|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
******** >From: Sonia Arrison <[email protected]> >To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> >Subject: CANUCKS: High speed Net access not an essential Canadian service - yet >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:16:33 -0800 >X-URL: Canucks is at http://www.canadiansintheus.com/ > >And here's some background on the high speed Net access debate in the U.S.: > >http://www.handsofftheinternet.org/NewsAction.asp?FormMode=Articles&ID=1742 541301 > >http://www.pacificresearch.org/issues/tech/00-03forcedaccess.htm >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >---------------------------------- http://www.thestar.com/apps/AppLogic+FTContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_Futu reTenseContentServer=d565d47d87474ca6&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1& c=Article&cid=974494446237&call_page=TS_Business&call_pageid=968350072197&ca ll_pagepath=Business/News >CRTC eyes gripes over high-speed Net service >Regulator could deem connection essential service >Tyler Hamilton >Technology Reporter > >Canada's telecommunications regulator says consumers who are fed up with >poor high-speed Internet services have a reason to be concerned and he may >have to look at the matter more closely. >David Colville, vice-chairman of telecommunications of the Canadian >Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, told The Star yesterday >that the commission hasn't designated high-speed Internet service essential >``yet.'' >``But I recognize that among small businesses in particular it's becoming >that,'' he said, adding that the CRTC is aware of the network and customer >service problems related to high-speed products from Bell Canada and Rogers >Cable. > >[...] > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >CANUCKS -- the moderated mailing list for Canadians living in the U.S. >For details, visit http://www.canadiansintheus.com/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Golding <[email protected]> To: JIM FLEMING <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:04 PM Subject: RE: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ? > All together now... "No one cares, Jim". > > - Dan Golding > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > JIM FLEMING > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:28 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ? > > > > Does AT&T provide, "end-to-end" IPv4 IP Header Transport ? > ....with the TOS field untouched ? > > Jim Fleming > http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif > http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif > http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stephen Sprunk <[email protected]> > To: Roeland Meyer <[email protected]>; 'Shawn McMahon' <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:16 PM > Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police > > > > > > Thus spake "Roeland Meyer" <[email protected]> > > > > > > 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. > > > > If filtering is in the contract, it's hardly breach of contract to > > perform it. > > > > > 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. > > > > AT&T, I believe, was the first major provider to start filtering port > > 25; here's the relevant part of their contract: > > > > http://www.att.net/general-info/terms.html > > "AT&T reserves the right to block, filter or delete Unsolicited > > E-Mails." > > > > While it doesn't explicitly state how they intend to "block, filter or > > delete" spam, filtering port 25 by default can be reasonably construed > > to fit that definition, and is therefore within the contract. > > > > Ths is also promising: > > "don't send materials that contain viruses, worms, or any other > > destructive elements; ... You may not use or attempt to use the Service > > to violate its security or the security of systems accessible through > > it, ... you should secure your computer equipment so that only > > authorized users can gain access to your Service account." > > > > You could claim that these sections authorize blocking of QAZ et al, > > since the activity of worms is prohibited. Also, customers are required > > to secure their computers to prevent intrusion, so leaving any blatantly > > insecure protocol like SMB enabled might be breach of contract. > > Wholesale blocking of SMB might even be allowed. > > > > Of course, I wouldn't want to use that logic in court, but a good lawyer > > could probably pull it off. I'd prefer to insert more specific wording > > into the contract first. > > > > > The general expectation is for clear and open pipes. Put such > > restiction > > > into your contracts and you will lose customers. > > > > As long as a user can request the filters be removed (as in AT&T's > > case), I doubt anyone will lose customers. In fact, I've seen many ads > > for ISPs which promote their filtering service with the belief that it > > will bring them more customers. > > > > > Don't put them in and start filtering anyway and you will lose > > > court cases...big ones. > > > > If an ISP refuses to turn off unrequested filters, and the filters > > aren't in the contract, I can see a lawsuit. I can also see the > > customer simply taking their business elsewhere and persuing the matter > > through the press. As AGIS proved, that turned out to be far more > > effective than courts. > > > > Then again, nobody here seems to be suggesting mandatory filtering. Why > > is there such a strong objection to opt-out filters, where a single call > > or email can get the filters turned off? Is using a phone really that > > difficult? > > > > S > > > > | | Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723 > > :|: :|: Network Design Consultant, GSOLE > > :|||: :|||: New office: RCDN2 in Richardson, TX > > .:|||||||:..:|||||||:. Email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > >
|
