AT&T's Subscriber Agreement

[grg22 at ai.mit.edu (Greg)]

David Kramer wrote:
> > "If Customer chooses to run such applications, Customer should take
> > the appropriate security measures."  Now that I agree with!  Except I
> > can't, because they're filtering port 80.  So despite the fact that
> > they've said I *CAN* run a web server, they're not letting me.  What's
> > their excuse?  You can read it for yourself here:
> 
> It certainly seems contradictary.  In one part, they say "don't run
> servers."  In another part they say "if you're going to run servers, be
> careful."

IANAL, but I understand this approach is standard in law: cover all
possible bases.  Apparently this dates back centuries, to some classic
case where a defense went something like, "I didn't steal the pig.
And even if I did, he gave it to me.  And even if he didn't, it was
mine to begin with.  And even if it weren't, the pig was sick and
about to die."  If you can't prove that every one of those statements
is false, then he's not guilty.

Although they might be covering their bases, if a contract says
anywhere "you can't run servers" then you can't run servers, even if
they have 100 pages on what (not) to do if you run a server.



> What I'm curious about is the legality of the agreement as a whole, in
> that I never actually agreed to it.  I has MediaOne, which turned into
> RoadRunner, which turned into AT&T.  But I never agreed to tat contract.
> I assume there's an implied agreement since I am using the service,  but
> it would be interesting to hear an informed opinion.

Again IANAL and don't claim to be an informed opinion.  What's
happened to me several times is that the new company tries to say
"here's your new contract."  After I complain they'll either honor the
old terms for the duration of the old contract (but when I renew I'm
on the new terms), or if they're allowed by the old contract to change
the terms, they tell me that the terms are changing and give me a
chance to cancel my service (usually fee-free) if I want before that
happens.




Derek Martin wrote:
> I don't know about you, but I don't agree to this.  Except that if I
> want Internet service, I really don't have a choice, because a similar
> clause is in pretty much everyone's ToS agreement.  So screw the
> consumer.  Screw choice.  What we want doesn't matter.

Actually, in addition to the choice you have not to get any service(*),
you have several choices.  I don't think the normal T1 service
contract has such lack-of-privacy terms, nor does it have the
prohibition against servers; you could get your own T1, or some other
leased line (e.g. 56K).  Colo facilities typically also have neither,
so you could put the servers you want to run inside a colo.  There
might be a solution with microwave networking also; I don't know the
terms such service usually comes with.


(*) Someone said something to the effect of "and you were worried
about the government" complaining about the lack of choice between
large companies' products -- the ability to 'opt out' is one key
difference between AT&T and the government.  Here you have the choice
not to have internet access, and to seek other solutions.  If you
choose to not pay taxes (because you don't want to participate in
social security, or police protection, or the military, or welfare, or
DARPA research), you go to jail.  To me, this is a very different ball
game.


--grg
-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).