Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
Just ran into packetstream.io: "Sell Your Unused Bandwidth Earn passive income while you sleep PacketStream is the first of its kind peer-to-peer proxy network. Packeters are compensated for sharing bandwidth on the PacketStream network and allowing users all over the world have access to content on the internet through our secure network. Customers can purchase bandwidth and browse the web from residential IPs to protect their browsing privacy. The PacketStream network routes customer traffic through PacketStream users allowing for increased privacy and access to geo-restricted content while browsing the web. Packeters on the PacketStream network share their bandwidth with PacketStream customers. The website/service receiving HTTP requests sees requests coming from real residential IPs and allows access to content that would otherwise be blocked if it had been requested from traditional datacenter VPNs or proxy networks." How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider? Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 4/24/2019 10:07 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
Just ran into packetstream.io:
"Sell Your Unused Bandwidth
Earn passive income while you sleep
What could possibly go wrong? :-) - - ferg - -- Paul Ferguson Principal, Threat Intelligence Gigamon Seattle, WA USA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlzBQlEACgkQKJasdVTchbJqVwD/V3h5ZU9IyQEZq5I8aGBCtB+g hp19rjVbr8qtRPxibRoA/jsZYEIKdWNff+O3cVFnLSTNt4YuzLU5tgUPME4t9QiL =B089 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear Anne, On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:07:51PM -0600, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider?
Can you perhaps cite ToS excerpts from one or more major providers to support your assertion?
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Are you listing all the above because you are presenting a formal position supported by all these organisations about ToS? Can you for instance clarify how signing of as a director for the Denver Internet Exchange shapes the context of your ToS message? Or, perhaps you are listing the above for some kind of self-marketing purposes? If that is the case, please note that it is fairly uncommon to use the NANOG mailing list to distribute resumes. I know numerous websites dedicated to the dissemination of work histories, perhaps you can use those instead of operational mailling list? Regards, Job ps. RFC 3676 section 4.3
feeling cranky, are we, job? (accusing an antispam expert of spamming on a mailing list by having too long a .sig?) but it’s true! anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except for ICANN GAC representatives) all accept that. to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious how the AUPs of carriers try to disallow bandwidth resale while permitting • cybercafe operations and other “free wifi" (where internet service might be provided for patrons in a hotel or cafe) • wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon) • other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn gateways i suppose they could just try to disallow resale or allow on-premises use even if revenue is received. the Fon business model seems pretty comparable to me. On Apr 24, 2019, 10:51 PM -0700, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, wrote:
Dear Anne,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:07:51PM -0600, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider?
Can you perhaps cite ToS excerpts from one or more major providers to support your assertion?
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Are you listing all the above because you are presenting a formal position supported by all these organisations about ToS? Can you for instance clarify how signing of as a director for the Denver Internet Exchange shapes the context of your ToS message?
Or, perhaps you are listing the above for some kind of self-marketing purposes? If that is the case, please note that it is fairly uncommon to use the NANOG mailing list to distribute resumes. I know numerous websites dedicated to the dissemination of work histories, perhaps you can use those instead of operational mailling list?
Regards,
Job
ps. RFC 3676 section 4.3
In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87@Spark> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=-
feeling cranky, are we, job? (accusing an antispam expert of spamming on a mailing list by having too long a .sig?) but it’s true! anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except for ICANN GAC representatives) all accept that.
to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious how the AUPs of carriers try to disallow bandwidth resale while permitting
• cybercafe operations and other “free wifi" (where internet service might be provided for patrons in a hotel or cafe) • wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon) • other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn gateways
To belabor the fairly obvious, residential and business service are different even if the technology is the same. For example, Comcast's residential TOS says: You agree that the Service(s) and the Xfinity Equipment will be used only for personal, residential, non-commercial purposes, unless otherwise specifically authorized by us in writing. You are prohibited from reselling or permitting another to resell the Service(s) in whole or in part, ... [ long list of other forbidden things ] Their business TOS is different. It says no third party use unless your agreement permits it, so I presume they have a coffee shop plan. (The agreements don't seem to be on their web site.) I'd also observe that coffee shop wifi isn't "resale" since it's free, it's an amenity. As to how do these guys think they'll get away with it, my guess is that they heard that "disruption" means ignoring laws and contracts and someone told them that is a good thing. R's, John
After all, it worked for Napster.... Scott Helms On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-
feeling cranky, are we, job? (accusing an antispam expert of spamming on a mailing list by having too long a .sig?) but it’s true! anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except for ICANN GAC representatives) all accept that.
