Re: [WISPA] Anyone (or everyone) else getting spam from AdZilla?
Mine does not say WISPA, but amazing coincidence? From: Martin Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:19:20 -0800 Subject: Business Partnership with NewWays Scott, I would like to have a discussion with your organization concerning a potential partnership with our company. Were very interested in the Indiana market to expand the deployment of our technology with a broadband distribution partner. Were not selling anything but rather have a revenue sharing proposition. Who would you suggest I speak with, if not yourself, at NewWays? Thanks, Martin Stewart Regional Account Director - Network Group Adzilla New Media Direct: 604.628.4369 Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:39:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone (or everyone) else getting spam from AdZilla? Me too Pete Davis. NoDial.net wrote: I just got an email that was apparently based on my posting to wispa list. Hello Pete, I noticed one of your recent postings on WISPA list and thought that I would introduce myself to you and find out if you have some time to learn how our services help ISPs increasing the Average Revenue earned per End-User. blah blah blah What the heck is this?? Is anyone else out there partnering with these spammers? I replied and told them that we don't do business with those who contact me unsolicited, and unless they come HIGHLY recommended by another ISP, I won't be contacting them. According to their website, they help kill viruses and spyware by delivering filtered ads. Can anyone tell me if these guys are legit. The whole thing seems goofy to me. Am I missing something? Pete Davis NoDial.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone (or everyone) else getting spam from AdZilla?
Butch Evans wrote: On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Pete Davis. NoDial.net wrote: What the heck is this?? Is anyone else out there partnering with these spammers? I replied and told them that we don't do business I did not get an email like that (or the Barracuda caught it). Please post a name so that I can be sure to not do business with them anyway. Thanks. Here is the total email, including the headers: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 74094 invoked by uid 1013); 31 Oct 2005 21:48:28 - Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by s2.NoDial.net by uid 89 with qmail-scanner-1.22 (clamscan: 0.65. spamassassin: 2.60. Clear:RC:0(69.20.58.226):SA:0(0.0/6.5):. Processed in 2.854998 secs); 31 Oct 2005 21:48:28 - X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.5 Received: from unknown (HELO server45.appriver.com) (69.20.58.226) by 64-123-108-2.ded.swbell.net with SMTP; 31 Oct 2005 21:48:25 - Received: from [69.20.58.237] (HELO server52.appriver.com) by server45.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6) with ESMTP id 319869339; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:43:21 -0500 Received: from mail.adzilla.com [209.17.141.200] by server52.appriver.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.15) id AFF5990A006C; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:43:17 -0500 Received: from [192.168.4.193] (unknown [192.168.4.193]) by mail.adzilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0577085; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:41:05 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.0.050811 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:43:19 -0800 Subject: Business Partnership with NoDial.net From: Martin Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thread-Topic: Business Partnership with NoDial.net Thread-Index: AcXeZBuJWkSLMkpXEdqjlwARJHyOvg== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=B_3213611000_26892301 X-Note: Spam-Tests-Failed: None X-Note-WHTLIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Note-Reverse-DNS: h209-17-141-200.gtconnect.net X-Note-Sending-IP: 209.17.141.200 X-Country-Path: CANADA-destination This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3213611000_26892301 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hello Pete, I noticed one of your recent postings on WISPA list and thought that I would introduce myself to you and find out if you have some time to learn how our services help ISPs increasing the Average Revenue earned per End-User. =20 My organization is developing strategic partnerships with ISPs around North America and I would like to present our unique revenue sharing business proposition to your company. We had a very successful show at ISPCON where we met up with many existing and potential partners. I have a presentation that I=B9d like to run through with you that outlines our history and value propositions, our technology and its applications and the potential revenue earned and cost savings achieved by ISPs becoming a partner with Adzilla. I hope to be able to talk with you soon. Respectfully, Martin Stewart Regional Account Director - Network Group Adzilla New Media Direct: 604.628.4369 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access to consumers?
--- MarketWatch Quote --- How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them, said Ed Whitacre in a BusinessWeek Online interview. What they would like to do is use my pipes for free. I ain't going to let them do that. He argued that because SBC and others have invested to build high-speed networks, they are due a return. [1] --/ MarketWatch Quote --- It's a brave new world. I'm hoping that this is a clueless person talking about a business he is in charge of but knows little about. I fear that this is someone who has a feasible plan to accomplish what he describes. I don't think that a telephone-model overlay on the Internet will satisfy many consumers, but if they don't have an alternative what are their options? Hopefully, this will drive business to the WISPs, but I'm not sure that the consumers are well enough educated to make an informed decision and in many larger markets the LECs have driven us out of the picture by providing service for less than their cost. - Tony [1] http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5A606A5A%2D18D7%2D4FC9%2DA65C%2DC7317BC7E1CB%7D Original interview from Business Week (registration required): http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard accesstoconsumers?
