Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement in Qwest

said by dynodb

said by ANameThatHasntBeenTa :

.

Ever drive by a cop while doing 32mph in a 30mph zone? Get pulled over? Probably not. Same deal here.

Yes. At 2 in the morning with no one else visible on the road.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15197842 Sun, 08 Jan 2006 10:27:30 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15197603 adsldude :

said by dynodb

:

Be sure to let us know which provider you're going with that doesn't also have similar provisions at both the broadband provider and ISP level.

He said in his letter to Qwest he was taking his business to Speakeasy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15197603 Sun, 08 Jan 2006 09:13:46 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15196975 dynodb :

said by ANameThatHasntBeenTa :

Your ridicules post has done more to show I have won the debate than if you'd come out and agreed with me.

But... it's so much more fun to ridicule you.

Ever drive by a cop while doing 32mph in a 30mph zone? Get pulled over? Probably not. Same deal here.

Be sure to let us know which provider you're going with that doesn't also have similar provisions at both the broadband provider and ISP level.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15196975 Sun, 08 Jan 2006 03:01:19 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15192522 christcorp : You really should lighten up and not take things so personally. MANY of my comments, which you attribute to me building a straw man against your, is related to ctizens in the "3rd Person". I do NOT KNOW you personally at all. Statements about how people may assign blame because of their situation is true. MAYBE NOT FOR YOU! I don't know your situations. This also applies to people automatically assuming that all government is corrupt. This is a general statement that many people believe. I have no idea whether you do or don't believe this. I don't know you.

You appear to be an intelligent individual. Just because some people don't agree 100% with your position doesn't make their position wrong. Also, just because a person may make some generalized statements about people, doesn't neccessarily mean they are building a straw man to represent you.

Oh, and I obviously forgot to add a word in my last post. I included the word "Malice", but I forgot to include a phrase such as "harmful or selfish" prior to the purposeful motive. OBVIOUSLY people's motives are purposeful.I should have done a better job checking grammar and you should have possibly given the benefit of the doubt based on contextual clues.

Anyway, it has been a fun discussion. Obviously nothing really accomplished or either position changed. I didn't take any of your analyzing of my posts personally. I didn't take it as an attack on my individuality. If that is how you perceived my rebuttles towards your comments,,,,, well,,,, don't know what to tell you. Don't take it so personal. You too have a wonderful new year. Later... Mike...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15192522 Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:19:13 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15190672 anon :

said by Mike said :
I don't believe it is out of malice or purposeful motives; on the contrary.

Everyone's intentions are purposeful unless they are insane; and even then, an insane person's motives still have a purpose, they're just motivated to reach insane ends. So how you can say that the government's regulation isn't out of purposeful motives bewilders me.

said by Mike said :
Our country and style of government is quite unique. We are one of the youngest nations in the world, yet we have evolved into arguably the most powerful nation in the world. I believe that the reason we have become so powerful, is because as our nation was forming and evolving, our forefathers used the experiences of the other countries and their pasts to learn how to form a more perfect union.

I agree 100%; although I would add a few things to why we have become so powerful.

said by Mike said :
Our checks and balance system was designed so no one branch of government or one group of people could dictate the fate of the remainder. We are not a democracy, but rather a republic. A representative style of government where elected officials are democratically elected. NOW, because of this style of government, which is still probably one of the best in the world, there does come some negative characteristics. One of the is it's burocracy.

I agree 100%; this is a bit of a history lesson but a lot of people need it.

said by Mike said :
Why does it take 5-8 years to get a prescription drug approved when Mexico and Canada have allowed it for 5 years already? Why does it take 2-4 years to get a bill passed into law? The list goes on. Some may believe it's because every politician is in bed with corporate America and that these companies are pulling all the strings. It's easy to believe that. It's not quite true, but it's easy to believe.

Yeah anyone who believes that, "every politician is in bed with corporate America and that these companies are pulling all the strings" is a moron. This is an easy Straw Man to make of me. I hope that you don't really think that this statement is "easy to believe". You seem more intelligent than that.

said by Mike said :
When people are having difficult times, it's always easier to find someone else to blame and assign the fault to. The government becomes a great scape goat considering it isn't a person but rather an institution that can be assigned the blame.

Another Straw Man at the stake... You'd be better off without the weasel phrases though. Simply say, "It is easier for you to blame the government or Qwest for your difficult times because they are an institution rather than one person." This isn't my position at all. If it were one person they would be getting more of an ear-full from me than you're getting!

said by Mike said :
The truth is, our government has evolved into a very conservative and cautious entity. The one thing it has learned throughout the years is that it is better to take 5 years to make a decision that can be considered the best option, then to make a decision in 1 year and have to change it later. Our style of government was not designed to make or do anything immediately. Of course many problems come with this style, especially in a newer world wide Macro-Economic society that is more fast paced than in the past.

