When the US Federal Communications Commission released broadband providers to pursue their own interests, much of the business community cheered. Finally, we would see unbridled competition between telcos, cable and wireless providers.
Qwest, the company who’s motto is Spirit of Service, has provided the first hint of coming changes with its revised Acceptable Use Agreement. In essence, it says if your Internet connection is in any way connected with spam… and Qwest can’t figure out a better way to charge you… it’s going to cost you five bucks for each message:
Qwest will immediately terminate any account which Qwest believes is transmitting or is otherwise connected with any Spam. You will pay Qwest’s actual damages in any way arising from, or related to, any Spam transmitted by, or in any way connected to, you, to the extent such actual damages can be reasonably calculated. If actual damages cannot be calculated reasonably, you agree to pay Qwest liquidated damages of five U.S. dollars ($5.00) for each piece of Spam transmitted from or otherwise connected with your account.
And that goes for both residential and business Qwest customers. Shoot. You could end up losing your house or business over a lousy data line.
So… Let’s say your computer gets infiltrated by a Hacker, Intruder or Virus (HIV), which installs a backdoor that allows HIV to remotely control your computer at will. HIV adds you to a zombie army and quickly starts spewing spam through your system without your knowledge…
Or let’s say a spammer spoofs your account, inserting your name and email address in the From: line to fool recipients…
Or, perhaps one of your kids or business associates sends a wad of messages that Qwest determines are spam?
As each is in some way connected to you, you’re going to be paying a whole lot more than you bargained for… or sweating bullets while Qwest dangles your fanny over a fire.
We were unable to find another broadband provider with such nasty policies. For example, Mediacom reserves the right to collect those damages it can trap. And AT&T says it will simply cut you off.
The policy goes into effect for existing customers 16 November 2006. For new customers, or those who change their service, it’s effective 28 January 2006.
Will Qwest pull off this coup? In this new world of unbridled competition from all sides… probably not. In the meantime, we plan to help Qwest do the right thing by switching to another service before 16 November.
The rules have changed. What does your provider say in its Acceptable Use Policy?
Email Battles Backgrounder:
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 11th, 2006 at 6:14 am
Hugh Jardohn
I’m no fan of Qwest. They, in my opinion, are a horrible company. The derivitive of what was once a great system, they are a model for business failure and I hope they nail Naccio to the wall.
Having said that, this piece actually sounds like they’re on to something. “Shoot. You could end up losing your house or business…”. Sounds like a plan!!! I think these animals that spam know that even at that, they’re getting off easy. If the receivers of spam ever got their hands on them their house and business would be the least of their worries. Sounds like y’all need to get your systems in order.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Big Red
I was thinking of switching from cable modem to Qwest DSL. Not any more.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Millhouse
Hugh, you need to read the article a little more carefully, especially this sentence from Qwest:
“you agree to pay Qwest liquidated damages of five U.S. dollars ($5.00) for each piece of Spam transmitted from or otherwise connected with your account.”
Now zero in on those last few words: “or otherwise connected with your account.” That’s so wide open that just about anybody, not just spammers, could potentially be subject to punitive action against them by Qwest. Lots of innocent people, for example, have been infected by viruses that caused their computers to send out spam without them even knowing it. The Qwest policy could make those folks liable. They’re also the ones who could lose their homes and businesses, even though they had nothing to do, willingly or knowingly, with any spammer. While I share your antipathy toward spammers, this policy of Qwest’s is outrageous, not only for the seemingly unbridled malevolence toward their customers, but also for their sheer ignorance of the marketplace. With competition as tight as it is, do they really think this will cause people to want to do business with them?
January 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
d0nk3y
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!
January 11th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
d0nk3y
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!
January 11th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
BJ Gillette
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.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Rob
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.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
AnonymousCovad
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.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
anonymous coward
- 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.
January 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
AnonymousCovad
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
January 12th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Bjorie Viyelltia
$5.00? Big deal. Craig List has about $25.00 liquidate damage each one. Read TOS next time you post ad, yes?
January 13th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Thurmond Moore III
WOOOOHOOOOOO, Way to go Quest. Someone has to take action to see that users are responsible to protect their own equipment and everyones bandwidth.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Bill Morris
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!