Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Code Red Refunds?

CmdrTaco posted about 13 years ago | from the something-to-think-about dept.

The Almighty Buck 377

bubblegoose writes "In Washington state Qwest customers are asking for a refund due to losses of service during the Code Red thing. Qwest is refusing to give the refunds. Excite has a story about it here." I tend to think this is just complaining bull crap. My net connection when down too, and I don't run around demanding $5 back. I'd be more upset if I was a business and my server rooted by this. The irony is that this will probably end up just pushing subscription software.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

foo (-1)

ubertroll (153053) | more than 12 years ago | (#2205856)


oooooo oo oo ooooo oo oo oo oo ooooo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oooo oo oo oo oooo oooooo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo ooooo ooooo oo oo oo ooooo ooooo oo

Re:foo (-1, Offtopic)

buttfucker2000 (240799) | about 13 years ago | (#2206397)

word up, holmes!

Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 19 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

If you this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to Source Forge:

Browser type
User ID/Nickname or AC
What steps caused this error
Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy or some sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously.
How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day
* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.

update: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206527)

i've got

Re:update: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206534)

in reply, i'd just like to say

i've got


Re:update: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206546)

to summerize:
we've got

Re:update: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206552)

i concur


is certainly what we have

i mean, just speaking for myself, i'm pretty certain that

i've got


Re:update: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206567)

after adding the following:
"i've got
i cannot result in any possibility other than
"we've got
as i'd require further polling to check that you've still got
i would like to end this on one very important thought:
i've got

Re:update: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206572)

now that the thread is over and we have exercised our constitutionally protected right to have


i'd like to leave you with one very important thought

i've got


Re:update: (-1, Troll)

pocket heston (447206) | about 13 years ago | (#2206578)

polling my BAWLS... uh-oh:
i've got

Re:update: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206580)

i've just checked:

i've still got


Re:update: (-1, Troll)

mod you later (326902) | about 13 years ago | (#2206584)

one moment...


i've got
warm bawls

Re:update: (-1, Troll)

joltrushsoon (155634) | about 13 years ago | (#2206591)

we've got something special over here. news report just in:

i've got

Re:foo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206593)

Fix this GAPING HOLE [] in slashdot please.

Yum. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206252)

Second post on unposted article!

That's right... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206261)


Wow. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206268)

If you wanted to, you could really kharma 'ho with this 'feature'...

Slashdot is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | about 13 years ago | (#2206399)

once word is out that they are DELETING POSTS [] , people will quickly abandon this doomed site

Re:Slashdot is dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206417)

The apparent post deletions are due to this [] bug, which has been reported. It's now a question of when Taco will get around to fixing it.

Re:Slashdot is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206428)

There is a hidden sid [] detailing the evidence of this slashdot censorship! Tell your friends!

they should give refunds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206402)

we all know it was the copper's fault.

Refunds for what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206403)

If anything, I would be asking a refund for the silly blocking of port 80 that AT&T Broadband instituted. I wonder how long it will take them to "remember" to remove that "feature" :)


Re:Refunds for what? (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | about 13 years ago | (#2206538)

I did ask for such a refund. They not only insisted that they would not do so, but that the only reason I would need the port open was if I were actually abusing their service.

They will come right out and tell you that the port block is permanent.

Fuck them. Port 8000, and as half-assed as the monkeys are that they pass off as techs, I doubt they'll ever notice. UDP 53 is more worrisome for me personally, since this isn't a service that is exactly relocatable.

More of the same (1)

jfdawes (254678) | about 13 years ago | (#2206409)

There are too many companies getting away with complete incompetance and expecting us to just shut up and put up. What's wrong with making them pay for their own stupidity? They waste your time and get surprised/upset when you express annoyance. I don't know about you, but my time is more valuable than that.

Re:More of the same (1)

paulm (37073) | about 13 years ago | (#2206544)

Look, it took me a long time to get my dsl set up through Qwest. I need it. If you bunch of loosers can't figure out how to turn of telnet and web on your cisco 678 then please learn some shit own your own and don't bitch at Qwest.
I know that in a rational world they would care about you as a customer, but they don't. They are a monopoly and never will. But if you make them angry then they will decide to stop dsl service altogether, because really, they barely have the ability to get it up and running at all, and if they think they are going to have problems, they will just pull it.

Thank you for your time.

