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

reply to adsldude

Re: Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement

Still not sure how this will affect Qwest.net customers. They show and advertise static IP addresses and setting up servers and such. When I log into Qwest.net it even has a whole section on how to do it. Maybe that will Change???? later... Mike....

I don't think the new SLA will affect Qwest.Net subscribers (ISP) hardly at all. I believe they are already doing about everything in the new agreement. It's just that they never wrote it down before.

As for limiting "servers", don't know where this quote came from, but it did not come form the new "Qwest High Speed Subscriber Service Agreement". See for yourself, check here...

»www.qwest.com/legal/highspeedint···5_-5.pdf

-Frank

Oh geeze, forget it. For some reason my Acrobat won't find "server" in the doc. But, I finallly found it. It is there.

Sorry guys....

-Frank

reply to woodward
Besides VOIP, what about web cams and such. Not so much the Instant Messenger type of web cams, but the type that have built in IP addresses used for security cams, surveilance, etc... "They maintain a streeming video "When Logged Into It".

I've seen a lot of Qwest business customers who use these in their businesses at night so they can monitor the shop at home for security. Even certain government agencies have used and are STILL using Qwest DSL for IP Cams to monitor suspicious places.

The point is, either Qwest is doing all this to cover their butt in case someone truly does abuse the bandwidth, or they truly are going to crack down on servers and bandwidth, or they will come out with a separate policy for their business customers and it isn't out yet.

Qwest has to be careful of a lot of the wrongful servers using their bandwidth for music, video, Bittorent, etc... There are definately a lot of bandwidth hogs out there, some who break copyright and other laws also. This might just be their way of having something to fall back on when they shut someone down. Later... Mike...

reply to christcorp
I am hoping that Qwest will have seperate policy for business. Since we, as business customers, do pay higher fees for most services. If I can't run servers as a business customer then I guess I will retreat back to cable business class.

Maybe this is how Qwest is going to "force" people into paying more money for service. If you want the ability to run servers then you have to pay for a different tier of service.

Just thought you might
enjoy reading my letter to Scott Russell, Product Director at Qwest, about the
new High Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement. While Stalin would be proud of
their new Privacy Policy my letter here only addresses their Acceptable Use
Policy...
 
Jan 4, 2006

Scott
Russell
Product Director
Qwest Communications
1801 California
Street
Denver, Colorado 80202


Dear Scott Russell,

As one of
your long-time valued customers, I urge you to consider what affect your new
High Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement is going to have on
people who understand its implications and who are, now, beginning to question
your true intentions.

Most of your subscribers will never read the new
agreement; they will simply "agree" by default; assuming that Qwest has their
best interests at heart; but this is far from the truth.

Your
Acceptable Use Policy bears witness to this. It
reads:

All use of the Services will comply with the AUP,
posted as www.qwest.com/legal/.
Among other things, the AUP prohibits sending unsolicited e-mail messages,
including bulk commercial advertising or information announcements
(collectively, "Spam"), and Qwest will immediately terminate any account which
Qwest believes is transmitting or is otherwise connected with any Spam. You will
pay Qwest's actual damages in any way arising from, or related to, any Spam
transmitted by, or in any way connected to, you, to the extent such actual
damages can be reasonably calculated. If actual damages cannot be calculated
reasonably, you agree to pay Qwest liquidated damages of five U.S. dollars
($5.00) for each piece of Spam transmitted from or otherwise connected with your
account.

Source (page 5; item 9): www.qwest.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/High_Speed_Internet_Subscriber_Agreement__12_20_05_-5.pdf

This policy assumes guilt by association even when that association
is unknown by the subscriber.

I trust you are familiar with
Worms. A "Worm" is a virus that installs itself on the victim's computer without
that person's knowledge. The worm then propagates itself by means of unsolicited
e-mail (collectively, "SPAM"). A worm can send out 500,000 unsolicited e-mails
in mere minutes.

If I was the victim of such a worm, under your Policy, I
would have agreed to be liable for $2,500,000 in damages (at your sole
discretion). Worms that send out such high volume of Spam are
common.

