Re: [Asrg] Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.

["Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk at queernet.org>]

William Leibzon wrote:
> Courts have disagreed with this opinion. They said that provider should 
> give prior warning to adding new restrictions to its service and give to 
> customer who does not agree an option to leave the service. But they do 
> not require every ISP to provide end-users filtered and unfiltered 
> services (though some ISPs may do so in order to keep customers who 
> would otherwise leave).

These are, of course, the same courts that don't believe that business 
concentration removes freedoms.  They take this stand on the assumption 
that there will be somewhere to go, protected by frtee-market 
shmoopiedoopy-nonsense -- without being aware that ISPs are 
consolidating or mindlessly falling into lockstep, and killing that 
choice.  But what the hell, if 'it's OK for one company to own all of 
the TV, radio, and newspapers in town, what's the difference?


> In view of courts existance of other companies 
> providing same services is consistant with giving customer choice of 
> what service they want to buy and if it is to be filtered or unfiltered, 
> etc.

See above.  It's a false security, based on theory that isn't borne out 
in reality.

> Certainly. As end-service provider you have right to filter unwanted 
> traffic
> any way you see fit as long as your customers and users of your service
> are aware of what you're doing.

Unwanted by whom -- users, or you?

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg