but DO NOT whine and try to pass law preventing somebody to offer and develop free roaming wireless access and community under the pretense of terrorism or un-american business practice.

There is no reason that the exact amount of money you PAY time warner is not enough to build your own community open gigabyte network in the near future.

Since when the internet and its access is owned and governed by Time Warner and the like anyway? That the end purpose of communication technology is to make money period. And all policy and law should be geared toward that. Technological progress lead to ever more energy efficient, cheaper and larger bandwith, but only law and policy prevent the widespread use.

PS. have you ever considered the positive impact of open wireless before voicing your opinion.

eg.
-direct feed eyewitness account to the net.
-better emergency and safety report
-more open platform speech that does not fit regular Radio/TV/print
-different form of community.
-what makes you think this wireless community doesn't lead to "free voice service"? Is there a reason why wireless telephone should go the way telegraph did?

I bet people like you are the type who yelled and screamed, BAN the internet. It would be used by the terrorists and criminals. (what do you mean community, commerce, adn science benefit too? That's impossible)

[Hans the Hedgehog]

Since when the internet and its access is owned and governed by Time Warner and the like anyway? That the end purpose of communication technology is to make money period. And all policy and law should be geared toward that. Technological progress lead to ever more energy efficient, cheaper and larger bandwith, but only law and policy prevent the widespread use.


You are kidding, right? He agreed to their terms when he purchased their service! If he didn't like their acceptable use policy, he shouldn't have bought their service... I'm sure he could have found other options.

What he is doing and has done is wrong. He calls it a "public access point," and not an internal wifi network. I'm sure, just like it says in the letter, that TW doesn't care if it is a wifi network, just that he is allowing public, anonymous access to his network... which is owned and controlled by TW. If he received the letter simply because he had a wifi net, then it would be a different story.

Just because the letter comes over heavy handed-- typical of these days-- doesn't mean that TW is trying to kill technology. If this guy is so keen on setting up free access to the 'net, why doesn't he take things one step further and run his phoneline out to the street offering free phone usage to anyone? And, just the same, if someone were to commit a crime using his phone, the police/feds/whoever would first be knocking on his door to investigate him... he's on the bill, so he must know what is going on.

I don't see why this is so hard to accept. Sure, it would be nice to have free 'net connections and communication-- but we don't. We pay for all of our connections be it voice or data, be it wired or wireless. This guy took a service, found a tech loophole, and exploited it. End of story.

Like it or not, once you purchase a service that binds you to a legal contract, you are bound by it-- doesn't matter if you think it should or should not be; whether you think it hampers technology or if you think it is antiquated. You have a simple choice: don't buy and use the service if you don't like the contract.

Hans.

[Brian K]

He is in violation of his terms of service, period. There is no legal grey area here. Due to actions or inactions on his part, one or more clauses in his TOS are being violated.

Bear in mind, I am not a lawyer, but I can read a TOS and AUP.

If he wants to use their service, he needs to play by their rules.

Here are a few examples from the Time Warner TOS:



The ISP Service may not be used to breach or attempt to breach the security, the computer, the software or the data of any person or entity, including Time Warner Cable Austin, to circumvent the user authentication features or security of any host, network or account, to use or distribute tools designed to compromise security, or to interfere with another’s use of the ISP Service through the posting or transmitting of a virus or other harmful item to deliberately overload or flood that entity’s system.

The host probably has a MAC address filter that allows only subscribed network customers access. By allowing other users to access the network and "circumvent the user authentication features" of Time Warner, he could be (and likely IS) violating this specific clause in the TOS.

There could be a loophole, because it says "the ISP service" may not be used to do this: The wireless LAN probably qualifies as HIS private service, so maybe this isn't legal.


Also, let's look at this:

(i) Transfer of all or a portion of the account, the ISP Service or the Operator's Equipment by Subscriber to any other person or entity, or to a new residence or other location, is prohibited.


The portion of the service that is broadcast will qualify as violating this clause as well. However, if this guy can prove he was doing it unintentionally, there is no intent. Once made aware of the problem, though, he is probably obligated under the TOS to fix the problem OR he would then be in knowing violation of his TOS.

