4 ms·

It’s unreasonable to the bottom line of the ISP because it’s high demand on an oversubscribed network. Torrents used to be a convenient scapegoat because they w

by xattt 5y ago

It’s unreasonable to the bottom line of the ISP because it’s high demand on an oversubscribed network. Torrents used to be a convenient scapegoat because they were more than likely carrying content that was infringing copyright. I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH, and start saying it violates their TOC because this is a business use. Public uproar would be immense.

lostcolony 5y ago
"I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH", "Public uproar would be immense." You listed the reason why yourself, you shouldn't be surprised. Maybe -after- the pandemic, when WfH people can be painted as "tech elite" or something, but not while everyone wants to WfH and it's a mixed bag who can.
- xattt 5y ago
  I do recognize the cognitive dissonance of my statement. I am just surprised at the restraint that ISPs have shown.
  - EmilioMartinez 5y ago
    It really sounds like a waste of time and money though. What judge would ever side with them? I would fire a lawyer that even proposes that seriously
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      Judges implement the law though, so if the contract says "no business use" and this was made clear at the time of purchase -- eg by having business level accounts -- then what can the judge do? It's for the legislators to legislate, not the judges (under English law (UK), common law and equity aside). Actual, I might be wrong here with how contact law is handled ... anyone? A related consideration: when we moved into our terraced house the land was under leasehold and the lease specified 'no business use'. We bought the freehold some time back, but I've often wondered what my position might otherwise have been. Presumably breech of the lease conditions would be a tort against the landlord and so I'd have been fine as long as they didn't sue.
      - EmilioMartinez 5y ago
        I meant specifically in the context of a pandemic when working from home is state mandated in many parts of the world. Arguably even constitutions have been bent.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    In the current climate, it would only invite government scrutiny and regulation. Which, once it is in place, is unlikely to go away even if COVID does.
jandrese 5y ago
Back in the day my ISP had a "Can not be used for business traffic or a corporate VPN" line in the TOS. I have doubts they ever tried to enforce it.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> It’s unreasonable to the bottom line of the ISP because it’s high demand on an oversubscribed network. No, it's not unreasonable. They sell consumers unlimited high bandwidth connections and at no point are they told they can't actually use the service they're paying for. What's unreasonable is cutting off paying consumers and suing streaming services when the company's dumb business model starts failing because of their own invalid assumptions. If oversubscribing is such a problem, they should stop doing it instead of blaming consumers for overusing their low capacity network.

by xattt 5y ago

lostcolony 5y ago

"I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH", "Public uproar would be immense." You listed the reason why yourself, you shouldn't be surprised. Maybe -after- the pandemic, when WfH people can be painted as "tech elite" or something, but not while everyone wants to WfH and it's a mixed bag who can.

xattt 5y ago
I do recognize the cognitive dissonance of my statement. I am just surprised at the restraint that ISPs have shown.
- EmilioMartinez 5y ago
  It really sounds like a waste of time and money though. What judge would ever side with them? I would fire a lawyer that even proposes that seriously
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    Judges implement the law though, so if the contract says "no business use" and this was made clear at the time of purchase -- eg by having business level accounts -- then what can the judge do? It's for the legislators to legislate, not the judges (under English law (UK), common law and equity aside). Actual, I might be wrong here with how contact law is handled ... anyone? A related consideration: when we moved into our terraced house the land was under leasehold and the lease specified 'no business use'. We bought the freehold some time back, but I've often wondered what my position might otherwise have been. Presumably breech of the lease conditions would be a tort against the landlord and so I'd have been fine as long as they didn't sue.
    - EmilioMartinez 5y ago
      I meant specifically in the context of a pandemic when working from home is state mandated in many parts of the world. Arguably even constitutions have been bent.
- int_19h 5y ago
  In the current climate, it would only invite government scrutiny and regulation. Which, once it is in place, is unlikely to go away even if COVID does.

jandrese 5y ago

Back in the day my ISP had a "Can not be used for business traffic or a corporate VPN" line in the TOS. I have doubts they ever tried to enforce it.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> It’s unreasonable to the bottom line of the ISP because it’s high demand on an oversubscribed network. No, it's not unreasonable. They sell consumers unlimited high bandwidth connections and at no point are they told they can't actually use the service they're paying for. What's unreasonable is cutting off paying consumers and suing streaming services when the company's dumb business model starts failing because of their own invalid assumptions. If oversubscribing is such a problem, they should stop doing it instead of blaming consumers for overusing their low capacity network.