I realize that you rescinded this post, but I still think it's worth
responding to the arguments to show why they're wrong.
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 03:44:00PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If you don't want to, don't accept that traffic. It's just
> > like a store
> > stocking Chri
Oops, didn't fully understand the post before I hit reply.
Ignore that little rant.
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 03:44:00PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> If you don't want to, don't accept that traffic. It's just like a store
> stocking Christmas toys. If they don't sell, you're stuck with them. A
> customer will only pay for what he wants, not what you think he should want.
M
>
> > I sympathize with the customer. There is no reason he should pay for
> > traffic he did not request and does not want. If unwanted traffic raises
> > your cost of providing the service for which you are paid
> > (providing wanted
> > traffic) then you should raise your rates.
>
> The
> I sympathize with the customer. There is no reason he should pay for
> traffic he did not request and does not want. If unwanted traffic raises
> your cost of providing the service for which you are paid (providing wanted
> traffic) then you should raise your rates.
Then why should _I_
> At 02:45 AM 8/28/2003, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > No that wouldnt work, that was be an analogy to non-usage based
> > > eg I buy a 10Mb port from you and you dont charge me extra for
> > > unwanted bandwidth across your network..
> > The point is that 'usage' is supposed to be 'what you
> >
At 02:45 AM 8/28/2003, David Schwartz wrote:
> No that wouldnt work, that was be an analogy to non-usage based
> eg I buy a 10Mb port from you and you dont charge me extra for
> unwanted bandwidth across your network..
The point is that 'usage' is supposed to be 'what you use', not what
so
I can have some sympathy for the customer in this case...But...
Do you consider the definition of 'bad traffic to include spam?
To me, this is really simple. (as usual, IANAL, BUT...) It is 'theft of
services' on the part of:
a) the person(s) who wrote and released the virus, and
b) contri
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> The point is that 'usage' is supposed to be 'what you use', not what
> somebody else uses. 'My' traffic is the traffic I want, not the traffic you
> try to give me that I don't want.
Okay but in Internet terms the receiver usually pays for the
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Analogically, imagine if Burger King kept getting shipments
> > of buns that
> > they didn't want but still had to pay for. Their customers
> > would get pretty
> > pissed if BK added an 'unwanted bun' charge to their bill
> > (absent specific
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > I mean if the traffic were unrealistically to increase so that
> > bad traffic was
> > 50% of all traffic we would all have to double our circuit and
> > router capacity
> > and you either pass that cost on directly (charge for extra
> > usage) or
> I mean if the traffic were unrealistically to increase so that
> bad traffic was
> 50% of all traffic we would all have to double our circuit and
> router capacity
> and you either pass that cost on directly (charge for extra
> usage) or indirectly
> (increase the $ per Mb) to the user.
> I th
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Raymond, Steven wrote:
> Have received complaints from usage-based-billing Internet customers lately
> about not wanting to pay for the nuisance traffic caused by worm-of-the-day.
> I believe that in the case of a short-duration, targeted attack that can be
> eventually be st
Have received complaints from usage-based-billing Internet customers lately
about not wanting to pay for the nuisance traffic caused by worm-of-the-day.
I believe that in the case of a short-duration, targeted attack that can be
eventually be stopped, a billing credit is probably appropriate. But
14 matches
Mail list logo
