 VikingStorm
join:2002-06-25
Omaha, NE
1 edit | Odd That has to be the oddest way to fight zombies I've seen. Unfortunately, I think most customers who do have their computers taken over, will just move their zombie machine to another service instead of actually clean and maintain their system.
[Not to mention that what, $500,000+ bill?] | |
|
 | 
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
 ·Charter Pipeline
| my terms of agreement Effective today, I now will be charging Qwest for every spam email that originates from their network, whether it be a result of a zombie pc, or a deliberate attack by an end user, hereafter called a "script kiddie".
I will also begin charging Qwest for any and all traffic that is passed through my domain, at the rate of $5 per Kilobyte of traffic or $1000 per Megabyte or whichever is greater, with the total being accumulated monthly.
I also require 24 hours notice of any cancellations, and failure to provide said notification will result in a surcharge of $125.
For more information, please contact my attorney, Mr. George Costanza.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.»www.ind-music.com | |
|
| | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: my terms of agreement said by King P  :For more information, please contact my attorney, Mr. George Costanza. My attorney is Jackie Chiles 
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: my terms of agreement said by n2jtx :said by King P :For more information, please contact my attorney, Mr. George Costanza. My attorney is Jackie Chiles My judge is Art Vandalay.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|
| | | | Cyberguru
join:2005-06-09
Phoenix, AZ | Re: my terms of agreement you mean from Vandalay industries? He's mine too... | |
|
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | How are they going to enforce this ? It isn't their network resources being used so why would spam matter to them or servers or WiFI ?
Would they not have to spy on CLEC and what is being transmitted and recieved ?
They should mind their own business.  | |
|
| 
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO | Re: How are they going to enforce this ? This does not affect CLECs, as CLECs provide their own line to the customer.
--
You are now free to paint your hair wild colors and run around naked. -dg2 | |
|
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: How are they going to enforce this ? said by AthlGrond :... as CLECs provide their own line to the customer. Sometimes they do, but often, particularly in a residential context, they don't--they just lease the loop from the ILEC (Qwest.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | |
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Re: How are they going to enforce this ? said by calvoiper :said by AthlGrond :... as CLECs provide their own line to the customer. Sometimes they do, but often, particularly in a residential context, they don't--they just lease the loop from the ILEC (Qwest.) If the CLEC is using Qwest's lines will they be using Qwest's ATM Equipment at the CO too? If yes, then Qwest has a legitimate involvement in saying how it's ATM equipment gets used.
If not, then why would the CLEC be using Qwest's AUP?
--
You are now free to paint your hair wild colors and run around naked. -dg2 | |
|
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: How are they going to enforce this ? I was answering in part based on earlier comments that these terms applied to any end user of voice Qwest services, not just those purchasing DSL from Qwest. Upon a quick scan of the underlying document, however, I don't see this restriction, and I'm unclear how this would apply to CLEC customers, unless a CLEC is just reselling the whole Qwest data service and incorporating the terms of Qwest's documents.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
anonpronman
@69.183.x.x | Two Words for Qwest Middle Finger! | |
|
|
| SanJoseNerd
Premium
join:2002-07-24
San Jose, CA
| Re: Too bad they won't actually enforce spam ban said by TKJunkMail :Way too many machines get infected and become zombies. And almost no ISPs do a thing about it. I doubt Qwest will be any different. Which is too bad. That is one TOS that I wish all ISPs would enforce. It would make a big difference in reducing the amount of SPAM. So let's see. You get hit by the WMF 0-day exploit, when there was nothing you could do to prevent it. It installs a spam-sender, which pumps out 100,000 spams. You get a bill for half a million dollars. That hardly seems fair.
And consider this. Legally, if Qwest is going to enforce this, they can't just sit back and let huge bills accumulate. When it becomes reasonably clear that an account is sending spam, Qwest has an obligation to cut off service or at least warn the customer. Now if Qwest did that, it would really make a difference. But of course they won't. | |
|
| | |
| | | 
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Re: Too bad they won't actually enforce spam ban Better than that sue them for product liability. :D:D | |
|
| | | | nshulga
join:2002-06-06
Morrisville, PA | Re: Too bad they won't actually enforce spam ban Or switch to Linux. | |
|
| | | | |
asdfqwre
@ltrkar.sbcglobal | Re: Too bad they won't actually enforce spam ban Linux has the same vulnerabilities as MS. Just not as many people use Linux so not as many people trying to exploit the massive amount of users MS has. Most people know that current Linux likely know more than the average user of a MS product. | |
|
dddddd
@148.177.x.x
| it must be fun to work at the cable company these days. nothing is better than watching your competitors shoot themselves in the feet so consistently. between the phone companies wanting to charge content providers and now this. I suppose the cable companies are probably taking this time to train their new customer sign up reps which they have started hiring in record numbers. | |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Quest i have one word for you... CABLE
Third party could just start selling cable, and say they dont have access to qwest lines anymore. | |
|
Derch
Premium
join:2004-10-16
Tulsa, OK | Era Are we entering an era when ISP's will make stupid if not impossible demands on other companies? I thought Bellsouth was horrible when they said they wanted to charge Google.
