Comments on: Qwest Gouges Innocent Users For Spam; Mediacom & AT&T Don’t. http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/ Spam, Security, Privacy, Spyware, Phishing & Viruses from the Front Lines. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:39:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Bill Morris http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-412 Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:14:42 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-412 Well I think I made the right choice - COX will be out tomorrow to install my High Speed and Telephone service. I've had good service from QWest here in Phoenix - but have disliked their policies in the past 15 years. I check in betwen 4 & 5 computers a day at work that are infected from their E-Mail and Music downloads - People are stupid and think the computer is like a TV - just turn it on and it's ok. Most of these people have a AV installed and a lot have firewall, a few have Spy Sweeper - but they have not updated them in six to 8 months, nor ran updates for Windows. Asked they say they are too busy - so where I work they get the chance to pay approximately $ 200.00 to clean their computer. I don't think even $ 1.00 per e-mail is ok - I do prefer that their ISP disconnect them until they can prove they can update and use the programs that will protect them from becoming a Zombie. If not they are band from any ISP! Well I think I made the right choice - COX will be out tomorrow to install my High Speed and Telephone service. I’ve had good service from QWest here in Phoenix - but have disliked their policies in the past 15 years. I check in betwen 4 & 5 computers a day at work that are infected from their E-Mail and Music downloads - People are stupid and think the computer is like a TV - just turn it on and it’s ok. Most of these people have a AV installed and a lot have firewall, a few have Spy Sweeper - but they have not updated them in six to 8 months, nor ran updates for Windows. Asked they say they are too busy - so where I work they get the chance to pay approximately $ 200.00 to clean their computer. I don’t think even $ 1.00 per e-mail is ok - I do prefer that their ISP disconnect them until they can prove they can update and use the programs that will protect them from becoming a Zombie. If not they are band from any ISP!

]]> by: Thurmond Moore III http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-411 Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:47:16 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-411 WOOOOHOOOOOO, Way to go Quest. Someone has to take action to see that users are responsible to protect their own equipment and everyones bandwidth. WOOOOHOOOOOO, Way to go Quest. Someone has to take action to see that users are responsible to protect their own equipment and everyones bandwidth.

]]> by: Bjorie Viyelltia http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-410 Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:52:35 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-410 $5.00? Big deal. Craig List has about $25.00 liquidate damage each one. Read TOS next time you post ad, yes? $5.00? Big deal. Craig List has about $25.00 liquidate damage each one. Read TOS next time you post ad, yes?

]]> by: AnonymousCovad http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-409 Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:14:45 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-409 Actually, they have already sent it back to the lawyers for revision. See the entry about 7 down the page at:<br> <br> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15076979~days=9999~start=80 Actually, they have already sent it back to the lawyers for revision. See the entry about 7 down the page at:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15076979~days=9999~start=80

]]> by: anonymous coward http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-408 Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:29:00 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-408 - This might be an acceptable thing if there are reasonable limits. For example, $5.00 per message up to $1000 in a month. Then three months at the maximum spam charge ($1000) per year then the account is closed. <br> - Both sides (for and against) have valid arguments. Thus willful ignorance, careless and neglect should be expensive, but not devastating. <br> - Unfortunately, I forsee this being a potential gold mine for the ISP's. Consequently, greed will win out. - This might be an acceptable thing if there are reasonable limits. For example, $5.00 per message up to $1000 in a month. Then three months at the maximum spam charge ($1000) per year then the account is closed.
- Both sides (for and against) have valid arguments. Thus willful ignorance, careless and neglect should be expensive, but not devastating.
- Unfortunately, I forsee this being a potential gold mine for the ISP’s. Consequently, greed will win out.

]]> by: AnonymousCovad http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-407 Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:34:54 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-407 You won't just have to switch providers, you have to switch methods. The agreement applies to you if you use qwest for the wire, whether or not you use qworst as your ISP. You won’t just have to switch providers, you have to switch methods. The agreement applies to you if you use qwest for the wire, whether or not you use qworst as your ISP.

