nanog mailing list archives
RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:29:23 -0800
Please reference any suit regarding breach of contract. Examples abound. Port filtering may be construed as a material breach when the expectation is, that there is to be no port filtering. Access is access, even when the customer doesn't know that they are being restricted in their access. That just assures you that they will go ballistic when they find out. Face it guys, you KNOW that this is basically dishonest. As such, it is indefensible. I would almost bet <amount> that none of the transit providers mentions restrictions, on access, in their contracts. I would almost bet <1/2 amount> that NONE of the access providers mention same in THEIR contracts. The general expectation is for clear and open pipes. Put such restiction into your contracts and you will lose customers. Don't put them in and start filtering anyway and you will lose court cases...big ones.
-----Original Message----- From: Shawn McMahon [mailto:smcmahon () eiv com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:21 PM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:03:57PM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote:What doesn't make sense in that argument is why youcouldn't just simplyupsell the customer to a managed fw solution etc if that'sthe concern.Educate them, and let them decide based on the educationthey received. Because it doesn't just affect them; it affects you, your customers, and your business.I wouldn't be so sure, particularly because of the legal exposure...Does anybody have a live example of this supposed legal exposure, to counter all the many examples those of us who don't believe in it have given?
Current thread:
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Christian Kuhtz (Nov 20)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Adrian Chadd (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Shawn McMahon (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
- "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
- Re: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." Bora Akyol (Nov 20)
- Re: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." Joe Abley (Nov 21)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Jason Slagle (Nov 21)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Stephen Sprunk (Nov 21)
- "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Hank Nussbacher (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Joe Abley (Nov 21)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 21)
- Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Mike Johnson (Nov 21)
(Thread continues...)