Most importantly,


(e) In addition to the foregoing, Operator and ISP each shall have the right at any time to add to, modify or delete any aspect, feature or requirement of the ISP Service, including but not limited to content, equipment and system requirements. Operator shall have the right to add to, modify or delete any provision of this Agreement and/or any Terms of Use established by Operator and/or the Subscriber Privacy Notice at any time. An online version of this Agreement, the Terms of Use, and the Subscriber Privacy Notice, as so changed from time to time, will be accessible at http://help.twcable.com or another online location as designated by Operator. Operator will notify Subscriber of any significant change in this Agreement, the Terms of Use or the Subscriber Privacy Notice. Upon any such change, Subscriber's continued use of the ISP Service will constitute Subscriber's consent to such change. If Subscriber does not agree to any such change, Subscriber immediately shall stop using the ISP Service and notify Operator and ISP that he/she is terminating the subscription to the ISP Service.



Even assuming that this subscriber was not violating ANY of the previous clauses, the letter in question represents a change or additional requirement on the subscriber (IE, that he needs to secure his home network.) This would definitely fall under "system requirements", and thusly his socialist dream of free internet access to the world from his home wifi network just had its fledgling beginning cruelly crushed under the jackboot of US law.

Right or wrong, I don't know. It IS a legal request that will have to be either obeyed or his service is gone.

Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.

I do notice that all of the "free" DSL trials that cropped up in the past are gone, to the best of my knowledge. Could it be that this is the ONLY business model that can last in a free market?

Brian K

[Mark Johnson]

One thing that I'm not clear on here is: Did all Time-Warner customers get the "nastygram" or only specific "violators" who already had an open 802.11 network?

I don't understand how Time-Warner could even know if a connection was "opened" or not. If I put a 802.11 hub with a DHCP server in it on my DSL or cable line, all my ISP "sees" is the one IP address for my hub (1.2.3.4) and all the "clients" on my LAN get a temporary local (192.168.1.x) address that is translated by the hub right?

What I'm saying is that if Time-Warner can't tell if there are one or 100 computers behind the IP address they rent me, then isn't this issue purely academic anyway? Isn't the letter to Rick Tait a really unusual case? Did he get "ratted out" or is there a technology that I don't understand that let them know what he was doing?

(Notice that I'm NOT debating whether his actions (or TW's actions) were right or wrong. I'm just assuming that MANY people like Rick will choose to do what he did and that very soon there will be so many of them that ISP's will find it "not worth their time" to try to track them down. They may change their pricing structure, but they will accept defeat and move on if there is no quick technical method of finding customers who are "sharing" with the public.)

[Pony99CA]

Telecommunication technology does not have the same "tragedy of the common" situation like colecting garbage. What makes you think Time warner is essential to the survival of the system instead of maybe a hindrance? if you like the Time Warner communication model, go a head nobody is complaining. It's your money and your internet convinience.

Yes, it's for your "convenience". If you don't like their terms of service, give up the convenience.

but DO NOT whine and try to pass law preventing somebody to offer and develop free roaming wireless access and community under the pretense of terrorism or un-american business practice.

The only whining going on here seems to be yours. I haven't once mentioned terrorism (I find that argument fairly weak), and the only thing un-American is your whining without doing anything to try to fix the "problem".


There is no reason that the exact amount of money you PAY time warner is not enough to build your own community open gigabyte network in the near future.

So start your own business and prove it.

PS. have you ever considered the positive impact of open wireless before voicing your opinion.

eg.
-direct feed eyewitness account to the net.
-better emergency and safety report
-more open platform speech that does not fit regular Radio/TV/print
-different form of community.
-what makes you think this wireless community doesn't lead to "free voice service"? Is there a reason why wireless telephone should go the way telegraph did?

Yes, I hve considered it. Have you considered who will pay for open wireless? (I won't get into the discussion that some of your so-called positive impacts, like a "different form of community" are not necessarily positive, but just your Utopian speculation.)