Re:More of the same (1)

superpeach (110218) | about 13 years ago | (#2206563)

But it isnt their fault that there is a problem with the Cisco ADSL modem and that Microsofts web server software had the security hole in the first place. If anyone other than the virus writer(s) should be blamed then it should be Cisco and Microsoft before Qwest.

standing behind user agreements.... (2)

jeffy124 (453342) | about 13 years ago | (#2206410)

Qwest is probably standing behind some small line in the fine print of their user agreement that says "Qwest will not be held responsible for interruptions in service," meaning they will not provide refunds in the event their service is temporarily offline or has other problems.

Personally, my cable modem is sometime offline, but it's usually during the day while I'm at work hence I dont notice.

What is temporary (2, Insightful)

Catskul (323619) | about 13 years ago | (#2206513)

So what happens if you are without service for a day, a week, a month? Does that count as temporary? This is a very gray area they could have a chance of getting the law on their side.

Qwest (5, Informative)

Frijoles (16015) | about 13 years ago | (#2206411)

I use Qwest for both my DSL and ISP. I thought they were very helpful during this whole Code Red thing. Qwest called and left a message on my answering machine detailing how I could fix my DSL modem and patch my computer so that I would not be infected. They also called back to see if I had received their message and if I needed any help. I've been very happy with Qwest and was surprised by their customer support.

Anyway, point is.. I think they do a great job. Keep up the good work Qwest.

Re:Qwest (2, Interesting)

vulg4r_m0nk (304652) | about 13 years ago | (#2206502)

Funny, Qwest is my provider as well, and the only phone call I got was notification that my bill was overdue.

On the whole I've been very happy with Qwest also, however I would like very much to know why they gave out bad information regarding the fix for more than a week. In case you didn't know, for some time they insisted that the only thing necessary was to disable remote web access to the Cisco router. This didn't work, and I suffered periodic outages for a week after I applied their prescription. It wasn't for quite some time that they revealed that blocking port 80 on the router was the only way to stop the scans from hanging it.

As a telecommuter, my productivity was cut enormously over those two weeks. Now, if it turns out that Qwest was negligent, i.e., they knew that their original "fix" didn't work but wasted time releasing that info, then I would expect compensation. However I suspect that, as happens often in complex systems, it simply took them a while to figure out what worked and what didn't. If that's the case, then I cannot reasonably demand anything more from them.

Re:Qwest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206540)

Funny, Qwest is my provider as well, and the only phone call I got was notification that my bill was overdue.

Gee, do you think paying customers would be their priority?

Re:Qwest (1)

the saltydog (450856) | about 13 years ago | (#2206548)

Bullshit... I was offline for at least a week (in Minnesota); no one could tell me what the hell was going on, until *after* I got back online again. (The funny thing was, I'm still using an Intel 2100 internal "modem", which wasn't supposed to be affected by the worm, but the customer support staff at Qworst have been wrong before.)
I'm done with them, anyway, since the Borg is trying to assimilate us via the MSN buyout... it's time to get cable, I guess. -The Dog

Re:Qwest (2)

pongo000 (97357) | about 13 years ago | (#2206553)

I'm glad to see Qwest taking care of its customers. @Home hasn't done a damn thing to block the morons who are still propagating Code Red (my Apache box gets hammered by all versions, 99% of which are from @home IP blocks). I think asking for a refund is silly, but OTOH I think @home and other ISP's should be taking proactive measures to actively block the legions of fools who have no idea they've been rooted.

why not? (3)

jchristopher (198929) | about 13 years ago | (#2206413)

Complaining? And why not? They are in business supplying a service - you trade your money for that service.

I cheerfully pay my ISP every month, because they provide me with a reliable, stable, fast DSL line. If it wasn't that way, I'd be in line clamoring for a refund too.

The computer industry is way too lax on quality of service - every program, OS, or hardware device has a disclaimer that they aren't responsible if it doesn't work. What am I paying for then?!?

Re:why not? (3)

stevew (4845) | about 13 years ago | (#2206488)

I agree - I've had a two week outage from @home partially due to the fact they couldn't get a service person out here quickly. They gave me a month off my bill which is ONLY reasonable! I was without the service for half a month, what they did was "the right thing."

Did I miss something? (2)

danheskett (178529) | about 13 years ago | (#2206414)

What is he talking about?

The email exchange talks about refunds if you dont get a paper or if you lose your cable service.

Did I miss something? My cable was down for 12 hours during a storm, would they prorate my bill and take off 1/60th or 1/62nd of the bill? I dont think so.

