NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| Toledo's politics are screwed up...
One of my former college roommates lived in Toledo, OH and was always telling me about some screwed up thing that was happening there. Suffice it to say that the family that controls Buckeye Cable is somewhere to the east of mentally disturbed and somewhere to the west of totally insane.
And I agree with a number of other posters-- I don't see how this is "theft of service" in any way, as long as you're paying for access to the cable modem service. It's a civil matter. Shut the service down and force the subscriber to go to DSL or dial-up. The worst that happened here was that a few people violated the AUP/ToS-- something for a civil (not criminal) court to wrangle with.
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! |
|
saber11
Check Six
Premium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH
| It is theft pure and simple. Your stealing bandwidth. You pay for a set ammount a month. If you excede the ammount you pay for it's theft.
Same as if you paid for 5 gallons of gas and pumped 10. Same as if you paid for one hamburger but got 2.
You are stealing a product that can be sold to other subscribers, bandwidth.
Yes it violates the TOS/AUP, but you agreed not to uncap your modem, and you agreed in the tos that if you did you could face criminal penalties.
--
One item many soldiers purchased and carried into the desert that wasn't part of the regular equipment. "Another cool thing to bring with you is an American flag," Corcoran said. "Just in case you plan on conquering anything." |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Cable internet services are not covered by CATV laws. Anyone that is found "guilty" of "stealing bandwidth" should appeal and get it thrown out because it's all BS
[text was edited by author 2003-09-26 12:48:34] |
|
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| reply to saber11
said by saber11  :
Same as if you paid for 5 gallons of gas and pumped 10. Same as if you paid for one hamburger but got 2.
Good try at those analogies, but there is one way in which they don't hold up. If you pay for 5 gallons of gas and pump 10, the gas station owner is out 5 gallons that s/he paid for. If you pay for 2mb capped service and change the caps yourself to get 50mb, the cable company isn't out anything... They haven't paid a dime more to provide that service to you than they would have had you not changed the caps. No harm, no foul-- it's that simple.
Uncapping a cable modem is not something that the FBI should get involved with. It is not something that the law enforcement agencies have any business getting involved with. It is a violation of a civil contract, plain and simple.
Now, I am not arguing that it's OK for everybody to go out an uncap their modems. I'm arguing that it's not a matter for law enforcement-- it's a matter for the cable company to solve themselves. Believe me, they're more than capable of solving these types of problems. The cable companies have plenty of experience when it comes to screwing customers.
said by saber11 :
Yes it violates the TOS/AUP, but you agreed not to uncap your modem, and you agreed in the tos that if you did you could face criminal penalties.
I don't think that any AUP/ToS can force any criminal penalties upon you for uncapping your modem. It can force civil penalties on you, but only the government can force criminal penalties upon you. You cannot agree to waive your rights just because you've started using a cable broadband connection...
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! |
|
not2cr8iv
join:2000-08-20
Potomac, MD
| reply to saber11
Then I suppose the reverse is/should be true. If so, and I pay for 1.5 MB download speed but get less than that, the cable company should be criminally liable (fraud or theft/misappropriation, etc.) of the bandwidth I've paid for.
Anyway, it sounds like the court found that Runner & company didn't actually commit a crime. I suspect in this case, a vague TOS cut the other way.
Finally, no one can contractually agree to be criminally liable. You can acknowledge that criminal penalties may exist, but doing so doesn't make you any more or less criminally liable. |
|
saber11
Check Six
Premium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH
| reply to NOVA_Guy
said by NOVA_Guy :
said by saber11 :
Same as if you paid for 5 gallons of gas and pumped 10. Same as if you paid for one hamburger but got 2.
Good try at those analogies, but there is one way in which they don't hold up. If you pay for 5 gallons of gas and pump 10, the gas station owner is out 5 gallons that s/he paid for. If you pay for 2mb capped service and change the caps yourself to get 50mb, the cable company isn't out anything... They haven't paid a dime more to provide that service to you than they would have had you not changed the caps. No harm, no foul-- it's that simple.
Nice try, but no. The cable company is out something. It's called bandwidth. And yes they have paid more to provide you with that service, because if you are using more than your alloted ammount of bandwitdh, you are using bandwidth they could have sold to someone else, so they are out the cost of providing that bandwidth to them
Let's not even get into what it costs to maintain the infrastructure, and if you uncap then other customers in your service group will call because they are slowing down. Somebody has to pay for those support people.