to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious how
In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87@Spark> you write: the AUPs of carriers try to disallow
bandwidth resale while permitting
• cybercafe operations and other “free wifi" (where internet service might be provided for patrons in a hotel or cafe) • wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon) • other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn gateways
To belabor the fairly obvious, residential and business service are different even if the technology is the same. For example, Comcast's residential TOS says:
You agree that the Service(s) and the Xfinity Equipment will be used only for personal, residential, non-commercial purposes, unless otherwise specifically authorized by us in writing. You are prohibited from reselling or permitting another to resell the Service(s) in whole or in part, ... [ long list of other forbidden things ]
Their business TOS is different. It says no third party use unless your agreement permits it, so I presume they have a coffee shop plan. (The agreements don't seem to be on their web site.) I'd also observe that coffee shop wifi isn't "resale" since it's free, it's an amenity.
As to how do these guys think they'll get away with it, my guess is that they heard that "disruption" means ignoring laws and contracts and someone told them that is a good thing.
R's, John
It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do. If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or unknowingly. These guys likely just wrote a custom TOR client and a billing backend, and are banking on the fact that most people running as the exit aren't going to get caught by their provider. Ingenious, although shady. I do like they have the classic pyramid scheme going for "income off referrals", just so make sure you KNOW they're shady if you might have suspected otherwise. :) On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:28 PM K. Scott Helms <kscott.helms@gmail.com> wrote:
After all, it worked for Napster....
Scott Helms
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-
feeling cranky, are we, job? (accusing an antispam expert of spamming on a mailing list by having too long a .sig?) but it’s true! anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except for ICANN GAC representatives) all accept that.
to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious how
In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87@Spark> you write: the AUPs of carriers try to disallow
bandwidth resale while permitting
• cybercafe operations and other “free wifi" (where internet service might be provided for patrons in a hotel or cafe) • wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon) • other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn gateways
To belabor the fairly obvious, residential and business service are different even if the technology is the same. For example, Comcast's residential TOS says:
You agree that the Service(s) and the Xfinity Equipment will be used only for personal, residential, non-commercial purposes, unless otherwise specifically authorized by us in writing. You are prohibited from reselling or permitting another to resell the Service(s) in whole or in part, ... [ long list of other forbidden things ]
Their business TOS is different. It says no third party use unless your agreement permits it, so I presume they have a coffee shop plan. (The agreements don't seem to be on their web site.) I'd also observe that coffee shop wifi isn't "resale" since it's free, it's an amenity.
As to how do these guys think they'll get away with it, my guess is that they heard that "disruption" means ignoring laws and contracts and someone told them that is a good thing.
R's, John
On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do. If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or unknowingly.
And *that* is *exactly* my concern. Because those users...('you' in this example)...they have *no idea* it is causing them to violate their ToS/AUP with their provider. And this in part, is my reason for bringing it up here in NANOG - because (at least some of) those big providers are here. And those big providers are in the best position to stamp this out (if they think that it needs stamping out). And:
On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:21 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
As to how do these guys think they'll get away with it, my guess is that they heard that "disruption" means ignoring laws and contracts and someone told them that is a good thing.
I would have appreciated a C&C warning on that. :-) Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 9:06 PM
On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do. If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or unknowingly.
And *that* is *exactly* my concern. Because those users...('you' in this example)...they have *no idea* it is causing them to violate their ToS/AUP with their provider.
But isn't there a law in US that protects oblivious or outright simple-mined population from falling for these type of "easy money" schemes by prohibiting these types of business? I believe there's something like that in EU (rendering pyramid schemes or lending money with extreme interests illegal for example). Although I appreciate that in this particular case the exact formulation would be rather cumbersome to define. adam
In article <003d01d4fc27$ba0bb300$2e231900$@netconsultings.com> you write:
But isn't there a law in US that protects oblivious or outright simple-mined population from falling for these type of "easy money" schemes by prohibiting these types of business?
If it became popular enough to be annoying I expect that the large cable or phone providers could claim tortious interference by inducing their customers to violate their contracts. I assumed that something this sleazy would be offshore, but their terms of service say they're in Los Angeles.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:06 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I assumed that something this sleazy would be offshore, but their terms of service say they're in Los Angeles.
