My ISP shut off my internet last night because...

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: user1234
if I pay for it then I am entitled to use. True, there are some restrictions, but only within reason. If if some half-assed agreement says stupid things like "prohibited use include... remapping of ports" like it says in makotos agreement, this is UTTER BS, and is clearly an illegal restriction. The thing your small mind need to understand is that even these agreements must abide by some rules, and the drafter of the agreements cannot just invent whatever restrictions they want. I mean, they actually do that, but these restrictions are actually null and void, since they clearly violate basic consumer rights like privacy and ownership, therefore they are illegal and unenforcable (that is by the way true for many agreements people sign). For example, do you really think remapping ports (port forwarding) is prohibited or that someone could enforce such restriction even if they could detect it ? Do you just waste time arguing, or did you read what I said about unlimited nights and weekends cell phone minutes - you are entitled to use the service you paid for.

dude, you are using somebody elses network - they can tell you exactly what you can and can't do. why is this so hard to comprehend? There is nothing illegal about it.

The analogy of unlimited nights and weekends doesn't not apply - the ISP does not give you all you can eat. And from a network modeling perspective a single call is a finite bandwidth - its voice and therefore no single customer can use more than a single call's worth. Hence normal modeling rules apply.

You won't win this one - you can indeed purchase a "all the bandwidth you can use" plans and infact I've bought and sold many of them from 45-600 Mbs. And you pay for them appropriately.

And as far as governing bodies there is an entire commision setup to regulate these things. In question is consumer level or retail internet - the acceptible use policies pass federal, legal and constitutional muster (FCC). Even at the exchange level there are rules and contracts governing the exchange.

Geez, its this kind of attitude that make me sick - the "I'm entitled to/its my right to everything without paying for it."

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07

dude, you are using somebody elses network - they can tell you exactly what you can and can't do. why is this so hard to comprehend? There is nothing illegal about it.

The analogy of unlimited nights and weekends doesn't not apply - the ISP does not give you all you can eat. And from a network modeling perspective a single call is a finite bandwidth - its voice and therefore no single customer can use more than a single call's worth. Hence normal modeling rules apply.

You won't win this one - you can indeed purchase a "all the bandwidth you can use" plans and infact I've bought and sold many of them from 45-600 Mbs. And you pay for them appropriately.

And as far as governing bodies there is an entire commision setup to regulate these things. In question is consumer level or retail internet - the acceptible use policies pass federal, legal and constitutional muster (FCC). Even at the exchange level there are rules and contracts governing the exchange.

Geez, its this kind of attitude that make me sick - the "I'm entitled to/its my right to everything without paying for it."

You mean $39.99/month doesn't buy me unlimited bandwidth? It doesn't give me ownership over the ISP's network? :Q

 

[lapierrem]

depends on the specific contract though, if your isp says unlimited access and then says, hey, you can't download that much - unreasonable. If you're going to put caps - put an objective number to it and state it upfront before signup.

I work for a few different isps, and we're fully within our rights to shut down a user who has virus activity because not only can it affect other users machines on the type of services provided, but it also can take up network bandwidth in copying and spreading. Read the TOS and you'll see that isps can do this kind of thing.

 

[user1234]

Spidey, you pay for a service therefore you are ENTITLED (even if you don't like this word) , repeat ENTITLED to get the service. The service consists of bandwidth, therefore the customer is ENTITLED to get some amount of bandwidth for what he's paying. The only question is how much bandwidth. Since you say there is no physical limit on usage, and the limit is not defined quatitaviely anywhere in the agreement, it remains quite an open question what is the limit which you are ENTITLED to for what you pay. I guess your view is that the customer is not entitled to use all the bandwidth that he can physically use, BUT since it's not clear what is the actual limit, plus the fact the customer doesn't have the means to monitor his exact usage, it is not reasonable for the service provider to cut him off if he over-uses the network . At most, they could limit him to the amount that he is entitled to based on what he's paying. These games of saying "use it moderately" and then notifying him he over-used it (based on what defintion exactly?), so he gets shutdown is worthy of some crazed power hungy lifeless network administrators, not of a service oriented company which needs to comply with rules protecting the consumer rights.