Also, worrying that "wireless telephone" will go the way of the telegraph is patently absurd. Cellular telephones are wireless, and they are extremely popular. The telegraph disappeared because it was too specialized and inconvenient (Morse code, having to go to a specific office to send and receive messages, etc.)

I bet people like you are the type who yelled and screamed, BAN the internet. It would be used by the terrorists and criminals. (what do you mean community, commerce, adn science benefit too? That's impossible)

OK, I'll bet you a million dollars. Hey, guess what? You lose! Send me the million. I have never opposed the Internet, nor do I intend to.

Why not address the issue now? Rick Tait signed a contract, then didn't live up to its terms. You may be philosophically opposed to paying for things, thinking you have some entitlement to them, but that doesn't obviate the fact that Tait signed the contract.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

One thing that I'm not clear on here is: Did all Time-Warner customers get the "nastygram" or only specific "violators" who already had an open 802.11 network?

I don't understand how Time-Warner could even know if a connection was "opened" or not. If I put a 802.11 hub with a DHCP server in it on my DSL or cable line, all my ISP "sees" is the one IP address for my hub (1.2.3.4) and all the "clients" on my LAN get a temporary local (192.168.1.x) address that is translated by the hub right?

What I'm saying is that if Time-Warner can't tell if there are one or 100 computers behind the IP address they rent me, then isn't this issue purely academic anyway? Isn't the letter to Rick Tait a really unusual case? Did he get "ratted out" or is there a technology that I don't understand that let them know what he was doing?

(Notice that I'm NOT debating whether his actions (or TW's actions) were right or wrong. I'm just assuming that MANY people like Rick will choose to do what he did and that very soon there will be so many of them that ISP's will find it "not worth their time" to try to track them down. They may change their pricing structure, but they will accept defeat and move on if there is no quick technical method of finding customers who are "sharing" with the public.)

I doubt that all Time-Warner subscribers got those. That was a cease-and-desist letter, which is typically sent to people you believe are violating some contract (or copyright, trademark, etc.). If a lot of people had gotten those, I think we'd have heard more about it by now.

As for how they know, I wondered that, too. I'm not sure on the specifics of Network Address Translation (NAT) used in routers to allow multiple connections, but if the router can determine which computer on a NAT network a packet is destined for, maybe that information is in the out-bound packet, and can be detected by some programming.

Maybe Time-Warner checks the packets to see if more than a certain amount of computers are connecting from a given IP address and flags that as potential abuse.

Or maybe, if Tait was advertising his network, somebody saw that and brought it to Time-Warner's attention.

Steve

[don996cab]

I cant believe you people who automatically support the "TOS" as gospel, the written word of the almighty corporation.

Just because a company includes it in their contract does not make it right, and that it cannot be changed to benefit the consumer. And it definitely does not mean we should sit here and bite on it. This is a forum where we exchange our ideas and voice our opinion.

Are you all corporate sheeps? Do you follow every single TOS stipulation that has crossed your path? Or do you just arbitrarily choose which one to live by, and then persecute others who do not agree? If you have multiple computers in your home, HONESTLY tell me you have not broken any licensee agreements, or made multiple installations from one copy. Tell me you never borrowed or lend softwares, dvds, video tapes, etc. What a bunch of hippocrites!

Don't ever tell me that public opinions cannot make a company change their policies, practices or services. Public opinion DO COUNT.

Again, based on TWC TOS, they basically have the right to limit ANYTHING they want that runs through their network. Answer me this: if they changed their terms so that you could not use certain programs, or visit certain websites. Are you just going to sit there and say "gee, if its in their TOS it must be followed. I guess the only alternative I have is to find another ISP."

This is AMERICA, speak up and voice your opinion! Throughout history, companies have changed because of public opions, and competition.

Remember how Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL use to be closed systems that charged by the hour. Now they all offer unlimited usage, blah blah bla. Same thing with long distance services, cable services, cell phone services, etc etc etc. Broadband will follow the same model if enough of us demand it!

