What I'd really like to know is if they sent the spam from their own email servers.
In other words, did the spam come legitimately from something like: joe@army.com, or was it like all spam where it LOOKS like a legit address but then if you check the headers it's not.
I mean, if someone at Verizon.com sent me an email testing my spam gullibility but didn't do it from a fake email address...that's a misuse of trust.
Fake email addresses are how I KNOW something is spam, or a website that points to an IP address in China.
No, if they really wanted to test that they should have sent it from a fake email address and sent them to a fake website on a bogus server.
That is...assuming they DIDN'T do that...
First off let me just say that your bible has no place in this conversation, I don't know why you would even bring up "sins". Do you know anything about corporations? They probably commit several of YOUR sins on a daily basis, so why are you defending them? I'm a moral human being, I don't take what I don't pay for, I don't hurt anyone that doesn't have it coming, and I enjoy everything in moderation (i.e. I am not a glutton).
The service I pay for is what they offered me, for them to completely switch gears now and say "well, we know we offered that to you, but now we're going to limit it", is only a ploy so that they can then offer a new service that is the same speed, or maybe faster, for more money. The reality is that they make money hand over fist, and this is just going to be another way to make more.
In fact, it sounds a lot like the start of big corporations taking advantage of the new LACK of net neutrality. I suppose you think that net neutrality is BS too huh?
Whatever you say, it makes no difference...if I max out the service level that they give me, that is my right that I pay for. Economics I understand, and that is what drives 99% of companies, and that obviously makes sense. But their is a fine balance that needs to be met. I've already given up my right to good customer support with my Internet service, doesn't that save them tons of money? I don't have much of an upload rate, so doesn't that save them some money? I mean hell, if I want to talk to a human being I have to call someone in another country, I can't just walk into my local Verizon office and say "hey Chuck, how you doin' man, how are the wife and kids?"...nah, I have to talk to "Charles" who is reading from a script in a thick accent that I can't understand and likely not get my problems ever fixed.
I don't care what you say, the reason they have different levels of service is to provide different people with different speeds at different costs, obviously. If they want me to pay more money for better service, that's fine...give me good tech support, more bandwidth and I'll gladly pay the extra cash. Consumers get PUNISHED on a daily basis by companies, and the reality is that WE are the ones that make THEM rich...not the other way around. They should fucking RESPECT us and not attempt to make even MORE money off of us because we are using the service the way they represented we could.
No one says we're using the bandwidth 24/7, but when I want to use it, it should be there. If an ISP wants to prevent users from using 100% of their bandwidth, then they need to offer less bandwidth per user and reflect the cost accordingly. I mean for god's sake, does anyone here really have the illusion that these companies are losing money? Look at how much they save on customer support (or rather the lack of it). The fact of the matter is consumers are the ones that drive the economy and companies need to respect us.
Just because they decide we are using too much bandwidth it's completely immoral for them to just up and say "yeah, we're going to limit certain traffic because you're using too much bandwidth". That is total bullshit. Yeah, if I wanted T1 speed I could pay for it, but is it reasonable for me to spend $600/month on download speeds half of what I get now? I don't download 24/7, nor do I plan to...but yeah, if I decide I need to download 5 Linux ISOs and it maxs my bandwidth for 6 hours, that's my choice - because I'm paying for the Internet.
"Juvenile", why is it so hard for you to understand that I should get what I pay for. If they offer a service, and I pay for that service, I want to get that service...is that wrong? Am I juvenile for paying for something and wishing to get what I'm paying for?
Ok give me a break man, do you work for Comcast or something? The fact of the matter is, if cable wasn't shared bandwidth this wouldn't be an issue. I've never had any speed problems on DSL, never, and that's because it's guaranteed bandwidth. If I pay for 3mbps and they can't provide it then I switch to a lower service that they CAN provide. But, given good phone lines and optimal distance I get my 3mbps, rain, snow, sun...wtfever.
The fact of the matter is, email users should be paying for the lowest package ($15/month?) and the people that want the speed, pay for the bigger packages. Imagine Verizon FIOS service, is some mangler who only checks email going to pay for 15mbps/2mbps? If they do then they're wasting their money anyway. No, if I pay for a certain bandwidth, I should get that whether I'm playing a game, talking on the phone, downloading porn, browsing the web or checking my damn email.
Greedy has nothing to do with it...it's about paying for a service and getting that service. Would you pay $70 for unlimited minutes on your cell phone only to have them say "yeah....we're gonna limit you to 1000 because you're using too many", come on...