I wonder how many people here hosting Unreal Tournament 2004 online games read what some stupid agreement might say about running a "server" ??? let's see what happens if some ISP tries to prevent people from hosting online game.....

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: user1234
Spidey, you pay for a service therefore you are ENTITLED (even if you don't like this word) , repeat ENTITLED to get the service. The service consists of bandwidth, therefore the customer is ENTITLED to get some amount of bandwidth for what he's paying. The only question is how much bandwidth. Since you say there is no physical limit on usage, and the limit is not defined quatitaviely anywhere in the agreement, it remains quite an open question what is the limit which you are ENTITLED to for what you pay. I guess your view is that the customer is not entitled to use all the bandwidth that he can physically use, BUT since it's not clear what is the actual limit, plus the fact the customer doesn't have the means to monitor his exact usage, it is not reasonable for the service provider to cut him off if he over-uses the network . At most, they could limit him to the amount that he is entitled to based on what he's paying. These games of saying "use it moderately" and then notifying him he over-used it (based on what defintion exactly?), so he gets shutdown is worthy of some crazed power hungy lifeless network administrators, not of a service oriented company which needs to comply with rules protecting the consumer rights.

I wonder how many people here hosting Unreal Tournament 2004 online games read what some stupid agreement might say about running a "server" ??? let's see what happens if some ISP tries to prevent people from hosting online game.....

Don't forget:

18. GREENFIELD Cancellation: GREENFIELD reserves the right to cancel service for any reason without prior notice. When an account is canceled for violation of published terms and conditions, no refund shall be due.

Complain to the government that these ISPs should put a number down on those ToS agreements. I'm sure the FCC gives a damn.

 

[spidey07]

Yep, take to the FCC.

Or even better post this kind of trash on NANOG

 

[user1234]

your agreement is worth as much as used toilet paper. and it smells worse [pwned * n]

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: user1234
your agreement is worth as much as used toilet paper. and it smells worse [pwned * n]

Get a clue. My agreement is for 3mb down, 768 up. All kinds of restrictions and I, that's moi, chose to sign the agreement offered by the ISP so I have agreed to restrict my access in accordance with the ISP contract.

Got a problem, go to the FCC.

 

[eklass]

re: limiting bandwidth

get a client such as azureus http://azureus.sourceforge.net/ that allows you to limit the bandwidth consumed. there are also plugins that give your further contol such as time of day, etc

 

[thunderroller]

is there a data transfer limit

 

[ubercaffeinated]

Nope, no data transfer limit. I've always used Azureus, and still do now. I just limited the amount of connections and capped the max upload. It's all good now. I'll update if they shut me down again. They probably won't though.

 

[Emultra]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

12. Lawful Use: Services provided to you through GREENFIELD, including Internet access, may only be used for lawful purposes. Transmission of any data, information or material in violation of any federal or state regulation or law (including, but not limited to, material protected by copyright or trade secrets, and information that is confidential as a matter of law) is strictly prohibited. Subscriber may not, under any circumstances, use GREENFIELD in an unlawful manner, including, but not limited to: 1) posting or transmitting any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, or pornographic information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liability; 2) intercepting or attempting to intercept e-mail; and 3) uploading / downloading files that contain software or other material protected by copyright laws. In addition GREENFIELD expressly reserves the right to terminate or suspend the Service of any Subscriber or account holder if GREENFIELD, in its sole judgment, believes that circumstances relating to the infringement of third party intellectual property rights warrant such action.

I'd say most of the content on the Internet is protected by copyright laws... :Q

18. GREENFIELD Cancellation: GREENFIELD reserves the right to cancel service for any reason without prior notice. When an account is canceled for violation of published terms and conditions, no refund shall be due.