Also, the article talks about "Microsoft software" that some Cisco devices where using. What software was that? IIS runs embedded in Cisco stuff now? My previous understanding was that IIS was overflowed with malformed URL, and that that URL/packet/volume of attacks caused many Cisco products to barf up lunch. Is that true?

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | about 13 years ago | (#2206437)

the side effects some cisco routers became vulnerable to were (IIRC) the large packets being sent by code red to possible IIS servers, plus some routers simply couldn't handle the amount of extra traffic code red creates, especially as more machines behind a router become infected. Much like the slashdot effect - sometimes it isn't the server that is to blame, it's the connection the server has to the internet from routers, firewalls, etc.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

vulg4r_m0nk (304652) | about 13 years ago | (#2206459)

It wasn't packet size, it was that CBOS (Cisco Broadband OS) versions earlier than 2.4 suffer the same vulnerability to specifically malformed URI's as IIS.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | about 13 years ago | (#2206476)

ok, thanks for the info. The thing I heard was simply a rumor from a co-worker who thought that because the packet containing the http GET request was considerably large, it potentially caused problems on some routers (Maybe he thought the malformed URI meant the packet was bloated or something) It sounded a little fishy to me because the concept of spliting packets up during their trip has been commonplace among routing systems long before the internet tookoff in the early 90s.

Re:Did I miss something? (2)

Enigma2175 (179646) | about 13 years ago | (#2206487)

My cable was down for 12 hours during a storm, would they prorate my bill and take off 1/60th or 1/62nd of the bill?

Yes. At least with AT&T@home the Tech Support people are authorized to give refunds for outages. At least that was the way it was when I worked there.

Re:Did I miss something? (2)

figment (22844) | about 13 years ago | (#2206493)

The configuration webserver on the Cisco 675 had serious DOS problems in the setups that various dsl providers were providing (i think it had to be in bridging mode or something), which were known even prior to the CodeRed problem. Essentially, if you did a getrequest with too much crap in it, it crashed.

It hit bugtraq a few months ago, while cisco was fairly responsive and issued a patch, Qwest at that time declared that patch unsupported.

jizz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206416)

A lifeless piece of flesh, I'll molest you if I want

You're my feast, your soul has gone away

But your tight anal cunt is what I'll fuck today

Just another dead fuck, it means nothing to me

Shit on my prick, another bloody treat

Anal cunt, anal cunt

Dead to the world

You'll be my fuck boy

You'll be my anal girl

Anal cunt, anal cunt

Your life has gone away

Now it's time to celebrate

So what, your dead, big fucking deal

Another bloody corpse for me to make my meal

Nobody cares about you anyway

Your dead anal cunt will be my fuck today

As you lay on the ground at my feet

I'll rape your dead ass, penetrating deep

Qwest Business DSL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206418)

The problem is Qwest business subscribers were garenteed 99.9% uptime. If slashdot or some other business was run off an ISP and they went down taking your site/business with them you would want a refund to. Unless you like vendors not following their contracts to your detriment.

Re:Qwest Business DSL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206430)

Yes this was about business users, you should have quoted though....From the article.

Business customers say the outages cost them thousands of dollars in sales. Many also complained that they had to wait up to two hours to talk to technicians, some of whom were poorly trained.

"We are solely dependent on Qwest DSL for our Internet connection, and if it goes down, we don't have a business," said Doug Colbeck, president of the outdoor recreation site, who filed a complaint with the attorney general's consumer protection division. "We lost $5,000 worth of business. I believe Qwest owes every DSL customer a refund for the time."

Not quite... (2)

quartz (64169) | about 13 years ago | (#2206424)

While demanding a refund may seem a little off, I'd have to admit that if I was a subscriber to a program such as this one [] , offered by my provider, and got "protected" by having my port 80 shut off, I'd be asking for a refund too.

Nigger (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206427)

Here is a Nigger [] .

NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206503)

Punk ain't no religous cult
Punk means thinking for yourself
You aren't hardcore cos you spike your hair
When a jock still lives inside your head

Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks...FUCK OFF!
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks
Nazi Punks...FUCK OFF!

If you come to fight, get outta here
You ain't no better than the bouncers
We ain't tryin' to be police
When you ape the cops it ain't anarchy

Repeat chorus

Ten guys jump one, what a man
You fight each other, the police state wins
Stab your back when you trash our halls
Trash a bank if you got real balls

You still swastikas look cool
The real nazis run your schools
They're coaches, businessmen and cops
In the real fourth reich you'll be the first to go

Repeat Chorus

You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go...unless you think!