He is PAYING for his service that they promised, unlimited bandwidth. If they cannot make money off that business model, then stop promising it. Im sure the reasons he is publicly condemning TWC strong arm tactics was to get the public to pressure TWC to change their policy. There is nothing wrong when that change is to benefit the public.

The theft of service is done by the perp, the people who pass within his wi-fi radius, proactively stealing the bandwidth. He is paying for his service, and enjoying the benefits of wi-fi technology.

[Pony99CA]

I cant believe you people who automatically support the "TOS" as gospel, the written word of the almighty corporation.

Just because a company includes it in their contract does not make it right, and that it cannot be changed to benefit the consumer. And it definitely does not mean we should sit here and bite on it. This is a forum where we exchange our ideas and voice our opinion.

Yes, this is a forum for opinions, but they don't do much good here. Have you written to Time-Warner cable to oppose this? Have you written letters to the mainstream press stating your views? Have you written to any governmental oversight bodies? If not, why not?

While it's cool to have this forum, do you really think Time-Warner cable knows about it? They probably don't care much about Pocket PCs.

Are you all corporate sheeps? Do you follow every single TOS stipulation that has crossed your path? Or do you just arbitrarily choose which one to live by, and then persecute others who do not agree? If you have multiple computers in your home, HONESTLY tell me you have not broken any licensee agreements, or made multiple installations from one copy. Tell me you never borrowed or lend softwares, dvds, video tapes, etc. What a bunch of hippocrites!

Even if I am a hypocrite, if I got caught breaking the law, I wouldn't whine. When I get a speeding ticket, I know I was speeding, and I pay it. I'm not happy about paying the money, but I know I was breaking the law, so I don't whine about how unfair the cops are.

Again, based on TWC TOS, they basically have the right to limit ANYTHING they want that runs through their network. Answer me this: if they changed their terms so that you could not use certain programs, or visit certain websites. Are you just going to sit there and say "gee, if its in their TOS it must be followed. I guess the only alternative I have is to find another ISP."

If they did change their TOS to something that I couldn't agree with, I'd let them know I was displeased. I wouldn't whine about it to people who couldn't do anything about it.

Here's a real example. My wife made a collect call using AT&T's 1-800-CALLATT. When I got the bill, there was an additional charge of $1.50 for billing through my local phone company (Pacific Bell) and another, smaller charge for pay phone access.

As the AT&T ads did not disclose these charges, I called AT&T and asked that the charges be removed. Note that I contacted them first, to give them a chance to fix the problem.

They refused to remove the charges, so I also called Pac Bell and told them why I wasn't paying part of that bill. Pac Bell said they would take care of that.

I also wrote a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) complaining about AT&T's misleading advertising and unfair charges.

Not only did the charges get removed, but AT&T later removed them after they were contacted by the CPUC, so I actually ended up paying less than I should have.

That's how a responsible consumer should attack a problem.

Here's another example. I was staying at a hotel in Philadelphia for a business conference. Their phone cards listed a $0.75 charge for local calls, but no long distance rate. I made a few long distance calls, but when I got my room bill, I saw ridiculously high charges for long distance (more than $2.00 a minute, if I recall).

I complained about that when checking out. The clerk tried to explain that they have rent their phones, and so forth. I said that if they had disclosed how much the long distances charges were, I would have used my cell phone to make those calls (roaming was like $0.99 a minute)

To make a long story short, the clerk removed all the long distance charges from my bill. As I was on a business trip, I probably could have just shut up and charged the calls as expenses to my company; I wouldn't have been out any money, so who cares? But I didn't think my company should have to pay those rates, either, so I fought them.

Still think I'm a corporate sheep?

He is PAYING for his service that they promised, unlimited bandwidth.
Are you sure that he is paying for unlimited bandwidth, as opposed to unlimited connection time? Even if he is, that is for his use only. But see the next point....

The theft of service is done by the perp, the people who pass within his wi-fi radius, proactively stealing the bandwidth. He is paying for his service, and enjoying the benefits of wi-fi technology.
If he is promoting his access point to others (friends, the public, whatever), he is contributing to the theft of the service. That's called being an accomplice. What is the difficulty you're having understanding this?