They tricked you. https://packetstream.io/legal/privacy PacketStream 8605 Santa Monica Blvd Los Angeles, CA, 90069 support@packetstream.io https://www.earthclassmail.com/addresses/ca/west-hollywood "Get a real West Hollywood address at 8605 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109, US for your business, then get your mail online - as easy as..." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 06:31:08PM -0700, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:06 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I assumed that something this sleazy would be offshore, but their terms of service say they're in Los Angeles.
They tricked you. [snip]
Also, unless I'm misreading their site, they expect users to download/run an application program of unknown provenance and function, from an operation that has gone to great lengths to conceal its location and principals. What could possibly go wrong? ---rsk
Welcome to the Internet. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk@gsp.org> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 10:34:44 AM Subject: Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 06:31:08PM -0700, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:06 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I assumed that something this sleazy would be offshore, but their terms of service say they're in Los Angeles.
They tricked you. [snip]
Also, unless I'm misreading their site, they expect users to download/run an application program of unknown provenance and function, from an operation that has gone to great lengths to conceal its location and principals. What could possibly go wrong? ---rsk
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do. If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or unknowingly.
And *that* is *exactly* my concern. Because those users...('you' in this example)...they have *no idea* it is causing them to violate their ToS/AUP with their provider.
And this in part, is my reason for bringing it up here in NANOG - because (at least some of) those big providers are here. And those big providers are in the best position to stamp this out (if they think that it needs stamping out).
So providers should stamp this out (because it is “bad”) and support customers who are running TOR nodes (because those are “good”). Did I get that right? Matthew Kaufman
And that is the conundrum here I think. It's very difficult (for me) to reconcile "NET NEUTRALITY!! PROVIDERS SHOULD BE DUMB PIPES!" with "Hey providers, this company is trying to do something sketchy, you should take action to stop it from working." Reselling bandwidth/access to your residential internet connection isn't (to my knowledge) breaking any criminal LAWS. It's only violating the ToS between you and your provider, to which they have a remedy of canceling your account if they decide to. (Maybe there's civil action there? I dunno.) So for anything not violating laws I'm not sure I want ISPs interfering with traffic at all. On the flip side, maybe ISPs can be pragmatic about this, and send warnings to people who may start using this..."service". Give them a heads up that they appear to be doing something that is in violation of the ToS, and if they continue, their account might be canceled. Be a nicer method than just 0 to canceled in one go. On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:12 AM Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. < amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do. If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or unknowingly.
And *that* is *exactly* my concern. Because those users...('you' in this example)...they have *no idea* it is causing them to violate their ToS/AUP with their provider.
And this in part, is my reason for bringing it up here in NANOG - because (at least some of) those big providers are here. And those big providers are in the best position to stamp this out (if they think that it needs stamping out).
So providers should stamp this out (because it is “bad”) and support customers who are running TOR nodes (because those are “good”). Did I get that right?
Matthew Kaufman
Great... someone brought up Net Neutrality. I guess it's time to unsubscribe from the list for a few days until the shit show disappears. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Beecher" <beecher@beecher.cc> To: "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew@matthew.at> Cc: "J. Hellenthal via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 8:44:29 AM Subject: Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? And that is the conundrum here I think. It's very difficult (for me) to reconcile "NET NEUTRALITY!! PROVIDERS SHOULD BE DUMB PIPES!" with "Hey providers, this company is trying to do something sketchy, you should take action to stop it from working." Reselling bandwidth/access to your residential internet connection isn't (to my knowledge) breaking any criminal LAWS. It's only violating the ToS between you and your provider, to which they have a remedy of canceling your account if they decide to. (Maybe there's civil action there? I dunno.) So for anything not violating laws I'm not sure I want ISPs interfering with traffic at all. On the flip side, maybe ISPs can be pragmatic about this, and send warnings to people who may start using this..."service". Give them a heads up that they appear to be doing something that is in violation of the ToS, and if they continue, their account might be canceled. Be a nicer method than just 0 to canceled in one go. On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:12 AM Matthew Kaufman < matthew@matthew.at > wrote: On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. < amitchell@isipp.com > wrote: <blockquote>
On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do. If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or unknowingly.
