«

[_r.u.s.s.]

but france had this law for quite a while already

[CrybKeeper]

EDITED: Actually, The service provider is a field I have researched and wrote about.

Nearly all ISP's have a service and mission statement, which will include these lines; We are a public Service Provider. Our aim is to provide a secure connection to media content.
I have two phone calls stating: they are a convenience and a luxury service provider.
What this clearly means, is your ISP should pay for a secure service and protect the customer, which is included in the fee to said customer. i.e. We, the end-users, should never have to pay for anti-viral software, subscriptions to parental controls, or any other 3rd party protection, while being provided a secure public service by an ISP.

In a nutshell, ISP's claims, demand they pay for Norton, not you and I.

This translates to, The very same ISP, should be protecting all sides, including the copyright holder and if necessary, the ISP should also provide insurances.

Further translation: Higher bill from your ISP.

[Xhumed]

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

but france had this law for quite a while already

Probably "Sarkozy" just telling everyone that it was law before it was, Sarkozy = :lecher:

Originally Posted by CrybKeeper

Actually, The service provider is a field I have researched and wrote about.

Nearly all ISP's have a service and mission statement, which will include these lines; Our aim is to provide a secure connection to media content. We are a public Service Provider and considered a public utility.

What this clearly means, is your ISP should pay for a secure service and protect the customer, which is included in the fee to said customer. i.e. We, the end-users, should never have to pay for anti-viral software, subscriptions to parental controls, or any other 3rd party protection, while being provided a secure public utility by an ISP.

In a nutshell, ISP's claims, demand they pay for Norton, not you and I.

This translates to, The very same ISP, should be protecting all sides, including the copyright holder and if necessary, the ISP should also provide insurances.

Further translation: Higher bill from your ISP.

My ISP sent me about ten emails saying how wonderful they are for adding a spam filter to their email system but it's so crap hardly anyone uses it

[Fruit Pie Jones]

Originally Posted by CrybKeeper

Nearly all ISP's have a service and mission statement, which will include these lines; Our aim is to provide a secure connection to media content. We are a public Service Provider and considered a public utility.

Really? Can you provide a citation of an ISP policy document that states that they are in any way responsible for security? That seems like a one-way express ticket to Litigation Hell. My own ISP's policies clearly state "You are solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device." They then go into significant detail in explaining the various ways in which I am responsible for the security of anything I connect to their service. Any ISP claiming to provide a secure connection to the Internet had better have a very clear definition of "secure connection" in their policy documents - and the means to back up their claim - or they're asking for a big, steaming pile of trouble.

[CrybKeeper]

Originally Posted by Fruit Pie Jones

Really? Can you provide a citation of an ISP policy document that states that they are in any way responsible for security? That seems like a one-way express ticket to Litigation Hell. My own ISP's policies clearly state "You are solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device." They then go into significant detail in explaining the various ways in which I am responsible for the security of anything I connect to their service. Any ISP claiming to provide a secure connection to the Internet had better have a very clear definition of "secure connection" in their policy documents - and the means to back up their claim - or they're asking for a big, steaming pile of trouble.

Well, I did goof it somewhat. I went back and found an archived e-mail from then. I meant to say, ISP's claim they are NOT a public utility, but they do claim, they are a convenience and a household luxury service.

Yes, I actually had several e-mails from others who stood on my side with this. One e-mail from Spyware Review Magazine, boldly states I am absolutely correct.

Time Warner and Cox Cable, both stated in phone conversations, they are not considered a public utility, but are a luxury and convenience. This gives them the right to refuse services at their choosing. This also means, they MUST provide a convenient web service with a luxurious feel. Wouldn't this automatically imply a safe experience also?

Analogy:

If I book a hotel room and lock my door. However, the Hotel leaves their back entrance open, inviting thieves in, shouldn't I have the right to compensation and even better, preventative safety measures in place? Security guard, cameras? This is because, a Hotel is a convenience service provider and all ISP's, clearly define themselves as the same.

ISP's are the final wall between me and the bad guys. My primary cost for this convenience goes to the ISP.

[Hawkzombie]

Sheesh...makes me glad I`m in Canada...