More history lesson, but the last sentence has some merit. It confirms your belief that there is a, "newer world wide Macro-Economic society that is more fast paced than in the past". I totally agree, and as technology continues to double nearly every 18 months it will continue to accelerate, exponentially, this "faster-pace"...

said by Mike said :
It isn't that Qwest or the government is slowing us down.

You just said in your previous post that it is the government's bureaucracy that is what is slowing us down! You said, "...our government's buerocracy in regulating too much and not allowing true Capitalism to evolve." You are flip-flopping quite a bit Mike.

said by Mike said :
We're moving right along at about the same speed as we have been since the industrial revolution.

You seem to believe that the slow movements of a tentative and bloated bureaucracy are fine because they have worked for the past 200+ years. You believe that our founding fathers created a country that is further along in the progress of societal and governmental evolution. [And I also believe this, as I replied to your statement above.]

So, if they made a unique new government, that was revolutionary in its approach, then they were, by definition, progressives. (the exact opposite of conservatives) If they were conservatives that thought, "Well, the old way was fine, heck... it's been working for the last 500+ years; lets just stay with that instead." we'd still be under British rule.

Our founding fathers knew that rapid-revolutionary change is the key to survival. It is even more important now in an ever accelerating, faster-paced, "world wide Macro-Economic society". Here are some other brilliant minds that share our view:

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." Charles Darwin

"People used to think the large would eat the small, instead it is the swift who are eating the slow."
Curtis E. Sahakian, Managing Director of the Corporate Partnering Institute

"The value of time, that is of being a little ahead of your opponent, often provides greater advantage than superior numbers or greater resources."
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

"If your environment is changing, you must change with it. If you don't, you perish."
Curtis E. Sahakian, Managing Director of the Corporate Partnering Institute

said by Mike said :
The problem is, many of the newer developing countries are moving quite fast trying to play catchup.

This isn't the problem... this isn't a problem at all for the Free Market Capitalist!

said by Mike said :
In a world-wide macro economic society such as the current world, there is only so much wealth and resources to be had. Very rarely is any wealth considered NEW MONEY any longer. In today's world it's more of a redistribution of wealth. i.e. We pay Saudi Arabia for oil, which they spend the money on EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING BUT SAND, The countries buy goods from other countries; including the USA, and the circle continues.

Free markets are wonderful things aren't they?

said by Mike said :
To think that Qwest would put aside their profit margin for the sole purpose of assisting in a plan to control the flow of information, is totally illogical.

This is absolutely correct. And you have made yet another Straw Man. When did I ever say, "Qwest put aside their profit margin for the sole purpose of assisting in a plan to control the flow of information"????

This is where I leave the conversation. What you are really doing here is masturbating with the Straw Man you are making of me. There is no dialog here.

Regardless of our disagreements I wish you and yours a prosperous, healthy life. Peace...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15190672 Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:27:39 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15190260 christcorp : I don't believe it is out of malice or purposeful motives; on the contrary. Our country and style of government is quite unique. We are one of the youngest nations in the world, yet we have evolved into arguably the most powerful nation in the world. I believe that the reason we have become so powerful, is because as our nation was forming and evolving, our forefathers used the experiences of the other countries and their pasts to learn how to form a more perfect union.

Our checks and balance system was designed so no one branch of government or one group of people could dictate the fate of the remainder. We are not a democracy, but rather a republic. A representative style of government where elected officials are democratically elected. NOW, because of this style of government, which is still probably one of the best in the world, there does come some negative characteristics. One of the is it's burocracy.

Why does it take 5-8 years to get a prescription drug approved when Mexico and Canada have allowed it for 5 years already? Why does it take 2-4 years to get a bill passed into law? The list goes on. Some may believe it's because every politician is in bed with corporate America and that these companies are pulling all the strings. It's easy to believe that. It's not quite true, but it's easy to believe. When people are having difficult times, it's always easier to find someone else to blame and assign the fault to. The government becomes a great scape goat considering it isn't a person but rather an institution that can be assigned the blame.

The truth is, our government has evolved into a very conservative and cautious entity. The one thing it has learned throughout the years is that it is better to take 5 years to make a decision that can be considered the best option, then to make a decision in 1 year and have to change it later. Our style of government was not designed to make or do anything immediately. Of course many problems come with this style, especially in a newer world wide Macro-Economic society that is more fast paced than in the past.

It isn't that Qwest or the government is slowing us down. We're moving right along at about the same speed as we have been since the industrial revolution. The problem is, many of the newer developing countries are moving quite fast trying to play catchup. In a world-wide macro economic society such as the current world, there is only so much wealth and resources to be had. Very rarely is any wealth considered NEW MONEY any longer. In today's world it's more of a redistribution of wealth. i.e. We pay Saudi Arabia for oil, which they spend the money on EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING BUT SAND, The countries buy goods from other countries; including the USA, and the circle continues.

