Slashdot Log In
Sprint's Wireless Broadband - And What A TOS!
Posted by
Hemos
on Tue Jan 02, 2001 10:06 AM
from the i-fear-for-the-future-of-the-internet dept.
from the i-fear-for-the-future-of-the-internet dept.
Xpresso85 writes "Just a few weeks ago, Sprint started offering Broadband Direct in my area , it's a $44/month wireless Internet service. Their Terms Of Service is one of the worst yet. You can not portscan, probe, run game or Webservers of any kind, upload or download viruses, use anonymous e-mail, view porno, post anything vulgar or hateful, you cant even encourage anything illegal. They also reserve the right to enter your home or property, monitor your activities, and "share" your personal info with other companies. Lastly, they restrict you from sending out spam, I guess they don't like competition. That's one service I won't be getting anytime in the near future!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
www.adbusters.org (Score:2)
Also, this TOS (POS maybe a better acronym) in one breath says "you cannot up/download any porn/copyright material in violation" and then goes on to say "the internet contains porn/copyright violations" and we are not responsible if you dload them - you are! These double talking crooks are talking out of both sides of their mouths - on one hand I am expected to be capable and diligent to exclude these things and on the other they claim they can not/will not/dont feel like being responsible to act in kind...
These bastards think they have found a way to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too(TM)®©
Re:Not any worse than others (Score:2)
Random people who enter without notice are presumed to be criminals and will be treated as such.
Say hello to Mr. Mossberg.
I am not a lawyer but... (Score:3)
10.16 You grant to Sprint or any appointed subcontractors an irrevocable license to enter into or onto your Premises during normal business hours, Monday through Saturday, in order to install, repair, replace or remove Equipment. This license will survive termination or cancellation of this Agreement and will run with the land and inure to the parties' successors and assigns. (my bold)
Is that legal? You sign a contract that means when you sell your house it still applies? They can still bundle their heavies in to fiddle with equipment even though you moved out four years ago and Mr and Mrs Numbskull that moved in haven't a clue what that funny wire in the wall is for?
I'm pretty sure that over here in the UK you can't put terms and conditions like that on a contract. Isn't there something in the US constitution?
Oh, I had to look up 'inure' on www.dictionary.com.
"To habituate to something undesirable, especially by prolonged subjection; accustom"
And it still didn't make much sense...
Baz
Re:..another minor problem (Score:3)
However, you really go downhill from there. You clearly have no conception of what is means to be a capitalist. You mispell the word, for goodness' sake. It's CAPITALISM, as in capital, as in transferable resources. Corporatism, which is the true target of your ire, is not synonymous with capitalism. The problem with the economy in the US is not that is is capitalist, but that it is less and less capitalist everyday.
In a capitalist economy, the proper function of the government is to provide and protect access to information. I should be able to find out that cigarettes are bad, Firestone tires will kill me, or whether the fruit I'm buying is genetically modified or not. Our government, however, fails to do that. I believe the failure is direct response to the entitlement mentality engendered by the government beginning with the New Deal. The government no longer protects our access to information, which means that AOL/Time Warner effectively controls what Americans believe and what information they have access to. It's a shame, really.
Corporations take advantage of that lack of information by providing shitty goods and services. That's why so many companies are intent on loading their products with new features instead of reliability. They know that more than likely, we won't be able to find out how reliable their product is before we buy it, but we sure will notice the pretty box with the big list of features.
The real answer to corporatism is not naive anti-globalism and an end to capitalism, the answer is to educate people to understand their alternatives and make reliable information freely available. End consumerism and you will end corporatism. End capitalism, and you will end freedom.
Re:www.adbusters.org (Score:2)
Also, this TOS (POS maybe a better acronym) in one breath says "you cannot up/download any porn/copyright material in violation" and then goes on to say "the internet contains porn/copyright violations" and we are not responsible if you dload them - you are! These double talking crooks are talking out of both sides of their mouths - on one hand I am expected to be capable and diligent to exclude these things and on the other they claim they will not be responsible to act in kind...