- Dead Kennedys

:) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206429)

You can actually do this!!! Ohhhh Charter is going down!

Nuts to you... (1)

Mister Black (265849) | about 13 years ago | (#2206431)

I tend to think this is just complaining bull crap. My net connection when down too, and I don't run around demanding $5 back.

Maybe you should. TimeWarner Austin (part of the evil AOL Empire) will give credits for service problems with RoadRunner. All I have to do is call up whenever there is a problem (outages, etc.) and they credit me for the inconvenience.

Mister Black

complete package? (1)

cotcomsol (7395) | about 13 years ago | (#2206432)

Did the customers own the equipment that failed, or did they get it as part of the package? Every DSL service I've seen you get the hardware with the package. If this is the case, then if Qwest's hardware won't let you access the service you are paying the for, why shouldn't you expect a refund?? Now, if on the other hand, you buy your own DSL modem and you pick a lousy one that is prone to failue, then it is by no means your ISPs fault if it goes down.

I look at it like my cell phone service: if the phone that I own breaks, it is my responsibility to get it fixed. If my providers towers all go down and I can't get service for a month, I wouldn't expect to have to pay!

hmmm (2, Funny)

Beowulf_Boy (239340) | about 13 years ago | (#2206439)

While were talking about refunds, lets all get refunds from Microsoft because there crappy software has bugs and was affected by something as simple as the code red bug.
Oh, I'm sorry, when we all sold our souls to microsoft when we signed the user agreement I bet that was covered.

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206522)

Ahh yes. And Linux worms are anything but simple, just like everything else in the damned OS.

passing the blame (1)

4n0nym0u53 C0w4rd (463592) | about 13 years ago | (#2206440)

Assuming that Qwest never guarantees a certain level of service, then these guys don't have a leg to stand on.

Of course, the responsible thing to do would be any or all of the following

  • identify infected computers and notify account holders
  • kick infected computers offline
  • filter outgoing packets from infected machines (?)

Whose problem? (2)

alewando (854) | about 13 years ago | (#2206441)

Quoth Qwest:
The problem is not the modem, the problem is the virus. Qwest is not crediting for the virus.

What Qwest clearly fails to comprehend is that, by choosing the tools they did, which have a known history of virus vulnerability, they are responsible for the reprocussions.

It's a well-settled legal principle that persons are held responsible for the actions of their agents when those agents act in the furtherance of their employers' wishes and in a manner not contradictory to responsible behavior.

Microsoft and Cisco perhaps should be held independently responsible for their failings here, but it certainly does not follow that Qwest ought be absolved of all duty to its customers.

The rationale behind such a legal relationship is readily apparent. The customers have their dealings with Qwest.

The customers often are not provided the opportunity to inquire into the methods Qwest is using to provide customers with services.

And even when they are, there is no reasonable expectation that these subcontractors will listen to these end customers. (After all, their customers aren't Qwest's customers. Their customer is Qwest alone.)

But Qwest has no real reason to complain to Microsoft and Cisco, since Qwest can simply pass the costs on to their consumers as they're trying to do here.

In the end, consumers are shafted, and everyone else profits.

Only by extending legal reliability up the foodchain to people making the final decision can we attempt to ensure that moronic decisions like these accurately produce the reprocussions for decision-makers that consumers feel.

Re:Whose problem? (1)

Rhyas (100444) | about 13 years ago | (#2206500)

What Qwest clearly fails to comprehend is that, by choosing the tools they did, which have a known history of virus vulnerability, they are responsible for the reprocussions.

Umm....Cisco has a long history of virus vulnerability? Please Explain. Because IIRC, it was a Cisco Bug that caused the Cisco router to crash/hang when Code Red hit the Management interface that Cisco has on port 80. And I was unaware of Cisco having a "known history of virus vulnerability".

-= Rhyas =-

Re:Whose problem? (2)

figment (22844) | about 13 years ago | (#2206501)

Microsoft and Cisco perhaps should be held independently responsible for their failings here, but it certainly does not follow that Qwest ought be absolved of all duty to its customers.

This problem has been known for a few months prior to the CodeRed outbreak. Cisco was fairly responsive in issuing a fix (not as fast as their normal bug fixes... but this isn't an IOS so it's somewhat understandable.)