To think that Qwest would put aside their profit margin for the sole purpose of assisting in a plan to control the flow of information, is totally illogical. I have been with Qwest under 3 separate CEO's in a just the last 7 years. Not even the government can orchestrate such a plan.

To think the government is pulling the strings of Qwest and other corporations is also illogical. Our government has too much red tape to go through to ensure what they are doing is the right thing. The deal with the cable company which is basically totally unregulated. Then they deal with the telephone companies that is predominantly regulated. Now, the telephone company decides to offer services similar to what the cable companies are offering. If you're the government, do you decide to start regulating the cable companies? If it was a democratically controlled government; probably yes. Or, Do you decide to try and deregulate a portion of the telephone company for data purposes? If it's a republican controlled government, probably yes. Of course, there are those who are very loud and forceful on both sides of government who will try to churn the water no matter which direction it's flowing.

So, I don't believe that the government has coerced Qwest into doing anything. The government can't allow cable broadband to stay unregulated, yet maintain the taxes and fees passed onto DSL customers because of regulations. On the other hand, the government doesn't want to loose income, or try and start taxing and regulating cable. They have to look for middle ground here.

So, maybe their middle ground is; Because Cable Providers generally do NOT allow their RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS to operate servers, because residential service is for recreational, educational, and personal use and not as any form of business, then maybe DSL can be that way also. If you want to run servers and such, then it is for some form of professional use and therefor a business rate w/appropriate taxes, could apply.

This analogy was just that. I know that there are a lot of servers out there that have no business ties involved at all. Just giving an example of rational.

We both obviously have 2 totally different ways of looking at this situation. Very much a "Half empty - - Half Full" relationship. I personally still have faith in our style of government, it's predominantly conservative approach to decision making, and it's 200+ year track record. I also have faith in our economic system. You believe that the government coerces big businesses like Qwest. I contend that Big Business Coerces Government a lot more than the other way around. Later... Mike..... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15190260 Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:27:35 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15189698 anon : This is a superb post; one that I agree with on every single point. The government is not Qwest but Qwest influences the government with their lobbying efforts.

The government has coerced Qwest into creating these rules in lieu of a tariff. Do I blame Qwest for that? NO!

Do I blame Qwest for taking advantage of this to create a totalitarian rule (which is what the government has intended by use of their bully tariff)? YES!

Do I say that the government must MAKE Qwest let me have a personal server? NO!

Do I say that the government must MAKE Qwest upgrade their lines to compete with other nations? NO!

Do I say that we, as a nation, will be affected on the global market by this imbalance of bandwidth? YES!

Do I say that there will be less freedom of information because a huge network has removed the ability to have personal servers? YES!

Do I say that we have no possibility of freedom of information now because we can't have personal servers hosted at Qwest? NO!

Do I say that I have a choice to go to another provider and that I thank my lucky stars that there are still providers that haven't been bullied into making a totalitarian rule? YES!

Am I concerned that maybe, just maybe, the government will try to use bully tactics in the future, on other providers, to further reduce our ability to have personal servers? YES!

Do I feel that the current agreement Qwest has put forth has implications for unavoidable beach-of-contract on the subscriber's behalf? You bet I do!

Am I exercising my only right and moving my patronage elsewhere? YES!

Am I exercising my civil right, and duty, to express my opinion and enter intellegent discourse on the matter? YES!

You ended your post with, "Everything that is happening is not because of a conspiracy, but rather because of the laws of economics and our government's buerocracy in regulating too much and not allowing true Capitalism to evolve."

So the big question here is, "Why is our government regulating too much and not allowing true Capitalism to evolve and better compete in the global market place?"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15189698 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:44:05 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15189342 christcorp : You are correct that we agree on a lot of positions. The problem I am having in my disagreement with your position isn't personal differences but rather perception.

You applaud capitalism, which I do too, yet you complain about Qwest exercising such rights. You speak of policies and procedures implemented by the "Government" but you try and apply them to Qwest. Qwest is not the government, and the government is not Qwest.

I agree with much of what you believe the government should be for the people. What we disagree on, we can debate. We can't however mix that in with what Qwest does or doesn't do to/for their customers. From a strictly business point of view, Qwest can do anything with and charge any amount they wish for the services they provide. So long as it doesn't break any existing laws protecting people against any form of descrimination and other companies against violations of fair trade practices. Outside of that, Qwest can do as it pleases. We may not like it or agree with it, bu that is why we have the choice to find other providers.

Qwest isn't limiting bandwidth to 7mb instead of pursuing the 10-100mb systems in other parts of the world because of some master plan. It's done because that is the limits of the current technology. The 4 RBOC's; Qwest, Verizon, SBC, and Bell South are somewhat regulated on the phone services and until recently, were also quite tightly controlled on their data services. Again, not because of a conspiracy, but because our system of government beurocracy is quite conservative and doesn't move as fast as many other countries. Personally, I think it's worked quite good for the past 200+ years.

