(c/o IP list)
From: Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: January 6, 2006 10:30:22 PM EST Not long ago, Qwest tried to foist upon its customers an "agreement" allowing the details of their telephone calls -- Customer Proprietary Network Information, or CPNI -- to be sold to all comers. Well, it's now at it again -- this time, with its DSL service. Users of Qwest's DSL service recently received a letter announcing that the FCC had allowed its terms of service -- formerly dictated by a tariff -- to be dictated by an "agreement" published on Qwest's Web site. I guess that they expect most users not to look up the document, because it's an interesting one. The fine print of the "agreement," which can be found at http://www.qwest.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/ High_Speed_Internet_Subscriber_Agreement__12_20_05_-5.pdf prohibits, among other things, the use of a DSL line by a business to provide a wireless hotspot for its customers. It also prohibits all users from setting up servers -- even if they've ordered static IP addresses for the express purpose of setting up, for example, a VPN server to let them into their own networks. (See Section 7(a) of the "agreement.") Tellingly, these restrictions apply EVEN IF QWEST IS NOT THE PROVIDER OF THE INTERNET BANDWIDTH OR SERVICE FOR THE DSL LINE. Yes, that's right: even if Qwest is merely providing the line, and your Internet service is coming from a third party ISP which wants to sell you bandwidth for the purpose of running a server or a hotspot, you can't. The "agreement" also states that the user agrees to be liable for $5.00 for each spam message sent from his or her machine... EVEN IF HIS OR HER MACHINE WAS TAKEN OVER BY A WORM OR SPYWARE, which is all too common in these days of massive security holes in consumer operating systems. There are other onerous provisions as well. This might be a good source of business for our small wireless ISP, which is always looking for clients who are disgruntled with Qwest. (We got a new customer this week: a business which saw the "agreement" and decided to use our wireless instead. That's how we found out.) But it's not cricket for an ILEC not only to impose such onerous terms unilaterally, but to impose them upon the customers of third party ISPs. Are other ILECs doing similar things? You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.
