Illegal for an ISP to ban you from their service for going over the bandwidth cap?

[her209]

There's verbage in most franchise agreements between the municipality/city/county and the ISPs that state:

"General Service Obligation
The Grantee shall make Cable Service available to every residential dwelling within the Franchise Area where the minimum density is at least number dwelling units per mile and is within one (1) mile of the existing Cable System. Subject to the density requirement, Grantee shall offer Cable Service to all new homes or previously unserved homes within 125 feet of the Grantee's distribution cable."

What do you guys think?

 

[mnewsham]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan.ars

ISPs have agreed to institute "mitigation measures" (or, as you and I know them, punishments) based on the collected say-so of copyright holders. These measures begin with the fifth or six alert, and they may include "temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter."

There is no requirement that ISPs disconnect a user's Internet connection at any point, and indeed ISPs say they will refuse any measure that might cut off a user's phone service, e-mail access, "or any security or health service (such as home security or medical monitoring)." But ISPs are free to disconnect users if they wish (as indeed they have always been).

So if you are illegally downloading they wont even disconnect you, i doubt they would over hitting their cap.

 

[brblx]

that's how i've always understood it. it's like credit companies...phone calls and harassment for missed payments...then they ask if you want to raise your credit limit.

they WANT your downloading. they NEED your downloading.

BUT THEY CAN'T HANDLE YOUR DOWNLOADING.

 

[SamQuint]

There is nothing there that states they have to give you any specific quality or quantity of service. So technically they can argue if they provide you 5mb of data at 28.8 speed they are providing you cable service. Also isn't the above General service agreement meant more for TV services and not Internet services?

Don't have much of a leg to stand on there legally.

Plus you agree to the terms of service. Just like non payment of fees, they can terminate your usage for any number of reasons.

 

[alkemyst]

that's how i've always understood it. it's like credit companies...phone calls and harassment for missed payments...then they ask if you want to raise your credit limit.

they WANT your downloading. they NEED your downloading.

BUT THEY CAN'T HANDLE YOUR DOWNLOADING.

it actually works like gym memberships. They are really hoping you don't use the service.

 

[eldorado99]

that's how i've always understood it. it's like credit companies...phone calls and harassment for missed payments...then they ask if you want to raise your credit limit.

they WANT your downloading. they NEED your downloading.

BUT THEY CAN'T HANDLE YOUR DOWNLOADING.

This goes perfectly with your avatar. :biggrin:

 

[gevorg]

If you have to worry about caps all the time, just get a business line (no caps).

 

[SunnyD]

There's verbage in most franchise agreements between the municipality/city/county and the ISPs that state:

"General Service Obligation
The Grantee shall make Cable Service available to every residential dwelling within the Franchise Area where the minimum density is at least number dwelling units per mile and is within one (1) mile of the existing Cable System. Subject to the density requirement, Grantee shall offer Cable Service to all new homes or previously unserved homes within 125 feet of the Grantee's distribution cable."

What do you guys think?

"Cable System" verbage doesn't apply to internet service (Except for FIOS and UVerse, where Franchise Agreements have been specifically negotiated for those services in most served municipalities).

 

[her209]

"Cable System" verbage doesn't apply to internet service (Except for FIOS and UVerse, where Franchise Agreements have been specifically negotiated for those services in most served municipalities).

You'd have to look at the definition of a "Cable System" and "Cable Service". Here's a sample definition of each:

"Cable System" means any facility including Grantee’s, consisting of a set of closed transmissions paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide Cable Service which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple Subscribers within a community, but such term does not include (A) a facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations; (B) a facility that serves Subscribers without using any Right-of-Way; (C) a facility of a common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the federal Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), except that such facility shall be considered a Cable System (other than for purposes of Section 621(c) (47 U.S.C. 541(c)) to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to Subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services; (D) an open video system that complies with federal statutes; or (E) any facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its electric utility systems.

"Cable Service" means the one-way transmission to Subscribers of video programming or other programming service, and Subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service. To the extent consistent with applicable law, Cable Service shall include Cable Internet Service and other interactive services such as, but not limited to, game Channels, information services and enhanced services made available to Subscribers by the Grantee.

 

[SunnyD]

You'd have to look at the definition of a "Cable System" and "Cable Service". Here's a sample definition of each:

"Cable System" means any facility including Grantee’s, consisting of a set of closed transmissions paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide Cable Service which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple Subscribers within a community, but such term does not include (A) a facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations; (B) a facility that serves Subscribers without using any Right-of-Way; (C) a facility of a common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the federal Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), except that such facility shall be considered a Cable System (other than for purposes of Section 621(c) (47 U.S.C. 541(c)) to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to Subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services; (D) an open video system that complies with federal statutes; or (E) any facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its electric utility systems.

"Cable Service" means the one-way transmission to Subscribers of video programming or other programming service, and Subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service. To the extent consistent with applicable law, Cable Service shall include Cable Internet Service and other interactive services such as, but not limited to, game Channels, information services and enhanced services made available to Subscribers by the Grantee.

Internet service is NOT a Title II service. This was a huge deal earlier this year as AT&T and Verizon both sued to keep the FCC from reclassifying "Broadband Service" as a Title II service. Perhaps you should keep up on your current events.

Cable Service refers to a Title II common carrier service. Internet service has never been classified as such, regardless of the medium it is carried across.

 

[her209]

Internet service is NOT a Title II service. This was a huge deal earlier this year as AT&T and Verizon both sued to keep the FCC from reclassifying "Broadband Service" as a Title II service. Perhaps you should keep up on your current events.

Cable Service refers to a Title II common carrier service. Internet service has never been classified as such, regardless of the medium it is carried across.

LOL. I know about the FCC attempt to reclassify the Internet so it can apply net neutrality rules. But I don't know why you're bringing up the FCC. This is about the franchise agreement that an ISP signs with the municipality to allow them to operate in the municipality. Its clearly defined in the agreement what is what.

 

[james1701]

There is nothing there that states they have to give you any specific quality or quantity of service. So technically they can argue if they provide you 5mb of data at 28.8 speed they are providing you cable service. Also isn't the above General service agreement meant more for TV services and not Internet services?

Don't have much of a leg to stand on there legally.

Plus you agree to the terms of service. Just like non payment of fees, they can terminate your usage for any number of reasons.

I don't know about other states, but the cable company I use guarantee's you a certain percentage of the speed you pay for. If they throttle you back, you can complain and show proof you are not receiving the speed you are paying for, it can be free for the month if you are persistent. It's in their TOS, on the guaranteed speed being delivered.

 

[SunnyD]

LOL. I know about the FCC attempt to reclassify the Internet so it can apply net neutrality rules. But I don't know why you're bringing up the FCC. This is about the franchise agreement that an ISP signs with the municipality to allow them to operate in the municipality. Its clearly defined in the agreement what is what.

Because your "definition" hinges directly on federal classification of the services in question, as pointed out by what you copied 'n pasted, all of which are specifically pointing to U.S.C. writ.