These RBOCS are also dealing with a much different type of customer than in the rest of the world. Many of the 10+mb areas are places that were very UNDERDEVELOPED countries. It's easy to install a 100mb fiber to the home system when you are starting from scratch. It's another thing here where Americans by nature HATE spending on anything that may become obsolete in a year. That is why our current computer standard, (Microsoft Windows), is where it's at. NOT because of Bill Gates and others trying to manipulate us, but as Americans we refuse to buy new computers and software every year. Now that computers w/monitors can be bought for under $400.00 , it's possible that the technology can speed up and 2 year replacement computers are the norm. Then they can develope better computers and devices.

Qwest's sole responsibility in life is to maximize profits for their shareholders. If they jump immediately to a Fiber To The Home system, they would have to triple their prices for service just to cover the initial expense. The customers won't go for that. Many other countries weren't REPLACING A CURRENT NETWORK, they were working from scratch. Even if Qwest could jumpstart that technology quickly, that isn't good business sense. You need to stay just ahead of your competition to maintain the profit margin, but no too far or you take the risk of government interjection and customers leaving because of price.

So, please don't think that debates on these issues is a personal battle in which you think hair pulling and scratching has occurred. It hasn't. What has happened, at least from my position, is that your argument is trying to apply the government's responsibilities it has to it's citizens to a corporation like Qwest. The only thing the government and Qwest have in common is the FCC trying to force their will upon Qwest. And the other telecoms for that matter. Everything that is happening is not because of a conspiracy, but rather because of the laws of economics and our government's buerocracy in regulating too much and not allowing true Capitalism to evolve. later... Mike.... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15189342 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:53:41 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15188658 anon : Not only does MrPete have intelligence but he has principals.

He states, "Bottom line: It is *crazy* for consumers to accept a legal agreement that is acceptable only when not enforced. This agreement requires us, in many ways, to always break its rules."

This is exactly correct and very well phrased.

I have principals too; I will not sign an agreement if I know that I cannot keep that agreement as it is written. It is impossible to keep this agreement as it is written. You will, by default, be in breach of contract.

I have openly stated my non-acceptance of the agreement and have started the transfer of my accounts to another provider.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15188658 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:18:39 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15188356 anon : You get the award! I have never seen anyone post on a message board with the level of intelligence that you've shown here. Congratulations!

Our drunken friend is totally accurate.

"In lieu of" means "instead of" So Qwest has been coerced into creating a new agreement by the government.

Simply put: you can create an agreement instead of us charging a tariff.

Bill E. Goat is also correct in that a tariff is a tax and could be conceived of as the government charging an Internet Tax.

You state, "by a state or a functional equivalent of a state (e.g., tribes, secessionist movements or revolutionary movements)"

The U.S.A. is a state by definition. I guess you don't consider Federal Income Tax as a tax because it isn't being charged by a tribe, secessionist movement, etc.! LOL that is really funny. I'll be sure to tell the Federal Government about that this tax season. Hey, since you aren't a tribe you can't charge me tax!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15188356 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:38:50 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15188184 anon : This is typical of a looser in a debate. Instead of addressing their opponent's position they create their own caricature of it. They misstate and exaggerate their opponent's view into something their feeble minds can make an argument against; and then pretend that the Straw Man they have created is the real argument.

This is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics. This allows them to feel self-righteous and smug in the fact that they just destroyed the ridiculous caricature that they, themselves, created [with sarcasm, deliberate ignorance, and made-up facts].

A real counter-position would cite honest facts to support their position. An ethical and brave debater will cite each of their opponent's positions and respond with a counter-position to each one in sequence; with facts and logical conclusions.

dynodb has not addressed my positions. dynodb has created his own caricature and has proceeded to kick that around with gusto. What a cowardly fool. It just goes to show what level of intelligence we are dealing with here.

Your ridicules post has done more to show I have won the debate than if you'd come out and agreed with me.

I have yet to see anyone with a counter-argument that is worth responding to. Mike started out good but even he has degraded into burning Straw Men.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15188184 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:17:11 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15184698 dynodb :

said by ANameThatHasntBeenTa :

Hi Turbocpe. Good point and it raises an important question.

"But their agreement is a disappointment because they do state no servers and one of the good sides to DSL is their general acceptance to such while cable has been on the opposite end."

Why has cable been on the opposite end?

Here comes another 'theory'...

I was going to suggest that your tinfoil hat was on crooked, but Suffering's response was much better.

Your $40 / month doesn't buy dedicated bandwidth; DSL (and cable, and satellite, and wireless, and every ISP) provides shared bandwidth. If even 1 out of 5 customers maxed out their bandwidth 80% of the time, things would crash to a screeching halt- that goes for Qwest DSL and just about every other provider and type of service out there short of a dedicated connection, which costs 10 times as much.

