| reply to TBusiness
Re: Horrible thought: And how sure are you that your view of this practice's legality will hold up in court? This isn't something that's been run through the courts and settled, so are you ready to fight that battle, with all the associated costs? Oh, and don't forget that, if you piss off the Web sites enough, they have one ace in the hole that you can't fight: they can simply deny all traffic from your network, or they can redirect your customers to a page telling them that they cannot access the site because you are altering its content, then directing those customers to call your support line to resolve the problem. What's your plan to deal with that? If you want to argue that it's your network, so you can handle the incoming data as you see fit, then the Web sites are going to say fine, they just won't send any data to your network. Try explaining your legal argument to your customers as they call in to cancel service. |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 | Well said. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to ISurfTooMuch
I think it would get smacked down hard in court for altering a users experience beyond that what the website owner promised.
A good example would be if I run a website and offer a subscription for a nominal fee to experience the site without any advertising and this cable company starts poking ads in, My customers will come after me not their carrier because they will not know any better.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
|
|
| reply to ISurfTooMuch
Private network, and who are they going to run to? Hughes 'net if thats the only other service available? |
|
| Satellite is slow, yes, but it'd be better than a faster connection where popular sites simply aren't available because the site owners deny all traffic. You don't want to get into a pissing match with Google. Let them block access to all their services and see how that works out with your customers. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to ISurfTooMuch
There is reverse precedent for a site blocking access. When Dish, DirecTV or any number of cable companies dispute content provider charges, the public has already experienced numerous and repeated blackouts. Certainly a "free" site can legally refuse traffic from anyone it chooses. Even a pay web site can refuse access if it does not allow subscribers to renew their subscription or refunds subscription fees. Web sites have no legal requirement to guarantee access to everyone who wants to access them. |
|
