AT&T's Subscriber Agreement

Tue Aug 14 12:43:40 EDT 2001

Here's my $.02 on this:

There are currently two Subscriber agreements in place for AT&T
customers.  One for those who were @home customers or those who have
made the transition to AT&T at HOME and one for MediaOne Roadrunner Legacy
customers.

A while back, AT&T had said they were going to transition everyone over
to the @HOME service agreement (which allows no servers) - they have
since slowed that transition as the general consensus is that folks in
the Northeast would just about stage a full-blown revolt.  

As to agreeing to the new service agreements, you don't have to agree.
AT&T reserves the right to change the AUP at any time with proper notice
(they consider their web site to be proper notice BTW).  

--Thorin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-discuss at Blu.Org [mailto:owner-discuss at Blu.Org] On Behalf Of
David Kramer
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 01:26
To: Derek Martin
Cc: BLU Users' Group
Subject: Re: AT&T's Subscriber Agreement

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Derek Martin wrote:

> I wish I were a lawyer, or at least were good friends with one.  Not
> that it matters...  I hate big business.  All of them.
>
> I've just reviewed AT&T/@Home's agreement, and while in some ways it's
> better than the original one I signed with MediaOne (THERE IS NO
> ANTI-SERVER CLAUSE), there are quite a few things I really hate about

<SNIP>

> And what do you mean they're filtering port 80?  What do you mean they
> said you can't run a web server?  It says you can right in their
> agreement:
>
>   (b) FTP/HTTP Service Setup. Customer should be aware that when using
>   the Service to access the Internet or any other online network or
>   service, there are certain applications, such as FTP (File Transfer
>   Protocol) server or HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) server,
which
>   may be used to allow other Service users and Internet users to gain
>   access to Customer's computer. If Customer chooses to run such
>   applications, Customer should take the appropriate security
>   measures. Neither AT&T nor @Home Network shall have any liability
>   whatsoever for any claims, losses, actions, damages, suits or
>   proceedings resulting from, arising out of or otherwise relating to
>   the use of such applications by Customer, including without
>   limitation, damages resulting from others accessing Customer's
>   computer.
>
> "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."

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.

So the few people who managed to get DSL are probably having a good
chortle over all of this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
DDDD   David Kramer                           http://thekramers.net
DK KD
DKK D  Imagine an alternate history where William S. Burroughs was
DK KD  actually interested in mainframe hardware design.
DDDD                                                     Bob Bruhin

-
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).