They only care about the allocation of resorces, and making sure they're covered in case they get sued for allowing spammers, hackers, and kiddie porn purveyors to operate freely- they can point to the service agreement to say that they don't.

Your paranoid ramblings aside, the Phone Cops aren't out there looking for reasons to turn away business or monitoring the individual usage of some odd 1.5 million customers... because unless they find out it's affecting their ability to provide service or get sued, they simply don't care.

By the way, I've tracked your IP and account, and have referred the matter to the Illuminati / Freemason committee that secretly runs Qwest. If you see 3 large, drunken space aliens at your door, I suggest you cooperate :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15184698 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:36:14 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15183963 christcorp : My comment about bandwidth limitation was a side-bar rebly to the other poster's comments about other countries higher bandwidth and us being under 7mb. Wasn't really related to the server issue.

I am convinced however that the new agreement won't be to force us to be illegal. I believe, just my theory and what I know about Qwest, that there will a separate agreement for business accounts. Currently, ONLY Qwest.net customers can get a static IP address. Current MSN residential customers can only host web sites and such on their servers. They can't buy static IP addresses.

I believe that if you want static IP addresses, they will sell them to you and allow servers, but you will not be allowed to do it with a residential $9.99 qwest.net account. They will probably make you have their business account or something similar. Later... mike... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15183963 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 11:09:57 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15183897 MrPete7 :

quote:
you may not use Service to host any type of server, personal or commercial.

One more: I have my own domain, and my own POP3/SMTP server here.

According to the new agreement, we would have to move all email server functions offsite.

They could easily enforce their new agreement, simply by scanning all MX records for IP's in the Qwest ranges.

Ridiculous.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15183897 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 11:01:39 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15183766 MrPete7 :

said by christcorp

:

I know people will argue that they are entitled to the FULL 1.5/1 connection ALL THE TIME. Sorry, but you're not. That is called buying a T-1. Qwest ALWAYS SAYS UP TO...... They have the right to slow you down if they want to.

I have no problem with them rate-limiting or enforcing shared bandwidth limits.

Unfortunately, the service agreement doesn't suggest they will do that. It simply says, NO servers. And that is truly crazy when out of the other side of their mouths they sell static IP's. There's no use for a static IP other than to connect to a server-service from the outside world.

My concern: this enables them to go down the path of Sprint Broadband. Eventually, Sprint allowed my upload speed to drop all the way to zero for ten seconds at a time, killing my ftp uploads. And then they told me I was limited to 200 to 300MB per month of uploaded data... which when I multiplied it out was less data than I could serve if I had a dialup modem!

Bottom line: It is *crazy* for consumers to accept a legal agreement that is acceptable only when not enforced. This agreement requires us, in many ways, to always break its rules.

I connect to my home with VNC. That's a server. My router has a web server built in. The DSL modem has a web server, for crying out loud. How many use Groove right now? I guarantee a lot more will use it once MS Office 12 is released, as it is part of the bundle. Groove is a collaboration solution that creates peer to peer servers.

The legalese needs fixing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15183766 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:43:50 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182814 Suffering : Put the bottle down before you post. seriously.

I'm glad you can use a dictionary, commendable of you.

it says that they "now have the option of providing terms and conditions that govern the service under a subscriber agreement with it's customers in lieu of a tariff".

Qwest doesn't even have the ability to make up a internet tax. See, lets use the dictionary again.

Tax: A tax is a compulsory charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state (e.g., tribes, secessionist movements or revolutionary movements).

I'm sure Qwest would love nothing more than to create tax code, but alas, they cannot.
--
kicking screaming gucci little piggy]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182814 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 06:53:54 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182623 anon : Just another drunkin' bumbling...

From the Qwest "welcome" letter:

"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently issued an order that affects high-speed Internet service providers, such as Qwest High-Speed Internet (or Qwest DSL®/). Companies providing high-speed Internet access now have the option of providing terms and conditions that govern the service under a subscriber agreement with its customers in lieu of a tariff."

Humm... two choices?

1. A tariff, or
2. A few pages of legal mumbo-jumbo

Tariff: noun A compulsory contribution, usually of money, that is required for the support of a government: assessment, duty, impost, levy, tax.

Gee, maybe they (Qwest) were forced to choose between charging a tariff, or generating a yada-yada-yada letter.

Who want's to be the first to "tax" the internet? Qwest? I think the backlash, perhaps, made them consider yada-yada-yada, instead...

Bottle two!

Bill E. Goat, II]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182623 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 04:56:41 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182582 anon : Humm... My personal, drunken, interpretation of the user agreement is that it only applies if Qwest also doubles as your ISP (or perhaps, perhaps, bundled your DSL line with ISP service ala MSN)...

