waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:48:00AM -0700, Larry Marks wrote
ISPs are unregulated public utilities. They need to conduct themselves
that way if they want to stay that way. They don't need or deserve
special treatment such as what you propose.
I am *NOT* asking for special treatment for ISPs. They are *NOT*
public utilities. That's why I'm saying they shouldn't treated as such.
There are three points I would make in response:
1. Call them iron and steel makers or anything you want. What you are
proposing is protection from liability that no other industry gets. You
are asking that of all the kinds of businesses in the universe, ISPs and
only ISPs should receive an unprecedented level of protection from
liability. And you say that you are not asking for special treatment?
2. ISPs deserve no legislative protection until they have exhausted
non-legislative alternatives. The behavior of at least some ISPs makes a
major contribution to the problem of spam. ISPs could get together and
publicly identify the offenders, so that consumers could make an
informed decision as to what ISP to hire. Apparently, however, the ISPs
are unwilling to police themselves - caveat emptor, so I see no reason
why legislators should accomodate them at this time.
3. ISPs look like public utilities. They act like public utilities. They
feel like public utilities. All I said is that they are unregulated and
if they intend to stay that way, they had better start acting
responsibly. But regardless of whether they are public utilities or
something totally unique, I can assure you that any legislature that
wants to stay in office will not see it your way if the public is not
being well served.
If ISPs really want a solution to the problem of Spam, they should
stop being part of the problem. They should form a transparent trade
group and agree a code of conduct. A properly constructed code of
conduct would by itself result in substantial spam reduction as ISPs
wishing to retain customers will drop their seamy but profitable
side businesses.
Cough, splutter, yeah, just the DMA has a "code of conduct".
Lots of industries have and enforce codes of conduct effectively. What
you are telling me is that the ISPs are unwilling to do so.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, all those people on the "Millions CDs"
really *DID* want those ads.
Well, that's silly. I don't and I don't believe most people do. Anyway,
it isn't germain to the issue.
There is a very simple solution that would not require any conferences, or
standards, or legislation. The email marketers could set up their own
"legitimate commercial
email delivery" ISP, which they would control end-to-end, and willing
"newsletter subscribers" could join that ISP.<...>
You can duck but you can't hide. The ISPs originate a large percentage
of the spam and you can't shift the responsibility for that to the
marketers. If the ISPs didn't sell, then the marketers couldn't market.
It's that simple.
I am not a voice for the marketers or against the ISPs. I represent
consumers - non-technical business consumers. They deserve straight
answers and competently engineered products. I don't think that's too
much to ask.
-LM
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg