Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Greg, 13 Jan 2006 @ 12:21pm

  
  

  Not so much

  In the article referenced in this post it states taht qwest removed the $5.00 charge from their revised agreement. I just took a look at it on the Qwest web site http://www.qwest.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/ which links to an agreement dated 1-12-06 and it DOES contain the $5.00 language. So battle not won as far as I can tell.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  BJ Gillette, 13 Jan 2006 @ 1:12pm

  
  

  Re: Not so much

  @Greg. You are correct. I took the AUP copy from the sidebar instead of item 9 in the High Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement PDF. Qwest got more credit than deserved. We have changed our copy to:

  Panicky Qwest execs responded, apparently bringing the legal hounds to heel. Correction: As of this writing, Qwest has not dropped the blue sky $5.00/message spam liability. But Qwest has changed the server limitations.

  Thanks for the correction. Sorry for the inconvenience to all.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Adam, 13 Jan 2006 @ 11:12pm

  
  

  Re: Not so much

  When I read the policy out of pure interest, the issue of five dollars only arose in the context of transmitting spam. Transmission of spam is against the law from what I understand, or at least, there are steps being taken to make it so. As far as I'm concerned people should be fined well more than five dollars. Like I said, it's just my opinion and before you think it, I'm also against spamming snail mail too. Unsolicited (e) mail is annoying and it makes you feel as though because you have an address, electronic or otherwise, people can send you things that account for 80 percent of what some receive and it's junk. Not a tirade, just my opinion...

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Mike (profile), 14 Jan 2006 @ 10:44am

  
  

  Re: Not so much

  Transmission of spam is against the law from what I understand,
  
  Yes, it's illegal (sort of) under the CAN SPAM law. However, the point is that Qwest's ToS is a little different. They're not saying if you're the spammer, just if your connection is used for spam. And, since so many spammers have been able to use zombie machines infected by trojans, that means that many innocent people may suddenly owe millions of dollars because their computers -- completely unbeknownst to them -- have been sending spam. That's the complaint.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment