I've been talking with a number of different people about the upcoming showdown over network neutrality in a post Brand X world. Recently, Brett Glass (from Lariat.org [1]) sent along his thoughts on the new Qwest Communications user agreement. Quest's acceptible use policy is of particular concern because, as Brett sums up:

Qwest did send its letter announcing its new AUP to DSL customers who received service from third party ISPs via Qwest's DSL system. So, the "agreement" was clearly meant to apply to those customers and restrict what they did with their DSL -- even though Qwest was not the ISP. This seems to go hand in hand with Qwest's "petition for forebearance" to the FCC, in which it asked for explicit permission to deny third party ISPs access to its DSL system. Its petition, like others from Verizon and SBC, was granted. So, Qwest may be preparing to say, "Offer service on our terms or not at all."

The agreement is available online [2] and attached (in case it gets pulled).

Brett provides a good synopsis of the agreement's shortcomings:

Read more... [3]

[Qwest] prohibits, among other things, the use of a DSL line by a business to provide a wireless hotspot for its customers. It also prohibits all users from setting up any sort of server at all -- even if they've ordered static IP addresses for the express purpose of setting up, for example, a VPN server to let them into their own networks from the Internet. (See Section 7(a) of the "agreement.")

Tellingly, these restrictions apply EVEN IF QWEST IS NOT THE PROVIDER OF THE INTERNET BANDWIDTH OR SERVICE FOR THE DSL LINE.

Yes, that's right: even if Qwest is merely providing the line, and your Internet service is coming from a third party ISP which wants to sell you bandwidth for the purpose of running a server or a hotspot, you can't.

The "agreement" also states that the user agrees to be liable for $5.00 for each spam message sent from his or her machine... EVEN IF HIS OR HER MACHINE WAS TAKEN OVER BY A WORM OR SPYWARE, which is all too common in these days of massive security holes in consumer operating systems.

There are other onerous provisions as well.

This might be a good source of business for our small wireless ISP, which is always looking for clients who are disgruntled with Qwest. (We got a new customer this week: a business which saw the "agreement" and decided to use our wireless instead. That's how we found out.) But it's not cricket for an ILEC not only to impose such onerous terms unilaterally, but to impose them upon the customers of third party ISPs.

Time to speak up about this to the FCC? To Congress? To state regulatory commissions?