Qwest should be somewhat held responsible because the fix had been out for a decent period of time, during which Qwest had declared the patch unsupported, leaving people who wanted to patch their routers without much of a choice but to leave it broken, and DOSable.

I have a better idea... (1)

The_Messenger (110966) | about 13 years ago | (#2206443)

Isn't the downtime really the fault of the morons running unpatched IIS servers on DSL service? And who are, in the case of residential service, probably violating their service agreement? Qwest should give everyone the money, and recoup their losses by port-scanning their DSL subscribers and charging offenders an extra monthly fee. Every Qwest customer, redidential and business, who is running unpatched IIS is to blame.

Or if Qwest doesn't wish to offend their customers, they should just blame Microsoft. I understand that this is standard practice... just yesterday, some Delphi fucktard (you know the type... "just drag and drop the components! yes, that all it takes to be a real programmer!" ha ha ha) was telling me that the ability to blame Microsoft -- even for things that aren't really Redmond's fault -- is an advantage of running NT! It's really getting difficult for me to defend Windows as a rightful player in the heterogenous world of computing when its users display such poor judgement and reasoning.

Re:I have a better idea... (1)

AmigaAvenger (210519) | about 13 years ago | (#2206482)

Read the article... The outage doesn't have anyting to do with IIS. I have qwest dsl also, and was affected. Code red requests overran some buffers in the Cisco 675 dsl router/modem. Disabling web management on the modem doesn't work, you have to move it to a different port

Re:I have a better idea... (1)

The_Messenger (110966) | about 13 years ago | (#2206541)

Are you saying that there's more to Slashdot than trying to first post?

Re:I have a better idea... (1)

jbrelie (322599) | about 13 years ago | (#2206508)

IIS and Cisco's DSL problem have nothing to do with each other except that they are both affected by Code Red. You only need one or the other to get hit. IIS servers are the worst player, since the propagate the virus at an incredible rate. Pre CBOS 2.4 Cisco Routers get nailed by the way the virus tries to infect other machines.
Also, I happen to be a resedential Qwest DSL customer as well, and I made DAMN sure there was nothing in the language of the contract that restricted me from running a webserver, mailserver, or any other server I might get a hankerin' for. So no, you can't charge people for abusing thier lines.

excite article (2)

enrico_suave (179651) | about 13 years ago | (#2206445)

Is there some irony there? like when reports on the latest M$ security hole/virus/etc ???


slashdot was down on Friday night!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206449)

I want my hot grits back!!

Why shouldn't they get refunds? (2)

Wakko Warner (324) | about 13 years ago | (#2206456)

It depends on what they were guaranteed, doesn't it? If the contract they signed stipulated an always-available Internet connection, and it wasn't always available (due to whatever circumstances), shouldn't a refund be in order?

When a telephone pole near my house was struck by lightning last year, I lost cable (and cable modem Internet access) for a couple of weeks. The cable company not only happily refunded me half a month's worth of charges, but I didn't even have to ask.

- A.P.

Re:Why shouldn't they get refunds? (1)

chryptic (25254) | about 13 years ago | (#2206481)

Qwest never promises anything.

code red (1)

laslo2 (51210) | about 13 years ago | (#2206462)

maybe if they *didn't run IIS*....

Re:code red (1)

jbrelie (322599) | about 13 years ago | (#2206531)

again I feel I must state that IIS didn't have ANYTHING to do with the outage. IIS only propagates the virus. Certain Cisco DSL routers (specifically the pre-cbos-2.4 types) get knocked offline due to the way the virus tries to infect other hosts. You could have Commodore64 plugged into the other end of a suceptible router, and you would still be affected by the Qwest outage.

Excite@home (1)

crazyprogrammer (412543) | about 13 years ago | (#2206464)

Excite has a story about it here

I hope Excite@HOME [] customers don't demand refunds.

Damn (5, Interesting)

banky (9941) | about 13 years ago | (#2206465)

I've never taken the time to write an angry post about the editorial content... but sheesh.

First, if you lost cablemodem service for almost a WEEK, WHILE BEING LIED TO about the cause, wouldn't you be a little mad? This was the case here in Fairfax. They tried to say it was "sheduled router upgrades", only to backpedal a couple days later after everyone figured it out (and they had to implore their users to patch, and their email system was down, etc etc).

