On Nov 20, 2019, at 12:44 , Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@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