Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_A
STM: yes, it can contribute to packet loss. Whether it then breaches statutory criminal and civil law is that word "intended". STM can NEVER not result in packet loss, separation or delay. Ergo, by employing it the intention follows. Saturation and buffer overload: a problem overcome in the early days of microprocessor based computing. Buffer overrun was a common problem in the days of discreet UARTS, USARTS and half/full adders, which are microscaled series of flip-flops. The problems were overcome over two decades ago. The Internet would not run if they had not been because data would leak at every node and gateway throughout the Internet. So buffer overrun is a minor issue wholly discountable in defence of this action. As for the rest, agreed. These issues can only occur, though, at a time of active interference with packets, thus breaching statutory law as regards the like of computer misuse.
I do understand, but all these issues are general and fixable at a technical level as faults/development, not practices. The issue is one of practice. What you write is very informative to the lay observer. Thanks!
|
STM is a Criminal Act?
Even if I were to accept that there was an issue of contract law (Which I don't), that is pushing very close to fantasy
Virgin do not change or control your own equipment, they do not access it or modify it in any way without your consent.
Virgin's network ends at the Ethernet port on the modem - everything upstream of that (including the modem) is part of their network, and is under their control.