Anyone in Tawa want a share of 200Mbps UFB internet for $30pr mth?

Forums › New Zealand Mobile and Wireless › Anyone in Tawa want a share of 200Mbps UFB internet for $30pr mth?

1 | 2 | 3

1948 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1213539 14-Jan-2015 09:01

jjnz1: I did some reading before I carefully wrote the OP. I am not selling, only sharing and as far as I can tell sharing is not explicitly mentioned in the T&Cs.

If money is changing hands between you and someone using the wifi network, you are selling. Have you spoken with your ISP and asked them if they are happy with what you are doing?? Somehow I don't think so.

To me it's like driving around without a seat-belt as you don't seem to fully understand the legal implications of what you are doing. I'm sure people could drive around for years not wearing one and be fine until the time you needed it and you weren't wearing it..... and quite possibly from no fault of your own.

Beware there be dragons.... Never let it be said you weren't warned.

jjnz1

1356 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1213540 14-Jan-2015 09:02

NZCrusader: Yea, but with all due respect that is several ADSL2+ connections that otherwise an ISP(s) would be profiting from.

Also I think there is a stark difference between sharing your connection with a poor farmer or rural user who cannot get anything more than an old ADSL (congested) buba service and essentially profiteering by going against T&Cs and reselling your own connection.

Nice choice of words. ;0

Profiteering:
make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally

One thing I obviously haven't made clear, no profit is being made, in fact it generally costs me money to install the kit and play with it.

jjnz1

1356 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1213541 14-Jan-2015 09:03

plambrechtsen:
jjnz1: I did some reading before I carefully wrote the OP. I am not selling, only sharing and as far as I can tell sharing is not explicitly mentioned in the T&Cs.

If money is changing hands between you and someone using the wifi network, you are selling. Have you spoken with your ISP and asked them if they are happy with what you are doing?? Somehow I don't think so.

To me it's like driving around without a seat-belt as you don't seem to fully understand the legal implications of what you are doing. I'm sure people could drive around for years not wearing one and be fine until the time you needed it and you weren't wearing it..... and quite possibly from no fault of your own.

Beware there be dragons.... Never let it be said you weren't warned.

No sorry. Money going direct to ISP from members.

Thanks for the warning. I have taken many months to decide to post this. Lots of reading ;)

jjnz1

1356 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1213551 14-Jan-2015 09:10

plambrechtsen:
jjnz1: I did some reading before I carefully wrote the OP. I am not selling, only sharing and as far as I can tell sharing is not explicitly mentioned in the T&Cs.

If money is changing hands between you and someone using the wifi network, you are selling. Have you spoken with your ISP and asked them if they are happy with what you are doing?? Somehow I don't think so.

To me it's like driving around without a seat-belt as you don't seem to fully understand the legal implications of what you are doing. I'm sure people could drive around for years not wearing one and be fine until the time you needed it and you weren't wearing it..... and quite possibly from no fault of your own.

Beware there be dragons.... Never let it be said you weren't warned.

Quick question... wifi hotspots? Zenbu wifi etc.

I think this topic is taboo and very controversial, however still not quite breaking any rules etc. This obviously requires a lot of discussion and input from ISPs as to their opinion...

I am curious hence the OP.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1213552 14-Jan-2015 09:11

plambrechtsen:
kiwitrc: So you are ok with this so long as the people who connect cant get UFB, which in Tawa is most of the place currently.

Not at all, I'm semi-comfortable with a one to one relationship where someone rural can't get any broadband and they pay to have service at another persons place who can get service and running a point to point link to achieve it.

The one to many relationship where the one who is responsible for the account and there is no way to track down who of "the many" committed the offence should the police come knocking.

With multiple people as "clients".. would you really want to risk engagement with law enforcement to save a few dollars or to have high speed broadband? Me... The answer would be no.

As an employee of NZs largest ISP, I have seen a number of things..... And hence why I would never share my wifi password with anyone I don't completely trust. And when I do share my wifi it's to a private network that I log the majority of traffic going out to the internet and isn't able to access any of the devices on my internal network.

