nanog mailing list archives
Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set
From: Robin Rodriguez <rrodriguez () ifbyphone com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:34:27 -0500
On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
How does this stuff ever make it to court??? Why is it an ISP is responsible for policing it's customers? I'm constantly getting called up from scammers trying to offering me bogus warranty insurance for cars I don't own...does that mean I can sue Verizon because they are letting scammers use their network?It doesn't mention anything in the article,. but I'm wondering if the ISP received a court order to shut down the customer and ignored it, then I can see why the ISP lost the case.It will be interesting to see the court cases against ISP's that don't shutdown other illegal activities once they have been notified. abuse@ better not be a blackhole or you are putting yourself at risk based on this. Mark
As was pointed out very early on, you as an xSP do not enjoy common carrier status from the FCC like an ILEC would receive, now whether that is right or wrong is another matter of debate....
-- Robin D. Rodriguez Ifbyphone, Inc. rrodriguez () ifbyphone com
Current thread:
- Beware: a very bad precedent set nanog (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set Jack Bates (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set Mark Andrews (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set Bret Clark (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set Robin Rodriguez (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set Peter Hicks (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set Mark Andrews (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set William Herrin (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set jamie (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set Jack Bates (Aug 31)
- RE: Beware: a very bad precedent set Greg Whynott (Aug 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set William Pitcock (Aug 31)
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set Christopher Morrow (Aug 31)