Here we disagree
> If someone driving by were to stop and login to the internet this would
> not seem to be an intentional redistribution.
If your access point were unprotected, this would be redistribution.
> The First time you advertised your hotspot , then it would seem to
> violate the agreement.
This is also redistribution.
To Violate an agreement one generally must have some intent to Violate.
If I install my wireless connection to meet my needs and I do not need
security because I am simply not intertested in security then the burden is
not on me to protect the interests of AT+T
If a particular level of security is required as a condition for using
wireless routers then this should be defined in the contract.
> Looks like the only way these connections will mesh is via a truly
> underground and free approach.
You can mesh the connections, but you cannot grant the mesh access to the
internet through your Time Warner account.
> For Example I have been in dense SanFrancisco neighborhoods and logged
> into several waps with no commercial intent.
> Were any of thoose users in violation?
> I doubt it.
Yes, they were.
Again I disagree.
unauthorized use of a connection does not depend upon your attempt to secure
the connection .
If you find a stack of money in the bank lobby it is not yours just because
it was not locked in the vault.
Authorized use of a connection requires authorization and any un authorized
use would not constitute redistribution.
Least thats the world I am used to living in.
--
general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
