Broadband in House in Multiple Occupation
one_riff_brian
I live in a HMO, and the landlord-one of the good ones- is thinking
about getting broadband in. I'd like to get a clear idea of the risks
he might be carrying, and how to manage them, in case some idiot
future housemate wrecks it for everyone. Specifically, but not
exclusively...
1 Metered calls on the line. Easy enough to seal and tamper proof the
physical connections, but are there any line rental packages that just
don't allow metered calls?
2 Porno traffic on the connection. Could hell break loose over the
wrong data packet from the wrong IP address detected on the line?
3 P2P traffic on the connection. To what extent have the courts
decided who's liable, who's an innocent party?
Essentially, to what degree does the ISP account holder have to be a
policeman? Is there an easy way to ensure that each user is
responsible for their own traffic, and nobody else's?
The Natural Philosopher
> Repost- the original post seems to have disappeared.
>
> I live in a HMO, and the landlord-one of the good ones- is thinking
> about getting broadband in. I'd like to get a clear idea of the risks
> he might be carrying, and how to manage them, in case some idiot
> future housemate wrecks it for everyone. Specifically, but not
> exclusively...
>
> 1 Metered calls on the line. Easy enough to seal and tamper proof the
> physical connections, but are there any line rental packages that just
> don't allow metered calls?
>
Give them VOIP and a bandwidth allowance
> 2 Porno traffic on the connection. Could hell break loose over the
> wrong data packet from the wrong IP address detected on the line?
>
Not his problem.
> 3 P2P traffic on the connection. To what extent have the courts
> decided who's liable, who's an innocent party?
>
Again, if its fiound to be abused, just wull the wire.
> Essentially, to what degree does the ISP account holder have to be a
> policeman? Is there an easy way to ensure that each user is
> responsible for their own traffic, and nobody else's?
I would say no more than he is reponsible for making sure his upstairs
windows aren't used by a sniper, or his basement as a bomb factory.,
That is, the tenant has a right to 'quiet enjoyment' and if that means
he tosses himself off in front of a screen full of writhing jailbait,
that's not the landlords problem.
I would actually wash my hands of it. Every house I shared had someone
who took the prime lease, and organised the phone. If it was abused, he
simply suspended the service. In many houses there was a separate phone
line in every room, and doors were locked.
If BT brings 4 pair in, then you can have up to 4 phones registered..Id
ask BT to do that, and let the tenants decide what they want running
over it.
Best bet is to pre-wire EVERTY room to a BT style box somewhere, and let
BT connect circuits up as and when the tenants are prepared to pay for
it themselves.
Graham J
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hhsvrh$fue$1...@news.albasani.net...
> one_riff_brian wrote:
>> Repost- the original post seems to have disappeared.
>>
>> I live in a HMO, and the landlord-one of the good ones- is thinking
>> about getting broadband in. I'd like to get a clear idea of the risks
>> he might be carrying, and how to manage them, in case some idiot
>> future housemate wrecks it for everyone. Specifically, but not
>> exclusively...
>>
>> 1 Metered calls on the line. Easy enough to seal and tamper proof the
>> physical connections, but are there any line rental packages that just
>> don't allow metered calls?
>>
>
> Give them VOIP and a bandwidth allowance
>
>> 2 Porno traffic on the connection. Could hell break loose over the
>> wrong data packet from the wrong IP address detected on the line?
>>
>
> Not his problem.
>
>> 3 P2P traffic on the connection. To what extent have the courts
>> decided who's liable, who's an innocent party?
>>
>
> Again, if its fiound to be abused, just wull the wire.
>
>> Essentially, to what degree does the ISP account holder have to be a
>> policeman? Is there an easy way to ensure that each user is
>> responsible for their own traffic, and nobody else's?
>
> I would say no more than he is reponsible for making sure his upstairs
> windows aren't used by a sniper, or his basement as a bomb factory.,
There was a classic case some years ago (1970 ?? ) of a landlord (actually
landlady I think) being successfully prosecuted because a tenant had used
the property for drug dealing. The fact that the landlord had no knowledge
of or control over the tenant's behaviour was no defence.
--
Graham J
The Natural Philosopher
either that wasn't the real story, or we need a new government...
> --
> Graham J
>
>
Phil Stovell
> There was a classic case some years ago (1970 ?? ) of a landlord (actually
> landlady I think) being successfully prosecuted because a tenant had used
> the property for drug dealing. The fact that the landlord had no
> knowledge of or control over the tenant's behaviour was no defence.
Sweet v Parsley. Conviction quashed on appeal.
Clint Sharp
<t...@invalid.invalid> writes
>> 2 Porno traffic on the connection. Could hell break loose over the
>> wrong data packet from the wrong IP address detected on the line?
>>
>
>Not his problem.
states that the account holder is responsible for any use/misuse of the
service. Unless you have multiple IPs and assign each user their own or
put some kind of portal that logs usage it's going to be mighty
difficult to work out which one of the users has abused the service so
it'll be the account holder that gets it.