I think rural people can get satellite coverage so dont have to have dsl.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1213568 14-Jan-2015 09:41

plambrechtsen:
jjnz1: I did some reading before I carefully wrote the OP. I am not selling, only sharing and as far as I can tell sharing is not explicitly mentioned in the T&Cs.

If money is changing hands between you and someone using the wifi network, you are selling. Have you spoken with your ISP and asked them if they are happy with what you are doing?? Somehow I don't think so.

To me it's like driving around without a seat-belt as you don't seem to fully understand the legal implications of what you are doing. I'm sure people could drive around for years not wearing one and be fine until the time you needed it and you weren't wearing it..... and quite possibly from no fault of your own.

Beware there be dragons.... Never let it be said you weren't warned.

If this is just a breach of Snap's Ts and Cs then haven't we determined previously on this forum that this is something that is absolutely 100% legal. (I'm thinking of the various threads about Netflix specifically - and I wouldn't be surprised if the people who are talking about this being something awful, are also quite happy using Netflix, which is quite ironic)

The argument also goes "Netflix are still getting paid, so why should they care"

As for whether somebody on the network is likely to start downloading illegal content and get caught - this is pretty unlikely too. (and is fundamentally no different from in a flat sharing situation where one person has their name on the account but has no control over the other tennants)

the section 92 act is specifically only about torrenting, and the number of people who have actually been prosecuted is very very small, so the actual risk of getting caught even if someone is doing naughty stuff is tiny, and besides you get plenty of warnings and time, so can always stop this arrangement at the second strike if it happens.

So whether the OP lives with 3 people and they share the cost of the connection, why is this any different from if the OP spreads those 3 people across multiple houses and shares the cost of the connection with them.

naggyman

697 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1213590 14-Jan-2015 09:53

I think the rural argument is different here.

In the argument presented by plambrechtsen, the recipient of the wireless connection pays for the DSL to be put in at the first person's house. So this first DSL connection is in the recipient's name, not the houseowner's name. As such the mitigates the liability issues I think(note: not a lawyer).

Morgan French-Stagg

morgan.french.net.nz

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

k14

629 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1213592 14-Jan-2015 10:02

NonprayingMantis:
If this is just a breach of Snap's Ts and Cs then haven't we determined previously on this forum that this is something that is absolutely 100% legal. (I'm thinking of the various threads about Netflix specifically - and I wouldn't be surprised if the people who are talking about this being something awful, are also quite happy using Netflix, which is quite ironic)

The argument also goes "Netflix are still getting paid, so why should they care"

As for whether somebody on the network is likely to start downloading illegal content and get caught - this is pretty unlikely too. (and is fundamentally no different from in a flat sharing situation where one person has their name on the account but has no control over the other tennants)

the section 92 act is specifically only about torrenting, and the number of people who have actually been prosecuted is very very small, so the actual risk of getting caught even if someone is doing naughty stuff is tiny, and besides you get plenty of warnings and time, so can always stop this arrangement at the second strike if it happens.

So whether the OP lives with 3 people and they share the cost of the connection, why is this any different from if the OP spreads those 3 people across multiple houses and shares the cost of the connection with them.

Totally agree, all these people being high and mighty need to go away and find somewhere else to moan. The OP is trying to do something, if you can help then post if not then shut up.

I'd be interested to know what sort of hardware you are using to achieve this and the costs of doing so?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1213599 14-Jan-2015 10:13

In our house there are three residents, should we be paying our ISP three times?
In the weekend etc we will have many visitors that use our WiFi should we be paying our ISP many times?

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1214619 14-Jan-2015 11:02

jjnz1:
NZCrusader: Yea, but with all due respect that is several ADSL2+ connections that otherwise an ISP(s) would be profiting from.

Also I think there is a stark difference between sharing your connection with a poor farmer or rural user who cannot get anything more than an old ADSL (congested) buba service and essentially profiteering by going against T&Cs and reselling your own connection.

Nice choice of words. ;0

Profiteering:
make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally

One thing I obviously haven't made clear, no profit is being made, in fact it generally costs me money to install the kit and play with it.

