On 3/12/2019 9:02 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > >> On 12 Mar 2019, at 15:49, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: >> >> the case of a commercial >> Internet access provider is clear in the other direction: a client is >> not an employee, and is entitled to a free, open and neutral Internet >> access. > Stephane, that’s simply not true. A client of an Internet access provider is > entitled to the service that they contractually agreed to pay for. Check the > small print. Or the T&Cs the next time you use some coffeeshop’s wifi. Even > if your ISP offers you “free, open and neutral Internet access” (for some > definition of that phrase), I’m pretty sure they’ll drop your service if you > were damaging their network or or doing something else that was illegal or > otherwise in breach of their T&Cs.
Jim, you are just providing a different interpretation of "entitled". Your reading is that the fine print in the ISP contract limits what users are entitled to do. Stephane is pointing out that customers expect to be able to freely access whatever Internet resource they want, regardless of the fine print. Courts have been called to decide that sort of things, in particular for various "shrink wrap" software licenses. The results vary. Sometimes the courts let the fine print stand, some times they treat it as an abuse of power and nullify it. Which points exactly to Stephane's characterization: it is a tussle. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
