[RVRC] Internet failure at the Lund residence

[Paul Nannery]

she's made her choice scott was explaining that this is not to screw the
club but something that needs to be done i can not go into details over
email however she was going way out of her way to keep the cost of this
down for us. she has done this at great expense to herself it will cost her
at least after 30 dollars a month attempting to help minimize our cost the
date given was the date we had to decide whether we wanted to continue to
have internet or lose it all together as stated in the email from Scott the
Executive and technical committees decided we will keep the Internet.
On Dec 16, 2012 10:11 AM, "Alexander Sack" <pisymbol at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Paul Nannery <kc2vrj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> its not our account its sues account her request to us staying on site
>> has been we follow all rules and laws including the tos its in her name so
>> we have to follow her wishes also they can termanate services for  for
>> volations this means she would lose both her phone and tv as well as
>> internet as the main email said this was to inform the  club not try and
>> make a choice.
>>
> Is she looking for guidance from the technical committee regarding the
> Internet connection at home or has she made her decision?
>
> Scott's email seemed to indicate the later not the former since it
> included explanations about why she needed to do this:
>
> "The tech committee & her have both spoken to Verizon about
> what we do with the service at her property. Residential FiOS service has
> port blocking in place that would make the use of Asterisk impossible,
> along
> with dynamic security measures that are designed to block VoIP traffic."
>
> Now Paul, you are telling me it has to do with TOS not anything to do with
> technical limitations of a residential service (c'mon we both know Verizon
> is going to wave the party line to sell Susan the business account).
>
> Speaking of TOS, she had Cablevision:
>
> http://www.optimum.net/Terms
>
> Read 22. That means all these years we were in violation of the TOS.
>
> By the way, was this brought up at the meeting last Wednesday to vote on?
> If I am rehashing stuff that was already articulated to the membership body
> and voted on, I completely apologize for all the noise, I didn't know that
> since the email didn't state that.
>
> -aps
>
>
>