The truth is services like VOIP and IPTV are going to challenge end user's connections, and they are going to learn what over subscription. And end users are going to kick and scream about how their service provider is ripping them off, and service is poor because the video is choppy, while they are using their 3 mbps link that they are paying $30 a month to. The bottom line is no Internet provider on the planet is selling speed pre-allocated for sustained throughput of speed sold. The networks out there, not designed for delivering the capacity required for High capacity QOS and throughput can't handle the usage, based on the sale price. There is an end user misperception that if someone buys 3 mb they are getting 3mb reserved for them. What ironic to me is that its not only the end users that have this misconception but its also law makers and media personel. I support SBC's position. I do NOT believe in blocking. But I do believe in acceptable use policies, and kicking off users that use capacity beyond what is allocated for the intented purpose it was sold to them for, and allowing customer's perform suffer when they try and get something for nothing. If we turn it around, VOIP companies like Vonage are no different. One time I setup a Fax server on a pool of 4 or 5 of their VOIP lines. It was all of about 24 hours before Vonage disconnected us, for violating their acceptable use policy. Their pricing plan just was not adequate to accommodate the high volume calling. Its not going to be any different with other VOIP providers. $19 a month unlimitted local and long distance plans, clearly are counting on average statistic being met, which mean low volume calling. The second they get costs that exceed their profit, by end users, I'm sure they won't continue to keep those high volume callers on board. This is a time bomb waiting to happen. Worst of all it sets the stage for market pressures to force ISPs to sell under cost, because marketing has to over state the capabilities of the network. Considering best case scenarios instead of worst case scenarios. Its the formula for bankruptcies and consumers that will suffer from poor quality services. Laws will have to be put in place to compensate those that incur the costs, or the quality goes to crap. I'd hate it if broadband stuped to the low level of PC hardware and electronics. I remember I used to be able to buy an original IBM PC, and that bad boy would last 10 years without a hickup. Now I'm lucky to have PC hardware outlast the first year. Consumer electronics typically come with only 90 day warrantees, its rare that they last over the first year either. BUtits a commodity market, forcing lowest price and features, with reliabilty nd durability forced right out of the equation. Its not just SBC that needs compensation, its independant ISPs. What going to happen when a huge marketing engine like an AOL or Google, or a Comcast, or SBC starts selling their IPTV and VOIP over every ISP's network for free? One view is that it will force consumers to buy more bandwidth from ISPs. Another is it will just cause lots of bad will between ISPs and there customers, when they learn they are going to get charged more. Its deceptive the the end user. We need a truth in lending type rule for ISPs. And an ISP should get compensated for the use of their network based on their cost to operate their network, not the average cost that others may pay. IF my backbone provder charges me more than they charge the high volume player, I need compensation for what I get paid. Could you imagine, if SBC was selling transit to ISPs at $200 a mbps (which is not uncommon for T1 to DS3 pricing levels in rural areas), and then flooded their ISP customers with traffic, by selling their end users IPTV easilly at capacity far greater than 1 mbps. SBC would actually make more money off the ISP's transit fees than they would make off the end user buying the IPTV service. Clearly the ISP would be getting taken advantage of. It would put them out of business fast. These are real issues legislators need to consider. PRoviding high QOS broadband is not cheap, and not equal for all providers, based on size and location. And what makes it worse, is how do you tell whose network gets used and how much? It can't be done. ISPs don't have the equivellent of a SS7 system. The only protection an ISP will have is to slow down /bandwidth manage consumers traffic. Its what we have to do. We sell CIR and MIR traffic. The CIR becomes a factor of the over subscription rate, and not disclosed to the end user. It a value that matches the real cost to deliver data at sustained rates. The MIR is the speed sold to the customer based on the targeted oversubscription rate. A 5mbps MIR service may have a 128K CIR if to a residential prospect. For $30 a month, the end user may get 128K of sustained throughput, after that
Re: [WISPA] Anyone (or everyone) else getting spam from AdZilla?