So... if you're using a outside ISP, then technically...

1. Qwest is NOT "technically" providing you with "internet" service. ATM service, which is what you're "technically" getting from them, could be used for a myriad of other "things"... For example, a privately routed network (no, NOT VPN).

2. Your ISP is "technically" your "internet" provider.

3. So, me thinks jump ship if you're using Qwest, or receiving "bundled" ISP servies from Qwest. Find yourself a good mom-and-pop ISP, with Qwest as the ATM service, only. After all, mom-and-pop could use your $'s more than Qwest, and if they're local you just might get some of that good ol' down home charm and customer service...

Now, back to my bottle...

Bill E. Goat]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182582 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 04:27:35 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182484 Suffering :

said by ANameThatHasntBeenTa :

Enjoy the freedom to have your own personal webserver while you still can because, soon, if they win, you won't be allowed to. You'll have to blog in their "acceptable" world of corporate dominated control.

--
kicking screaming gucci little piggy

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182484 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:24:02 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182013 christcorp : Well, while we may agree on a lot of points, there are some I don't see in quite the same perspective as you. For instance, I know why we have a 7mb broadband system while parts of Asia has 20 times that. Whether it is 100mb connection or 56kb dialup, the same amount of freedoms are provided to both. Yhe only difference is in how fast you can access the information you are looking for. I do not see that as Squelching information. Just that what may take me 5 minutes to download, someone else can do in 30 seconds.

I've been fortunate to have lived and/or worked in 14 different countries. Do not assume that what we can do with our 7mb dsl connection can be done by some of the other countries with the higher bandwidth systems. The truth is, they all can't. We're fighting with current VOIP customers in the middle east and western asia because their countries have forced their providers to block certain ports so as VOIP will NOT WORK. They want to be able to control the flow of communications in and out of the country. You talk of theories, what I am speaking of are facts. There are countries that do control their population the way your theory presents itself. Our doesn't currently.

I have worked in the telecommunications business for 27 years. 6 of those years with Qwest, the rest with Federal and State Government agencies. I worked with more agencies that only use 3 letters in their name then you would want to know. Nothing in the new Qwest agreement has anything to do with Freedom, Rights, or liberties. Eliminating a home server does not mean you can't serve your information to the world. You just might have to do it on another server. Capping speeds has nothing to do with this agreement or anything to do with our rights and liberties.

I think you have taken this customer service agreement a lot further than it was intended, and definately out of context. For the sake of argument however, let's assume that Qwest is trying to control the "Flow of Information" from it's customers. 1st; as long as there is a need, (a market), someone will provide the service. If Qwest takes away all static IP addresses and server capabilities, someone else will provide it. Maybe with DHCP spoofing or some other method. Maybe it with a managed web and file hosting company. 2; The point is, Qwest is not taking anything away from you. Using your argument, they may no longer continue to assist you from doing it yourself, but that doesn't mean you still can't do it.

If you had said that you believed that ALL the big companies are working together and that Qwest is forcing us to use managed server hosts, that would at least make sense. I don't agree with it, but at least there's some rational. The agreements as written do not stop anyone from communicating anything they want to communicate. (Assuming it is legal, but that's a different topic). Later... Mike.... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15182013 Fri, 06 Jan 2006 01:08:45 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15181558 anon : Hi Turbocpe. Good point and it raises an important question.

"But their agreement is a disappointment because they do state no servers and one of the good sides to DSL is their general acceptance to such while cable has been on the opposite end."

Why has cable been on the opposite end?

Here comes another 'theory'...

People with web servers compete directly with the Comcast Cable Monopoly. Not only in the battle for money, but in the war for minds. Those who control the perception of the people are the most powerful in the world and they hate the Internet for busting that power.

The music industry has already taken a HUGE bloodletting because of the Internet; the radio stations are going to be extinct soon... their monopoly has been broken wide open; and now, you'll see... the movie and cable TV industry is next… and they know it.

Comcast was smart. They wouldn't sell me a package that allowed a server. No matter what the cost. I tried… but it was for personal consumption only. You are not allowed to be a content provider because you would be competing with them for money... for eyeballs... for minds... for power.

This is very simple, logical, reasoning. People love to spout CONSPIRISY THEORY! But there is no conspiracy… it is plainly evident… nobody is hiding anything. This is simply an old, entrenched, monopoly-of-power trying to cope with a technology that is blowing them away faster than they can react.

With the Music Industry it was like deer-in-the-headlights. They thought they could control it... and now they are scrambling to pick up the pieces. The phone and cable companies are trying to learn from the music industry fall and are lobbying the FCC (and government) like MAD to be granted the power to force us under their totalitarian rule.

The reason Qwest was "on the other end" from cable is that they didn't have any competition. Now... the Internet is going to replace the phone system monopoly. You'll see... VoIP will replace it for a fraction of the cost... Do they want to loose their power?