How would you feel if your neighbor decided to run an extension cord over to your house and steal your power? Hey they are paying for the power they are consuming, but they want to squeeze a few more appliances in and don't want to pay for it, so they add it to you.
Theft is theft, use a gun to steal a wallet or a cable modem to steal bandwidth. You weren't authorized to use it.
--
One item many soldiers purchased and carried into the desert that wasn't part of the regular equipment. "Another cool thing to bring with you is an American flag," Corcoran said. "Just in case you plan on conquering anything." |
|
jhudson2
Copyright Martyr
join:2000-11-07
San Marcos, CA
| reply to saber11
What if he paid for 5 gallons and COULD have pumped 10 but didn't? Are you asserting he still stole the other five gallons?
In other words, if during the time he had his modem was uncapped the total number of bytes he downloaded was the same or less than what he could have transferred having an uncapped modem then he did not commit a crime but just violated his TOS agreement?
And when did we decide that TOS agreements were equivalent to criminal law statutes?
--
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey |
|
N10Cities
SILENCE I Keel You
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Roland, OK
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·World Lynx
| reply to NOVA_Guy
said by NOVA_Guy :
said by saber11 :
Same as if you paid for 5 gallons of gas and pumped 10. Same as if you paid for one hamburger but got 2.
Good try at those analogies, but there is one way in which they don't hold up. If you pay for 5 gallons of gas and pump 10, the gas station owner is out 5 gallons that s/he paid for. If you pay for 2mb capped service and change the caps yourself to get 50mb, the cable company isn't out anything... They haven't paid a dime more to provide that service to you than they would have had you not changed the caps. No harm, no foul-- it's that simple.
Uncapping a cable modem is not something that the FBI should get involved with. It is not something that the law enforcement agencies have any business getting involved with. It is a violation of a civil contract, plain and simple.
Now, I am not arguing that it's OK for everybody to go out an uncap their modems. I'm arguing that it's not a matter for law enforcement-- it's a matter for the cable company to solve themselves. Believe me, they're more than capable of solving these types of problems. The cable companies have plenty of experience when it comes to screwing customers.
said by saber11 :
Yes it violates the TOS/AUP, but you agreed not to uncap your modem, and you agreed in the tos that if you did you could face criminal penalties.
I don't think that any AUP/ToS can force any criminal penalties upon you for uncapping your modem. It can force civil penalties on you, but only the government can force criminal penalties upon you. You cannot agree to waive your rights just because you've started using a cable broadband connection...
Besides, if you read the portion where George Runner was acquitted, the TOS actually did not stipulate how the modem was to be used..... |
|
Chicago_DSL6
join:2003-08-04
Palatine, IL | reply to saber11
Yeah you are right about stealing, but since when does the FBI bust you for not paying for one hamburger. That is stupid. |
|
broknsymetry
What Time Is It And Why?
Premium
join:2003-06-27
THE VOID
clubs: | reply to not2cr8iv
Only if you are guaranteed that 1.5MB. You'll never see that with any DSL/Cable provider! |
|
lazarus_
join:2002-08-31
Resolute, NU
| reply to saber11
Maybe he should have compared un-capping modem to a "regulator" on a car (that caps the car speed) If you remove it you can go faster not further.. So you get there faster.. big deal thats nothing that should be criminal courts.. They could be starting a trial for a murderer or rapist, armed robber or some other violent offender..
I guess they have diffrent priorities..
I would hae thought they would have dropped this court case by now.. All competent Cable C.O's have fixed the vulnerabilities by now..
(with a few Cisco patches and router re-configurations..) So I don't see what they have to prove by doing this..
--
-=Do Not Click This=- |
|
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| said by lazarus_ :
So I don't see what they have to prove by doing this..
That they're still following the age-old, time-honored tradition of screwing customers as much as they can... There's a reason I refuse to give any cable company my business, and it's not because they're customer-oriented, caring, friendly institutions that deliver what they promise...
It came to the point of filing several complaints, getting the county involved, and nearly starting legal proceedings against Cox Communications here in Fairfax County to get them to resolve a $150 bill that was entirely THEIR fault... And during the whole time, they were nothing but rude and obnoxious to me on the phone.
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! |
|
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| reply to saber11
said by saber11 :
Nice try, but no. The cable company is out something. It's called bandwidth. And yes they have paid more to provide you with that service, because if you are using more than your alloted ammount of bandwitdh, you are using bandwidth they could have sold to someone else, so they are out the cost of providing that bandwidth to them
Your analogy doesn't work because by removing the bandwidth caps (speed) you can move the same data (throughput) in a given time. A speed cap does not mean that you won't use your line for 1 minute, hour, or day. Now if the Cable Co shows that you exceeded the daily throughput that the capped line was capable then your argument will hold a little bit of credibility. Providers pay for throughput.
