Earthlink troubles
Declan McCullagh of News.com writes in "Setting the rules for ISPs and spammers":
EarthLink, a leading Internet service provider (ISP), had concluded--incorrectly, it turns out--that Hall was a spammer. The company terminated Hall's e-mail account but chose not to bounce or forward his e-mail messages. It instead quietly stored them in a mail spool. Anyone sending Hall e-mail likely concluded that the message had gone through.
He goes on to talk about the new torts and special legal significance of the lawsuit Hall filed, and how that would not be appropriate - people should be aware of the contract provisions when they sign, and find an ISP they want to do business with.
McCullagh makes good arguments, as well as Hall in his lawsuit. Here's my take: I do not want to, nor will I ever, do business with Earthlink - because they billed me for service that I never ordered.
Do you really want an ISP that bills non-customers until they go to their state Attorney General, and withholds e-mail from the recipient and the sender?