> On Nov 20, 2019, at 12:44 , Brandon Martin <lists.na...@monmotha.net> wrote:
>
> On 11/20/19 3:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> As an ISP, there might be something there, but, you’d have to prove that you
>> had a significant number of customers that left for that specific reason and
>> you’d have to show the actual damages that resulted. Easy to estimate, very
>> hard to prove.
>
> Not only hard to prove, but the armchair lawyer in my has an inkling that
> you'd have to show that they did it intentionally or went beyond being dumb
> or knowledgeable about it and were somehow negligent. The former seems even
> more difficult than proving actual damages, and the latter seems like it may
> not even apply or be possible.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but being dumb about it _IS_ negligent, isn’t it?
> What irks me most about these situations as an operator, and indeed something
> that may push back on my previous statement of intent or negligence not being
> possible/applicable, is that the services often make their geofencing/IP
> classification system failures out as being the fault of the user's
> telecommunications service provider when, in fact, the user's service
> provider often has absolutely no direct control over what happens and, even
> where they do have some form of direct control such as through a documented
> operations-appeals channel, are still at the mercy of the service doing the
> fencing/classification to correct the error. At minimum, this could damage
> customer good will toward their service provider.
Yep… Hence what I proposed as regulation to help curtail this BS.
> (And kudos where it's due to the providers who do NOT make such issues appear
> to be the fault of the user's telecommunications service provider and instead
> provide a real, useful means for the user to directly contact the content
> provider to resolve the issue)
Who are they? I want to shift my services to them if I can. (So far, I haven’t
found any)
Owen
