Facts? Smart guy, show me all the AT&T DSL and Uverse customers who’ve had their bandwidth caps enforced.
The fact is that I’m RIGHT. Most hardwired customers do not have an enforced bandwidth cap. I am right about that, and calling me “dumbass” doesn’t change that.
But it’s good that you stopped using facts and information that I already know to try to convince me. That won’t work, because I already know a lot more than you about this.
Legal knowledge? Hey, Clarence Goddamn Darrow, show me all these cases where people were prosecuted for this crime specifically, without being prosecuted for anything else.
Losing arguments on the internet seems to be a hobby for a lot of people. I used to do it, too, until I decided to keep my mouth shut until I knew I had at least half the truth on the subject.
I haven’t had any internet at home, in the idea that I would be more productive for awhile (spoiler: not entirely successful). When my boyfriend was over sometimes he’d turn his phone into a hotspot for a while.
When I called, I wasn’t on hold over 5 minutes (I don’t think she’ll care either way). I’ll be going with Charter probably and fuck it all.
In case anyone is wondering, he secured his internet the day after I left the note.
At least I know the difference between Comcast and AT&T. I specifically asked you to show me where AT&T had enforced its bandwidth cap. Come on, can you do it?
What you have is one customer, in one place, at one time, on one provider. In fact, you’re wrong on TWO levels simultaneously. The OP has the choice of Charter or AT&T, NEITHER of which enforces a bandwidth cap.
I’m asking you honestly–do you really think you have any hope of convincing me?
4 convictions out of literally hundreds of millions of individual illegal acts isn’t much of a win. The conviction rate for jaywalking is probably higher.
And the original goalpost is the OP’s situation.
But yes, I suppose you caught me “moving the goalposts.” You also caught me exposing the stupidity of your position, too, I’d say.
So, when traveling about with my iPad, at what point do I become a felon? I am sitting outside at Starbucks drinking a coffee. My device detects a WiFi signal, connects, and chimes that I have an email. At what point am I committing a crime?
ETA: Now, I’ve used Starbucks WiFi before, with their permission. But it seems my device has connected to the neighbor’s signal.
First your landlord probably won’t call. AT&T will probably try to make the landlord accountable for the bill. AT&T does have some leverage there, as once you burn out the other service provider, that address will be harder to rent out if no one can get Internet service to it.
Second, good luck to all you folks who are content to free-ride any signal that you get in an urban area. It isn’t highly productive to provide man-in-the-middle attacks for professional criminals, but high school and collage kids can always use or sell what ever data they can get from providing you that friendly free service.
Third, most service contract prohibit the subscriber from extending their service to another location (think about the people who used to share one cable connection between apartments), so even though it may or may not be a crime, it is very likely against the subscribers contract. So, if they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they are in violation of their service agreement. It wouldn’t take much to outfit all AT&T and similar company vehicles with the ability to identify open connections as they’re working in the area and basically kill (or bill) those subscribers for contact violation. The entire thing could be automated on a single laptop w/an antenna so the tech driving the truck wouldn’t have to do anything.
The neighbor plants an apple tree that’s on the property line between your houses. It grows so that half the branches sweep out over your lawn. In the summer, it blooms and every so often an apple lands right in your backyard.
Whose apple is that? Is it ok if you eat it?
You’re right about the data-mining, although that’s pretty rare.
As far as your idea about billing people extra for open wireless, that would go over like a lead kite. Since you’ve probably never worked in the industry, unlike me, you probably don’t realize how incredibly badly this would hurt any company that tried it.
Think about it…most people have a choice between cable and DSL. If the local cable provider does this, people immediately switch to DSL. Or the reverse.
Billing people extra for open wireless is simply not part of the TOS of any provider, and they’d get sued so fucking hard their heads would spin.
Technically, he’s moving them back. The original claim was that ISPs either don’t have bandwidth caps or rarely enforce them. One incident seems pretty rare to me.
I know you work there and all.. but I Googled “cable service contract” and pulled up the first one in the list:
So, yes they can turn it off and they claim it could be considered unlawful. And no, they would not “get sued so fucking hard their heads would spin” if you’ve signed that contract. (really, do you have to use such language?)
Since you work there, you do realize that the distinction between cable and DSL services is really just the wire/equipment used, right? When you say ‘DSL’, you’re usually talking AT&T or who ever the last mile provider is that may be contracted out to these bundlers. Cable is who ever has the monopoly on that infrastructure.
Now would they do it? Let’s see, who ever thought that a ‘broadband’ provider would cap ‘unlimited’ internet at 5GB/month then start billing at insane rates and still be able to call that unlimited? Yes, that went over like a lead balloon. The end result was that they throttled instead of just billing away. But how many customers paid how many thousands of dollars in billing before the courts stepped in? The end result? They throttled to the point that most customers were forced to upgrade their contracts to a more expensive level or they went elsewhere. But do you think they lost money on that deal? Not hardly.
The fact is that cable companies did execute an aggressive campaign to stop cable TV piggy backing (it was a 800 number where people could turn in neighbors and the ads ran around the clock for a couple years). Just the threat of being turned in caused people to get (pay for) their own service. There is nothing to stop DSL and Cable service providers from identifying open links. Where will these people go? To the over-priced, bandwidth limited cell or satellite?
Never say never when money is involved. It doesn’t matter if customers are happy, what matters is the ROI. Just look at that Netflix fiasco.