The Site > Old Forums > Qwest > Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement

reply to christcorp

Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement

reply to ANameThatHasntBeenTa

reply to adsldude
I will be dropping qwest as a dsl provider and 2 hardline phonelines too if this no server thing is carried through this fall Nov 16th 2006. I will be looking at covad or speakeasy if this happens. Running a server is why I purchased a static ip thru the isp I use at oz.net. If what they really mean is file sharing servers specifically I would think this type of thing could be controlled by routers access control lists regardless.

The concept of stopping all servers seems to negate the reason for having dsl and a static ip. This will be a blow to the multiplayer game industry if this happens. Let alone other tech interests. The document I was sent in the mail in December of 2005 is the most poorly written thing yet from qworst that makes no mention at all of what they really mean or are changing in the user agreement. I think it was crafted in meaningless legalese to hide what this means to the common layman. Writtend by parasites of all other industries its not surprising its intentionally vague.

After complaining to my isp in late 2005 as it was taken over several times and had problems in the end it was deemed qworst dropped the ball on their dsl service and finally all of wa state was having problems due specifically to qworst prompting some repair to whatever it was that was causing loss of speed (bandwidth)and dsl outages for months of on and off service which qwest does nothing to pay for your downtime. Yes we may not have rights to demand certain service but I will vote with my dollars $$$.

reply to adsldude
"But the rest of us can watch until November when the agreement takes effect. And as Christcorp has shown, Qwest doesn't want to destroy their bread and butter business."

Yes, and no. newer Qwest is odd at times. The old ma bell side knows business.
In some ways they may be right. Sell you a 30 meg connection. ( new adsl2, vdsl2) Yet 1.5 for you and no servers. Rest they charge you for tv, voip, home automation, music. Nothing free on the net. They will host your web server for x a month. Under this model a residential customer mat make them more profit than a small business. Nickel and dime for everything. No way you could do any of this yourself given an unblocked no restrictions dsl or T1. Qwest knows what is best.

reply to adsldude
Does any service actually allow servers for residential customers?
Even the much touted Fios from Verizon doesn't allow servers.

Well, all 3 of my Qwest reps; Business, Sales, and Service, are looking into this to see what's up. Most of them knew VERY LITTLE of this agreement. They believe that the agreement's intentions and what is written seem to conflict. Everything done on the business side is done almost entirely with static connections. VPN, FTP, Peer-to-Peer, etc...

They are all pretty much in agreement that the way it is currently written will have to change. To what,,,, that is to be seen. Later... Mike....

Well, just got a call back from my reps. They checked on the agreement and found out that it has ALREADY been sent back to the legal department and is currently under revision.

The intent of the passage was to prevent the use of servers that's purpose in life is to deliver spam, unsolicited email, and similar types of traffic.

Not sure what the revised agreement will say EXACTLY, but supposedly it will clarify WHICH USE OF SERVERS will be prohibited. Again, wanting to eliminate the use of Qwest DSL for the purpose of serving spam and other unsolicited traffic. This also includes the section 9 portion where it speaks of charging $5 for spam. It was intended as a fine for servers pushing out the "Prohibted" uses.

Supposedly the new revised edition should be out shortly. When exactly, I don't know. I'm sure someone on the forum here will discover it when it comes out. Hopefully this has put some people's minds at ease. Later... Mike...

This is really disturbing news. I have been on Qwest.net since 1999, and it's been a really great service - I've felt really lucky to have the freedom to manage my network as I like to. I have run my own small business reliably by running my own mail server and web server.

For one thing, if this is just Qwest.net's new policy, I will certainly go to another ISP. But I agree that it sounds like they are trying to include other ISPs in these terms. I did call around to a few ISPs, and I got responses from "No, it absolutely does not affect us - we are not worried" to "Yes, the wording does seem to imply it would affect us" to "Where is this new agreement?" (I pointed them to it on the Qwest site, and they are going to get back to me).

I really hope this changes, especially the server restriction, or this will be a sad day, indeed. If it includes other ISPs, I may have to bite the bullet and get SpeakEasy, which is a lot more expensive for the same upload speed. I assume Qwest is not trying to go as extream as affecting dry pairs used by them too (I've heard grumbings about that possibility in these forums, but that seems a stretch)!

What a total bummer indeed.

I guess you didn't read the part where I mentioned that it's back in the lawyer's hands to be re-written because they did not intend it to eliminate normal servers, just the spam, unwanted email, etc...

I trust what my Qwest people tell me about this. I've worked FOR QWEST too long to not know their policies and procedures, and now as one of their largest customers, I have too many DSL circuits involved for Qwest to steer me wrong.

I think we should stop speculating and making this out to be more than it was intended to be, and wait for the revised version to come out. Customers and others who have been dealing with Qwest for a number of years knows that the intention of the service agreement is not what's being interpreted.