Now it's going to be almost impossible to resell Quest lines. | |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | Great spam policy I wish all ISPs would do that. Although I think the flaw is, that when they see that a computer is sending spam out, they better pull the plug on it rather than let it rack up a bill larger than our nation debt. | |
|
kalphearion
In nomine Patri
Premium
join:2003-11-08
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| I was going to switch to Qwest Because my comcast cable is on the fritz, but after reading that, I am going to stick with comcast, and push them to fix my connection.
Maybe qwest should spend more money on hooking up with M$ and fixing Windows. But if that happened, the world would come to an end.
It is far from fair to charge a consumer, one who is on a 3rd party network, for spam. If the infected machine is pumping out so much spam, the 3rd party provider should cut the connection and inform the user.
Qwest needs to stay the F* out. | |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| $5 for each SPAM?!?! that sucks! This is nuts. $5 for each spam is ridiculuous, especially if someone was hijacked be it known or unknown. Who is to decide what is SPAM and what is not. Good luck enforcing this. Pushing rules on all customer of Qwest lines even the line is being resold? Why it nots Qwest bandwidth, its whoever the reseller is, right? Covad, Earthlink, Speakeasy. Crazy. Qwest get your head out of your butt! | |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| How can they? I'm not signing any kind of contract with Qwest if I use a 3rd party DSL service. I do sign an agreement with the 3rd party provider, but unless they include some kind of parallel language in their T&C, they can't hold me liable if QWEST comes knocking on their door for my violations. | |
|
| 
insomniac
Oh Yeah
Premium
join:2002-09-22
Naperville, IL
clubs: | Re: How can they? That's exactly right. If I don't have DSL from Qwest, I'm not subject to their TOS. Period.
--
If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something. | |
|
|
anonpronman
@69.183.x.x | Qwest bills your isp. Then your isp turns around and bills you. | |
|
| |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: How can they? said by anonpronman :
Qwest bills your isp. Then your isp turns around and bills you.
They can't bill me if it's not in my terms & conditions. That's why I'm saying, the third party may be liable to Qwest, but I'm not liable until language is inserted into the T&C. | |
|
| | 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
1 edit | said by anonpronman :
Qwest bills your isp. Then your isp turns around and bills you. (AIUI), unlike with the other three Baby Bells, this is actually *not* the case in Qwest territory -- you pay both Qwest and the ISP directly. There are some small independent phone companies that work in a similar manner.
If BellSouth pulls anything like this to try to kill off Speed Factory and other independent ISPs, off to Comcast (business class) I go...
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
|
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by anonpronman :
Qwest bills your isp. Then your isp turns around and bills you. This is true, but you aren't using Qwest's IP network or mail/DNS servers... You are only riding their ATM network.
An end user who sends spam isn't really doing anything that will affect Qwest since the IP of the sending host is going to be that of the ISP the user is connected to.
--
Rand's Objectivism... Everything BUT objective. | |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| There goes your incentive to choose The main draw of people to third party providers is to get away from ILEC providers and their nonsense rules and regulations. Even though the price is usually a tad higher with 3rd party providers, people are willing to pay due to having local(and/or US) tech support and ability to use your service as you see fit.
This regulation takes all of that away. And it's a crying shame.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
|
gggman4real
join:2003-05-23
Phoenix, AZ
| What does this do for Orb? I was thinking about switching to Qwest for their 3/5/7 down and 896 up DSL service specifically so I could run ORB »www.orb.com/home and other services like that. After reading the actual agreement, I can't imagine how that could be seen as anything but a server and therefore a violation of the service. Here in the age where software & available speed are finally catching up with what end users want to do, the ISPs are crippling their own networks??? Again, I ask a commonly asked question: If I'm paying for the connection, what business is it what I'm using my upload bandwidth for (web server, private media streaming, etc) as long as it's legal? | |
|
|
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | So... ...Qwest is going to lose a lot of customers soon? I'd bee pissed to see $500000 bill LOL | |
|
skyfreedomdo
Premium
join:2003-01-01
Boise, ID | QWEST doesnt know sh!t from Shinola... The air is definitely thinner in Denver(Qwest HQ). This would explain the lack of sense on every qwest "news".
QWORST SUCKS!!
--
SKYFREEDOM NETWORKS
Whatever the angle; We've got you covered. | |
|
flushls
join:2004-11-02
Joyce, WA | My ISP My ISP notifies folks if they are doing spamicide they get their upstream choked till its fixed.
Pretty simple. I know some neighbors that have had it happen. No one seemed to get to bent out of shape. | |
|
Cyberguru
join:2005-06-09
Phoenix, AZ
| Let them try to sue me... I would really like to see how that court case would go.
"Mr so and so received a new worm which sent 500,000 spam emails in the course of a week, while the worm was being extracted. According to the contract the defendant has verbally agreed to he owes 5 dollars per email."
Yeah Right, Like any customer could or would pay that. I also, doubt any judge will back that up.
I would love to be apart of that fight... A well written worm, could be very hard to keep from attacking your network, especially if its an inside job at a small firm. Or your 13 year old, learning how to write such software. I like what some one else said "Two words" ---"Middle Finger" | |
|
|
|
|
Qwest Imposes Restrictions on 3rd Party DSL Lines
·
Too bad they won't actually enforce spam ban
