'Free Broadband' Scam Exposed

dslknowitall writes: "It appears that http://www.dslreports.com is first on the crime scene regarding DSLmonster.com's scam to offer free broadband access for the price of only two spam's a day (remember winfire, anyone?). "If you remember back on December 18th we raised the warning flag concerning a DSL provider known as DSLMonster.com, who's business stank of illegitimacy. With a website made up of plagiarized portions of other providers terms of service, and a qualification system that claimed it could provide service to locations like "the dark side of the moon", it appeared to be a scam waiting to happen." Not only a well written piece but lots o' backgroud too!"

Comments

The old saying is true.

[InfinityWpi]

You get what you pay for. Especially online.

Unless you get less than what you pay for.

Almost never do you get more than you pay for.

Re:The old saying is true.

[sylvester]

You get what you pay for. Especially online.

Unless you get less than what you pay for.

Almost never do you get more than you pay for.

Except that you're reading this for free on Slashdot, run on open source software used for free, on a browser you didn't pay for (unless you use opera), ...

I Don't Get It

[ksw2]

If the service was only supposed to cost users "two spams a day", how did they pocket a bunch of money? Did you have to leave a deposit or what?

Where does this come from?

[Christianfreak]

regarding DSLmonster.com's scam to offer free broadband access for the price of only two spam's a day

What a second. The linked article says that customers were double and triple billed. What did they get 4-6 spams instead of 2? Or is this statement wrong and there was a cost for the service?

Re:No Photo?

[ari_j]

New Jersey LAW . If you want to go around making exceptions to laws for reasons of hunting suspected criminals down, then feel free to go back to the USSR, Stalin era. For me, I'm proud to be an American, where laws are usually laws until the courts decide otherwise.

Re:No Photo?

[geekoid]

Inocent until proven guilty.
They can go to a judge for a warrant. If a judge won't issue them one, then they don't have any evidence this guy is commiting fraud.

If you start throwingout laws, and privacy concerns just because someone may have committed a crime, you loose everything.

Re:No Photo?

[.sig]

So if I accuse you of fraud you think privacy laws should be suspended allowing me to post your picture all over the place further accusing you?

Remember, even if we all know it was a scam, he's still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I do really feel sorry

[FredBaxter]

I really feel for the people who got ripped off yet...

Isn't the first rule of life, on the internet especially, is that if it says it is free, you DO NOT give out your credit card number? Just a thought.

--"Do you have any .sig lunch-lady Dorris?" "Yes, yes we do." "Then .sig me up woman!" "Okey dokey."

Re:No Photo?

[Registered Coward v2]

So if I accuse you of fraud you think privacy laws should be suspended allowing me to post your picture all over the place further accusing you?

No, and no one is suggesting allowing individuals to act as vigilantes in the case. I do think a legitimate law enforcement agency ought to be able to obtain information, with a warrant (or other appropriate legal document), that may help solve a crime. Now, the case may not yet have reached the stage of issuing a warrant, but when that happens, I have a problem with a state agency not complying with a warrant due to state laws. A doubt a criminal suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to government records containing information about him or her.

No one is saying state agencies ought to routinely provide information to the police so they can monitor citizens.

Now, if NJ doesn't have a picture (as some have opioned), then that's a different story as to why they won't provide it - but doesn't change my opinion on the need to provide such data when available.

Re:at what point did someone get a clue??

[xtremex]

To be honest with you, the company "I" used to work for was doing some scummy stuff..ya know what? Everyone knew, but no one cared? Why? Because they were having massive layoffs, and people were just happy to WORK, People were having kid's birthdays, and marriages, so the "bad" stuff the company was doing was just talk for the smoking lounge. It ultimately didnt matter. Am I responsible for the Board of Director's actions? Am I held accountable? If I WERE held accountable, raise my salary to what THEY got, and I'll accept the accountability. Other than that, people don't give a crap. Tell Walmart employees that they work for a monopoly, and tell me how manyof them care. :)