]]> by: Rob http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-406 Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:21:59 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-406 You can cry that "innocent" users might get infected, but I would argue that these users are not innocent. They're morons and a large part of the problem. Windows users especially have been able to get away with being idiots about computers for years because there was no direct cost to *them*. Now there is. I say good, let them suffer like all the sysadmins out there that spend so much time (and money) having to clean up mail systems because some user with a cable modem is either too lazy or too stupid to bother even keeping a firewall and A/V running. Just on my little home network here, I drop over a thousand emails from zombied machines (thank you DUL RBL) a *day*. I personally don't appreciate the waste of my bandwidth, or the amount of time I have to spend keeping things updated to fix a problem caused by *other* people's laziness and/or stupidity and/or ignorance. In other words, broadband users (especially windows users) have been able to externalize the costs of poor computer security and administration for far too long, to the point that they now take this lack of accountability for granted.<br> <br> Further, you can bet that language has been vetted by a lawyer, so you might want to ask Qwest what the language means, exactly. If it does, in fact, mean that a user that gets joe jobbed could be charged a 100 grand, then that would fall under the contract law doctrine of unconscionable terms. The first time Qwest tried it and it went to court, a judge would throw it out, as no reasonable person would accept such terms. However, IANAL, so consult a contract lawyer to see if he agrees with that. You can cry that “innocent” users might get infected, but I would argue that these users are not innocent. They’re morons and a large part of the problem. Windows users especially have been able to get away with being idiots about computers for years because there was no direct cost to *them*. Now there is. I say good, let them suffer like all the sysadmins out there that spend so much time (and money) having to clean up mail systems because some user with a cable modem is either too lazy or too stupid to bother even keeping a firewall and A/V running. Just on my little home network here, I drop over a thousand emails from zombied machines (thank you DUL RBL) a *day*. I personally don’t appreciate the waste of my bandwidth, or the amount of time I have to spend keeping things updated to fix a problem caused by *other* people’s laziness and/or stupidity and/or ignorance. In other words, broadband users (especially windows users) have been able to externalize the costs of poor computer security and administration for far too long, to the point that they now take this lack of accountability for granted.

Further, you can bet that language has been vetted by a lawyer, so you might want to ask Qwest what the language means, exactly. If it does, in fact, mean that a user that gets joe jobbed could be charged a 100 grand, then that would fall under the contract law doctrine of unconscionable terms. The first time Qwest tried it and it went to court, a judge would throw it out, as no reasonable person would accept such terms. However, IANAL, so consult a contract lawyer to see if he agrees with that.

]]> by: BJ Gillette http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-405 Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:56:48 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-405 As one who has spent time with one of the world's top rootkit writers, I daresay if he wants to *own* your system or mine, we're going to have one heckuva time stopping him... or anyone like him. <br> <br> That's why a choice between a provider who disconnects me for a vulnerability in my system, and a provider who gets the title to my house, is no choice at all.<br> <br> Rightly or wrongly, today's web is driven by non-technical innocents: My mother-in-law, your neighbor and the like. You can help them keep their financial futures secure by insisting that they study any ISP contracts before signing.<br> <br> Contracts like this are obscene. As one who has spent time with one of the world’s top rootkit writers, I daresay if he wants to *own* your system or mine, we’re going to have one heckuva time stopping him… or anyone like him.

That’s why a choice between a provider who disconnects me for a vulnerability in my system, and a provider who gets the title to my house, is no choice at all.

Rightly or wrongly, today’s web is driven by non-technical innocents: My mother-in-law, your neighbor and the like. You can help them keep their financial futures secure by insisting that they study any ISP contracts before signing.

Contracts like this are obscene.

]]> by: d0nk3y http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-404 Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:02:13 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-404 Sorry, I should clarify my last comment by saying that I don't agree with the way Quest are handling that - it's not going to win them any friends really and is a bit 'Mean Spirited' actually.<br> <br> Still, I do think calling these people 'innocent' is pushing it a little far. There is *heaps* of information around these days on protecting your computer and keeping it up to date etc. Even Microsoft provide a lot of help on their website about this! Sorry, I should clarify my last comment by saying that I don’t agree with the way Quest are handling that - it’s not going to win them any friends really and is a bit ‘Mean Spirited’ actually.

Still, I do think calling these people ‘innocent’ is pushing it a little far. There is *heaps* of information around these days on protecting your computer and keeping it up to date etc. Even Microsoft provide a lot of help on their website about this!

]]> by: d0nk3y http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-403 Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:33:55 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/10/broadband_aacfiaifbg_fb/#comment-403 These people aren't innocent - they should be keeping their system updated and firewalled so this doesn't happen - or run an operating system that does it for them! These people aren’t innocent - they should be keeping their system updated and firewalled so this doesn’t happen - or run an operating system that does it for them!

]]>