And *that* is *exactly* my concern. Because those users...('you' in this example)...they have *no idea* it is causing them to violate their ToS/AUP with their provider. And this in part, is my reason for bringing it up here in NANOG - because (at least some of) those big providers are here. And those big providers are in the best position to stamp this out (if they think that it needs stamping out). <blockquote> </blockquote> So providers should stamp this out (because it is “bad”) and support customers who are running TOR nodes (because those are “good”). Did I get that right? Matthew Kaufman <blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
On Apr 26, 2019, at 6:10 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
So providers should stamp this out (because it is “bad”) and support customers who are running TOR nodes (because those are “good”). Did I get that right?
If that is how you see it, then it's right for you. At no time did I mention TOR, nor will I get dragged into that discussion. Anne Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Anne, With all due respect, you haven’t yet cited an example of an ISP TOS at “every provider” that this new company’s product violates. I’m not asking you to critique TORs, I’m asking that you tell us the TOS restriction that you believe is so obvious to everyone? Because it’s not obvious to me, and I own an ISP. -mel via cell
On Apr 26, 2019, at 7:41 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
On Apr 26, 2019, at 6:10 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
So providers should stamp this out (because it is “bad”) and support customers who are running TOR nodes (because those are “good”). Did I get that right?
If that is how you see it, then it's right for you. At no time did I mention TOR, nor will I get dragged into that discussion.
Anne
Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
On Apr 26, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
With all due respect, you haven’t yet cited an example of an ISP TOS at “every provider” that this new company’s product violates. I’m not asking you to critique TORs, I’m asking that you tell us the TOS restriction that you believe is so obvious to everyone? Because it’s not obvious to me, and I own an ISP.
A few examples: Comcast: You are prohibited from reselling or permitting another to resell the Service(s) in whole or in part, or using or permitting another to use the Xfinity Equipment or the Service(s), directly or indirectly, for any unlawful purpose, including, but not limited to, in violation of any policy we post applicable to the Service(s). https://www.xfinity.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/SubscriberAgreement --- CenturyLink: Also, you agree not to use the Service for high volume or excessive use, in a business or for any commercial purpose if your Service is a residential service, or in a way that impacts CenturyLink network resources or CenturyLink’s ability to provide services. You agree not to: (i) offer public information services (unlimited usage or otherwise), or (ii) permit more than one high-speed Internet log-on session to be active at one time, except if using a roaming account when traveling, in which case 2 sessions may be active. A log-on session represents an active connection to your Internet access provider. The active session may be shared to connect multiple computers/devices within a single home or office location or within a single unit within a multiple dwelling unit (e.g., single apartment or office within an apartment complex) to your modem and/or router to access the Service (including the establishment of a wireless fidelity (“WiFi”) hotspot), but the Service may only be used at the single home or office location or single unit within a multiple dwelling unit for which Service is provisioned by CenturyLink. http://www.centurylink.com/legal/en/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement_LQ.... --- Google: you agree not to use or allow third parties to use the Services provided to you for any of the following purposes: ... • To make the Services available to anyone outside the property to which the Services are delivered, to resell the Services directly or indirectly, except as explicitly approved by Google Fiber in writing, or to create substitute or related services through the use of or access to the Services (for example, to provide Wi-Fi services to third parties outside of your residence). https://fiber.google.com/legal/accepteduse/residential/ --- Anne Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Anne, As a lawyer, I’m sure you realize those overly broad policies are unenforceable on their face. Phrases such as “resell...directly or indirectly” could just as easily be interpreted to mean you can’t perform paid consulting work by email over a residential link — something patently ridiculous. Can you cite any case law where these restrictions have been enforced? I believe if a case every cane to court, the defense would have an excellent argument that the plain meaning of these restrictions is to prevent others from buying direct Internet access from another communications channel (e.g., WiFi) from the residence, not passing data through the residence. -mel via cell
On Apr 26, 2019, at 8:48 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
On Apr 26, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
With all due respect, you haven’t yet cited an example of an ISP TOS at “every provider” that this new company’s product violates. I’m not asking you to critique TORs, I’m asking that you tell us the TOS restriction that you believe is so obvious to everyone? Because it’s not obvious to me, and I own an ISP.
