On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 11:47, Robin 'Roblimo' Miller wrote:
> Derek Glidden wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 18:28, steve wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>It infact allows for legal use these devices of if you are
> >>"authorized" or providing a service. I forget the exact wording on
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yep, and anyone want to put money down on how quickly the cable ISPs
> >will start charging much more for the cable internet service that
> >"authorizes" you to run a firewall?
> >
>
> RoadRunner changed the ToS on one of their Ohio systems a year or two
> ago and shut off users who were running multiple computers and/or
> firewalls on their connections. The state public utilities commission
> made them stop it after companies like Netgear, Linksys and Cisco
> screamed. Comcast wanted to do something similar in MD but the public
> service commission said no. There is also a growing fear that cable
> Internet providers may start giving bandwidth preference to some sites
> over others now that the FCC has decided that cable ISPs are not common
> carriers governed by telco-style regs but are "information delivery
> services." It is now legal on the fed level for BrightRoadHomeRunner to
> give you fast/easy access to CNN and slow access to MSNBC. Or even
> decide to block NewsForge or Slashdot if we say things they don't like.
>
> The state regulatory bodies ar the only thing standing between you and
> the cable ISPs. With new laws on the books that let them authorize or
> not authorize whatever they want, the only thing keeping the cable ISPs
> from treating you horridly is their own sense of ethics. In other words,
> nothing.
>
> - Robin
>
>
Hmm, RoadRunner refund days ahead perhaps?
-Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:30:38 EDT