I will be sure to never go near them. JohnnyO wrote: Same here - bastards ! Atleast he admits to which list they harvested :) DOH - what an idiot - Yo Martin - how are you liking all of this positive publicity ? :) STOP SPAMMING ! JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone (or everyone) else getting spam from AdZilla? me too :( George Pete Davis. NoDial.net wrote: I just got an email that was apparently based on my posting to wispa list. Hello Pete, I noticed one of your recent postings on WISPA list and thought that I would introduce myself to you and find out if you have some time to learn how our services help ISPs increasing the Average Revenue earned per End-User. blah blah blah What the heck is this?? Is anyone else out there "partnering" with these spammers? I replied and told them that we don't do business with those who contact me unsolicited, and unless they come HIGHLY recommended by another ISP, I won't be contacting them. According to their website, they help kill viruses and spyware by delivering "filtered" ads. Can anyone tell me if these guys are legit. The whole thing seems goofy to me. Am I missing something? Pete Davis NoDial.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone (or everyone) else getting spam from AdZilla?
Could someone please send me a copy of this message along with the email address or any other contact information for the sender? So far I have only seen people complaining about this and I have no way to help you guys unless I see who this is and how to contact them. Thank you, Scriv Pete Davis. NoDial.net wrote: I just got an email that was apparently based on my posting to wispa list. Hello Pete, I noticed one of your recent postings on WISPA list and thought that I would introduce myself to you and find out if you have some time to learn how our services help ISPs increasing the Average Revenue earned per End-User. blah blah blah What the heck is this?? Is anyone else out there partnering with these spammers? I replied and told them that we don't do business with those who contact me unsolicited, and unless they come HIGHLY recommended by another ISP, I won't be contacting them. According to their website, they help kill viruses and spyware by delivering filtered ads. Can anyone tell me if these guys are legit. The whole thing seems goofy to me. Am I missing something? Pete Davis NoDial.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard accesstoconsumers?
inline Tom DeReggi wrote: The truth is services like VOIP and IPTV are going to challenge end user's connections, and they are going to learn what over subscription. And end users are going to kick and scream about how their service provider is ripping them off, and service is poor because the video is choppy, while they are using their 3 mbps link that they are paying $30 a month to. The bottom line is no Internet provider on the planet is selling speed pre-allocated for sustained throughput of speed sold. The networks out there, not designed for delivering the capacity required for High capacity QOS and throughput can't handle the usage, based on the sale price. That is the ISP's problem to solve. Raise prices to compensate. There is an end user misperception that if someone buys 3 mb they are getting 3mb reserved for them. Most ISP's have a AUP that says it is NOT dedicated (for residential use). That is where MIR/CIR and a contract is for. What ironic to me is that its not only the end users that have this misconception but its also law makers and media personel. Law makers are idiots and media personnel are decomposed slug slime. I support SBC's position. SBC's idea here is evil and wrong. SBC is TOTALY in the wrong. If they have a FAILING business model thats to damn bad!! Charge more, install more backbone connections. You do NOT charge the other end for the pipe! The customer is paying for the pipe at there end, the content provider is paying for their end. SBC has NO RIGHT to decide that say a XO pipe has to pay for access to the SBC end user just cause the SBC end user use's a service on the XO network. I do NOT believe in blocking. But I do believe in acceptable use policies, and kicking off users that use capacity beyond what is allocated for the intented purpose it was sold to them for, and allowing customer's perform suffer when they try and get something for nothing. Thats what a AUP with MIR/CIR is for. If we turn it around, VOIP companies like Vonage are no different. One time I setup a Fax server on a pool of 4 or 5 of their VOIP lines. It was all of about 24 hours before Vonage disconnected us, for violating their acceptable use policy. Their pricing plan just was not adequate to accommodate the high volume calling. Its not going to be any different with other VOIP providers. $19 a month unlimitted local and long distance plans, clearly are counting on average statistic being met, which mean low volume calling. The second they get costs that exceed their profit, by end users, I'm sure they won't continue to keep those high volume callers on board. Switched voice is WAY cheaper to transport then data of any type. This is a time bomb waiting to happen. Worst of all it sets the stage for market pressures to force ISPs to sell under cost, because marketing has to over state the capabilities of the network. Considering best case scenarios instead of worst case scenarios. Its the formula for bankruptcies and consumers that will suffer from poor quality services. I do not think that is true. If a ISP sells under cost that is up to them. If they can not compete well that is the way it is. Its called business. Laws will have to be put in place to compensate those that incur the costs, or the quality goes to crap. Again, I think that is EVIL. The law is already in place for this. The ISP has to be honest in its advertising and its contracts. The end user should READ the AUP. MIR/CIR of say 3mbit/56k. Well tough shit when that movie doest work, your paying for a CIR of 56k not 3mbit. Drop the bling bling for a 3mbit CIR or STFU. I'd hate it if broadband stuped to the low level of PC hardware and electronics. What do you think cable is? I remember I used to be able to buy an original IBM PC, and that bad boy would last 10 years without a hickup. T1, T3, DS3, OCx Now I'm lucky to have PC hardware outlast the first year. Linksys, DLink, Netgear, et al Consumer electronics typically come with only 90 day warrantees, its rare that they last over the first year either. BUtits a commodity market, forcing lowest price and features, with reliabilty nd durability forced right out of the equation. There are high end units out there still, Cisco comes to mind. Its not just SBC that needs compensation, its independant ISPs. NNNOOO! I can not say this enough! We do not need compensated for our users using our pipes beyond what we bill monthly! If it is not enough, raise the price! What going to happen when a huge marketing engine like an AOL or Google, or a Comcast, or SBC starts selling their IPTV and VOIP over every ISP's network for free? Its already out there. Its not that it is being SOLD, its that enough of our users are USING it. Well you just your ass handed to you with a lesson on over subscription, mir/cir and aup's. One view is that it will force consumers to
Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access to consumers?