Your policy clearly states, "…you agree to pay Qwest
liquidated damages of five U.S. dollars ($5.00) for each piece of Spam
transmitted from or otherwise connected with your
account."

Regardless of your personal interpretation, regardless of
my personal interpretation, your Policy, as it stands, would find me guilty of
disseminating Spam through my account; even if I had no knowledge of the
worms' existence.

I hate Spam. I hate Spam more than anyone I know. I
don't participate in its distribution; I don't condone it; I even build software
to combat it. Spam has cost me thousands of dollars per year. I hate spammers.
But I hate your Policy even more.

I hate your Policy
because you have given no thought to innocent association. And if you
have given it consideration you have, not only, omitted any statement
indemnifying an innocent victim, but you have made direct statements implying
guilt by association with phrases like, "terminate any account which
Qwest believes is transmitting or is otherwise connected with any
Spam."; "You will pay Qwest's actual damages in any way arising from,
or related to, any Spam transmitted by, or  in any way connected
to, you"; "Spam transmitted from or otherwise connected with
your account." This Policy is full of weasel wording that leave
innocent victims at the mercy of your lawyers and it is disgusting.

I
would agree with the Policy if you had put a statement indemnifying innocent
association but you have gone the opposite direction and are only able to get
away with it because very few people read agreements and fewer still are
technically competent to know better.

Many, many people have wireless
routers/gateways. I trust you are familiar with them. These allow wireless
connectivity through a Wireless Access Point out to your network. Most people
don't know how to secure their WAP so they are completely open to connections
from outside their residence.

Spammers, and other malicious hackers, are
driving around in vans (with laptops) sending Spam [and software that is even
more malicious than Spam] out through people's unsecured WAPs.

So,
according to your Policy, if Joe Hacker was to crack my WAP security and
disseminate Spam through my account I would be held libel because that was,
"Spam transmitted from or otherwise connected with your account." This
is unacceptable! It's just short of corporate crime-gang thuggery; and if you
were the only high-speed internet provider in town I'd be writing my
representatives.

No, I don't agree to your High Speed Internet
Subscriber Agreement Mr. Russell and I doubt that you would ever
consider adding an "Innocent Association Indemnification Clause". So I have
decided to move my accounts to Speakeasy.

I am very disappointed in Qwest
and will make sure that all my clientele, friends, and family know your Policies
as they are written (personal interpretation aside).

I look forward to
hearing your thoughts on this important matter.
 
Sincerely,
[Address
removed]
 
Feel free to send this
letter to Scott Russell if you wish. Also send this to your friends and family
(especially Qwest subscribers) to let them know about Qwests' new "Spirit of
Disservice".... (Spirit of Servicing their Pocket Books while Indemnifying
themselves to the point of no-responsibility what-so-ever... all-the-while
placing the, unjustifiably expansive, responsibility on the innocent
Citizen)
 
 
 

I don't think that "guilt by association" is the correct term for what you are trying to express, since the association in "guilt by association" refers to an association with a person not an activity.

You may want to just ask if you can have an exemption from liability if you are innocent of intending to send out spam. It would be interesting to get their reaction.

Speaking of reactions, has anyone asked Qwest for an official comment about any of this new agreement?
--
You are now free to paint your hair wild colors and run around naked. -dg2

reply to ANameThatHasntBeenTa
You people are taking this WAY too seriously. This strikes me as standard "CYA" legaleeze that gives them the ability to deal with the very, very small minority that might be spamming or running a high-bandwidth server that strains capacity. Can anyone name a broadband provider that doesn't have a similar subscriber agreement?

I sincerely doubt we'll see port blocking (as done by some cable providers) that would actually prevent the use of a server by Qwest.net. Besides, with web hosting so cheap now (and better secured), I don't see why anyone would want to host a server of any importance. If you run a server to host the occasional online game or some such thing, I wouldn't worry.

Bottom line: Unless you're running a P2P server that is maxing out your bandwith on a near constant basis, a spammer, or DDoS script kiddie, I doubt you'll see any actual change in your service whatsoever.

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.

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...

reply to dynodb
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.

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...

reply to christcorp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

reply to Turbocpe
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.

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....

reply to ANameThatHasntBeenTa

reply to christcorp

quote:

---

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

---