nanog mailing list archives
Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck Nether net>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:03:01 -0500
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 06:26:43PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Note, I'm waiting for this to happen with cell phones. As people move from land lines to cell phones which can't be tele-solicited today I can see a cell provider offering a value add service where the telemarketer can pay an additional fee to cover the costs of the call. It's 1-800 in reverse, billing the sender. More $$$'s for cell providers, and if telemarketers find it's the only way to reach people I'm sure they will pay to do it. Once the receiver isn't being charged for the calls I doubt and legislative body would block it.
I see some serious issues here. Cell phones are not geographically linked as land-lines are. There is a variable cost in delivering the call to the phone. If I take my at&t cell phone, get them to send me the GSM card so while I'm traveling in europe/africa/wherever I can get calls the last thing I want is to be +/- 6 hours and be woken up. In the same vein it's illegal for them to make unsolicated calls unless they are during the hours of 9am-9pm. If I live in Eastern time and am traveling and in Hawaii and they call me at 9am Eastern and i'm just getting to sleep that would open them up to litigation. (the problem is that even though calls to cell-phones are illegal by telemarketers they must call more than 2 times in a year). I've also had friends that have moved from one coast to the other and kept the same cell phone# as there is no difference in their costs either way and want to keep their friends/family on the other coast as a local call. I'd rather see a solution whereby they are forced to deliver caller-id of their marketing firm or company name. This way I can continue to decide to take the call. Unless i'm expecting your call and know you don't show up on caller-id you are not likely to be answered unless i'm feeling like entertaining myself. It would be not too complicated to add-in sending the name along with the numerical caller-id info. - Jared (this is getting very off-topic, setting reply-to:) -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared () puck nether net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Current thread:
- Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?, (continued)
- Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Rodney Thayer (Oct 26)
- RE: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Quibell, Marc (Oct 26)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Paul A Vixie (Oct 27)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Brian Whalen (Oct 27)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Leo Bicknell (Oct 27)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Paul Vixie (Oct 28)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Leo Bicknell (Oct 28)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Paul Vixie (Oct 28)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Leo Bicknell (Oct 28)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? John M . Brown (Oct 28)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Jared Mauch (Oct 29)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Brian Whalen (Oct 27)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? John Payne (Oct 28)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Leo Bicknell (Oct 29)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? John Payne (Oct 29)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? David Schwartz (Oct 29)
- RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Scotty Allen (Oct 29)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 29)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Leo Bicknell (Oct 29)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? David Luyer (Oct 30)
- RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Mike Batchelor (Oct 28)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? Paul Vixie (Oct 28)