Well I seriously doubt you are running this at a loss.

Furthermore it is not up to you to act as a charity with your connection.
Many ISPs actually have special plans for non-profit organisations.

You have indicated these people are your customers, and regardless if your subscribers are enabling you to make a profit or alternatively subsidize your connection, to me it is still blatantly against Snap's T&Cs - which you agreed to when you subscribed with them.

NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1214628 14-Jan-2015 11:13

k14:
NonprayingMantis:
If this is just a breach of Snap's Ts and Cs then haven't we determined previously on this forum that this is something that is absolutely 100% legal. (I'm thinking of the various threads about Netflix specifically - and I wouldn't be surprised if the people who are talking about this being something awful, are also quite happy using Netflix, which is quite ironic)

The argument also goes "Netflix are still getting paid, so why should they care"

As for whether somebody on the network is likely to start downloading illegal content and get caught - this is pretty unlikely too. (and is fundamentally no different from in a flat sharing situation where one person has their name on the account but has no control over the other tennants)

the section 92 act is specifically only about torrenting, and the number of people who have actually been prosecuted is very very small, so the actual risk of getting caught even if someone is doing naughty stuff is tiny, and besides you get plenty of warnings and time, so can always stop this arrangement at the second strike if it happens.

So whether the OP lives with 3 people and they share the cost of the connection, why is this any different from if the OP spreads those 3 people across multiple houses and shares the cost of the connection with them.

Totally agree, all these people being high and mighty need to go away and find somewhere else to moan. The OP is trying to do something, if you can help then post if not then shut up.

I'd be interested to know what sort of hardware you are using to achieve this and the costs of doing so?

Don't you think that if we all did this, then the price of a connection to the ISP would rise?

Furthermore if you sign a contract with a provider, don't you think that you are obliged to honour it?
I mean, we expect the ISP to honour the contract so isn’t if fair to do the same in return?

Also we are not high and mighty, but realistically there is no moral obligation for the OP to provide this service.

All it looks like is a breach of T&Cs to resell the connection intended for his sole purpose only, therefore undercutting other providers from selling their fixed line (or wireless) services.
There is actually no reason why his "customers" are unable to purchase their own connections.

NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1214652 14-Jan-2015 11:41

NZCrusader:
jjnz1:
NZCrusader: Yea, but with all due respect that is several ADSL2+ connections that otherwise an ISP(s) would be profiting from.

Also I think there is a stark difference between sharing your connection with a poor farmer or rural user who cannot get anything more than an old ADSL (congested) buba service and essentially profiteering by going against T&Cs and reselling your own connection.

Nice choice of words. ;0

Profiteering:
make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally

One thing I obviously haven't made clear, no profit is being made, in fact it generally costs me money to install the kit and play with it.

Well I seriously doubt you are running this at a loss.

Furthermore it is not up to you to act as a charity with your connection.
Many ISPs actually have special plans for non-profit organisations.

You have indicated these people are your customers, and regardless if your subscribers are enabling you to make a profit or alternatively subsidize your connection, to me it is still blatantly against Snap's T&Cs - which you agreed to when you subscribed with them.

Do you have a Netflix subscription? If so, you are breaching their Ts and Cs, which you agreed to when you signed up

You don't seem to have a problem with the idea of breaching the NowTV Ts and Cs in this thread. (which alsmot certianly state you must not access their service outside the UK)
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=151&TopicId=151457

plambrechtsen

1948 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1214657 14-Jan-2015 11:47

jjnz1: No sorry. Money going direct to ISP from members.

Thanks for the warning. I have taken many months to decide to post this. Lots of reading ;)

If that's the case then you would have already engaged with the ISP as the people connecting to your wireless network would have a billing relationship directly with the ISP and not you, so you aren't being the quasi ISP. So that's fine then :)

jjnz1: Quick question... wifi hotspots? Zenbu wifi etc.

I think this topic is taboo and very controversial, however still not quite breaking any rules etc. This obviously requires a lot of discussion and input from ISPs as to their opinion...

I am curious hence the OP.

