OT- Comcast Subscriber Agreement

[Andrew W. Gaunt]

It's a big pig, little pig thing.

The story goes something like this:

There were two baby pigs. Every night after the
farmer had gone to bed, they would sneak under
the wire, steal a bit of grain from the barn, eat it and
and then sneak back before morning. One of the
pigs had a larger appetite than the other and would
eat  a bit more each night. This went on for while
until the more ravenous pig got too big to sneak back
under the wire and got stuck there. Well, the farmer
awoke to find a nice fattened pig there one Sunday
morning. He sure made a fine meal that evening.

-- 
____    __
 | 0|___||.   Andrew Gaunt *nix Sys. Admin,, etc. Lucent Technologies
_| _| : : }   quantum at lucent.com - http://www-cde.mv.lucent.com/~quantum
 -(O)-==-o\   andrew_gaunt at hotmail.com - http://www.gaunt.org




bscott at ntisys.com wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, at 5:58pm, greg at kettmann.com wrote:
>
>>Section 6, subsection g of [Comcast's TOS] states ...
>>
>
>  I'm pretty sure AT&T Broadband's TOS has similar prohibitions on
>multiplexing their service.  They also prohibit a number of other things.  
>At one time, you could read their TOS as prohibiting non-Windows OSes, but I
>think they changed that.
>
>  Most ISPs also state that they can terminate your service at any time and
>for any reason, so the specifics really don't matter much anyway.
>
>  As far as reality goes, must high-speed ISPs follow a "don't ask, don't
>tell"  policy.  As long as you're not causing a problem, they really don't
>care what you do.  So, if you're just browsing from a couple different
>computers in your home, they likely don't know or care.
>
>  If you start sucking up massive amounts of bandwidth, or sharing it with
>others, or call their tech support for help with your router, *then* you're
>costing them money, and they'll drop the hammer on you.
>
>
>>Also, and I know the laws are really flakey in this area, but wouldn't
>>intercepting, decoding and reading my traffic be a breach of my privacy as
>>well as a violation of the reverse engineering laws?
>>
>
>  Well, IANAL, but AFAIK, all said laws have specific provisions allowing
>service operators to do what is necessary to maintain and protect their
>operations.  I've had this argument with spammers before, and I can quote
>specific parts of a few laws if you like.  :-)
>
>