There are two types of people who might be using his service. Those who are doing it because they happened to find out about it ("war drivers", for example) are clearly stealing his service, and should be prosecuted.

Those who are using it because he told them to use it may well believe he has the right to offer that service, and they are not "perps". How are they supposed to know what Tait's terms of service say?

Steve

[don996cab]

hypocrite
n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

This forum is not only for opinions but also for information. Already it is beneficial, because people now have additional information to determine the benefits, their rights and risk of setting up a wi-fi network within their own home or business.

And why would I want to write to TWC, their policies do not affect me. I support that anyone should have the right to choose how to maintain their private network. I support anyone or group that can affect changes to a company which eventually will benefit the public.

>>Even if I am a hypocrite, if I got caught breaking the law, I wouldn't whine. &lt;&lt;

No one is whining. Rick T isn’t forcing you to support or even read his website. Breaking the law vs. breaking a legal contract are two entirely different things. It is by your choice that you have taken issue with his decision to voice his disagreement with TWC heavy handed tactic, published on his OWN website no less. I think ultimately, he is out to try and change TWC their policy. Where is the wrong in that cause? Will it not benefit everyone if Unlimited Bandwidth at a fixed price means just that?

Or are you a corporate sheep that is afraid of changes to benefit the consumer and public at large?

He may be wrong, in TWC’s view. But it should not prevent him from trying to change that policy. How he goes about fighting this is entirely up to him. Who are you, an admitted hypocrite to tell him he is right or wrong to do this? Unless you have never broken any TOS, software licenses, and have lived a perfectly legal, by the book life, I would with-hold persecuting others. Especially if his actions (combined with others) benefits the public at large more than harming it.

[Pony99CA]

hypocrite
n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Well, if this discussion has had one benefit, it is that you've learned to spell "hypocrite" correctly. (Not "hippocrite" as in your previous post.)

This forum is not only for opinions but also for information. Already it is beneficial, because people now have additional information to determine
the benefits, their rights and risk of setting up a wi-fi network within their own home or business.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy, maybe you could actually start providing some information, instead of just your opinions.


And why would I want to write to TWC, their policies do not affect me. I support that anyone should have the right to choose how to maintain their private network. I support anyone or group that can affect changes to a company which eventually will benefit the public.

Why should you write to TWC? Umm, because you profess to support those trying to "affect changes to a company which eventually will benefit the public." Or are you just a hypocrite?

I also love how you reduced my point to merely writing TWC, when I also mentioned the mainstream press and governmental oversight committees. Your narrow vision is simply astounding.


>>Even if I am a hypocrite, if I got caught breaking the law, I wouldn't whine. &lt;&lt;

No one is whining. Rick T isn?t forcing you to support or even read his website. Breaking the law vs. breaking a legal contract are two entirely different things. It is by your choice that you have taken issue with his decision to voice his disagreement with TWC heavy handed tactic, published on his OWN website no less.

Not surprisingly, you are again wrong on many levels.

First, I did not take issue with Rick Tait's decision to voice his opinion. He certainly has the right to state his opinion.

What I took issue with was people like you who were criticizing a company for asserting their legal rights. The fact that you can't see the distinction is indicative of your blindness.

Second, he did not merely post this on his own Web site. He also posted this on the Politech E-mail list (http://politechbot.com/p-03689.html). Did you even read Tait's Web site, or is this your selective blindness again?

Or are you a corporate sheep that is afraid of changes to benefit the consumer and public at large?

BWAHAHAHAHA Yet more of your selective blindness. My previous post even cited two examples of how I don't put up with crap from corporations, and yet you still claim I'm some corporate sheep. I'd compare to you another animal, but "jackass" would just be an ad hominem attack. :twisted:

And why would I possibly be against something that would benefit the consumer? I'm a consumer. Your blindness is really amazing.


He may be wrong, in TWC?s view.

And in the view of the majority of people posting to this topic, it seems.