This is a situation where additional regulation will only help those adept at manipulating the regulators. (Additional comments inline) On 11/1/2005 10:10 PM, Tom DeReggi created: The truth is services like VOIP and IPTV are going to challenge end user's connections, and they are going to learn what over subscription. And end users are going to kick and scream about how their service provider is ripping them off, and service is poor because the video is choppy, while they are using their 3 mbps link that they are paying $30 a month to. In most cases their service provider lured them in with the hype of an Unlimited use 3Mbps connection and then told them that they can't use all of it[1]. Where else in life are we handed something and then told that we can't use it[2]? If we could prevent the providers from misleading their potential customers this problem would fade away. All of my access plans are charged for usage in some way. Most are based on monthly Gigabits allowed to pass through my network. It's easy to understand and so far I've never had a client surpass the bandwidth included in the plan. If they get close I let them know and provide them with a way to gage their usage more accurately. If usage patterns change substantially, then I lower the maximums or change the plans. If a contract is in place, nothing changes for the length of the contract. The bottom line is no Internet provider on the planet is selling speed pre-allocated for sustained throughput of speed sold. [...] Over-subscription is based on a business model where your customers typically consume 1% of what you are selling them. That doesn't change the fact that you sold them 99% more than a typical customer uses. If usage patterns change, then contracts need to be updated and marketing needs to change their tune. There is no basis in law (IATNAL) for retroactively changing a contract because one side realizes that their business model was based on flawed assumptions[3]. Providers will definitely have to rethink how their products are marketed and sold. Legislating usage restrictions independent of marketing's messages to consumers is a foolish way to correct an oversight because it makes it nearly impossible for consumers to determine what exactly they are purchasing. If we turn it around, VOIP companies like Vonage are no different. One time I setup a Fax server on a pool of 4 or 5 of their VOIP lines. [...] This is yet another example why it should be illegal to advertise 'unlimited' when that is clearly not the case. Unlimited has a very specific meaning in the English language and it doesn't include the possibility for restrictions. While the fine print of your contract probably told you that it wasn't acceptable to actually use what you were sold, the marketing messages certainly didn't. This is a time bomb waiting to happen. Worst of all it sets the stage for market pressures to force ISPs to sell under cost, because marketing has to over state the capabilities of the network. [...] Marketing has absolutely no reason to overstate anything if we have a competent oversight mechanism in place to prevent companies from misleading consumers about the products that they are selling. I think that a much better solution to this problem would be to force all companies to be completely transparent about their services and provide consumers with a simple way to accurately compare similar items. For example, if I were selling 3Mb/384kb DSL I would have to state that the average available bandwidth for my customers last month was 1.2Mb/150kb, average packet loss was 5%, latency was an average of 100ms across the network and you are limited to continuous bandwidth of 512kb/30kb and daily restrictions of 300MBytes of traffic[4]. This type of information would allow consumers to make an informed choice instead of blindly choosing the $14.95 (plus $40 for the phone line that they don't tell you about) 3Mb DSL that can barely move 256kb/s of information in either direction. Yes, I know that this is difficult to implement and to enforce, but we would be much better off if we put our government's resources into this instead of having them pretend to protect consumers by compelling megacompanies to wait three years before they begin to pillage the industry. Laws will have to be put in place to compensate those that incur the costs, or the quality goes to crap. I'd hate it if broadband stuped to the low level of PC hardware and electronics. I remember I used to be able to buy an original IBM PC, and that bad boy would last 10 years without a hickup. Now I'm lucky to have PC hardware outlast the first year. Consumer electronics typically come with only 90 day warrantees, its rare that they last over the first year either. BUtits a commodity market, forcing lowest price and features, with reliabilty nd durability forced right out of the equation. I completely disagree. Laws
