Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

Great... someone brought up Net Neutrality. I guess it's time to unsubscribe from the list for a few days until the 
shit show disappears. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tom Beecher" <beecher () beecher cc> 
To: "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew () matthew at> 
Cc: "J. Hellenthal via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 8:44:29 AM 
Subject: Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? 


And that is the conundrum here I think. It's very difficult (for me) to reconcile "NET NEUTRALITY!! PROVIDERS SHOULD BE 
DUMB PIPES!" with "Hey providers, this company is trying to do something sketchy, you should take action to stop it 
from working." 


Reselling bandwidth/access to your residential internet connection isn't (to my knowledge) breaking any criminal LAWS. 
It's only violating the ToS between you and your provider, to which they have a remedy of canceling your account if 
they decide to. (Maybe there's civil action there? I dunno.) So for anything not violating laws I'm not sure I want 
ISPs interfering with traffic at all. 


On the flip side, maybe ISPs can be pragmatic about this, and send warnings to people who may start using 
this..."service". Give them a heads up that they appear to be doing something that is in violation of the ToS, and if 
they continue, their account might be canceled. Be a nicer method than just 0 to canceled in one go. 


On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:12 AM Matthew Kaufman < matthew () matthew at > wrote: 








On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. < amitchell () isipp com > wrote: 

<blockquote>


> On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote: 
>
> It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the 
> way I see it, Packetstream doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do. If I sell them my 
> bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how 
> I was just running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I am responsible for what is 
> running on my home network, knowingly or unknowingly. 

And *that* is *exactly* my concern. Because those users...('you' in this example)...they have *no idea* it is causing 
them to violate their ToS/AUP with their provider. 

And this in part, is my reason for bringing it up here in NANOG - because (at least some of) those big providers are 
here. And those big providers are in the best position to stamp this out (if they think that it needs stamping out). 


<blockquote>

</blockquote>



So providers should stamp this out (because it is “bad”) and support customers who are running TOR nodes (because those 
are “good”). Did I get that right? 


Matthew Kaufman 
<blockquote>


</blockquote>

</blockquote>