A few examples:
Comcast:
You are prohibited from reselling or permitting another to resell the Service(s) in whole or in part, or using or permitting another to use the Xfinity Equipment or the Service(s), directly or indirectly, for any unlawful purpose, including, but not limited to, in violation of any policy we post applicable to the Service(s).
https://www.xfinity.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/SubscriberAgreement
---
CenturyLink:
Also, you agree not to use the Service for high volume or excessive use, in a business or for any commercial purpose if your Service is a residential service, or in a way that impacts CenturyLink network resources or CenturyLink’s ability to provide services. You agree not to: (i) offer public information services (unlimited usage or otherwise), or (ii) permit more than one high-speed Internet log-on session to be active at one time, except if using a roaming account when traveling, in which case 2 sessions may be active. A log-on session represents an active connection to your Internet access provider. The active session may be shared to connect multiple computers/devices within a single home or office location or within a single unit within a multiple dwelling unit (e.g., single apartment or office within an apartment complex) to your modem and/or router to access the Service (including the establishment of a wireless fidelity (“WiFi”) hotspot), but the Service may only be used at the single home or office location or single unit within a multiple dwelling unit for which Service is provisioned by CenturyLink.
http://www.centurylink.com/legal/en/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement_LQ....
---
Google:
you agree not to use or allow third parties to use the Services provided to you for any of the following purposes:
...
• To make the Services available to anyone outside the property to which the Services are delivered, to resell the Services directly or indirectly, except as explicitly approved by Google Fiber in writing, or to create substitute or related services through the use of or access to the Services (for example, to provide Wi-Fi services to third parties outside of your residence).
https://fiber.google.com/legal/accepteduse/residential/
---
Anne
Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
On Apr 26, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Anne,
As a lawyer, I’m sure you realize those overly broad policies are unenforceable on their face. Phrases such as “resell...directly or indirectly” could just as easily be interpreted to mean you can’t perform paid consulting work by email over a residential link — something patently ridiculous.
Can you cite any case law where these restrictions have been enforced? I believe if a case every cane to court, the defense would have an excellent argument that the plain meaning of these restrictions is to prevent others from buying direct Internet access from another communications channel (e.g., WiFi) from the residence, not passing data through the residence.
Mel, we will have to agree to disagree. I know that if I were representing any of these providers, I know what arguments I'd make, and we would almost certainly win. Courts don't look kindly on breach of contract (nor on inducing breach of contract, as Packetstream is), and the ToSs very clearly state you cannot *resell* your residential bandwidth, which is precisely what is going on here (there is no legal theory of which I am aware under which that could be interpreted to mean "can’t perform paid consulting work by email over a residential link", novel though your theory is. Performing paid consulting work is *not* 'reselling bandwidth"). Anne Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:06 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do. If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or unknowingly.
And *that* is *exactly* my concern. Because those users...('you' in this example)...they have *no idea* it is causing them to violate their ToS/AUP with their provider.
If you put your apartment on airbnb without knowing whether subletting is against the terms of your lease... well, there's just no cure for stupid.
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
That is an obnoxious signature block. Just sayin'. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig here, it is now an issue of contention. (Well, 3 people probably does not contention make, but still...). However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me address why I have all of that info in there: Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least those here in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just "corporate suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet issues, and b) attorneys are generally disliked. ;-) Over the years I've found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but that I actually do know what I'm talking about. I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when I first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer ;-)). I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off). Anne [This .sig space open to suggestions.]
Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after all)..but I'd meant to include this: Case in point: This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I had just posted the original thread, about how it's inducing users to violate their providers' ToS, how that's a breach of contract, etc... how many here would have a) not given a second thought, writing it off as the rantings of at best someone who doesn't know anything, and at worst a troll, or b) would have challenged me to explain my credentials - which would have take up far more space than my .sig :-( Anne
On Apr 26, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig here, it is now an issue of contention. (Well, 3 people probably does not contention make, but still...).
However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me address why I have all of that info in there:
Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least those here in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just "corporate suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet issues, and b) attorneys are generally disliked. ;-) Over the years I've found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but that I actually do know what I'm talking about.
I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when I first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer ;-)).
I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off).
Anne
[This .sig space open to suggestions.]
I want to clarify that while I didn't say anything (since it wasn't on-topic in the other thread), I also found the long signature annoying. I did not read it beyond the first 1-2 lines. I expect many more than the few people who spoke up share this opinion. While I don't feel it's appropriate for people to complain about something so trivial as an email signature in a pseudo-professional setting, apparently we're doing it today. I don't like email signatures in general, but since you asked for suggestions, I suggest using your name and one title that seems most relevant/important. On another note: I don't think you need credentials to be taken seriously here as long as you present a respectful and coherent argument. I would not have questioned your background if you had posted this without credentials, or if anyone else had posted it. I don't recognize the names of most of the "top talkers" or know their credentials, other than my assumption that they are network operators of some sort. I'm sorry that you've had negative experiences re: your background. Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether they choose to respect others and for what reasons. There is little we can do to influence that. On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:01 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after all)..but I'd meant to include this:
Case in point: This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I had just posted the original thread, about how it's inducing users to violate their providers' ToS, how that's a breach of contract, etc... how many here would have a) not given a second thought, writing it off as the rantings of at best someone who doesn't know anything, and at worst a troll, or b) would have challenged me to explain my credentials - which would have take up far more space than my .sig :-(
Anne
On Apr 26, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig here, it is now an issue of contention. (Well, 3 people probably does not contention make, but still...).