These bastards think they have found a way to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too(TM)®©
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Any time you have to depend on claims of "We wouldn't really do that, it's just for our protection", wonder why the language isn't equally broad in your own favor for _your_ own protection.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
AT&T@home has similar req's, but even do a better job of notifying you that if your perfectly acceptable use becomes some sort of a bandwidth hog to your neighbors, you will be limited immediately and without notice. Oh, and they just clamped down on all uploads...
But hey...it's cheap. Admit it.
--The statistical likelihood of your existence is so small as to render you impossible.
Is that even legal? (Score:3)
I suppose anything can stand until it is challenged in court though, right?
Re:It could get worse... (Score:2)
The first part says that they may limit your OS. The second part says if you happen to choose another OS or hardware device, it better not fsck up the network for others. But read carefully, it really includes any device including Windoze machines. So if someone hacks your NT box and somehow uses it for a DOS attack. Then you are violating 2.5.
It could get worse... (Score:2)
Of course, that's because it's formatted for Windoze standard character assignments... which reminds me of another scary part:
So, in other words, if they decide that they want only Windoze on their network (read: Microsoft leans on them a bit...), can they just boot all MacOS/Linux/BSD/etc. users off, saying that they might "impair the Services?!"
"...the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do."
Re:It does have good points (Score:3)
If you ask me, it isn't like trying to open doors. All a portscan does is see what services a machine runs. Mail? Web? FTP? SSh?... It's like a house has doors for certain things and you're seeing what each is for.
And in reply I'd say that if you weren't explicitly told it's none of your business and you're not welcome. If a house has many doors it isn't my right to check what they're for unless there's big signs welcoming me in. What about people scanning for backdoors : They're not just checking to see what they're for...they're looking for victims.
www.adbusters.org (Score:2)
It takes real scum (like you) to foist this kind of crap on the public, just to fill the corporate coffers -- You'll First Against The Wall when the revolution comes. It may even be soon - and trust me: it will come - it always does..
Why dont you monkeys do something constructive - call the Boss(TM) right now and tell them these TOS are immoral. "Immoral you say, who cares about morals - we are trying to make money! If you dont like it -- dont buy our service, buy it from someone else! This is the Real Word(TM)®©" And you've just exactly made my point.
Fact is there is no one else - you provide a necessary public infrastructure... and again, eventually slugs like yourselves will have to answer why you spent your adult lives trying to screw your neighbours with your well funded hammer... all because you are selfish, irresponsible and greedy.
Fucking Assholes.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a GOOD thing? (Score:2)
7.1.2 post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, indecent, profane, hateful, bigoted or otherwise objectionable information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions, constituting or encouraging, conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law, including without limitation U.S. export control laws and regulations;
Yea!!! Now we can TOS
Steven
Re:Commentary appears incorrect (Score:5)
Yup. This particular TOS is pretty much designed to make sure that they can enforce something at some time rather than everything at every time. Specifically, they mention that:
In other words, Susie runs SuSe and sshd on her home box so she can use, e.g., scp from work to home and back. Now, that *could* be seen as an illegal server (although there could be a loophole due to the fact that the TOS only bans servers used by "others"). But in fact, they would never bother with this. On the other hand, Ned is a napster user who is not only sucking up all the local bandwidth but arguably sharing MP3s in a way that could be construed to involve copyright infringement. They will probably tell him to knock it off.
The most worrisome point of this TOS is one that I haven't seen mentioned yet:
I've marked possible typos with [sic] here. One problem here is that there is arguably never any good (non-marketing) reason to collect "personal identifiable information" in the first place, since this is the kind of thing that is ripe for subpoena. Indeed, most corporations are learning the lesson that they should do things like forcibly delete email and log information pretty rapidly, just so that third parties won't have anything to go after. Now, it's possible that Sprint never really does store personal identifiable information except email, but they don't say that.
Problem two is that even if they only collect information about web-browsing behavior in the aggregate, they (or other marketers) can often have other information about you that can be used to do an alarmingly good job of determining who surfed where...and targeting you for directed marketing campaigns in the process. Now, there may be very little escape from the Database Nation these days, and you can argue that at least they are being frank, but this kind of thing still gives me the creeps.
