ISP TOS violations (was: web mail)

[bscott at ntisys.com]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, at 6:41pm, gnhlug at sophic.org wrote:
> Just because they told you that they won't let you doesn't make it suck
> any less that you can't...

  And just because you or any number of other people think it sucks doesn't
mean their TOS don't apply.  :-)

>  ...and of course /no one/ ever intentionally does anything their TOS says
> they can't.

  I just wanted to make sure everyone involved knew about those
restrictions.  Otherwise, and again, one might get themselves into trouble,
by complaining that they can't do something which isn't supported in the
first place.

> Besides which, this restriction in providers' TOS agreements is an
> arbitrary limitation which we, as consumers, should not stand for.

  First: You don't speak for all consumers.

  Second: The vast majority of consumers have no interest in hosting
services, and indeed, probably should *not* be doing so.  Code Red, Nimda,
Lion, etc., etc.

  Third, and major:

  In reality, it is unlikely an ISP (even one as bad as Comcast) will
disconnect you *just* for hosting services.  Even if you complain about it,
you'll likely just be told "You're not supposed to be doing that, go back to
browsing" and they'll leave it at that.

  Terms Of Service protect both parties involved -- ISP and customer.  
(Although, of course, the ISP is more concerned about protecting themselves,
and that shows.)  TOS explain what the ISP is giving you.  If their TOS
don't meet your needs/wants, then obviously, the service is not right for
you.  Better people know that up-front, then subscribe and find out after
the fact.

  Example #1: A business subscribes to Comcast, and puts their
profit-generating website on the feed.  The feed proves to be inadequate for
whatever reason, and the business looses money.  Without those TOS, the
business would have a good case to complain that Comcast is at least
partially responsible for that lost profit.

  Example #2: Somebody is hosting a personal site that gets Slashdotted.  
Comcast blocks their feed (and the published IP address) because the load
exceeds what their network is designed for, and it is disrupting other
customers.  Without those TOS, the customer would have a case to demand a
refund or otherwise cause problems.

  Finally, I once again point out that Internet feeds exist, and have since
the beginning, that allow you all the features you continually demand,
Derek.  They just cost one heck of a lot more.  If you are not willing to
pay the price, that's too bad for you.  ISPs are in the business to make a
profit.  They are not interested in unprofitable activities.  Once you cross
the line into the realm of hosted services, costs (even support costs) go up
significantly.

  Since I know people will bring this up: Yes, there is a lack of
competition in the industry, and yes, cable monopolies are unfair, and yes,
business class Internet feeds are overpriced.  None of that invalidates my
points.  At most, the ideal situation would bring prices down.  Would you be
willing to pay even two or three times as much for business class service?

> Nothing further is said about what constitutes a server.  So, then, what
> IS a server?

  That is a semantic argument, and one in which I have no interest in
participating.  Most people know what they mean and have no trouble figuring
it out.

-- 
Ben Scott <bscott at ntisys.com>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.              |