[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Further information on @Home exclusivity
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Further information on @Home exclusivity
- From: Heiko Recktenwald <UZS106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:58:17 +0100
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Sender: email@example.com
Ich finde, ihr betreibt zuviel Pippifax. Seht Euch mal an, was auf uns
zukommen kann, wenn, aber es sind auch andere Szenarios denkbar, etwa
Kabelmodems auf uns niederprasseln werden, die Superspd scheint ja in diese
Richtung zu denken:
The story pointed out by Soundundso includes the following:
> Scott Greczkowski is MIS director at a Connecticut law firm and the
> founder of the @Home user group in that state. He
> finds the restrictions on business use
> objectionable, especially one which specifically forbids the use of PPTP
> or other
> tunneling IP protocols which are often used by
> telecommuters to securely connect to private networks.
> "They're limiting what you can do on the
> Internet," he said.
> John Navas, an independent telecommunications
> analyst in California and a TCI@Home subscriber, said the new user
> agreement is just the latest effort by TCI to
> partition its @Home access service from its business-oriented and more
> expensive @Work service.
If @Home's IP transport service were held to be common carriage, they
wouldn't be allowed to disciriminate on the basis of the content of the
consumer's packets in this way.
Perhaps we will soon see them bar the subscriber's use of IPSEC because
it would prevent them from checking packets for banned content....
P.S. Don't forget you will receive 2,000 Manuals, Books, and
Reports (Some of which are up to 200 pages each)...all for
$149...You have full reprint and resale rights to make as much
money as you want without ever paying any royalties whatsoever!