«

To all admins/managers of ISPs - your services are absolutely essential
for internet access. You are now a 'utility' just as much as power, phone
and gas.

But you are being unfairly asked to take financial responsibility for the
costs incurred by negligent users.

For instance, you are being forced to upgrade your bandwidth procurements
and mailserver capabilities to deal with internet noise such as spam and
viruses.

Spam is hard to deal with, because it (usually) originates from overseas,
and is not the fault of end users.

But viruses are another matter, because in so many cases they originate
from users' machines (when these machines are compromised).

I'd like to suggest to you all now, that you band together and implement a
new billing policy. Your unity on this is essential, just like with
industrial action, so that 'scabs' don't undermine your stand.

This new billing policy would be - to each user, apply a surcharge of $1
for every virus which leaves their machine. You can measure virus
transmissions via your SMTP server, and by proxying common attack ports
such as 135 and 139.

Make your subscribers take responsibility for their negligent choices of
operating system. If they want to use slickly marketed yet insecure
proprietary operating systems and internet applications for email, web
browsing etc, let them *pay* for the privilege - don't take it lying down.

It's totally unfair on you that you haee to extend your capacity to deal
with noise on the network, and it's equally unfair on those of us who make
responsible choices of operating systems and internet applications (such
as Linux, BSD, Mozilla, Phoenix etc).

I for one hate the feeling that part of my internet subscription goes
towards mollycoddling those who persist with popular yet negligent choices
of software.

So please stop allowing people tp persist in their ignorance. Place the
responsibility where it belongs - with them.

If it were a power company, and ignorant consumers were plugging in
sexily-marketed 100kVA appliances and burning out lines, the consumers
would individually pay, that's for sure.

So don't accept double standards just because it's the internet.

Cheers
EB

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:00:14 +1200, Evil Bastard <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>To all admins/managers of ISPs - your services are absolutely essential
>for internet access. You are now a 'utility' just as much as power, phone
>and gas.
>
>But you are being unfairly asked to take financial responsibility for the
>costs incurred by negligent users.
>
>For instance, you are being forced to upgrade your bandwidth procurements
>and mailserver capabilities to deal with internet noise such as spam and
>viruses.
>
>Spam is hard to deal with, because it (usually) originates from overseas,
>and is not the fault of end users.
>
>But viruses are another matter, because in so many cases they originate
>from users' machines (when these machines are compromised).
>
>I'd like to suggest to you all now, that you band together and implement a
>new billing policy. Your unity on this is essential, just like with
>industrial action, so that 'scabs' don't undermine your stand.
>
>This new billing policy would be - to each user, apply a surcharge of $1
>for every virus which leaves their machine. You can measure virus
>transmissions via your SMTP server, and by proxying common attack ports
>such as 135 and 139.
>
>Make your subscribers take responsibility for their negligent choices of
>operating system. If they want to use slickly marketed yet insecure
>proprietary operating systems and internet applications for email, web
>browsing etc, let them *pay* for the privilege - don't take it lying down.
>
>It's totally unfair on you that you haee to extend your capacity to deal
>with noise on the network, and it's equally unfair on those of us who make
>responsible choices of operating systems and internet applications (such
>as Linux, BSD, Mozilla, Phoenix etc).
>
>I for one hate the feeling that part of my internet subscription goes
>towards mollycoddling those who persist with popular yet negligent choices
>of software.
>
>So please stop allowing people tp persist in their ignorance. Place the
>responsibility where it belongs - with them.
>
>If it were a power company, and ignorant consumers were plugging in
>sexily-marketed 100kVA appliances and burning out lines, the consumers
>would individually pay, that's for sure.
>
>So don't accept double standards just because it's the internet.
>
>Cheers
>EB




Gee is this nerws group full of nutters..?

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:40:13 +1200, Robert Kramer wrote:

> Gee is this nerws group full of nutters..?

Your failure to answer any of the argument puts you in danger of
qualifying for the 'nutter' label yourself.

Maybe I should simplify my argument with an analogy:

The 'Microsport' - A new technology sports car hits the market. It's slick
and sleek, acceptably fast and much more comfortable than the
alternatives. It's such a hit that even when similarly comfortable cars
with even better technoligy hit the market, it takes them years to start
getting a foot-hold in the market, although the trucks made by this rival
sell much better.