>
>> 3 P2P traffic on the connection. To what extent have the courts
>> decided who's liable, who's an innocent party?
>>
>
>Again, if its fiound to be abused, just wull the wire.
fan.
>
>> Essentially, to what degree does the ISP account holder have to be a
>> policeman? Is there an easy way to ensure that each user is
>> responsible for their own traffic, and nobody else's?
>
>I would say no more than he is reponsible for making sure his upstairs
>windows aren't used by a sniper, or his basement as a bomb factory.
--
Clint Sharp
Petert
Didn't a Tory politician (Norman Lamont?) once let his flat to someone
who used it to entertain people like Max Moseley?
--
Cheers
Peter
(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)
Graham J
"Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.nospam.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01.04...@stovell.nospam.org.uk...
I remebered the name "Sweet" but googling for that combined with drugs and
prosecution gave nothing useful. Thanks for the reminder ...
--
Graham J
Graham J
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132.
The defendant was convicted under s5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 *** now
replaced ***
Several changes of government since then ...
--
Graham J
James Salisbury
The tenants may be interested in a Pipex Business contract 8MB no cap
and only a 3 month contract. Despite the bad press they get, when it
works it works very well.
The Natural Philosopher
written into the statute. Or its presumed to be absent.
Phil Stovell
There's a similar case ongoing at the moment, apologies for the Facebook
link:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/group.php?gid=196155751860
The Natural Philosopher
> In message <hhsvrh$fue$1...@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>> 2 Porno traffic on the connection. Could hell break loose over the
>>> wrong data packet from the wrong IP address detected on the line?
>>>
>>
>> Not his problem.
> Umm, think you'll find it is, most ISP contracts have a clause that
> states that the account holder is responsible for any use/misuse of the
> service. Unless you have multiple IPs and assign each user their own or
> put some kind of portal that logs usage it's going to be mighty
> difficult to work out which one of the users has abused the service so
> it'll be the account holder that gets it.
So teh account gets suspended.
I wasnt thinking of civil issues, because ISP's dont prosecute.
I was thinking of criminal activities, and its not the account holder,
its the bloke with dirty pics on his computer that gets the knock on the
door.
>>
>>> 3 P2P traffic on the connection. To what extent have the courts
>>> decided who's liable, who's an innocent party?
>>>
>>
>> Again, if its fiound to be abused, just wull the wire.
> Problem with that is that you'd likely only find out when it hits the fan.
so? again there is no strict liability for a landlord to police his tenants.
>>
>>> Essentially, to what degree does the ISP account holder have to be a
>>> policeman? Is there an easy way to ensure that each user is
>>> responsible for their own traffic, and nobody else's?
>>
>> I would say no more than he is reponsible for making sure his upstairs
>> windows aren't used by a sniper, or his basement as a bomb factory.
> Wrong. Very wrong. Read the ISP contracts.
>
Who cares about the contracts. They are civil law.
At the very worst all THEY will do is charge for the bandwidth, or pull
the plug.
But the rest of my post applies. Dont get involved beyond getting
cabling in the place and let individuals run their own comms.
The Natural Philosopher
and acquitted on appeal. Setting a useful legal precedent.
Unless explicitly stated, there is no strict liability attached to any
criminal act. I.e. you have to prove intent.
Paul Cummins
nntp.dsl.pipex.com (James Salisbury) wrote:
> Despite the bad press they get, when it
> works it works very well.
Problem is it only works if there's an R in the month, it's an odd
numbered year, with 2 blue moons and a solar eclipse.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
kkm
<peter.th...@googlemail.com> writes
>
>Didn't a Tory politician (Norman Lamont?) once let his flat to someone
>who used it to entertain people like Max Moseley?
I wonder if he was also claiming a 2nd home allowance on the flat, as I
remember it was in his constituency in Kingston, Surrey.
--
K.
alanp
Lamont's sub-let to a 'working girl' was the converted basement of his
house in the Kensington Park Road area of Notting Hill.
one_riff_brian
wrote:
Thanks for all the replies- I'll pass them on to the landlord, but I
won't blame him if he gets cold feet. The possibilities seem to be:
1 A FON/Openzone arrangement, if there's a way to avoid access being
prohibitively expensive.
2 Secure passages to proxy servers for each tenant.
3 PAYG Broadband dongles for each tenant. It's starting to look like
the most headache-free solution. A tenner a gigabyte on Three- does
anyone know of a better deal?
Steve Terry
news:806b67ca-0cc8-44fe...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>the most headache-free solution. A tenner a gigabyte on Three- does
>anyone know of a better deal?
>
>
Steve Terry
--
Get a free Three 3pay Sim with �2 bonus after �10 top up
http://freeagent.three.co.uk/stand/view/id/5276
Kellerman
Yes? Wire up the separate tenants for a phone line and then they pay for
their own broadband/phone etc.
No landlord involved, no liability, no managing, no fancy router.
Dave
--
Blow my nose to email me