Second, I guess I'm wacky, but if I pay for something, I want what I paid for, as other people have said here. I pay $45 a month for cable service. I don't call and complain if it goes out during a storm for a couple hours. But if its down for DAYS, their tech support line is TURNED OFF, and no one will tell me when it's coming back up, I expect to not have to pay for this service! I am not being given anything but a blinking data light. Some of us do not maintain multiple backup dial-up accounts; yes, I'll freely admin I'm spoiled by broadband, but at the same time, I can't justify spending $25 a month in case I lose my connection for a week.All the DSL providers in my area are dead or dying; roadrunner is my only option besides modeming (which is a bad scene in and of itself, die to "multiplexed lines" or some such nonsense which means I get 28.8 tops).

Third, if no one says anything and just rolls over, then the company will not be challenged to provide a high level of service, since they will know customers will just take it.

Sorry, Taco, but you're a helmet.

Refund or Service. (2)

Faux_Pseudo (141152) | about 13 years ago | (#2206469)

Lets see, a few hundred refunds of $5 a peice which the service contract does not require, OR the knowledge that you will only loose a handfull of customres because broadband is a monoply.
Oh an option number 3: Be a pissed off customer and complain you want your $5 in this time of economic uncertanty for broadband companies and if enough other people do it the company is unable to pay its bills and you are left with no service at all.

Lets just say that when my nntp connection goes down with @home for a few hours each month I do not call demanding a refund.

Re:Refund or Service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206595)

I think most of the complaints tend to come from people who don't have a realistic understanding of bandwidth costs.

They sound like a bunch of damn niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206470)

bitching about getting their welfare checks.

From an affected party (1)

jbrelie (322599) | about 13 years ago | (#2206471)

I will grant that they were probably pretty busy during all this so I could understand the 2 and 3 hour wait times. I wasn't really expecting techs to be able to help me anyway. ("poorly trained" was a really NICE way of putting it.)
I just don't think that Qwest was proactive enough in coming to a solution. They tossed out "patches" and "quick-fixes" without really testing them. I just think that the whole issue could have been resolved much faster than it was. They *should* be handing out refunds, but they never will. I for one am looking into new ISP alternatives. This is not the first time my company has gotten screwed by Qwest.

Test (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206479)

This is a test of slashdot stupidity system. Had this been a real troll the message would be filled with stuff about how BSD is dying or some other nonsense.

Does anybody else... (-1, Troll)

sigwinch (115375) | about 13 years ago | (#2206483)

..._ []

Re:Does anybody else... (1)

sigwinch (115375) | about 13 years ago | (#2206519)

Dammit. That didn't do what I hope it'd do. Sorry for the noise.

Problem Solved (1)

Rogain (91755) | about 13 years ago | (#2206486)

You sue your ISP,
then your dumb Microsoft product using ISP sues microsoft,
Microsft disappears into the blackhole created by the massive gravitational effect caused by so many money-hungry lawyers rushing to Redmond to jockey for position at the trough.

Lets see, microsft disappears and we lose the lawyers, perhaps human civilization might have a change to survive afterall

The Truth About CmdrTaco, VA, and Microsoft (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206491)

Note: When Taco and his goons read this post I'll probably be killed and this post may be deleted so READ IT FAST!!

The Truth About CmdrTaco, VA, and Microsoft:

According to my inside source who is relatively high up in the management at VA, MICROSOFT has been backing CmdrTaco all along. That's right: MICROSOFT is responsible for the creation of slashdot. Their goal was probably to bring down Linux and it looks like they succeeded: LNUX is trading at like a buck and a quarter now on the Nasdaq. RHAT is at a record low and CALD is going bankrupt. Even the LinuxCare IPO was canceled. Don't even get me started on Lineo.

But why?? WHY bankroll Taco?? The answer lies in VA's aquisition of slashdot. Microsoft knew all along that VA was going to be a big threat. So after bankrolling Taco for a few years, they created a puppet organization to "buy" him out: ANDOVER!! Then they threw a few billion in Andover's advertising budget to get VA's interest. It worked: VA bought out Andover a few months after its IPO.

Once Microsoft had the trojan horse within the gates of VA, they began to dismantle EVERYTHING. When a loyal VA employee would turn his back, a paid Microsoft shill(such as Taco) would unplug all the ethernet cables!! And bend the pins on the CPU's too!! And other stuff like this.

After a couple years of this terrorism, VA was forced to leave the hardware market because their margins just sucked because of all the broken hardware. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for Microsoft. But what about Taco?? Why did he go along with all this?? No one would sell out their own dear friends for a few Microsoft millions, would they??

