🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sharx." <sharx35@nospam.ca> wrote in message
news:GkZC9.24483$0A5.1323542@news0.telusplanet.net...
>
> "Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc.ca> wrote in message
> news:arhn62$5h2$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> > In article <4pUC9.14742$bh1.1893189@news1.telusplanet.net>,
> > Sharx. <sharx35@nospam.ca> wrote:
> > :ISP's should be considered utilities.....EPCOR doesn't care what I do
> with
> > :my power or water.....as long as I pay the bill and don't damage their
> > :infrastructure.
> >
> > EPCOR likely *does* care about what you do with your power and
> > water: you probably just never set about exploring all the
> > different ways that you could be a public nuisance by using
> > the service EPCOR provides. If you were, for example, to deliberately
> > start flooding the street to annoy your neighbours, then you
> > shouldn't be surprised if EPCOR turned off your supply.
>
> Nope, EPCOR wouldn't care. However the City Police and/or Bylaw
Enforcement
> officials WOULD care. I'd be ticketed and/our summonsed to court. But my
> water supply would be untouched...as long as I paid for all that water.
Same
> thing if I used electricity to do nasty things to people touching my metal
> gates. City Police would be interested but EPCOR? Not.
>
Now that's where the difference is. You pay for the water you use. The more
you use the more you pay. For the most part internet access is a flat rate.

> >
> > There are many ways to use internet connections to annoy people.
> > Spam people. Portscan them. Troll. Top-post. There are also an
> > amazing number of people who do these kinds of things,
> > to be annoying, or because they feel they have a "right" to do so,
> > or on the principle that anything that isn't clearly illegal is
> > beyond criticism.
> >
> > You referenced "their infrastructure", which puts the emphasis on the
> > scope of "their".  If you were to offer a professional spammer a
> > contract that said "We won't kick you off as long as you don't spam any
> > of OUR users", then the spammer would quickly agree: spammers love
> > safe-havens from which they can address the entire rest of the world.
> > And that's a very serious problem: the -reach- of the Internet is
global,
> > so if you utility-ize with protections based upon how your behaviour
> > affects the locals, then you've given free reign to ravage and
> > plunder everyone else.
> > --
> > "Meme" is self-referential; memes exist if and only if the "meme" meme
> > exists. "Meme" is thus logically a meta-meme; but until the existance
> > of meta-memes is more widely recognized, "meta-meme" is not a meme.
> >    -- A Child's Garden Of Memes
>
>