This is the REALLY scary bit (Score:2)
So (if actually legal) this clause says that if any previous owner of your property has ever had Sprint, Sprint has these rights over you?
Yikes!
Re:If only people would READ posts before flaming. (Score:2)
For one thing it says "this contract which defines a customer-provider relationship lets us do something with your property in perpetuity even after you terminate our contract". That is bullshit and I don't believe it would stand up in court anywhere. It's your property, you can let them in or not as you please. If they have a problem (i.e. they are leasing you equipment that you don't own and you won't return) they can sue you for it, but that doesn't give them the legal right to break into your home and take it.
Re:Er, How is it enforced? (Score:2)
---
Re:If only people would READ posts before flaming. (Score:2)
For some inane reason this post was moderated as "Offtopic" when it is clearly not. It is specifically referring to section 10.16 which states:
IANAL, but this sounds like Sprint claims that once you've ever used their service, they have a permanent right to enter your property without your permission even after you cancel the service. Not good.
..another minor problem (Score:2)
I have a real problem with this idea. If Sprint is unable to deliver the product (the service) I do not pay. Simple. I dont care what you feel is "commercially reasonable". I have a VERY hard time with paying for something they are not providing - under any circumstance. Standard 'customer' protection laws should exist that nullify any attempt for anyone to include the above clause. How would sprint like it if I felt I was not 'commercially reasonable' for me to make my payments on time - or at all? The pizza you ordered has 2 pcs missing because delivering a full pie was "commercailly unreasonable", I get one shoe without a lace - but I have no right to ask for a discount to replace the lost lace... the TOS we are seeing with everything these days is showing one thing: American Capatalism has bread a monopoly in mostly every industry.
If it were as simple as 'making a choice to a better product' (read without these TOS) people would do it. The simple fact is the barrier to entry in most markets (of any consequence) is so high that only a few companies can try... and when they do - it is much easier to collude and exclude any possible interlopers.
The power being demonstrated in this Sprint TOS is really only an indicator of a much larger problem... unfortunatly it is systemic to the American corporate-centric economy.. power concentrates, it is easier to collude than compete once a certain state has been achieved (as it has been), Capatalism ends in Monopolistic oppression... Anti-Trust laws are intended to stop this... but the same people who run the country also own the business... fat chance of any of this power being given away freely (ie a strengthening of Anti-Trust law...).
So tell me again; Why did America elect a Republicrat instead of a Honets leader like say umm anyone except a Republicrat? Maybe Ralph Nader would run for President and put an end to this crap.(?!?!) Oh yeah, he did... and America got to watch their 'democracy' in action in Florida... A pretty nice 'play' if you ask me - almost enough to convince people their is a difference between the two parties, and that they should NEVER think of voting third party - it is obviously a wasted vote... *shudder* and this is really what people think...
Get ready world - you have not yet recieved all the TOS for your futures...
No porno? No port scans? Where? (Score:2)
As for port scans I see port scans being used to preclude a DOS attack as being banned, but what about an innocent port scan (I occasionally do them to test security on systems I own across the internet...)? The text of the acceptable use policy makes port scans used for a DoS attack unacceptable (as well it should), but port scans in general do not appear to be outlawed.
Re:While we are reserving rights... (Score:2)
Finkployd
AT&T has their own problems (Score:2)
I was watching T.V. this weekend and saw an AT&T broadband commercial touting their download speeds by saying that you can download a song at lightning-fast speeds. Interestingly enough, their TOS says:
I noticed problems with this part of the TOS before this commercial and when I tried to point out the incongruity, they told me that they don't interpret legal documents. I responded that I was merely pointing out a mistake in their terms of service and that I intended to violate that specific clause by creating an .mp3 of my own (poor) musical performance that would be copyrighted (with myself as the copyright holder) and distribute the file over their service. The forwarded the e-mail to their abuse department and that was the last I heard from them.
I figure either someone got the message and the TOS hasn't been updated yet. :)
Of course, the more likely scenario is that their ad agency isn't bright enough to breathe, let alone be familiar with their TOS!