But it should not prevent him from trying to change that policy. How he goes about fighting this is entirely up to him. Who are you, an admitted hypocrite to tell him he is right or wrong to do this? Unless you have never broken any TOS, software licenses, and have lived a perfectly legal, by the book life, I would with-hold persecuting others. Especially if his actions (combined with others) benefits the public at large more than harming it.

A "self-admitted hypocrite"? You need to go back to English 101 or Logic 101. I said "Even if I am a hypocrite...." That "if" is a conditional statement, making no admission of anything. I'm not surprised you'd attack this, though, as you haven't seemed to understand anything anybody claiming Tait did wrong has said yet.

That said, of course I am a hypocrite on some level. Who isn't? Show me someone who isn't at any level. The wonderful thing is that even hypocrites have the right to express their opinions.

However, you are ignoring the issue (as usual). The issue isn't whether we posters are hypocrites or not. That's a straw man that you brought up to deflect the discussion from Rick Tait's behavior to our behavior, a tactic typically used by those who realize they can't address the issue with any semblance of logic, and so try to attack the other side. The issue is whether Rick Tait violated Time-Warner's TOS (that he signed), and whether Time-Warner's response was warranted.

Your opinion on the matter is obvious, which is fine. What isn't fine is how you have reacted when challenged to defend that opinon. Want to agree to disagree and drop this?

Steve

[ghoonk]

Oh, joy, the most stupid thing I've read all day.... "we shouldn't be treating the TOS as gospel... blah blah blah".

A contract is a contract. No one FORCES you to sign it. If you don't like it, don't sign it. If you sign it, LIVE with it.

If you can't be trusted to live by a contract you sign, you can't be trusted at your word cos your word means squat.

Philosophies aside, let's stick with the facts. Rick broke his word. Plain and simple.

We can rant and rave about what we FEEL should be the case, but that doesn't detract it from the fact that Rick didn't honour his word.

and pony99CA, man, i love your replies :)

[ghoonk]

oh wow, was i just seeing things or did I just read:

Breaking the law is not the same as breaking a contract?

Obviously someone needs to take classes in Contract Law in between his unfounded rants.

A contract, when signed, is LEGALLY BINDING, unless it violates the law of the country (in the case of the US, the Constitution). So,

BREAKING A LEGAL CONTACT IS BREAKING THE LAW.

*doh*

[don996cab]

Ponyman, we will agree to disagree.


ghoonk, apperantly you need to follow the thread a bit further with my reference to "breaking the law vs. breaking a legal contract are two entirely different things."

I was referring to the area of public law, specifically criminal law, in reference to "breaking the speed limit". Whereas a contract legally binding or not is in the area of private law, between private parties.

It would be ludicurous to think that breaking a contract is the same as "breaking the law". Yes, a contract can be enforced in a court of law, or specifically civil court. But no intelligent person would think a contract is the same as "the law". And when people speak of the law, generally it is in the area of public law. And yes, you can break a contract and not break the law. It happens everyday.

Perhaps you should brush up on your contract law, before shooting from the hip.

Did Rick T break his contract? I guess that is up to TWC to decide after speaking with him. Did he break the Law? LOL, I seriously don't think so.

Geez....end of thread.

[Pony99CA]

Oh, joy, the most stupid thing I've read all day.... "we shouldn't be treating the TOS as gospel... blah blah blah".

A contract is a contract. No one FORCES you to sign it. If you don't like it, don't sign it. If you sign it, LIVE with it.

If you can't be trusted to live by a contract you sign, you can't be trusted at your word cos your word means squat.

There's the crux of the issue. I wish we could have gotten to it sooner. It's your word that counts.


Philosophies aside, let's stick with the facts. Rick broke his word. Plain and simple.

Now here I'll make some allowance for Rick. He may not have read the contract closely enough, or may have misinterpreted it. It happens.

However, once Time-Warner notified him of the potential infraction, Rick should have contacted Time-Warner and discussed it with them. Instead, he flew off the handle, sending complaints to E-mail lists, etc.


and pony99CA, man, i love your replies :)
Thanks. :-) I have enjoyed yours, too. I like debating each point, and you go for the main issue.

Steve