cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Follow the money...
"...BellSouth's abuse department was "keenly focused on customer satisfaction."
Um yeah. What they fail to tell you is the line about "generating traffic". When you learn that traffic is money, and they don't care what traffic, then its money. Your ISP gets a rate based on flow. Now, flow ebbs in and out. But let's say your rate is based on a large number of traffic. Well, what happens when that traffic is stopped to a trickle?
You pay more.
So it actually pays to have spam, bots, phishing...as it means traffic. Who cares if the users gets it, as its not attacking the ISP's end. Now, if bots were shutting down routers, and switches and servers...watch how quickly it cleans up.
Someone told me this once when I asked them to just shutdown specific traffic. Nope, was his answer. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Abuse departments are nothing but cost centers at all the ISPs. They bring in no money and annoy customers who they come in contact with. Therefore, they have small budgets and small staffs and most of their time is spent dealing with DMCA takedown requests.
Result: they spend virtually no time at all on zombie PCs on their network. And don't look for that to change anytime soon. Only if class action lawsuits are filed against the ISPs over this practice by lawyers representing customers whose identities have been stolen will this ever change.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Maybe the ISPs could funnel the misspent bribe lobbyist funding into the abuse department (in addtion to actually funding other much-needed things).
....nah. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to cableties
So let me see if I have this right....
You are saying ISP's are paid by the amount of traffic they generate with their customers?
Maybe I am stupid, but I always thought ISP's purchased traffic either straight up (T1, all customers share) or through a dynamic pool (T3 capabilities, but only charged as needed). Either way the more traffic on their network the more they have to pay or the more issues their customers have fighting for bandwidth.
Doesn't seem to hold your conspiracy theory together very well. |
|
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| reply to cableties
said by cableties  :Um yeah. What they fail to tell you is the line about "generating traffic". When you learn that traffic is money, and they don't care what traffic, then its money. Your ISP gets a rate based on flow. Now, flow ebbs in and out. But let's say your rate is based on a large number of traffic. Well, what happens when that traffic is stopped to a trickle? You pay more. You have it reversed -- the more traffic an ISP sends and receives, the more they pay. Settlement-free peering is usually where the "flow" model comes into play and muddies the waters a bit, but SFP is largely irrelevant for consumer-oriented providers in general and BellSouth in particular.
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend |
|
Filmore
@videotron.ca
|  reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Follow the money... You can make a difference!
cableties wrote:
"Result: they spend virtually no time at all on zombie PCs on their network. "
Actually, I think a difference can be made. I put in place the following web page, after learning that my ISP had been put on black lists for spam, due mainly to the large number of zombie PCs that were running rampant:
»pages.infinit.net/filmore/educateYourISP.htm
Then, I began to "mass report" the zombies on my ISP's network, using the report forms on their abuse site. I mentioned that such-and-such IP had a likely trojan horse infection, and that it was likely sending out spams according to senderbase.org - that because of the black-listing for spam my own emails were being refused by certain recipients.
These reports create a sort of "back log" in the ISP customer-support "cost-center". I would follow-up with phone calls from time to time.
Why go to all this trouble? Well, the lovely thing about Montreal, Canada is the lack of competition for ISPs. There are two: Videotron and Sympatico. Both had (have?) terrible reputations for hosting spam zombies.
I never thought it would work, but my ISP *did* eliminate a fair number of zombies. The problem *does* still exist, but the numbers of zombies is in the tens, as opposed to the thousands over a year ago when I began my "campaign".
The problem with the numbers reported today, however, is that the senderbase.org reports are based on volume of email. The assumption is that high-volume cable-modem (or dynamic IP addressed) sites are likely spam-bots.
Spammers have since gotten smarter, and zombies are exploited less. This means that the spammers try for greater numbers in their bot-net armies, but the individual soldiers do less "evil" work to keep under the radar. |
|