However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me address why I have all of that info in there:
Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least those here in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just "corporate suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet issues, and b) attorneys are generally disliked. ;-) Over the years I've found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but that I actually do know what I'm talking about.
I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when I first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer ;-)).
I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off).
Anne
[This .sig space open to suggestions.]
I respect the viewpoints of those who made comments about your sig, but I do not agree. There are many things to be annoyed about. I don’t think your email signature is one of them. On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 17:16 Ross Tajvar <ross@tajvar.io> wrote:
I want to clarify that while I didn't say anything (since it wasn't on-topic in the other thread), I also found the long signature annoying. I did not read it beyond the first 1-2 lines. I expect many more than the few people who spoke up share this opinion.
While I don't feel it's appropriate for people to complain about something so trivial as an email signature in a pseudo-professional setting, apparently we're doing it today.
I don't like email signatures in general, but since you asked for suggestions, I suggest using your name and one title that seems most relevant/important.
On another note: I don't think you need credentials to be taken seriously here as long as you present a respectful and coherent argument. I would not have questioned your background if you had posted this without credentials, or if anyone else had posted it. I don't recognize the names of most of the "top talkers" or know their credentials, other than my assumption that they are network operators of some sort.
I'm sorry that you've had negative experiences re: your background. Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether they choose to respect others and for what reasons. There is little we can do to influence that.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:01 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. < amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after all)..but I'd meant to include this:
Case in point: This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I had just posted the original thread, about how it's inducing users to violate their providers' ToS, how that's a breach of contract, etc... how many here would have a) not given a second thought, writing it off as the rantings of at best someone who doesn't know anything, and at worst a troll, or b) would have challenged me to explain my credentials - which would have take up far more space than my .sig :-(
Anne
On Apr 26, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. < amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig here, it is now an issue of contention. (Well, 3 people probably does not contention make, but still...).
However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me address why I have all of that info in there:
Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least those here in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just "corporate suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet issues, and b) attorneys are generally disliked. ;-) Over the years I've found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but that I actually do know what I'm talking about.
I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when I first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer ;-)).
I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off).
Anne
[This .sig space open to suggestions.]
particularly "interesting" when someone downloads CP (or, as it now seems to be called, CSAM) using their ipaddr and causes them to become a Person of Interest. On Apr 25, 2019, 12:43 PM -0700, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc>, wrote:
It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do. If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or unknowingly.
These guys likely just wrote a custom TOR client and a billing backend, and are banking on the fact that most people running as the exit aren't going to get caught by their provider. Ingenious, although shady. I do like they have the classic pyramid scheme going for "income off referrals", just so make sure you KNOW they're shady if you might have suspected otherwise. :)
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:28 PM K. Scott Helms <kscott.helms@gmail.com> wrote:
After all, it worked for Napster....
Scott Helms
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87@Spark> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=-
feeling cranky, are we, job? (accusing an antispam expert of spamming on a mailing list by having too long a .sig?) but it’s true! anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except for ICANN GAC representatives) all accept that.
to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious how the AUPs of carriers try to disallow bandwidth resale while permitting
• cybercafe operations and other “free wifi" (where internet service might be provided for patrons in a hotel or cafe) • wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon) • other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn gateways
To belabor the fairly obvious, residential and business service are different even if the technology is the same. For example, Comcast's residential TOS says:
You agree that the Service(s) and the Xfinity Equipment will be used only for personal, residential, non-commercial purposes, unless otherwise specifically authorized by us in writing. You are prohibited from reselling or permitting another to resell the Service(s) in whole or in part, ... [ long list of other forbidden things ]
Their business TOS is different. It says no third party use unless your agreement permits it, so I presume they have a coffee shop plan. (The agreements don't seem to be on their web site.) I'd also observe that coffee shop wifi isn't "resale" since it's free, it's an amenity.
