No You Can't Sign Up For A Comcast Account And Resell It Throughout Your Building
from the or-do-it-35-times dept
While some progressive ISPs such as Speakeasy have allowed customers to "resell" their connections via WiFi, most broadband providers frown on the practice. They don't seem to mind the casual sharing between neighbors, but it's not too surprising to see Comcast sue a guy who tried to set up an entire wireless ISP business this way. It's almost creative... he subscribed to Comcast broadband at 35 different condos, and then advertised his own "connectivity" within each of those buildings. It's hard to believe his defense will work:He said Comcast signals are often used to power wireless networks at places like Internet cafes and other businesses that charge users for access. "This is a practice that happens throughout any city," Clark said. "Unfortunately, we're one of the bigger guys in town - so, here we are."I think he'll find that most businesses reselling access aren't using residential Comcast connections -- and even if they are, they're offering very short, temporary connections, rather than permanent service. While I actually think plans like the Speakeasy plan we discussed that allow subscribers to resell their connections is smart, that doesn't mean that this guy is going to get away with this "business."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just following Comcast's lead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
Other sites are reporting that he signed up at 35 addresses in the same condo to give the full building coverage (not 35 different condos). That same article also said that Comcast is seeking to find out at which other sites the guy has done this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm
"Frank Clark happened to be the sole operator of OceanNet, and he had apparently registered for Comcast service at a total of 35 addresses. The company alleges that all of these represent locations where he was reselling Comcast's Internet service through WiFi installations."
A lawsuit may be a little much. Comcast could completely screw this guy by cutting off all 35 of his connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I knew a tech savy guy who did that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, state law can stop you, as most define what a business is comprised of. I can assure you, selling "as many as you can get your hands on" will put you into this category.
Sell as a business and not be licensed, legal hot water.
This doesn't include the IRS, which is where you don't want to be. Just ask several eBayers who did exactly this with the Wii console. Oops.
But in regard to the topic at hand, the company is clearly selling a service from another and calling it his own. A very, very stupid decision on his part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Likewise, if I have already paid for the bandwidth being delivered to my home and I choose to resell this consumable product the company that sold it to me shouldn't be allowed to tell me I can't. Perhaps if they did a better job of making it more worth it for people to come to them people wouldn't have to turn to me. Don't try and penalize me for your inability to run a proper business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you were purchasing a set amount of bandwidth you'd be correct. But most residential internet services are not metered that way. They may have a few caps, but they sell a basically 'unlimited' plan to a residence with the understanding and expectation that there are practical limits to how much bandwidth a household can use.
Basically, this guy is doing the equivalent of going to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, purchasing one meal, then selling his 'seat' over and over again to different people. The restaurant didn't restrict the amoutn of food one could eat, but they did restrict how many people could sit in any one 'seat'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Beginning Oct. 1, users will be allowed 250 gigabytes of traffic per month. See the artical here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26444853/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thats not usage, thats a cap. Your not paying for 250 Gb, thats the max they will allow you in a month, very big difference. You are actually paying for 300k up/150k down (or whatever, I have no idea what my I get anymore!).
Although I could care less about comcast (or any big C.), I dare anyone here to set up a service, and then let everyone do whatever they want, and stay in business. While I wont call it stealing, he was over zealous thinking he could get away with it. At a single address, maybe. But all over the city? Come on.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speakeasy douse it. When you sign up for their DSL service you get instructions on how to resell the service and they even help you setup a website to bill people. There are others that do that as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Regardless, last time I checked, either party (Comcast or the other guy) could cancel the contract at any time; they would just have to adjust payments accordingly. I see no reason for this to go to court. If you're Comcast and you don't like what this guy is doing, disconnect him and refund him for the bandwidth that you promised to provide but did not. He'll learn fast, I assure you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you need to read the issue at hand here.
It's NOT the same bandwidth sold.
What he's doing is selling multiple connections to ONE service line. So, of the 35 different addresses, there could be a potential for at least 70 customers.
One user will use much less bandwidth than say, 5 on the same line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ampage is what changes things here, its how fast you use that bandwidth, and is significant. Using 500 gb in 1 hour will more significantly impact the network vs 5 gb over 100 hrs. and thats why the want/need to control because of how the increased traffic affects other users on their network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I personally pay for 1MBps down, 0.25MBps up, and 250GB/m. If, somehow, I manage to max out my connection, I can reach 250GB in 3 days. I pay for the ability to do this. What's the difference between me doing it and 5 people doing it?
To use the electricity analogy, it's like having 1 refrigerator maxing out the fuse or 100 lamps maxing out the same fuse. The only difference is the 1s and 0s aren't limited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In this regard, you're correct.
But in the Comcast regard, no. Instead of consoles, think of the XBox Live service.
You can't buy one XBox Live account and then turn around and sell it 20 people.
Do that, and you can guarantee Microsoft has a say in the matter.
Just as Comcast does here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It must have something to do with your inability to carry out your plan as opposed to Microsoft's ability to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cahones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cahones
Seems to me he paid for the service then resold it at a much higher rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cahones
Seems to me he paid for the service then resold it with a more convent way to connect at a much higher rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His scale is what screwed him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Service VS Product
A product is a one-time sale... a service is an ongoing sale, and they have the right to stop selling to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He did a dumb thing, and therefore he loses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOS
http://www.comcast.net/terms/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOS
However, I think a more interesting question is does Comcast have a legal right to sue for breach of their TOS? Effectively what I'm asking is: Are arbitrary TOS "contracts" legally enforceable as contracts? I think its the same question as to whether software EULA "contracts" are legally enforceable. I'm not a lawyer, but how can these things be enforceable when the company has the option to change them at any time without notifying you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TOS
Unlike a EULA, which enforces the terms and use of product at the point at which it was purchased/used. They can also change a EULA as necessary, but it only covers FUTURE PURCHASES or a NEW PRODUCT. So id you accept a EULA for WORD 7.0, then you are accepting it for 7.0 ONLY (and any previous products if disclosed that way in the actual EULA). If they change the EULA for 7.1, you do not have to accept it, but you will not have the authorization to use 7.1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TOS
EULAs aren't even a contract. They are a post-purchase notification that the end-user can only read AFTER they have made the product ineligible for return by opening it. They should be flat-out illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TOS
And you agreed to that when you signed up.
Strike one.
If my landlord decided to start limiting the number of hours per week that I could use my residence, he would be in violation of the lease, and I would be able to move without having to fulfill the lease.
Well now, that would all depend on your lease, wouldn't it? If the lease you signed said that your landlord could do that then how would it be a violation? It wouldn't.
Strike two.
EULAs aren't even a contract. They are a post-purchase notification that the end-user can only read AFTER they have made the product ineligible for return by opening it.
Many, if not most, EULAs allow the product to be returned if the purchaser rejects the terms.
Strike three! The idiot is outta there! Remember folks, don't be like hegemon13, engage your brain before opening your mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another reason to pick Speakeasy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would this be the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terms of service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reselling the world on fire welcome to the Orderrealm
lemonade anyone?
water+lemon+sugar
comcast+encryption+access
[ link to this | view in chronology ]