Discuss Digest, Vol 2, Issue 31

[Rich Braun]

Don Levey <lug at the-leveys.us>
> Well, do the ISPs permit commercial use of non-commercial accounts?  It's a
> business relationship between you and the ISP, which is bound by the terms
> of the contract.  If the contract does not specify it, they're under no
> obligation to provide it.  What you're saying is that there's a need for an
> ISP which will provide a raw connection and leave you alone.

The point I am making is that given the economics and politics of providing
residential ISP service, there will always be a tendency toward monopoly
control of the last-mile segment of cable or spectrum reaching your house.

If you don't understand or agree with that point then I guess you can argue on
the basis of private contract law.

My position is that given the lack of options for access to a range of
cost-effective services, consumers through the enactment of public laws must
override unreasonable clauses in private ToS contracts.  (There is a parallel
with landlord-tenant law:  chapter 186 of the Massachusetts General Laws
renders void a wide variety of clauses that a landlord might attempt to impose
in the terms of a lease.)

Sure, you can argue that I should just dump Comcast if I don't like their ToS.
 Ten years ago, I didn't like what the existing ISPs were selling, so I went
out and started my own ISP and offered a different ToS.  Times have changed
(*fundamentally*) and no one is starting ISPs anymore.  Someone mentioned RCN
in this thread:  even with billions of dollars in capital, that company is
unlikely to succeed.  This has nothing to do with the costs of offering
variety in ToS contracts; it has to do with the nature of the beast:  public
rights of way are required to deliver this service, and he who has control
over them gets the customers.  Unless the government specifies otherwise, a
monopoly provider can also dictate whatever ToS it wants.  Internet service
has yet to be entirely monopolized but you (or at least most people who read
this) can see the obvious trend in that direction:  declining service quality,
increasing restrictions, decreasing provider choices, and higher prices.

I don't like spam any more than anyone else--I've posted details here about my
spam-blocking configuration; search the blu.org archives.  Blocking port 25 at
the sender or receiver is a knee-jerk political reaction rather than an
effective technical solution.  Putting reasonable limits on traffic volume
might be a better policy, and I know there is a lot of research being done on
a trusted-sender mechanism to provide identity tracking.  (Even if the latter
were implemented, I'd still want to be able to receive mail on port 25 from
non-trusted senders, and filter it through my SpamAssassin software.)

-rich