Besides that, the bottom line is this: The power users don't use an infinite amount of bandwidth, in actuality we use as much as we are allowed to...i.e. what we're paying for. The package I pay for is, 3mbps. That means if they want to provide 3mbps to me, they need to set aside that much bandwidth and that's how much I get...maximum. So, like someone else said...if they aren't comfortable providing 3mbps to me and all the other customers that are paying for it, they shouldn't even offer it...right? RIGHT.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'd really like to know is if they sent the spam from their own email servers. In other words, did the spam come legitimately from something like: joe@army.com, or was it like all spam where it LOOKS like a legit address but then if you check the headers it's not. I mean, if someone at Verizon.com sent me an email testing my spam gullibility but didn't do it from a fake email address...that's a misuse of trust. Fake email addresses are how I KNOW something is spam, or a website that points to an IP address in China. No, if they really wanted to test that they should have sent it from a fake email address and sent them to a fake website on a bogus server. That is...assuming they DIDN'T do that...
Oh well since you put it that way I completely see your point of view and now totally agree with you. Thank you so much!
First off let me just say that your bible has no place in this conversation, I don't know why you would even bring up "sins". Do you know anything about corporations? They probably commit several of YOUR sins on a daily basis, so why are you defending them? I'm a moral human being, I don't take what I don't pay for, I don't hurt anyone that doesn't have it coming, and I enjoy everything in moderation (i.e. I am not a glutton).
The service I pay for is what they offered me, for them to completely switch gears now and say "well, we know we offered that to you, but now we're going to limit it", is only a ploy so that they can then offer a new service that is the same speed, or maybe faster, for more money. The reality is that they make money hand over fist, and this is just going to be another way to make more.
In fact, it sounds a lot like the start of big corporations taking advantage of the new LACK of net neutrality. I suppose you think that net neutrality is BS too huh?
Whatever you say, it makes no difference...if I max out the service level that they give me, that is my right that I pay for. Economics I understand, and that is what drives 99% of companies, and that obviously makes sense. But their is a fine balance that needs to be met. I've already given up my right to good customer support with my Internet service, doesn't that save them tons of money? I don't have much of an upload rate, so doesn't that save them some money? I mean hell, if I want to talk to a human being I have to call someone in another country, I can't just walk into my local Verizon office and say "hey Chuck, how you doin' man, how are the wife and kids?"...nah, I have to talk to "Charles" who is reading from a script in a thick accent that I can't understand and likely not get my problems ever fixed.
I don't care what you say, the reason they have different levels of service is to provide different people with different speeds at different costs, obviously. If they want me to pay more money for better service, that's fine...give me good tech support, more bandwidth and I'll gladly pay the extra cash. Consumers get PUNISHED on a daily basis by companies, and the reality is that WE are the ones that make THEM rich...not the other way around. They should fucking RESPECT us and not attempt to make even MORE money off of us because we are using the service the way they represented we could.
No one says we're using the bandwidth 24/7, but when I want to use it, it should be there. If an ISP wants to prevent users from using 100% of their bandwidth, then they need to offer less bandwidth per user and reflect the cost accordingly. I mean for god's sake, does anyone here really have the illusion that these companies are losing money? Look at how much they save on customer support (or rather the lack of it). The fact of the matter is consumers are the ones that drive the economy and companies need to respect us.
Just because they decide we are using too much bandwidth it's completely immoral for them to just up and say "yeah, we're going to limit certain traffic because you're using too much bandwidth". That is total bullshit. Yeah, if I wanted T1 speed I could pay for it, but is it reasonable for me to spend $600/month on download speeds half of what I get now? I don't download 24/7, nor do I plan to...but yeah, if I decide I need to download 5 Linux ISOs and it maxs my bandwidth for 6 hours, that's my choice - because I'm paying for the Internet.
"Juvenile", why is it so hard for you to understand that I should get what I pay for. If they offer a service, and I pay for that service, I want to get that service...is that wrong? Am I juvenile for paying for something and wishing to get what I'm paying for?
Ok give me a break man, do you work for Comcast or something? The fact of the matter is, if cable wasn't shared bandwidth this wouldn't be an issue. I've never had any speed problems on DSL, never, and that's because it's guaranteed bandwidth. If I pay for 3mbps and they can't provide it then I switch to a lower service that they CAN provide. But, given good phone lines and optimal distance I get my 3mbps, rain, snow, sun...wtfever.
The fact of the matter is, email users should be paying for the lowest package ($15/month?) and the people that want the speed, pay for the bigger packages. Imagine Verizon FIOS service, is some mangler who only checks email going to pay for 15mbps/2mbps? If they do then they're wasting their money anyway. No, if I pay for a certain bandwidth, I should get that whether I'm playing a game, talking on the phone, downloading porn, browsing the web or checking my damn email.
Greedy has nothing to do with it...it's about paying for a service and getting that service. Would you pay $70 for unlimited minutes on your cell phone only to have them say "yeah....we're gonna limit you to 1000 because you're using too many", come on...
Besides that, the bottom line is this: The power users don't use an infinite amount of bandwidth, in actuality we use as much as we are allowed to...i.e. what we're paying for. The package I pay for is, 3mbps. That means if they want to provide 3mbps to me, they need to set aside that much bandwidth and that's how much I get...maximum. So, like someone else said...if they aren't comfortable providing 3mbps to me and all the other customers that are paying for it, they shouldn't even offer it...right? RIGHT.