I don't think it's a taboo or controversial topic what so ever. Zenbu et al tend to run their own internet connection and potentially VPN all customer traffic back to a central location to screen it before it goes out the door. Companies like Fon that you can setup your home router and then share the internet and in return you can use any other Fon Access Point. They do have clauses about not doing illegal stuff but it's a grey area and does leave yourself open should anything occur on your network. Since Fon don't tunnel all traffic back to their home network, and filter it before it gets out to the internet.

If it wasn't for The Section 92a Copyright and DIA my personal concern wouldn't be as great. But wouldn't want to see you getting into trouble for trying to offer community wifi.

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1214758 14-Jan-2015 13:26

NonprayingMantis:
NZCrusader:
jjnz1:
NZCrusader: Yea, but with all due respect that is several ADSL2+ connections that otherwise an ISP(s) would be profiting from.

Also I think there is a stark difference between sharing your connection with a poor farmer or rural user who cannot get anything more than an old ADSL (congested) buba service and essentially profiteering by going against T&Cs and reselling your own connection.

Nice choice of words. ;0

Profiteering:
make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally

One thing I obviously haven't made clear, no profit is being made, in fact it generally costs me money to install the kit and play with it.

Well I seriously doubt you are running this at a loss.

Furthermore it is not up to you to act as a charity with your connection.
Many ISPs actually have special plans for non-profit organisations.

You have indicated these people are your customers, and regardless if your subscribers are enabling you to make a profit or alternatively subsidize your connection, to me it is still blatantly against Snap's T&Cs - which you agreed to when you subscribed with them.

Do you have a Netflix subscription? If so, you are breaching their Ts and Cs, which you agreed to when you signed up

You don't seem to have a problem with the idea of breaching the NowTV Ts and Cs in this thread. (which alsmot certianly state you must not access their service outside the UK)
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=151&TopicId=151457

TV market is a totally different kettle of fish.

Morally the exclusive rights to content etc is just a method of blocking, creating monopolies and extortion, so is just wrong.
I personally see that VPNs and DNS services are forcibly creating an open and competitive market.

Anyways, I have said my bit.
I have been successful in pointing out that there is indeed some "reselling" action going on here, especially if the OP is receiving monies in exchange for service.
So its not quite "sharing" as he likes to spin it and that the reselling is against his ISP's T&Cs.

Its up to his ISP really if they have a problem or not with it.

For me. I don’t really care. Its not my problem. :-)

NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

jjnz1

1356 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1214796 14-Jan-2015 13:58

NZCrusader:
TV market is a totally different kettle of fish.

Morally the exclusive rights to content etc is just a method of blocking, creating monopolies and extortion, so is just wrong.
I personally see that VPNs and DNS services are forcibly creating an open and competitive market.

Anyways, I have said my bit.
I have been successful in pointing out that there is indeed some "reselling" action going on here, especially if the OP is receiving monies in exchange for service.
So its not quite "sharing" as he likes to spin it and that the reselling is against his ISP's T&Cs.

Its up to his ISP really if they have a problem or not with it.

For me. I don’t really care. Its not my problem. :-)

For me this came down to benefits and disadvantages:

Benefits:
Cheaper super fast internet
Get to play with interesting wireless and security tech with the goal of reliability
Get to show others what fast interest can achieve (4k streaming anyone)
I have the option of installing a secondary internet connection for improved reliability (which otherwise I wouldn't have afforded).
I have the option of more NZ IP addresses
Get to design wireless networks
And I don't have to do this as my main job all day every day (it was great but I prefer my job now)

Disadvantages:
Section 92 -(this has to be carefully managed from my end - all members are very aware I do not condone torrenting).
If someone decides to move, the cost rises for all (to a certain degree then I cover the rest as this is my experiment).
ISP T&Cs - view of compliance is not black and white (I feel I am fine).
Although wireless links are very stable, UFB connections are not so much. Therefore every member needs to know this is a consumer grade product that does fail occasionally - (but then I get to try a fix it -benefit!)

NZCrusader: Why don't you move to Tawa, then I can show you how it all works when I install it for you? ;)

1 | 2 | 3