Re:If only people would READ posts before flaming. (Score:4)
I know we love to have these "devil's advocate" sorts of posts to make us think more, but sometimes we really have trouble finding good ones, and it gets tiresome. For example, how many times do we need to see this line: I REALLY wish people woudl read posts before flaming away. Yeah, yeah, I know-- RTFA. Do you realize RTFA is NOT a sufficient rebuttal? Does it occur to you that people may indeed have the expressed opinions after reading the TOS? Every point listed is, at the very least, quite debatable:
1) attempting to send e-mail or newsgroup articles or postings using a name or address of someone other than yourself, attempting to impersonate any person or using forged headers or other identifying information.
There is a lot of "or" in that sentence. What qualifies as a forged header, or forged identifying information? Would the anonymizer count? How about in front of a tech-illiterate judge, with Sprint's lawyers vs. your small-ass pocketbook?
2) You grant to Sprint or any appointed subcontractors an irrevocable license to enter into or onto your Premises during normal business hours, Monday through Saturday, in order to install, repair, replace or remove Equipment. This license will survive termination or cancellation of this Agreement and will run with the land and inure to the parties' successors and assigns.
This goes beyond the right most service providers have. I sure haven't granted my DSL provider permission to come into my house and take the modem back, especially when I'm not home. And the whole bit about the right surviving termination of the agreement-- not likely to stand up in court, since if you no longer agree to the contract, you no longer agree to any of it, including this part. Still, with the latest legislation of business models, the courts seem remarkably anti-consumer. Are you willing to bet on him ruling your way when, a month after you cancel service, a Sprint rep walks by your window and sees a bag of weed inside on the table?
3) Their list of stuff you can't send, if you READ IT PROPERLY, explains that wehat they are saying is that you can't do anything illegal. They even SAY THAT. How hard is that to understand, hmm?
How hard is this sentence to understand: "you may not post or transmit any... objectionable information of any kind, including without limitation, any transmissions, constituting or encouraging, conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law, including without limitation U.S. export control laws and regulations."
Notice they say, right there, right for you-- "including without limitation". Which means that all that is just clarification text, and what they've really prohibited is "objectionable information". You don't think that's a little excessive?
I REALLY wish people would read posts before flaming away.
Plain English? (Score:2)
And I see that Slashdot agrees with me:
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted.
Reason: Junk character post.
So I had to do some editing to get it accepted.
overreacting again (Score:2)
They can only enter your home for installation, removal, or repair, not for monitoring, this is normal as this is what your phone, cable, utility companies do also.
They don't prohibit downloading of anything, only transmission of viruses, spam, warez, etc.
The only truly objectionable thing I saw was no running servers, but that might be a good thing if their infrastructure can't handle that. Personally, if it can't, I'm not going to use it. Who would want to game on a server running on a wireless connection anyway?
Re:What a crappy website... (Score:2)
AT&T @Home is the same way.
I recently moved into a @Home area. I called in advance to set up an install date -- but the system saw the phone number I was calling from, realized that I couldn't have @Home in that area, played a message and hung up on me! I eventually had to call Excite @Home's toll number and have them connect me. (And repeat this over and over while I had tech problems with them.)
That'll teach me to have a mobile phone with an LA area code while living in Seattle. I had to use a friend's land line with the proper area code/prefix when I tired of the toll charges.
I wrote a nasty letter to ATT @Home, and mentioned this insanity to everyone I talked to over there, but no one could help.
Corporations are kind of like black holes. Once you attain a certain mass, no customer service can escape.
wireless == stricter laws? (Score:2)
More surprising is what they're NOT banning (Score:2)
I find it interesting that most of those others try to ban multiple computers using the connection at one time. SNET in particular (I used to have their service) goes as far as to say [snet.net] that they don't mind you having their DSL modem hooked into a home LAN, so long as you only use the internet from one PC on that LAN at one time. They are, of course, happy to provide additional IPs for an additional fee...
Anyway, this particular TOS doesn't address that. Apparently they do offer additional IP's, but they don't forbid things like DSL routers or IP Masquerade.