As to how do these guys think they'll get away with it, my guess is that they heard that "disruption" means ignoring laws and contracts and someone told them that is a good thing.
R's, John
In article <44a32613-a255-44eb-a094-cee68b6d088a@Spark> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=-
particularly "interesting" when someone downloads CP (or, as it now seems to be called, CSAM) using their ipaddr and causes them to become a Person of Interest.
I was thinking the same thing, that'll do it. Or maybe videos showing how to behead members of religious or cultural groups against whom someone holds a grudge.
On Apr 25, 2019, at 09:10 , Mark Seiden <mis@seiden.com> wrote:
feeling cranky, are we, job? (accusing an antispam expert of spamming on a mailing list by having too long a .sig?) but it’s true! anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except for ICANN GAC representatives) all accept that.
to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious how the AUPs of carriers try to disallow bandwidth resale while permitting cybercafe operations and other “free wifi" (where internet service might be provided for patrons in a hotel or cafe)
Business internet contracts usually don’t prohibit resale, or, they place different limits on it. Residential contracts usually flat out prohibit it. At least in theory, I would expect most cybercafe and other such operations to have a business class of service from the ISP.
wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon) For residential end users, it probably does violate the ToS, but it’s unlikely such violation would be easily detected or enforced. other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn gateways Unless you’re doing something illegal or making money selling your bandwidth, most things like this probably aren’t technically violations of the ToS. i suppose they could just try to disallow resale or allow on-premises use even if revenue is received. the Fon business model seems pretty comparable to me.
I agree — I’m pretty sure that both the Fon model and the packetstream model are probably ToS violations for most residential services. Fon is unlikely to get noticed by most ISPs. Packetstream seems a lot more risky, IMHO. Owen
On Apr 24, 2019, 10:51 PM -0700, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, wrote:
Dear Anne,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:07:51PM -0600, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider?
Can you perhaps cite ToS excerpts from one or more major providers to support your assertion?
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Are you listing all the above because you are presenting a formal position supported by all these organisations about ToS? Can you for instance clarify how signing of as a director for the Denver Internet Exchange shapes the context of your ToS message?
Or, perhaps you are listing the above for some kind of self-marketing purposes? If that is the case, please note that it is fairly uncommon to use the NANOG mailing list to distribute resumes. I know numerous websites dedicated to the dissemination of work histories, perhaps you can use those instead of operational mailling list?
Regards,
Job
ps. RFC 3676 section 4.3
Obviously violates every standard “don’t resell the service” clause. ( But these are also the same TOSes that tell me I can’t VPN into the office , so they can pound sand. :p ) Doing this makes about as much sense as running a TOR exit node to me. Too much exposure to someone doing something dumb through you that you’d be left holding the bag for. On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:10 Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
Just ran into packetstream.io:
"Sell Your Unused Bandwidth
Earn passive income while you sleep
PacketStream is the first of its kind peer-to-peer proxy network. Packeters are compensated for sharing bandwidth on the PacketStream network and allowing users all over the world have access to content on the internet through our secure network. Customers can purchase bandwidth and browse the web from residential IPs to protect their browsing privacy.
The PacketStream network routes customer traffic through PacketStream users allowing for increased privacy and access to geo-restricted content while browsing the web. Packeters on the PacketStream network share their bandwidth with PacketStream customers. The website/service receiving HTTP requests sees requests coming from real residential IPs and allows access to content that would otherwise be blocked if it had been requested from traditional datacenter VPNs or proxy networks."
How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider?
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
Just ran into packetstream.io:
How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider?
Sounds like a "paid" TOR. Is TOR a ToS violation too -- the EFF would probably like to hear of it if so. Or just the aspect of reselling one's service? /mark
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider?
https://packetstream.io/support#q33
Customers should ensure that their use case does not violate the ToS of the service they are using.
So, I guess it's up the the customer caring about that... C. -- BOFH excuse #107: The keyboard isn't plugged in
participants (18)
-
adamv0025＠netconsultings.com -
Alan Buxey -
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. -
Christian Kujau -
Job Snijders -
John Levine -
K. Scott Helms -
Mark Milhollan -
Mark Seiden -
Matthew Kaufman -
Mel Beckman -
Mike Hammett -
Owen DeLong -
Paul Ferguson -
Rich Kulawiec -
Ross Tajvar -
Tom Beecher -
William Herrin