 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to Cheese
Re: Lemme Guess That brings up another point. Where's the legality in charging people for unwanted traffic they did not originate and have zero interest in receiving? Since it costs them money, it immediately in legal terms equates damage.
You know, I really hope a whole host of lawsuits is filed over this type of crap.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | Re: unwanted traffic That's been my opposition to UBB ever since it was conceived. The lartc.org site puts it well in that controlling (traffic shaping) an Internet connection is analogous to the postal services: you can influence but not control what's mailed to you, and one only controls how much one sends. One can attach a traffic policer to ingress queues so that applications only receive data at some rate, but that's not necessarily related to how much gets shoved down the line at you. So it is with all the potential traffic generators on the Internet. Suppose someone picks your address at pseudorandom and decides to flood ping you, or repeatedly tries to p0wn your computer...didn't ask for the traffic but I get it anyway, and no reasonable means to make the upstream stop.
It would also be interesting if a carrier (e.g. AT&T) ends up charging you for traffic the company itself generated, such as Web site ads or promotional emails.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck! |
|
|
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to KrK
Re: Lemme Guess said by KrK:You know, I really hope a whole host of lawsuits is filed over this type of crap. Agreed. If you're gonna pay by the bit, then there's no way people should be charged for bits they do not want.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Good for you. Public IP address is now $12.95 per month with incoming traffic wavier. Otherwise you get a safe firewalled private IP that gets zero incoming traffic. |
|
 GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | reply to KrK
Yup, should be like cell-phone telemarketers. You don't get them because it's illegal. If you do, they have broken the law and you can sue.
--
My Blog 2.2 |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | That used to be true, but with all the number porting these days, it's next to impossible to tell a number is "cell" just by looking at it. In the old days, you could look at an NPANXX and know what CO it's going to. |
|
| said by cramer:That used to be true, but with all the number porting these days, it's next to impossible to tell a number is "cell" just by looking at it. In the old days, you could look at an NPANXX and know what CO it's going to.
Iirc the FTC makes available a list of former landline numbers ported to wireless. There are other ways to make the determination as well using telco databases. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Like I thought but didn't type... "unless you have a live copy of the LNP database(s)." (and those are NOT free.) |
|
| reply to KrK
The same could be argued for mobile carriers who double dip on a text message fee charging both the sender and receiver, even if the message is unsolicited on the receiver's end... how long have they been getting away with that? |
|
