Bon et al, NYCwireless has never suggested its users to break any agreements with their ISP, or do so in spite of the AUP. We try to educate the public about services that offer wireless sharing. There are companies who are vocal about their objection to our project and are sending letters to their customers asking them to Cease and Desist.
I think it is important for our group to be educated about what issues are on the table and how it is being dealt with by the ISPs and what their tactics are with regard to disrupting our project. We should support those ISPs that allow for sharing. People should also be aware of what can be leveled against them should they choose to share while being a TWC subscriber. Jacob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bon sy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jacob Farkas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "NYCWireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Text of 47 U.S.C. 553 - mentioned in TWC Cease and Desist letter Jacob, I do not understand the purpose of your re-citation below. First --- a DISCLAIMER --- I am NOT a lawyer, but I will try to apply my limited common sense accumulated over the course of a University-sponsored patent application process to interprete what you posted below (unfortunately the process I went through is not wireless related, so please use your judgement on my view): (a)-(1) seems to be sufficient for the cable providers to go after one opening the node. Rule of "minimal violation" is sufficient to substain in front of the court of law. Assuming it's true that manufacturers may be subject to such a violation as well, it is at the discretion of the cable providers to determine specific party/parties that they want to go after. More importantly, I think the REAL issue is to help the members to open a node with a peace of mind, rather than finding the loopholes to challenge the law, unless the NYCwireless is resourceful enough to hire a lawyer to fight in the court on behalf of a member (which is the model of at least automobile insurance). Maybe the real issue is to find a mechanism to protect the members who are generous enough to make their node public under NYCwireless. Bon On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Jacob Farkas wrote: > The TWC cable Cease and Desist letter made reference to this law. The claim > is that by setting up a free wireless node you are in violation and are > subject to its penalties. > > Here is the full text taken fro the DOJ website: > > http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/47usc553.htm > > 47 U.S.C 553. > Unauthorized Reception of Cable Services > > � 553. Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service > > (a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or > receiving service; "assist in intercepting or receiving" defined > > (1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or > receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless > specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be > specifically authorized by law. > > (2) For the purpose of this section, the term "assist in intercepting or > receiving" shall include the manufacture or distribution of equipment > intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for > unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable > system in violation of subparagraph (1). > > > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