It gets more obvious that this car uses tyres which chew up the road, and
cause the road to need more frequent and expensive maintenance.

In such a scenario, the roading authority would soon ban this car until
such time as it is shown not to damage the roads. Or alternatively, impose
a hefty toll on drivers of these cars.

But there's a huge double standard between the internet and the real
world. Within cyberspace, people and companies get away with far more than
they would if their scenarios were manifesting in tangible real life.

In article <pan.2003.08.21.00.00.13.562989@127.0.0.1>,
Evil Bastard <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> *snip*
> So don't accept double standards just because it's the internet.


As an ISP end user, I would hate to see all ISPs do this, because I
would then be subsidising the cost of implementing this plan. It makes
no sense to me.

I think you view your ISP account slightly different than I view mine, I
don't want to pay for moving bits and bytes around. I just want to be
connected. I don't care if I'm subsidising other users because it costs
less to do that, than to make sure all my machines are virus free, and
their integrity hasn't been compromised.

I spend $50 a month connecting, of which only $20 goes to Orcon. I don't
know how much of a saving, you think they could make (plus I think it
would cost more to implement), but if it were free (theoretically) then
if I had to spend more than 30 mins a month making sure I wasn't sending
out viruses, it would be costing me more than if I spent that time
working. The point that I am trying to make is that it would actually
increase the cost of being connected to the internet for most people.
Our time isn't free.

And I don't think that ISPs are being unfairly asked to burden negligent
users. Its a part of operating an ISP. Besides, who annoys you more? The
novice user who unwittingly helps spread viruses around even though they
won't affect the integrity of your Linux machine? Or the geek who uses
*nix and leeches bandwidth downloading and uploading porn, mp3s, video,
and all other types of crap 24/7 with no break?

It appears to me that you have some beef with 'slick marketing'. Well
why not think about the marketing of the internet itself? Why did it
become so popular? Because anyone and everyone could connect to it.
There were very few barriers. So whats the point of adding another
barrier and further widening the gap between the haves and have-nots of
this country?

Last time I checked this is a free country, so theres nothing stopping
you from starting your own ISP. Then you can operate your model to your
hearts content, making sure all your customers are using *nix, and
charging your little $1 increments.

You wouldn't have to get the entire industry to support you cause, nor
would you have to worry about "scabs". If you are correct with your
beliefs then customers will come to you. Thats the beauty of 'slick
marketing'

--
madknoxie
$35 .nz domain names: http://www.ivision.co.nz/

In article <pan.2003.08.21.00.55.30.807712@127.0.0.1>,
Evil Bastard <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> In such a scenario, the roading authority would soon ban this car until
> such time as it is shown not to damage the roads. Or alternatively, impose
> a hefty toll on drivers of these cars.

Just like they do with trucks? Whatever, the downfall of rail transport
was that the Govt. was and is still subsidising road transport even
though they damage raods quicker, and cause a lot more noise pollution
in residential areas than the 'Microsport'.

--
madknoxie
$35 .nz domain names: http://www.ivision.co.nz/

>
> If it were a power company, and ignorant consumers were plugging in
> sexily-marketed 100kVA appliances and burning out lines, the consumers
> would individually pay, that's for sure.
>
> So don't accept double standards just because it's the internet.
>
> Cheers
> EB
>

It's so incredibly cheap to subscribe to the internet anyway, such problems
aren't worth a second thought.

If the all the ISPs suddenly loose their minds and adpot a rude policy
against their biggest customer base (users who are happy to use Windows and
really don't give a **** cause there are far more important things to worry
about), then I shall start an ISP that doesn't use the policy.

Something tells me i won't be giving up my day job any time soon.

People who put there computer online and leech huge files 24/7 are a bigger
problem than the one you describe, but once again who really cares? If it's
actually important to you, as a user, then perhaps you need to reconsider
your perspective.

Switch off your computer and go outside.