Hmmm... :beer:

19. Excessive Use of Bandwidth: If GREENFIELD determines, in GREENFIELD's sole discretion, that Subscriber is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Service, we may suspend or terminate Subscriber's account at any time and without notice.

doh. :light:

Man, this is just plain stupid. Oh look, I'm mister SWAT 3 o'clock and I'm gonna go all spooky on yo @ss. Why do they have to be so idiotic? Like "without notice", "for any reason", "sole discretion".

Are they a service company or a Mussolini corporate?

 

[spidey07]

Blame lawyers.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: EmultraAre they a service company or a Mussolini corporate?

With 99% of their customers they are probably a Nice company. With 1% of clients, those that want to ""hog"" the entire Internet for themselves they are probably a ""Mussolini"" company.

On the bright side, unlike Mussolini and the like, they do not send anyone to concentration camps or kill any one. They just tell you to take your business elsewhere.

:shocked:

 

[Emultra]

It was an exaggeration.

And if their bandwidth can't handle it, they could always get OC-255.

 

[cmetz]

The problem is that many ISPs are being deceptive in how they market their product. (Deceptive sales practices? Never heard of that before!)

Many ISPs advertise an always-on, unlimited service at so much speed up and so much speed down. Then, the fine print says something very broad like "we reserve the right to terminate your service if you abuse it, or use too much resources, or interfere with others' ability to enjoy the service." Joe User pins his line for a few days doing P2P, and nobody complains. But after Joe's been doing that for a while, he shows up on the ISP's top ten bandwidth hogs report, and gets his plug pulled because he's unprofitable. From Joe User's perspective, he was sold an unlimited service, but then when he crossed some line he has no ability to know about, it's taken away from him. This is NOT fair to Joe User.

Some ISPs are now setting caps, saying that you can only download, say, 4GB per month. You can use the instantaneous burst speed your connection provides, but if you use too much total volume, we'll either kick you off or charge you more money. This is a twist on what's common practice in the business ISP world - charge based on your 95%th percentile usage or some other metric. You pay a certain amount for the basic line, usually an attractive amount, and can burst up to the line's capacity. You use it more heavily, you pay more money. This is an entirely fair business model. Yet, when residential ISPs have announced formal caps or usage charges like this, users have SCREAMED. Some of the caps that have been announced are truly unreasonable, but at a high level, user's can't go around both complaining that there are hidden caps and then rejecting any caps that they're told about. Most people are objecting to the whole concept, because they've decided that their unlimited service should be completely unlimited, but they don't want to pay the real costs for it.

Paying for usage is going to happen. All you can eat is dead. We all want faster instantaneous speed, faster connections to the net. Fiber to the home is coming, with packages like 15/2 and 30/5 to become common. While the backbone is fast, it's not fast enough to keep up once the access speed problems are solved. As backbone becomes a more scarce resource, it's going to become an expense that has to get passed on more clearly to the users. The most fair way to pass that cost on is to pass it on more to the users who use more of it.

ISPs need to stop selling unlimited and then arbitrarily deciding that you're over the limit. That's not fair. Users need to stop paying for entry-level access service and using it like it's their right to max it out 24/7. That's not fair, either.

 

[Sunner]

Contracts like those sure suck, but as long as they're legal you can't do anything about it, aside from getting a better ISP.
If they're legal will depend on where you live.

 

[user1234]

The alarming (and most likely illegal) part of this "agreement" is that clause "If GREENFIELD determines, in GREENFIELD's sole discretion, that Subscriber is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Service....". Note that it theoretically allows them to cut off any customer, even if he uses 1K per day, since this clause doesn't define what excessive means, and in fact states that only the company can define what is excessive. I believe the comapny must at least state what is reasonable usage which the customer is ENTITLED to for what he's paying to those SOBs.

