Qwest imposes restrictions on third party ISPs' DSL customers

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>
Date: January 6, 2006 10:30:22 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Qwest imposes restrictions on third party ISPs' DSL customers

Dave:

Not long ago, Qwest tried to foist upon its customers an "agreement"  
allowing the details of their telephone calls -- Customer Proprietary  
Network Information, or CPNI -- to be sold to all comers.

Well, it's now at it again -- this time, with its DSL service.

Users of Qwest's DSL service recently received a letter announcing  
that the FCC had allowed its terms of service -- formerly dictated by  
a tariff -- to be dictated by an "agreement" published on Qwest's Web  
site.

I guess that they expect most users not to look up the document,  
because it's an interesting one.

The fine print of the "agreement," which can be found at

http://www.qwest.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/ 
High_Speed_Internet_Subscriber_Agreement__12_20_05_-5.pdf

prohibits, among other things, the use of a DSL line by a business to  
provide a wireless hotspot for its customers. It also prohibits all  
users from setting up servers -- even if they've ordered static IP  
addresses for the express purpose of setting up, for example, a VPN  
server to let them into their own networks. (See Section 7(a) of the  
"agreement.")

Tellingly, these restrictions apply EVEN IF QWEST IS NOT THE PROVIDER  
OF THE INTERNET BANDWIDTH OR SERVICE FOR THE DSL LINE. Yes, that's  
right: even if Qwest is merely providing the line, and your Internet  
service is coming from a third party ISP which wants to sell you  
bandwidth for the purpose of running a server or a hotspot, you can't.

The "agreement" also states that the user agrees to be liable for  
$5.00 for each spam message sent from his or her machine... EVEN IF  
HIS OR HER MACHINE WAS TAKEN OVER BY A WORM OR SPYWARE, which is all  
too common in these days of massive security holes in consumer  
operating systems.

There are other onerous provisions as well.

This might be a good source of business for our small wireless ISP,  
which is always looking for clients who are disgruntled with Qwest.  
(We got a new customer this week: a business which saw the  
"agreement" and decided to use our wireless instead. That's how we  
found out.) But it's not cricket for an ILEC not only to impose such  
onerous terms unilaterally, but to impose them upon the customers of  
third party ISPs.

Are other ILECs doing similar things?

--Brett Glass



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/