Of course not! There is no conspiracy here. It is plainly evident that Qwest finally won the lobby battle and now they are free to "take control" in order to make up for the power that they are loosing... and are going to loose hard when VoIP takes over. This isn't even a "theory" per se' it is an observation of the obvious.

Enjoy the freedom to have your own personal webserver while you still can because, soon, if they win, you won't be allowed to. You'll have to blog in their "acceptable" world of corporate dominated control.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15181558 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:48:55 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15181216 anon :
Hi Mike. I see that you and I are in total agreement.

"Ummmmmm, hate to tell you this, but having a phone, internet, television, radio, etc... is NOT a right covered by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution of the United States. These services are commodities provided by a PRIVATE company, offered for LEASE, to the general puplic."

Why should you "hate to tell me this"? This is exactly correct and I love it that way. I'm a Free Market Capitalist. A Free Market Capitalist is a person who loves a society where people exchange goods for mutually agreed upon costs without the influence of coercion or fraud. Coercion is: to influence someone by means of force (violence, jail, fines, or TARIFFS). I'm sure you know what a tariff is. So I trust you'd also agree that this isn't a true Free Market situation.

"If Qwest wants to make dsl ONLY go as high as 256kb, you have no say so in the matter other than as a consumer taking your business elseware. Same goes with your entire town. A good business plan decided to put DSL in your neighborhood. It's not there because it HAS TO BE. If they decided to NOT put DSL into a town or neighborhood, that's too bad."

You are absolutely correct. A perfect example of Free Market Capitalism! But that doesn't mean that they have America in their best interests. "If they decided to NOT put DSL into a town or neighborhood, that's too bad." Yes, too bad for America in that we will be less able to compete in the world market.

A world where Korea enjoys over 2.5 Gbps, Japan over 10 Gbps, and China over 310 Mbps. Only a greedy fool would want to cap our bandwidth and limit our ability to consume information and that is EXACTLY the greedy, entrenched, monopolistic control of our communications system that has capped us at 3Mbps.

Don't expect me to just-be-happy-I-have-my 2.8Mbps as I watch America's ability to compete drop every year. Sometimes people (including corporations) have an obligation, a responsibility, a duty to their country... even in a Free Market Capitalist society. Otherwise they are just greedy treasonous rats.

"The PSC, FCC, and other agencies can try and strong arm Qwest to deploy dsl and other services, but outside of the politics itself, they have no say either. That's like telling Ford that they have to build a particular car. Give them enough money and they'll do anything. Without that, they'll tell you to piss off."

Go look up the word tariff in a dictionary. Aside from that we, again, agree totally. I hate some Commie, Socialist government, or special interest group telling me how to run my business... they can piss off! In a Free Market Capitalist Society the people (or corporations) have to decide for themselves where their loyalties are. "That's like telling Ford that they have to build a particular car. Give them enough money and they'll do anything." Sounds like a dirty skank hore. I trust you have higher loyalties than "anything for enough money". Maybe that's why the automotive industry in America is hemorrhaging.

"People forget that Qwest OWNS THEIR DSL. As such, they are allowed to make any rules they want concerning the use of it. A lot of what Qwest can and can't do may seem extreme because if you are in the business of making money, there are some things you probably wouldn't do. The point is, it's Qwest's property and they can do whatever they want. You have the choice to pay for it or find someone else. There are always alternatives to any one provider. You can go to cable, other dsl ISP's, satellite, wireless, etc... It's your choice."

I thank my lucky stars every day that we still have a choice. But there are NOT "always alternatives to any one provider"! If Qwest had it their way there would be no choice... only Qwest. There was, at one time, a monopoly here... there were NO alternatives then.

"As far as your theory that it's just a way to squelch our freedom of speech and such; I thought Mel Gibson was great in that movie; Conspiracy Theory."

Yes, it is a theory, and the theory is: With Qwest's new policies American's will have less opportunity for Freedom of Information and Speech. There is no conspiracy. It is simply a matter of rational deduction.

Corporations spend billions of dollars each year on managing people's perceptions and understandings of the world. There is no "hidden" conspiracy it is simply a Matter-of-Fact. With the new policies, Qwest will have ever more power to control people's perceptions and understandings of the world. Simple, straight-forward, rational logic.

"Qwest is NOT trying to infringe on your freedom of speech or any other freedom. They like just about any other company only care about 1 thing. How much money they can make from you. They don't care about anything else."

That statement is an oxymoron. But still, you and I agree on just about every point. This one included. I agree with your statement that, "They like just about any other company only care about 1 thing. How much money they can make from you. They don't care about anything else." This is exactly my point.

They will even go so far as infringe on your freedom to do so. Yes, they don't care about anything else... not even your freedom of speech [an American Value that has helped us survive and has made us great]. Yes, they will stomp your freedom of speech if that means they can make for money from you.