Steve

"Anthony Neville" <> wrote in message
news:cpV0b.12800$...
> "Evil Bastard" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> newsan.2003.08.21.00.00.13.562989@127.0.0.1...
> [...]
> > So please stop allowing people tp persist in their ignorance. Place the
> > responsibility where it belongs - with them.
> >
> > If it were a power company, and ignorant consumers were plugging in
> > sexily-marketed 100kVA appliances and burning out lines, the consumers
> > would individually pay, that's for sure.
> >
> > So don't accept double standards just because it's the internet.
>
> Fine. Users should be responsible for downloading the latest security
updates,
> setting up a firewall and using a virus checker. Though, user
responsibility must
> end there. I do not under estimate the cunningness of virus makers to
find an
> exploit somewhere in internet applications at any point in time, and so I
think
> it is unjust to hold users accountable because of some hitherto unknown
> and therefore unpublicized exploit in their choice of OS.
>
> Cheers,
> Tony.
>
>

Hear, hear to all comments to the contrary given above. I think the OP needs
to aquire a sense of perspective, take a few chill pills, go outside perhaps
and breathe a bit of fresh air. As far as the topic is concerned, it is
nutty to say the least. It is your own personal responsibility how you guard
yourself against viruses and the like. It is your own free choice to protect
yourself with Nortons or AVG or whatever. You can also be cunning and
operate 2 machines, one for internet only, which is virus-protected, and a
second offline machine for your crucial apps, with the OS of your choice.
Billing proposal? It comes across more as the bitter manifesto of a wounded
caged tiger. I just want to connect thanks, pay my monthly fee, and shut up.
And who gives a **** about what other people do with their pcs? If they get
/ spread a virus via their own inherent stupidity, that's their problem not
mine. Geez, all you need is Nortons Live Update, relax, have a cuppa tea,
and watch the rest of the world wallow. Sweet.

In article <pan.2003.08.21.00.00.13.562989@127.0.0.1>,
Evil Bastard <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:


> So please stop allowing people tp persist in their ignorance. Place the
> responsibility where it belongs - with them.

Better add an extra charge then for all the people swapping music files,
ie all traffic that goes to gnutella etc. If a music file is discovered
then bill them $3 for the file so it can be passed on. Actually the
linux users should be buying CDs not down loading disc images as that
takes up bandwidth too.
As for voice over IP, use the telephone, or bill the abusers the same
rate as an international call.

etc
etc
etc

In article <%301b.122596$>,
"The Flash" <> wrote:

> "madknoxie" <> wrote in message
> news:madknoxie-> Last time I checked this is a free country, so theres
> nothing stopping
> > you from starting your own ISP. Then you can operate your model to your
> > hearts content, making sure all your customers are using *nix, and
> > charging your little $1 increments.
>
> Free Country?
>
> Where have you been?
>
> For a company, company tax, fringe benefit tax, Goods and Service Tax,
> Employer ACC premiums, public liability insurance, business insurance on
> buildings and vehicles etc, PAYE tax, provisional tax etc etc.
>
> Then you need to get some bandwidth for you traffic, it ain't free!, And now
> purchase a Ip segment to allocate to users, hardware, software, oh you want
> a help desk - better train staff? Adverising etc etc.
>
> Yup, start your own ISP for just $1 only have half a million bucks in
> reserve.

FFS, I own two companies, so I'm quite familiar with the thiefs at the
IRD. Also, no one will physically stop you setting this up, if that was
your goal. Thats what free means to me, kind of like the free in 'free
software'.

Lastly, you can buy all those services from someone else for a fraction
of the cost of setting it up yourself for yourself.

Why do people like you always look at the obstacles in life, rather than
the rewards?

--
madknoxie
$35 .nz domain names: http://www.ivision.co.nz/

In article <ST%0b.122584$>,
"The Flash" <> wrote:

> "madknoxie" <> wrote in message
> news:madknoxie-...
> > In article <A9V0b.122235$>,
> > "The Flash" <> wrote:
> >
> > > Why do we not register every internet capable computer, and then make a
> > > computer users license, say at $50 per year, this fee would be split
> 50/50
> > > with the governt and the Isp. This would weed out those who are not
> capable
> > > of meeting their socail responsabilities in the digital age.
> >
> > You've got to be kidding me, you want youself and everyone else to be
> > forced to deal with the Govt. just to be able to connect to the
> > internet? AND (and this is the best part) you want to pay *more* tax, to
> > be able to do so?
> >
> > Fark me!
>
> Looks like a legitimate business expense, thus would be paid by before tax
> dollar. Net impact to my wallet would be in the order of ~$25 personal
> dollars. $25 a year to get rid of 10% of the idiots who cause 90% of the
> problems. Where do I pay?


Shyte, suckers like you don't come along that often. My bank details are
on my website...

--
madknoxie
$35 .nz domain names: http://www.ivision.co.nz/