[lug] [OT] Qwest's changes Subscriber Agreement...

[Nick Golder]

On 2006-01-17 11:07 -0700, Lori Reed wrote:
> Looks fine to me. Especially section 9, which basiclly states "thou 
> shall not spam".
> 
> What, specifically, do you object to?
> 

I object to the "thou shall not spam" on the basis of intentions.  It is
difficult to distinguish an innocent bystander who has a compromised machine
(take the recent WMF vulnerability and Redmond's slow-to-address
attitude coupled with tough detection methods) vs. the one who openly
uses his service to spam - both should not be addressed as equals.  I
understand the difficulty of proving one's culpability but whom does
"guilty! guilty! guilty!" really serve?  On a lighter note, $5 per spam
would definitely help with Qwest's SEC filings and shareholder reports. ;-)

I also objected to section 7(a)(i).  I went with a third-party ISP in
order to offer public services.  IMHO, I don't think this is a circuit
level issue (I have naked DSL) and if anyone should be imposing on me
what I can or can't do with my service, it should be my ISP.  After all, 
it is their bandwidth that I am paying for - my traffic only directly 
affects them.  Maybe I shouldn't be having such a tough time with paying
more for the same level of service I already have.

-- 
-Nick Golder