So basically they're doing what all the other big ISPs are doing. Which is why I'm with a small one [ntplx.net].
Re:If only people would READ posts before flaming. (Score:2)
"I will gladly pay you today, sir, and eat up
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Man, people, please read the linked articles before over-reacting... It's just standard legalese. It may be worded more 'harshly', but it's the same as every major ISP out there. (Well, the requirement that you can't run a server is very @Home-like, and a little much, I do have to admit that.)
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
If this thing is (or becomes) legal, then it's quite an arrangement.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:No porno? No port scans? Where? (Score:2)
Not all porn is "obscene." Obscene has a specific legal definition, and obscene works have less (no?) legal protection.
Playboy, for example, is not "obscene."
Re:It does have good points (Score:4)
Oh yes you do [slashdot.org].
---
Put your feet out and stop
Re:While we are reserving rights... (Score:2)
Finkployd
Re:Not any worse than others (Score:2)
Finkployd
Even worse... (Score:4)
They will also disconnect you if you or any of your relatives own any firearms. And you cannot get service if you are either pro-life or pro-choice. You are not allowed to have any opinion about any political or religious issues.
And if they catch you attempting connections to slashdot.org, they will send a bunch of guys to your house with Uzis to "reeducate you."
Scary service, if you ask me.
--
Actually... (Score:3)
"Don't do anything illegal" - and if you do, they're not liable... as for entering your premises... that's for service/installation. And you can send "anonymous" e-mail... you just can't impersonate someone else.
I think if you check your ISP's AUP - you'll find a lot of the same stuff...
Re:Not any worse than others (Score:2)
That's the best you can do? Sad really.
Finkployd
Re:If only people would READ posts before flaming. (Score:2)
Pr0n good (Score:3)
7.4 The Internet contains unedited materials that may be offensive or objectionable to you. You access these materials at your own risk. Sprint has no control over and accepts no responsibility for these materials. Customer may wish to utilize software designed to limit access to certain material on the Internet.
Which basically seems to say "Don't come to us if your kiddies are viewing saggytits.com on a regular basis." Not that I really care... Sprint recently cancelled their wireless broadband offering in the metro Detroit area, and I was never applicable for it in the first place.
Commentary appears incorrect (Score:5)
From the TOS:
The rest of the TOS, while somewhat harsh-sounding, appears to be fairly standard legalese, saying that you aren't allowed to use Sprint to break laws; the only bit that somewhat distressess me is the following. You are not allowed to
...but I suspect that this is merely to give them carte blanche to "kick ban" harrassing folk. Same with their policy of port scans and the like (as they probably don't want to have people contacting their sysadmins saying that there are script kiddies trying to break into their networks).
They also have provisions limiting bandwidth consumption and servers that you can run from home, but most broadband services limit those these days, especially by forcing lease refreshes every month or so (or sooner).
Yeah, it seems somewhat fascist, I'll agree. ...but it's broadband. It's not a T1 or even DSL. You get what you pay for, and from what I see, this isn't that bad.
Re:BOR (Bill Of Rights) (Score:3)
Similarly, many people with jobs have clauses in their contracts that restrict them from making statements about the company to the press. Since you have no "right" to a job, they can fire you for, technically, "exercising your right to free speech."
The biggest loophole seems to be that since the government (ie, "the people) regulate the airwaves, they could screw over Sprint for "not acting in the public interest".
-Dean
While we are reserving rights... (Score:3)
Have fun, Sprint. You would be wise to enforce that insane part of your TOS in an area where citizens aren't allowed to defend themselves though (NY, DC, etc)
:)
Finkployd
It does have good points (Score:5)
While I think they've gone a bit too far (though it seems to be primarily written to legally cover their own ass for instances where countries like France try to shoot the messenger) most of it seems pretty reasonable and it seems like they're giving themselves a clear legal mandate to boot abusive users off the service. Personally I'd love if providers started kicking port scanners off their system as it is irritating, and a complete waste of bandwidth, for thousands of little script kiddies to sit there doing nmap -p 1-55000 24.0.0.0/32 all day. Argue all you want about your right to port scan but the reality is that you have no such right to probe other people's computers for vulnerabilities like that. Go out at 2 in the morning and try all the door knobs in your neighbourhood and see what sort of treatment it gets you. "But I was only trying to improve security!".
