• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bad Behavior on the 'Net - Who Pays the Bandwidth Bill?

L

LordRaiden

Banned
A reader on slashdot posed this very intriquing question today. Who should pay the bandwidth costs for unintentional bandwidth caused by either illegal or unintentional use of the customers internet connection causing the customer increased expence due to this. This could be caused by viruses, spammers, or a number of other possibilities. Personally, I say that the offending party, be it the virus writer, spammer, or whoever should pay the bill. However, the chances of catching and punishing them are slim to none. So that goes back to the original question, who should pay for it? Should the customer foot the bill? The provider? Should they split the costs? Or should an insurance company take over paying for this by offering bandwidth insurance?

Linky to article
 
If the provider has bandwidth restrictions in place, then they should have equipment installed to limit the bandwidth / data downloaded. If the customer exceeds that then they should get a warning, be throttled back, and have the option of paying more to get more.

 
Hmm, I agree. I like that idea. The one's who really get shafted are those with the burstable billing plans. Those are the ones that get it in the end.

Burstable billing plans suck. I know this first hand.
 
Originally posted by: LordRaiden
Hmm, I agree. I like that idea. The one's who really get shafted are those with the burstable billing plans. Those are the ones that get it in the end.

Burstable billing plans suck. I know this first hand.
Click to expand...

What's burstable billing?
 
Originally posted by: dman
If the provider has bandwidth restrictions in place, then they should have equipment installed to limit the bandwidth / data downloaded. If the customer exceeds that then they should get a warning, be throttled back, and have the option of paying more to get more.
Click to expand...

I like this, but I also think that the consumer should have to take "reasonable" precautions against getting hijacked in the first place. The consumer must take some responsibility. "Reasonable" of course, is open to interpretation. I think it should probably be defined by the Provider, and the more technically sophisticated the precautions are, the more the Provider has to provide technical support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top