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE! |
|
stromi
join:2000-06-11
Englishtown, NJ
clubs:
| reply to saber11
said by saber11 :
Same as if you paid for 5 gallons of gas and pumped 10.
More like using two pumps to pump the 5 gallons. Everyone else has to wait in line until your done with the pumps. Not exactly nice, but hardly a crime. |
|
attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA | reply to NOVA_Guy
please splain to me why is 6mbit/608k possible if you are willing to pay for it?
if not, its crappy 1.5mbit/128-256k for you. boohoo!
bottom line, its about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
nothing more. END. |
|
saber11
Check Six
Premium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH
| said by attsbcisgay :
please splain to me why is 6mbit/608k possible if you are willing to pay for it?
if not, its crappy 1.5mbit/128-256k for you. boohoo!
bottom line, its about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
nothing more. END.
Would you rather have crapph 1.mbit/128-256k, or really good perfect 56K service?
You gotta take what you can get, and be happy with it.
--
One item many soldiers purchased and carried into the desert that wasn't part of the regular equipment. "Another cool thing to bring with you is an American flag," Corcoran said. "Just in case you plan on conquering anything." |
|
semi-agree
@209.243.x.x
| reply to NOVA_Guy
"They haven't paid a dime more to provide that service to you than they would have had you not changed the caps. No harm, no foul-- it's that simple."
Well... not quite. Your ISP still has to pay internet bandwidth bills, which is the reason they have caps in place. Even with that in mind, why doesn't this case apply to the others? Did G. Runner uncap his modem under a different set of circumstances than the few people who paid restitution etc?
Heh, now where's the countersuit? |
|
MikeBabcock
@cgocable.net
| reply to saber11
You seem to have missed something vital here; the courts disagree with you.
Yes, that's right. The law that you claim to be defending doesn't support you.
The courts decided that he had not violated the TOS since they did /not/ stipulate what you claim they stipulated.
They also decided that he wasn't committing a felony or engaging in criminal activity to have uncapped his modem in the first place.
For what its worth, your cable or DSL provider can bandwidth regulate you with their routers instead of at your modem, if they spent the time and energy to do so.
Its also arguable that he did not steal bandwidth from the company but rather from his neighbors. If anything, he would've caused service disruption to others on the router he was assigned to.
Service disruption IS against most TOS agreements and I noticed it didn't come up.
Please learn to read in the future before posting.
--
Michael T. Babcock
»www.triplepc.com/~mbabcock/ |
|
MikeBabcock
@cgocable.net
| reply to saber11
You don't understand bandwidth obviously. Without saying that what this person did was right, let me help the previous poster slightly.
The ISP bought a group of T3s, say a few terabits of bandwidth from one or more upstream providers (Microsoft uses an over 17 terabit pipe). This is a fixed monthly cost they pay to that provider. At those bandwidth levels I'm not aware of a single provider that offers "per use" arragements in terms of costs (UUNet sort of does, check »www.mci.com).
In this case, the user uses up to, say, 100mbit of the pipe allocated to the router he's on (most likely 100mbit itself). This is of course shared between customers and 100mbit isn't actually possible, but again, I digress.
At this point, he's used 100mbit of the terabits his provider has allocated to all their functions. Lets say they had 64 customers on that router with up to 3mbit each for a possible 200ish megabits of throughput down-limited to 100. Those other 63 customers may or may not notice a service degradation (depending on router configurations, they may have still received their full allotment) and the ISP is using, at worst, a few percent higher bandwidth than they should have been ON THAT ROUTER and a miniscule amount more over their network.
The price they claim to have lost is prorated against the cost for a highspeed modem, not against bulk bandwidth costs. The ISP may have lost $1000 in bulk bandwidth (100 mbit pipes go for $1000/mo around here; significantly cheaper as you go higher too) but they want to claim that they lost the non-existant profits they could have made off the bandwidth they couldn't have allocated off a probably-full router.
Its a bluff; like an insurance claim ... just a bluff. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| I'm not aware of any cable modem that even has the specs to do over 50Mbps -max-, so that would be another strike against the cableco's argument. There's also the matter that the actual cable line is supposed be physically limited, and 100Mbps is totally unrealistic.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-02 16:24:16] |
|