As far as the limitations on hosting it sounds very similar to most @Home TOS agreements which basically say you can't run servers for anything. Of course they're not really trying to prohibit that (and indeed they can easily block incoming port 80, etc., but they don't), they're just giving themself legal recourse. The prices that people are paying is based upon average, amateur fair use and when someone sets up a 24/7 Napster server alongside their FTP server, website, IRC server, etc., they begin unfairly consuming an inordinate and completely financially unjustified amount of bandwidth. Compare the price of an unmetered T1 which technically has less bandwidth than my cable modem. Is someone stupid to pay that much more? Not at all. One is meant to be saturated with services, the other is financially created as a burst service for the Average Joe.
Re:Er, How is it enforced? (Score:5)
These companies have better things to do, anyway - like come up with hours and hours of Muzak to numb your brain while waiting on hold...
I have the service (Score:3)
So far they haven't complained about the stuff I'm running, and I doubt the will. It takes quite a bit of effort to police this stuff.
I was a beta tester for a similar service in Austin, TX from a company called Nobell [nobell.com]. Their prices have gone up since they are no longer beta testing but I still would highly recommend them.
Anyway, the Sprint BBD is fast and reliable. The signal is only a couple of watts I would guess judging on the distance to the tower I'm pointing to (I have LOS to a hill in San Bruno). If anyone has questions about the service or you are contemplating getting it, email [mailto] me and I'll explain wireless broadband to ya.
If only people would READ posts before flaming... (Score:4)
(1) There is NOTHING in the TOS to stop you using anon email - you may not impersonate OTHERS, but it does not stop you using anoon email.
(2) "Sprint can access your house at any time"?? No, Sprint,like almost every other provider of services (inc phone, gas, electricity, etc) have the right to access your premisis DURINGNORMAL WORKING HOURS in order to install, remove, upgrade or repair the equipoment - certainly not, as some paranoid posters would have you believe, to spy on you! What they aresaying is that you have to let them in, you can't tell them to piss off if they come to remove the equipment, nor can you tell them to go away if they come to install, for example. Nope, nothing there about them having the right to breakin, though. More paranoia from those not reading the post.
(3) Their list of stuff you can't send, if you READ IT PROPERLY, explains that wehat they are saying is that you can't do anything illegal. They even SAY THAT. How hard is that to understand, hmm? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me - if they DIDN'T say you can't do that, then they have no legal means to kick you off if you break the law.
I REALLY wish people woudl read posts before flaming away - a good 50% of the posts so far are rendered irrelevant if you read the original TOS!!!
--
All contracts are negotiable (Score:4)
When it comes time for them to accept it, either they will just as a matter of procedure, or they will call you and ask what the changes are. You can then negotiate with an agent of the company (like a manager) about the changes. But if they just accept it and file it away without looking at it, then set up and install your service, you are golden. If something happens months later you can go back to the modified contract that you both have a copy of as proof that you didn't agree to certain things.
I have done this dozens of times, from housing contracts with my college, to DSL service, to gas service, to apartment leases, to even ski lift ticket agreements and parachute jump liability waivers.
Don't be fooled. Absolutely everything is negotiable. This is one of those really sweet things about our legal system that everyone should learn. INAL, but check with one and they will tell you this.
Sprint TOS Trifecta Contest (Score:4)
I'm thinking along the lines of a virus that scans the affected system's disks, replaces the word `copyright' with `screwyou!' and forwards the files to other instances of itself on other afflicted machines. It then emails the machine owner with a forged From address and offers to remove itself if they make a payment in a particular Paypal account.
That covers all but two of the 21.
Re:Commentary appears incorrect (Score:3)
This gives me the power to harass any Sprint customer I don't like and have his/her account instantly removed any time I wish to fire off a letter to sprint's abuse account. Cool.
Too bad AOL's TOS isn't as braindead.