 

[spidey07]

user1234,

This is standard legal practice - it gives them an out. Not just an ISP but any contract there are numerous clauses that detail termination and default, force majeure, etc. Its not crooked, its protecting them.

 

[nweaver]

I am in some apartments, and have the same type of agreement. Maybe this will make sense to you guys, as I almost didn't get access from these guys.

They have dedicated T1 to the apartment complex, with the ability to dial up B/W channel by channel to T3, to keep speeds "resonable" for the entire complex.

Situation 1: 6:00 at night, and American Idol says "GO VOTE". 90% of the complex then logs onto the network. The ISP says "Wow, we have a spike, lots of users, dial up the bandwidth". THe dialing up of the bandwidth costs real money, but then all users are happy, becuase they get their "high speed connection."

Situation 2: Anytime of day....New linux distro is out, and you get all 12 CD's started in torrent. ISP sees huge spike in consumed bandwidth, and pays to up the channels so that other users are not effected. Torrent sees more B/W, and then grabs most of the T3 that costs big bucks, and other users in the complex are left with slow connection.


If you are concerned that you are not getting your "Unlimited bandwidth", get your own dedicated T1 line to your house. I promise that if you are buying a dedicated T1, they won't whine about you capping b/w 6 out of 7 days, because YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE FULL B/W.


ISP's gotta make a buck too, and think about all your neighbors. Should they suffer for my 'torrent habit?


BTW, I love work, Dedicated OC3, and no one whining about b/w usage. (although I don't run P2P, except torrent if requried, and I am downloading legal ISO's from MS and linux distro's)

 

[user1234]

Originally posted by: spidey07
user1234,

This is standard legal practice - it gives them an out. Not just an ISP but any contract there are numerous clauses that detail termination and default, force majeure, etc. Its not crooked, its protecting them.

Mr "Spidey" we all understand that the agreement contains legal mumbo jumbo which is supposed to protect the ISP from lawsuits and liability, etc. Like when they say you can't download copyrighted material, it's just to protect them in case of problems, it doesn't really mean you can't downalod legally purchased songs using your connection, right ? The problem is when they start using the agreement and its unrealiastic restrictitions as the guideline to enforce usage restrictions. That is unacceptable, as the agreement in itself is a rude violation of customer rights, it's just that people don't care about it as long as it's understood that it's only for protecting the ISP from lawsuits.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: user1234

Originally posted by: spidey07
user1234,

This is standard legal practice - it gives them an out. Not just an ISP but any contract there are numerous clauses that detail termination and default, force majeure, etc. Its not crooked, its protecting them.

Mr "Spidey" we all understand that the agreement contains legal mumbo jumbo which is supposed to protect the ISP from lawsuits and liability, etc. Like when they say you can't download copyrighted material, it's just to protect them in case of problems, it doesn't really mean you can't downalod legally purchased songs using your connection, right ? The problem is when they start using the agreement and its unrealiastic restrictitions as the guideline to enforce usage restrictions. That is unacceptable, as the agreement in itself is a rude violation of customer rights, it's just that people don't care about it as long as it's understood that it's only for protecting the ISP from lawsuits.

The rights you have as a consumer with regards to your ISP:
You can sue.
You can walk away and pay for another service.
You can live by the rules they have in place on their network.
You can disrespect the system and be forced off.

I'm not a whiney bitch, so I live by the rules or go somewhere else.

 

[user1234]

"You can sue" - that is definetly in the cards for these ISPs

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: user1234
"You can sue" - that is definetly in the cards for these ISPs

Only in the country that keeps those leeches called lawyers alive.

 

[user1234]

give them back some of their own medicine - they hired all those lawyers to put all the restrictions in the agreement, but they have to understand they can't just put anything they want and say if you don't like it go somewhere else. Once they go too far they are in violation of reasonable policy, and they disrespect customer's right, they will be punished for it.