Rick Smith wrote:
I still don't see why anyone should be able to use my network without
paying me for the right to do so. PERIOD.
I don't run a network for the benefit of the free world, I run it for
the benefit of my checkbook. Which needs SERIOUS help. :)
OK, and while we're at it,
Yeah,
its jsut like a drug manuafacturer selling speed
for fat loss knowing the possible harm, and getting off teh hook because of the
little disclaimer that says, "please consult your doctor to see if this is right
for you", knowing that 99% of people would never do that, nor read the fine
On 6/29/06, Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between FON and nimrod customers, is that FON isexploiting this for THEIR gain. is flowing, at my expense, intoFON's pockets, due to a nimrod customer that installed their gear at the
violation of my AUP.Again, plz read fon.com
Title: Message
out of
curiosity (would like input from the pro net neutral people) -- would blocking
something like FON constitute a violation of net neutrality?
-Charles
---CWLabTechnology
Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com
-Original
Title: Message
I stilldon't see why anyone should be able to use my
network without paying me for the right to do so.
PERIOD.
I don't run a network for the benefit of the free world, I
run it for the benefit of my checkbook. Which needs SERIOUS help.
:)
OK, and while we're at it, why is
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Charles Wu wrote:
out of curiosity (would like input from the pro net neutral people)
-- would blocking something like FON constitute a violation of net
neutrality?
I don't think you'll find many pro net neutral people on this
list. I would have to say that most of
Title: Message
It is pretty much precluded by Roadrunners
typical Terms of Service in their contract:
(b) Subscriber will not resell the Service, or any portion
thereof, or otherwise charge others to use the Service, or any portion thereof.
The Service is for personal use only, and
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Rick Smith wrote:
OK, and while we're at it, why is net neutral good ? I admit
The terminology here is somewhat confusing. The term net neutral
seems to be used to describe two unrelated ideologies (both of which
are bad, IMNSHO). One is the opposite view to what ATT
Why don't we as an industry organization start putting net neutrality in
clear light. We've got people running around using the net neutrality
banner to demand unfiltered P2P use, unlimited data transfers, or that QOS
NOT be implemented.
I think it would be more constructive if we broke this up
Tom,
You have a lot of good points, but so does Charles and others, Why don't you
petition WISPA and some of the other ISP organization to sponsor a Net
Neutrality bakeoff. You can have views from the service provider aspects.
What needs and will come out of it in the end will be the
On 6/28/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it was, then it would be illegal to block
hackers and criminals from using your network as well.
As FON clearly has no concern for Acceptable Use
Policiies, therefore illegal activity, and AUPs are clearly allowable and
enforcable
Dylan Oliver wrote:
http://en.fon.com/biz/isps_friends.php.
(i) have a FON Social Router or a router that is compatible with the FON
Software and (ii) have a contract with an ISP that permits the FONero to
share bandwidth.
And how many of your customers actually read all the fine print in
12 matches
Mail list logo
