NZ legalities around sharing UFB over 1km with NanoBeams

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › NZ legalities around sharing UFB over 1km with NanoBeams

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1196696 13-Dec-2014 08:35

Talk to the ISP concerned then there will be no surprises

raytaylor

4014 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1196698 13-Dec-2014 09:14

Your right in that most ISP's in NZ dont have terms and conditions relating to sharing.

Just checked our t&c and we are one of the ISP's that do ban it.
It helps with ticsa, anything involving a police warrant, and 3-strikes.

Home networks
You may access the internet via Taylor Communications from secondary computers on a home network
within the limits of the Acceptable Use Policy. Your home network is not part of your Taylor
Communications Service or Equipment. By accepting this agreement, you explicitly acknowledge that
Taylor Communications will not provide technical support for equipment or software that is not part of
the Taylor Communications Service or Equipment.
Allowing someone to connect to your home network from outside your premises and use your Taylor
Communications service is strictly prohibited. If you do this, we will close your account.
Giving someone outside your household your Taylor Communications login name and password is
called "account sharing" and is strictly prohibited. This may also incur extra fees on your behalf when
your account is logged in twice.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1196794 13-Dec-2014 12:03

deadlyllama:
NonprayingMantis: It's almost certianly against the ts and cs of the ISP to share a connection in this manner, so you could argue it's immoral to breach the ts and cs.
However if you are the kind of person who is ok with watching netflix illegitimately, then you should be ok with this too.

I've read my ISPs T&Cs and haven't found anything that I could interpret as meaning "no sharing."

Snap have a clause saying "no reselling without written consent from us" but I don't know if sharing counts as reselling, or if reselling is on selling am entire connection. This doesn't matter to me because I'm not a Snap customer.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the consensus around here was that most ISPs had a no-commercial-use restriction in the Ts&Cs but even the ISP reps here had said that was for targeted for people that were trying to use an Unlimited UFB plan as an upstream for multiple shares, (i.e. running a mini-WISP for a subdivision), and really so they could refuse support/not treat you any differently if you rang up 120/whatever and yelled "But I've got 20 paying people using this connection and it's DOWN!!".

Basically, typically (and Ray seems to be one of the exceptions - but he's got reasons for it, so all good) the non-commercial use residential Ts&Cs basically mean: "It's for your household, home-office, etc, and yeah, you shouldn't but you can be nice if you want and share your WiFi with your 'neighbour' but what they is your responsibility."

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1196830 13-Dec-2014 12:43

raytaylor: ...Allowing someone to connect to your home network from outside your premises and use your Taylor
Communications service is strictly prohibited. If you do this, we will close your account...

How would you ever know?

Also, the above clause would seem to imply that you can't VPN, SSH, TeamViewer etc in to your home network from outside, no?

Twitter: ajobbins

raytaylor

4014 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1197044 13-Dec-2014 20:24

You would have to ask the lawyer who wrote the terms and conditions where they got the specific inspiration from.
From our point of view, if it lowers any perception of legal liability then it can be a good thing. This was written pre-3strikes.

Its like sky - they had issues getting HD content agreements unless the mysky box supported a specific version of hdmi which included copyprotection flags in the data stream so people couldnt use a dvr that recorded to dvd from an hdmi source while the flag was enabled.

If we have some great future service that we could offer to the customers, but the provider wanted us to lock things down in a similar way, its easier to have everyone pre-agreed rather than make an announced change to the terms of service.

From my perspective right now, we bill by the byte, so i can only encourage sharing.

Edit: I have done some asking around - Apparantly this is very very common in the usa as they dont bill by the byte as per standard and so it is simply to stop sharing of unlimited connections resulting in statistical anomalies when predicting bandwidth usage, and increasing sales.
Not so common here.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1197063 13-Dec-2014 21:02

And can't stand outside and use your wifi. Seems a very strange term to include

Richard rich.ms

deadlyllama

1260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1197449 14-Dec-2014 21:47

nigelj:
deadlyllama:
NonprayingMantis: It's almost certianly against the ts and cs of the ISP to share a connection in this manner, so you could argue it's immoral to breach the ts and cs.
However if you are the kind of person who is ok with watching netflix illegitimately, then you should be ok with this too.

I've read my ISPs T&Cs and haven't found anything that I could interpret as meaning "no sharing."