THE TRUTH: CmdrTaco doesn't exist. He isn't a real person. He's like JeffK, a product of someone's imagination. The true hand behind the taco is...


I have to go now, some people in black suits are breaking down my door. LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN!! TRUST NO TACOS!!!

Re:The Truth About CmdrTaco, VA, and Microsoft (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206512)

damn thats funny how can you give this guy a score of zero?

Who's really to blame? (1)

brad3378 (155304) | about 13 years ago | (#2206496)

Seems to me that if an ISP is going to be held responsible for this type of problem, then shouldn't Microsoft be responsible as well? After all, ISPs are customers of the company with the flawed software.

I have to wonder what the implications for responsibility would be if they were using open source code instead.

Reminds me of the whole Ford/Firestone fiasco.
Anybody who's ever blown a tire would know that you shouldn't get into an accident unless you do something stupid. (Car&Driver verified this with an elaborate road test). Ford and Firestone have to blame each other to avoid directly calling their customers idiots. (just for the record, I drive a Ford, so flame away ;-)

Anyway, to get back on topic, this is a classic case of blaming the "fall guy" because it's too tough to go after the real problem.

Flame Away!

Re:Who's really to blame? (1)

jbrelie (322599) | about 13 years ago | (#2206573)

Dude... Nobody is dying over this.

hypocrites (1)

jayhawk88 (160512) | about 13 years ago | (#2206498)

I wonder what all these customers reactions would be if their ISP tried to bill them extra every time they clicked on a SirCam attachment and sent 5 gig worth of pr0n, resumes, and book reports through the mail servers? Shit happens people; unless you got an uptime agreement with your ISP, live with it.

Using Microsoft in infrastructure? (1)

chaoskitty (11449) | about 13 years ago | (#2206506)

Any company stupid enough to use Microsoft products in their infrastructure should not expect others to simply accept downtime as a result of this stupidity.

If my line went down because the people that run my ISP are inept, I would DEMAND a refund of the time that it was down. If I had an option, I'd switch ISPs.

Honest accidents, or causes like weather, are understandable. Large tech companies that have extensive tech staff running Microsoft products is unexcusable.

Re:Using Microsoft in infrastructure? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206571)

troll sir you are a troll00

Please state your large tech company experience so we may judge your qualifications to make this statement - i suspect you have none

Why would a large tech company run linux - it costs more in time - requires updates - drivers dont work properly - time is wasted on things that should be easy - etc etc

You have no idea what you are talking about do you

Re:Using Microsoft in infrastructure? (1)

reddeno (155457) | about 13 years ago | (#2206594)

They aren't using Microsoft products, they're using Cisco products. Dolt.

I was hit... (2) (184378) | about 13 years ago | (#2206514) the Code Red virus. A few entries in Apache's access_log but I didn't go down (nor did my PacBell DSL line). But I think I'll sue all of Qwest's customers (or maybe just the ones suing Qwest) for attempting to attack my system. That's cyber-terrorism, no? They should've been patched and my guess is a bunch of those morons were propogating the worm further. Who knows, maybe Qwest targetted some of their customers specifically who they thought (legitimately or not) were further propogating the worm.

Re:I was hit... (1)

jbrelie (322599) | about 13 years ago | (#2206582)

It wasn't Qwest DSL routers that attacked your system dumbass. It was unpatched IIS servers that did. DSL routers only get kicked offline when Code Red tries to infect them the way they would an NT IIS server. And that was even a side effect of the virus.
Do your homework.

RE: Qwest (1)

Boarder2 (185337) | about 13 years ago | (#2206517)

I suppose this all depends on location and such.

I think it sucks because I was told that Qwest waited to patch their servers not thinking that this was a big problem. A company as big and powerfull (bandwidth wise) as Qwest is should be carefull with their servers, especially with things like this that could take out service for everyone.

Luckily my company was able to eventually get through to some semi-compietent people at tech support that helped us through it. Unfortunately my dads company wasn't so lucky. They had 6 hour waits just to get hung up on, and call back, wait 4 more hours just to get someone that avoided the fact that it was there.