When it comes to the welfare of America greed must be put lower than duty to your country. Because if a person or corporation weakens America for its own selfish greed then that, by definition, is treason. [especially in a time of war] And I trust you know what the punishment for treason is... I trust you don't support selfish greed over your country in a time of war... Free Market Capitalist or not!

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15181216 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:01:40 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15180801 christcorp : I think it's safe to say that we all agree that as a big company Qwest wants your money. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep you as a customer and sending them money each month. Until your use of the product hinders their ability to make more profit; i.e. people complaining about slow connections; and threaten themselves to quit, Qwest will probably let things keep going as is.

What seems to be the problem is, some people have been bogging down the bandwidth. I know some say that they are paying for 1.5/1 ALL THE TIME AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT THAT WAY 24/7. True, but come back and argue that point AFTER you have learned how DSL technology actually works. Thos who have been running max bandwidth all the time, are impeding Qwest's ability to provide consistant service to others. Until now however, the agreement was written so vaguely that if they did try and slow someone down, they didn't have a leg to stand on.

I know people will argue that they are entitled to the FULL 1.5/1 connection ALL THE TIME. Sorry, but you're not. That is called buying a T-1. Qwest ALWAYS SAYS UP TO...... They have the right to slow you down if they want to. My VOIP company advertises UNLIMITED LOCAL AND LONG DISTANCE MINUTES FOR $19.99 a month. Trust me, if you go over 3000 minutes, they will be moving you to their business plan.

The point is, Qwest IS NOT GOING TO SHUT YOU DOWN to be spiteful or because of some CONSPIRACY.... They want their money, and they can't get that if you are NOT a customer. This ruling is so they have a leg to stand on when the person abusing the bandwidth won't budge. I still contend that they will probably have a new business agreement structured for those who truly are operating a business with their DSL and need servers, static IP's, etc.... later... Mike...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15180801 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:03:09 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15180232 Turbocpe : dynodb

, I respect your advise/opinion/feedback here on the Qwest forum, so don't mistake my comments as bad towards you.

The thing is, Qwest doesn't give "if, ands or buts" about the server topic. So basically, anytime Qwest could have the ability and reason to terminate your service if you do use a server, based on their service agreement. Even if it is low traffic. Yes, you should use a real webhost, but some people (especially the type that visit this site) like to tinker around and have such ability.

My cable company does not block ports, but I believe they are in the minority on that one. However, if my cable company does find a server, they can (and have) terminated the service on the spot. Their service agreement states no servers either.

Again, I don't, and have not, run a server so none of this really affects me. But their agreement is a disappointment because they do state no servers and one of the good sides to DSL is their general acceptance to such while cable has been on the opposite end.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15180232 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:47:00 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15180194 christcorp : Ummmmmm, hate to tell you this, but having a phone, internet, television, radio, etc... is NOT a right covered by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution of the United States. These services are commodities provided by a PRIVATE company, offered for LEASE, to the general puplic.

If Qwest wants to make dsl ONLY go as high as 256kb, you have no say so in the matter other than as a consumer taking your business elseware. Same goes with your entire town. A good business plan decided to put DSL in your neighborhood. It's not there because it HAS TO BE. If they decided to NOT put DSL into a town or neighborhood, that's too bad. The PSC, FCC, and other agencies can try and strong arm Qwest to deploy dsl and other services, but outside of the politics itself, they have no say either. That's like telling Ford that they have to build a particular car. Give them enough money and they'll do anything. Without that, they'll tell you to piss off.

People forget that Qwest OWNS THEIR DSL. As such, they are allowed to make any rules they want concerning the use of it. A lot of what Qwest can and can't do may seem extreme because if you are in the business of making money, there are some things you probably wouldn't do. The point is, it's Qwest's property and they can do whatever they want. You have the choice to pay for it or find someone else. There are always alternatives to any one provider. You can go to cable, other dsl ISP's, satellite, wireless, etc... It's your choice.

As far as your theory that it's just a way to squelch our freedom of speech and such; I thought Mel Gibson was great in that movie; Conspiracy Theory. If you really believe that to be the truth, then there is definately no reason to try and convince you of Qwest's legal reasons for having service agreements with customers. You won't try and understand it anyway.

Qwest is NOT trying to infringe on your freedom of speech or any other freedom. They like just about any other company only care about 1 thing. How much money they can make from you. They don't care about anything else. Later... Mike...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15180194 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:41:33 EDT Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15179996 anon : Ok pollyanna... running a server that is maxing out your bandwidth??? We are paying for that bandwidth! Their sales people don't say 1.5 down but you can't use the whole 1.5 more than 80% of the time... Look at what you just said man! Ridicules!

The no-servers policy isn't about bandwidth. They have plenty of bandwidth; there is dark-pipe all over the place to demonstrate that.