North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police

  • From: Roeland Meyer
  • Date: Tue Nov 21 00:35:54 2000

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:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:21 PM
> To: [email protected]
> 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 you 
> couldn't just simply
> > upsell the customer to a managed fw solution etc if that's 
> the concern.
> > Educate them, and let them decide based on the education 
> they 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?