In his note, Paul maintains that his company's prohibition on the use of his service for commercial activities is both customary in the industry, and does .."not prohibit 'business use' of our service as long as the usage on an account is consistent with 'normal home office usage patterns.' "
"I just don't think it's fair to let 99% of our customers 'subsidize' 1 % who might take advantage of our 'good intentions' to provide a simple, unlimited and unrestricted service for most 'ordinary' customers," he adds. "Having worked in phone companies my whole career, I know that '1%' is out there and they will find and exploit any unintended loophole."
Erickson's reasoning sounds logical and well thought-out. I'd liken it to the looks you get if you hit the hors d'ouevres try at your office holiday party too many times. Why should those who would abuse free or inexpensive privileges feast while those who provide those privileges have already spent the money to do so?
Do you think that's fair, or is the "business use" provision offered by SunRocket and others too restrictive? Let's get a thread going on this one.