The greatest thing Qwest has going for it with broadband customers is their willingness to allow home, SOHO, and large business servers. This is a much larger customer base than the little home Web, email, ftp, or game server. Fortunately, Qwest wants to keep all of these customers. They just don't want their system used to promote spam, unwanted email. etc... Later... Mike...

I did read your post about the rewriting, and I sure hope you are right. It's just that all we have at the moment is this very scary set of new terms that could profoundly impact some of us. If they are rewriting it, why don't they retract the current one until the new one is ready (and have a page that says something to that effect).

I will not be at ease until I see the revised document, and I hope it fixes all of the points. My worry is that they never really wanted to allow servers, but they are just now noticing this "hole" and trying to patch it. I hope you are right that they continue to want to provide this valuable service.

reply to christcorp
Hey! The document has been updated! The server clause is now different and actually says you can host servers as long as it's not for malicious intent. What a relief! And sorry, christcorp, not to take your word for it. I'm actually surprized and glad that they did it so fast.

Of course, the spam $5 thing is still in there, and the other points have not changed, so there may still be some things they should reconsider. But the biggie for me was the server issue, and that looks *much* better now...

I must admit I'm impressed with the speed that they changed the document. That's pretty darn fast for lawyers!

reply to Suffering
After detox...

I never inferred that Qwest could create tax code... I suppose I should have elaborated before passing out...

I was thinking to myself, maybe the fine unusually canny kids who work for "the man" had a hinting of implementing a tariff in the near future... Fearing an all out riot if this "tax" showed up on customer's bills, they took a preemptive strike and generated the legal gobbly-gook to be one step ahead of "the man".

reply to LavaJoe

geesh adsldude that's a good question. I don't think it applies to wifi as that section has it's own rules (which makes no stipulation about offering free wifi).

Public information services is a fairly vague term. My good friend google seems to make me think that it's mostly directory services like phone book directories, public records, search engine types.

»www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pu···+service
--
kicking screaming gucci little piggy

reply to adsldude
I have seen other web sites talking about a "rule against hot-spots" (e.g. if you want to make it available to customers at your coffee shop). And I think that this 7(a) clause is what they are talking about.

It is quite vague, and at first I even thought they were talking about making web sites (of a certain nature, serving "information?") available (or a "directory server" like suffering said). But I don't think so. The words, "unlimited usage or otherwise" implies to me that they are talking about making internet access available, and yes, that does seem to suggest wifi, even though below that they imply that letting other computers at the "single home or office" is OK (maybe wifi's reach beyond the walls is what they worry about - who knows; it's kinda silly in any case).

There is another wifi section that addresses the risks of wifi, but I don't think that means this can't also be talking about wifi (or other means of sharing the connection for that matter).

reply to Suffering

said by Suffering:

geesh adsldude that's a good question. I don't think it applies to wifi as that section has it's own rules (which makes no stipulation about offering free wifi).

reply to msj
As long as users continue to use Qwest or any RBOC they are helping to speed up the demise of the independent ISP's. Every month another independent ISP either is forced to sell his/her customer base to Regional ISP or RBOC or go out of business. The FCC has unleashed the giants with monopoly thinking and truck loads of money to wage war on Cable and Independant ISP's. The Cable guys have enough money to fight and they actually will enjoy some benefits from the RBOC changing the landscape. They can use the benefits the RBOC create while let the RBOC take the heat and consumers take the shaft.

So, in a town like where I'm at, you would prefer that I spend more money, for less bandwidth, om a company with minimal support, just to make a point? Mp thanks.

I am all for open and free competition. That doesn't mean however that subsidies need to be given to the competition. For the longest time, the RBOC's had to least their lines to the CLEC's at BELOW MARKET COST so the CLEC could offer the customer a $3 better phone bill and the CLEC could make money too. Yea, that's real fair too.

Instead of 100 private isp's in the area, maybe the private ISP's should get together and do some merging so that they can have a better customer and resource base. It's a lot easier for 5 local ISP's to compete with 1 RBOC than it is for 20 local ISP's to try and compete with the RBOC and the other 19 local ISP's.

I don't blame Qwest for having a better product. For Microsoft for building a better mousetrap, etc... If anyone wants to compete, fine, excellent. Do it by getting together with others, combining talents and capital, go after a strategic market, then build and grow from there. The big companies shouldn't have to be punished because a town of 100,000 people happen to have 50 people trying to do startup businesses reselling Bandwidth.

For what it's worth, the private WIRELESS ISP's are doing real well. They are competing in a market that Qwest and others can't do, and they are reaching customers that Qwest can't reach. Good for them. I'm not going to condone special treatment in order to start a business. That's almost as bad as how some people get "Special" load rates to start a business. It's suppose to stimulate economic growth, but instead the average person has to pay higher loan rates so the banks can make up for their loss. Later... Mike...