1 edit | reply to swhitney2003
Re: I like this said by swhitney2003:Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on. A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
| If they get 3 letters and ignore them all, that is there prerogative. When there connection is cut off due to the fact they ignored the letters, then they will react. I have nothing against the walled garden, just a speculation. It is in COX's best interest to do so to keep customers rather than booting them all I suppose. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by swhitney2003:Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on. A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act. Then write it into law. I don't want pseudo-laws being established between corporations based on what they want/don't want.
Or would you prefer to be regulated by a corporation in which you have no representation? |
|
| said by thevorpal:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by swhitney2003:Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on. A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act. Then write it into law. I don't want pseudo-laws being established between corporations based on what they want/don't want. Or would you prefer to be regulated by a corporation in which you have no representation? Then don't do business with them.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
| said by fAcEtIOUs:Then don't do business with them. Except that these companies enjoy the benefit of limited monopolies via the agreements they have put together with the various local governments.
If they had no franchise agreements, or were not protected from competition I would agree with you. However by accepting that protection they have also assumed the responsibility of providing the service to the community.
Because they have limited the rights of the users to seek out a competing service (another cable company), they have assumed implied responsibilities even if those were not codified explicitly into the agreement. |
|
|
|
| said by thevorpal:said by fAcEtIOUs:Then don't do business with them. Except that these companies enjoy the benefit of limited monopolies via the agreements they have put together with the various local governments.
If they had no franchise agreements, or were not protected from competition I would agree with you. However by accepting that protection they have also assumed the responsibility of providing the service to the community. Because they have limited the rights of the users to seek out a competing service (another cable company), they have assumed implied responsibilities even if those were not codified explicitly into the agreement. Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
| " Cox was among the first ISPs to use malware walled gardens to cordon infected users off from the Internet at large until they've cleaned their PC." .....is a scary premise. Who provides the list of malware?...and why wasn't AOL on that list?...and why didn't they protect users from downloading malware in the first place?
This is bad precedent!
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition. I will accept that for new builds. But you still run into the problem that since no one is ever dealing with a clean slate (Brand new commmunity, no infrastructure currently built) Due to the protections that existed, buildouts have been stopped. Even though the protections have been repealed, the effects remain.
However, I'll ignore that and cut directly to the issue.
I'll even assume that there are two identical internet providers in the area. Company A, and Company B. If Company A, and Company B both decide to implement a policy that would remove a person's ability to communicate on the internet for any reason that is not mandated by law, then it is in effect a direct infringement on the person's freedom of expression.
Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.
The basis by which policy must be evaluated is not 'what is this policy intended to do', but 'what would this policy do if abused'. |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
1 edit | it is not a freedom of expression to steal. If you steal you should be punished. COX is doing that by kicking them off their network which they have every right not to do business with anyone just like you have the right not to do business with them.
And as always; if you don't like the way these companies do business you are free to call DSLExtreme's parent company and pay them $200 and become a DSL Reseller nationwide and you can compete and not have these polices but i'll give you 3 months if that long and you'd be putting those same policies into affect on your own network; especially if the RIAA or the MPAA come knocking on your door. |
|
| said by hottboiinnc:it is not a freedom of expression to steal. If you steal you should be punished. COX is doing that by kicking them off their network which they have every right not to do business with anyone just like you have the right not to do business with them. And as always; if you don't like the way these companies do business you are free to call DSLExtreme's parent company and pay them $200 and become a DSL Reseller nationwide and you can compete and not have these polices but i'll give you 3 months if that long and you'd be putting those same policies into affect on your own network; especially if the RIAA or the MPAA come knocking on your door. I do run my own network, and I do not enforce such policies. I pass on DMCA notices as required by law, if I try to do more, then I tread into areas which may violate my status as a common carrier.
Should people who violate copyrights be punished? Yes.
Is COX an investigative body? No
Is COX a police force? No
Is COX the entity initiating the DMCA takedown request? No
Is COX altering their use policy to apply non legislated punishments and expanding the scope of copyright law?
Yes. |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to thevorpal
said by thevorpal:Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community. Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to thevorpal
said by thevorpal:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by swhitney2003:Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on. A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act. Then write it into law. I don't want pseudo-laws being established between corporations based on what they want/don't want. Or would you prefer to be regulated by a corporation in which you have no representation? If my computer is spewing spam and virii, then disconnecting it is completely expected. This practice goes back decades and its the right thing to do.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
| said by funchords:If my computer is spewing spam and virii, then disconnecting it is completely expected. This practice goes back decades and its the right thing to do. That is an issue which is distinct from an issue where a company decides to assign additional penalties under the guise of legal requirements. |
|
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:said by thevorpal:Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community. Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules. It is a perfectly valid example because it is a description of the actual situation. You lose the context when you try to come up with automobile analogies.
And to top it off, your analogy explicitly fails.
There is certainly no law against being rowdy There most certainly are such laws. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct
Which is my point. If such a thing is necessary, then it must be written into law if attempts are being made to enforce it as a law.
Because when you encode it into law, the people are protected by virtue of having representation to enact and repeal that law, as well as oversight and checks/balances.
If it is the right thing to do, then there is no reason why it shouldn't BE a law. But if it is not a law, then it should not be enforced as such. |
|
willp1Premium
join:2003-12-19
Las Cruces, NM | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Next we have machine gun on each corner every one want to be the police. Another four years of another want to be Bush and this country will be police state. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to thevorpal
Good luck with your business, as long as it lasts. If you don't get eaten up by the xxAA, or the burden of legal fees, I don't know what will.
Not sure what kind of "network" you run, but I can guarantee you that you're not above being responsible for illegal practices taking place on your network and that when pointed out to you and you do nothing.. well.. that's your right to take that risk.
And, unless you are THE top of the food chain on this "network" you run, you still have to answer to the ones up the ladder from you.
-good luck! |
|
| The legal fees are minimal, and were limited to guidance and a policy by which I will comply with local and federal laws. I comply with court orders, and the associated legal reporting requirements.
You seem to think that I'm encouraging any sort of illegal behavior. I am not. What I do is comply with the laws as written, and I act as a transparant middle man.
As for quoting 'network', though it isn't large, it is profitable enough to cover the costs for my post-graduate studies, which, unfortunately, are not inexpensive. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to thevorpal
said by thevorpal:said by wifi4milez:said by thevorpal:Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community. Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules. It is a perfectly valid example because it is a description of the actual situation. You lose the context when you try to come up with automobile analogies. And to top it off, your analogy explicitly fails. There is certainly no law against being rowdy There most certainly are such laws. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct Another bad example on your behalf. You can/will get kicked off a bus/train for non-arrestable offences. For instance, in many cities eating and drinking on a bus will get you kicked off. That is certainly not disorderly conduct, and you will not be charged with anything; just asked to leave. The same applies to rowdy behavior. If what you are doing on the bus/train is interfering with the other passengers (playing music or talking loudly), you will be asked to leave. Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence. Lets hope we are done here, as you arent going to win this one.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
| reply to thevorpal
if you weren't encouraging illegal behavior you would be doing the same thing as COX. you'd be shutting these people off. Instead you keep giving them service and allow them to do it. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition. Even if Franchises are no longer exclusive, there is the problem that the cost of wiring an area that already has coverage makes the attempt not cost effective. The old company has the benefit of their having wired the area when they were exclusive and thus has a major advantage. The only possible solution is to make the "Last Mile" a separate company who sells access to ANY Cable Company who wants to service the area. |
|
