Rural internet woes
-
@jaredbusch said in Rural internet woes:
@dustinb3403 you are totally not understanding.
The ISP does nothing more than install a modem like normal.
Then you go put a uFiber link or something in. Not the ISP.
The ISP never does anything more than normal.
I didn't say they did. You assumed I did.
The modem would be at his neighbors place, not his. He would have to setup the wireless connection between the two.
-
@mike-davis said in Rural internet woes:
Imagine that one though. They come to you and say "you're stealing internet" and you say I asked you to sell it to me and you said you couldn't afford to do it. Have you changed your mind?
Right. It's not legal (unless you find a ToS loophole), but it is effectively impossible to prosecute when you admit that there was no loss of revenue because you refused service to the customer. It's illegal with a "zero penalty" cap. They can't show damages of more than $0.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Rural internet woes:
@jaredbusch said in Rural internet woes:
@dustinb3403 you are totally not understanding.
The ISP does nothing more than install a modem like normal.
Then you go put a uFiber link or something in. Not the ISP.
The ISP never does anything more than normal.
I didn't say they did. You assumed I did.
The modem would be at his neighbors place, not his. He would have to setup the wireless connection between the two.
Yes, you can obviously do that too, pay for a complete link at someone else's location and then beg or pay the property owner to let you put up hardware.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Rural internet woes:
@mike-davis said in Rural internet woes:
Imagine that one though. They come to you and say "you're stealing internet" and you say I asked you to sell it to me and you said you couldn't afford to do it. Have you changed your mind?
Right. It's not legal (unless you find a ToS loophole), but it is effectively impossible to prosecute when you admit that there was no loss of revenue because you refused service to the customer. It's illegal with a "zero penalty" cap. They can't show damages of more than $0.
Are damages a requirement?
-
Another thought on the damages thing - if the client who had service was using X, and after adding this new connection was now using Y amount of data, the ISP could argue that they are damaged by this increase in usage brought about only by the illegal usage, even if that usage was below any set caps in the TOS.
FYI - I'm saying they could argue, not that they could win that argument.
-
@dashrender said in Rural internet woes:
@scottalanmiller said in Rural internet woes:
@mike-davis said in Rural internet woes:
Imagine that one though. They come to you and say "you're stealing internet" and you say I asked you to sell it to me and you said you couldn't afford to do it. Have you changed your mind?
Right. It's not legal (unless you find a ToS loophole), but it is effectively impossible to prosecute when you admit that there was no loss of revenue because you refused service to the customer. It's illegal with a "zero penalty" cap. They can't show damages of more than $0.
Are damages a requirement?
Well of course damages would be a requirement. Courts work in damages, and how to restitute some to whole by giving them money.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Rural internet woes:
@dashrender said in Rural internet woes:
@scottalanmiller said in Rural internet woes:
@mike-davis said in Rural internet woes:
Imagine that one though. They come to you and say "you're stealing internet" and you say I asked you to sell it to me and you said you couldn't afford to do it. Have you changed your mind?
Right. It's not legal (unless you find a ToS loophole), but it is effectively impossible to prosecute when you admit that there was no loss of revenue because you refused service to the customer. It's illegal with a "zero penalty" cap. They can't show damages of more than $0.
Are damages a requirement?
Well of course damages would be a requirement. Courts work in damages, and how to restitute some to whole by giving them money.
While I would like to agree with that - I don't. Suing them might get them an injunction, allowing law enforcement to enforce the take down of the wireless link.
-
@dashrender said in Rural internet woes:
@dustinb3403 said in Rural internet woes:
@dashrender said in Rural internet woes:
@scottalanmiller said in Rural internet woes:
@mike-davis said in Rural internet woes:
Imagine that one though. They come to you and say "you're stealing internet" and you say I asked you to sell it to me and you said you couldn't afford to do it. Have you changed your mind?
Right. It's not legal (unless you find a ToS loophole), but it is effectively impossible to prosecute when you admit that there was no loss of revenue because you refused service to the customer. It's illegal with a "zero penalty" cap. They can't show damages of more than $0.
Are damages a requirement?
Well of course damages would be a requirement. Courts work in damages, and how to restitute some to whole by giving them money.
While I would like to agree with that - I don't. Suing them might get them an injunction, allowing law enforcement to enforce the take down of the wireless link.
You have to sue on the grounds of damages.
You mentioned in your follow up post of additional internet usage. That could be equated as damages (idk courts are crazy some times) and thus have law enforcement tear down the equipment.
But why would a court do any of this if he is willing to purchase internet at that service address with its own modem, and work with the property owner to have his personally owned wireless equipment up and running?
-
@dustinb3403 said in Rural internet woes:
But why would a court do any of this if he is willing to purchase internet at that service address with its own modem, and work with the property owner to have his personally owned wireless equipment up and running?
Why would a court do this if - uh.. because it would only make it to court if the ISP wasn't willing.
-
@dashrender said in Rural internet woes:
@dustinb3403 said in Rural internet woes:
But why would a court do any of this if he is willing to purchase internet at that service address with its own modem, and work with the property owner to have his personally owned wireless equipment up and running?
Why would a court do this if - uh.. because it would only make it to court if the ISP wasn't willing.
You're misunderstanding I'm saying if he ordered service from the ISP in the property owners willing to have the service installed on their property and are willing to allow him in order to setup a wireless connection between that property and his property why would it ever go to court?
-
@dashrender said in Rural internet woes:
@scottalanmiller said in Rural internet woes:
@mike-davis said in Rural internet woes:
Imagine that one though. They come to you and say "you're stealing internet" and you say I asked you to sell it to me and you said you couldn't afford to do it. Have you changed your mind?
Right. It's not legal (unless you find a ToS loophole), but it is effectively impossible to prosecute when you admit that there was no loss of revenue because you refused service to the customer. It's illegal with a "zero penalty" cap. They can't show damages of more than $0.
Are damages a requirement?
The amount of trouble you get in is generally based on damages. Doing something "illegal" is only sort of illegal when the amount of illegal is zero.
Consider grand theft vs. petty theft. The amount matters, a lot. Now consider theft where the amount is zero. How much do you think a court is willing to prosecute someone who definitely stole zero dollars?
In a case like this, the ISP has essentially no ability to sue for damages. They can sue for breach of contract, but the MOST damage they can do, is losing themselves a customer. The ISP would have to pay a lawyer, to go to court, to give up revenue.
While technically illegal, it's not usefully illegal. There is no loser, no damages.
-
@dashrender said in Rural internet woes:
Another thought on the damages thing - if the client who had service was using X, and after adding this new connection was now using Y amount of data, the ISP could argue that they are damaged by this increase in usage brought about only by the illegal usage, even if that usage was below any set caps in the TOS.
FYI - I'm saying they could argue, not that they could win that argument.
They can argue that, but the amount of damages would be insanely low.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Rural internet woes:
@dashrender said in Rural internet woes:
@scottalanmiller said in Rural internet woes:
@mike-davis said in Rural internet woes:
Imagine that one though. They come to you and say "you're stealing internet" and you say I asked you to sell it to me and you said you couldn't afford to do it. Have you changed your mind?
Right. It's not legal (unless you find a ToS loophole), but it is effectively impossible to prosecute when you admit that there was no loss of revenue because you refused service to the customer. It's illegal with a "zero penalty" cap. They can't show damages of more than $0.
Are damages a requirement?
Well of course damages would be a requirement. Courts work in damages, and how to restitute some to whole by giving them money.
Right, they could certainly get a "YOU WIN" settlement, but get awarded nothing for it.
-
A moral victory alone