Snap have a clause saying "no reselling without written consent from us" but I don't know if sharing counts as reselling, or if reselling is on selling am entire connection. This doesn't matter to me because I'm not a Snap customer.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the consensus around here was that most ISPs had a no-commercial-use restriction in the Ts&Cs but even the ISP reps here had said that was for targeted for people that were trying to use an Unlimited UFB plan as an upstream for multiple shares, (i.e. running a mini-WISP for a subdivision), and really so they could refuse support/not treat you any differently if you rang up 120/whatever and yelled "But I've got 20 paying people using this connection and it's DOWN!!".

Basically, typically (and Ray seems to be one of the exceptions - but he's got reasons for it, so all good) the non-commercial use residential Ts&Cs basically mean: "It's for your household, home-office, etc, and yeah, you shouldn't but you can be nice if you want and share your WiFi with your 'neighbour' but what they is your responsibility."

I've seen a few "residential use only" but no "non-commercial use only". Non-commercial use only is tricky because am I violating it if I use my home connection to VPN in to work? Probably. Will my ISP care? No. Do I want to be a customer of an ISP whose ToS I must regularly violate in order to do my job? No.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1197563 15-Dec-2014 08:54

raytaylor:
Allowing someone to connect to your home network from outside your premises and use your Taylor
Communications service is strictly prohibited. If you do this, we will close your account.

Great policy.
I’m sure its a hit with the customers.

I’d sign myself but....

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

raytaylor

4014 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1197942 15-Dec-2014 16:53

deadlyllama:

I've seen a few "residential use only" but no "non-commercial use only". Non-commercial use only is tricky because am I violating it if I use my home connection to VPN in to work? Probably. Will my ISP care? No. Do I want to be a customer of an ISP whose ToS I must regularly violate in order to do my job? No.

In daily practice we dont care if people use vpn's to connect to work, but its more to stop a subscriber from setting up a nanobeam and selling access to his neighbour. Eg. extending our service beyond the property boundary of the demarcation point.
A VPN isnt considered a violation even thought he terms of service are not written in a way that distinguishes it - remember we are happy to sell you gigabytes and if you want to use those gigabytes on a vpn then thats all good.
When you set up links and become a mini isp, suddenly we have a problem with the TDMA and bandwidth planning of our transmitter sites.
We do have some customers in Kairakau that work for a number of international oil corporations that use VPN's and its all good.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

Jarno

270 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1197967 15-Dec-2014 17:35

I think a reasonable guideline would be: does it deprive the ISP of a potential customer?

If you are sharing the connection with someone who wouldn't otherwise be able to get service from the ISP, then that should be fine in my opinion. With the clear understanding that as far as the ISP is concerned you are a residential customer with residential service levels like everyone else.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1423133 8-Nov-2015 14:00

More than one wireless bridge from one location technically requires a license as it falls outside the free general radio user license rule, but they're unlikely to worry about harassing you over a couple if you're also going to extend the link to another user.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1423137 8-Nov-2015 14:06

cadman: More than one wireless bridge from one location technically requires a license as it falls outside the free general radio user license rule, but they're unlikely to worry about harassing you over a couple if you're also going to extend the link to another user.

How do you figure that? Surely by that reasoning than me having 6 accesspoints in the one house also falls outside it?

Richard rich.ms

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1423140 8-Nov-2015 14:12

richms:
cadman: More than one wireless bridge from one location technically requires a license as it falls outside the free general radio user license rule, but they're unlikely to worry about harassing you over a couple if you're also going to extend the link to another user.

How do you figure that? Surely by that reasoning than me having 6 accesspoints in the one house also falls outside it?

That's quite different to a point-to-multipoint link which is what's outside the GURL. There's also the specific distinction of short-range devices.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1423154 8-Nov-2015 15:00

cadman: That's quite different to a point-to-multipoint link which is what's outside the GURL. There's also the specific distinction of short-range devices.

If there was one bridge connected to many other users, like in a wireless ISP tower than it would be point to multipoint. Several links each going to another user would be installing many point to point links. Each with their own radio.

Richard rich.ms

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1423389 8-Nov-2015 23:33

richms: If there was one bridge connected to many other users, like in a wireless ISP tower than it would be point to multipoint. Several links each going to another user would be installing many point to point links. Each with their own radio.

Which is also outside the GURL for fixed links, as I stated earlier.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4