From twofo wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ITS letter Coming @ ya from CrAzYfOoL

Hi peeps, Here is an example of a letter i sent to the registrar. It did not work however they just dismiss you (this is why we are taking them to court =)



Dear Registrar, I am appealing in mitigation of my penalty as stated by the Disciplinary Regulations, published in the University Calendar ( section 2, Regulations, item 23, Paragraph 7. I feel that I have been unjustly fined £35 as a direct result of miscommunications and misunderstandings by IT Services. Firstly on the student computing web site ( has no set policies put out it although it does contain a vague AUP (accepted use policy). This policy was not changed until well into the term, yet apparently “The AUP was revised to preclude peer-to-peer file sharing and agreed by the University Information and Policy Committee in May 2005 for implementation this academic year”. I find this hard to believe as when as a student I agreed to the policy it was still unchanged in writing but apparently it had been changed “behind” the scenes, so I was in turn agreeing to a false policy. According to the IT services web site, I quote, “Certain peer-to-peer file sharing clients or FTP software may allow you to share larger numbers of files with others on the network. You should ensure you are not breaching any applicable copyright laws by doing this” ( this means that paying customers are being fined for p2p which is not in-fact banned. Another contradicting fact comes again from the IT Services web site; the ResNet focus group meetings notes; ( claims the following fact: “Issue of filesharing was raised. Re-iterated that internal filesharing was permitted, but that all external filesharing remains prohibited and therefore blocked” this in turn raises the point that if the program was not blocked then it must have been allowed, (as it is a method of internal file sharing). The misleading, and poorly written, AUP again refers to references that are not there. Like the policy of filesharing, it states, minor breaches of this policy will be handed under the regulations concerning minor disciplinary offences (regulation 24 subsection 6 and 7)." However, if you look up regulation 24, it contains information about Award of Leave of Absence to Students Elected to Sabbatical Office in the Union of Students ( The term that the AUP uses “filesharing” is vague as MSN has protocols which directly mirror, and are more harmful to the network, then p2p protocols. In addition Warwick University students have involved social lives, and like to communicate these needs are not properly addressed. IRC is currently banned so DC++ becomes a community where people can chat and share ideas. Now surely you cannot fine someone for talking to other people in a friendly environment?

The role of the IT Services is to provide a “high capacity” internet connection which reflects that of an ADSL line. This has been less then evident in the past 9 weeks with pages constantly timing out, MSN messenger signing out and general network lag. The past day the internet has not been working and now that its back the average up time is 2minutes then it goes offline and comes back. This is not acceptable when trying to do work or view important emails to prospective employers. I have taken many speed test results from the internet during various times and compared them with other services you can get for the same money and the current service is far less then acceptable. Here is just one of many tests I did: (Source: Download: 333,296 bps Upload: 85,088 bps QOS: 10% RTT: 8 ms MaxPause: 1063 ms QOS is quality of service and constantly it has been under 15%. Maxpause is the most important term and is defined as: Max Pause is the longest pause recorded during the data download. This should be a very small number. If not, it could indicate Internet congestion or a bad Internet connection. In conclusion I think that my fine is unjust and the vague, contradicting information that is found on the IT Services web site is the basis of these fines. The charge for this poor connection should be refunded and all fines scrapped as IT Services are not complying to their end user agreement by providing a reliable and productive service.