I eventually ended up giving him the way to fix it and they were up again in a few minutes. But without experiances with Qwest we are not in a position to highly reccomend them as an ISP. Though, when they're up, they're good. But so goes the story of broadband connections, right? :)

Financial priorities (1)

the_rev_matt (239420) | about 13 years ago | (#2206520)

Qwest has more important financial priorities. Such as paying Joe and Sol (the two most hated men in Colorado by a long shot) hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses this past year (despite the stock being down by 50%). I wonder how much bonus they'd have gotten if the company had performed well?

as we are (slowly) learning, when you deal with a monopoly such as {telco/cable co/power co/water co/etc} you pays your money and you takes your chances. They promise minimal service and maximum hassle in exchange for as much of your money as they can squeeze out of you. I'm far less concerned about the business practices of Microsoft, where there are options ad nauseum, than I am about true officially sanctioned monopolies such as those listed above, which are basic necessities (well, cable isn't since cable isn't a necessity).

Say it three times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206521)

DSL is not a commercial-grade service.
DSL is not a commercial-grade service.
DSL is not a commercial-grade service.

If you have a business that needs 24x7 connectivity with a rapid response in the event of a failure, get a T1 line, or at least an ISDN line. If you're relying on a DSL (or cable) connection as a lifeline for your business, you're relying on the wrong technology.

The guy said he lost $5000 in business due to the outage. If his internet connection is worth that much in business over just a few days, he should have invested more than $50 a month in it.

Joe Average wants service for dollars... (1)

mystery_bowler (472698) | about 13 years ago | (#2206529)

Reason being, the average home user probably isn't going to care about (or even understand) whatever caused the problem at the ISP. All the average consumer knows is that they paid X amount of dollars for an always-on connection that suddenly wasn't on. Should my DSL provider suddenly go down and claim it was Code Red, I'd be upset, but being someone who has at least a little understanding of the nature of networking, I'd be a little understanding (especially if the connection was back up quickly).

I'd imagine that as these types of weaknesses become more exploited, ISPs/DSL providers will have no choice but to try and do business with systems that are increasingly less vulnerable to attacks, because the defense of "it wasn't our fault, our routers/servers were exploited" probably won't hold up to their customers.

Well it would depend. (1)

ioman1 (474363) | about 13 years ago | (#2206535)

How long was the average user down? It might justify asking for a refund if the ammount was large enough.

Depends on your usage... (1)

Evil Oli (516455) | about 13 years ago | (#2206543)

I am all too familiar with the tricky 'agreements' they make you sign before getting broadband service. They are typefied by fairly sketchy and vague descriptions of how good the service will be.

However, they do make certain guarantees of the service, and let's face it - their job is to keep the system working, whether it be Code Red virus, or scheduled repairs. Home users who lost a lot of time due to this should be compensated for the loss.

On the other hand, people using DSL for business purposes should know better. I've had clients complaining "why has my cable been down for a week... I'm using this for a business!!!".

Cheapskates like this deserve downtime. DSL and cable are not mature enough products (esp. DSL) to warrant business use. It is cheap, and that attracts a lot of people, but it just doesn't have the stability businesses need.

Learn a lesson or two... if you're entrusting your ENTIRE business to online presence or connectivity, spend a bit of money and get at least an ISDN connection. You have to spend money to make money. Frankly I don't know why people rely on the internet so much anyway. It is a *convenience*, not a staple.


Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206549)

Blaming Qwest for loss of service because of Code Red is roughly the same as blaming the state of california becuase your house fell into the San Andreas fault.

What's the problem?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206551)

Okay, So let's say you poor folks got slammed by ISP's in the states (hahaha.. my Canadian DSL provider just laughed through it!) with a few hours of downtime..

1) Check your contract carefully.

2) Check your Contract carefully.

3) Whine some more. Then, Check your contract carefully.

4) Consider: Is this "internet thing" end-to-end deliverable, in terms of ANY kind of guarantee? Put this in comparison with a contract that might state: Yah, your local loop is guaranteed to be up, 99% of the month..

Stop your whining. Fess up. Pay your cash for what you get. 56k!? I did grow up using a C64 and 300bps modumb. Coddled. That's what you are, in an UNREGULATED communications medium.

REGULATE it, and it'll be reliable. leave it UNREGULATED, and we're stuck with occasional delays.


Canuck boy.

Please quit giving software subs mindshare please. (1)

raretek (215909) | about 13 years ago | (#2206557)

As long as it remains unthinkable, it will be.

Qwest was negligent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206559)

  1. The HTTP server in the Cisco 67x's was vulnerable to Code Red -- it didn't get infected like the intended IIS targets, the router just croaked as a side-effect of the Code Red probe.
  2. Qwest didn't routinely use the HTTP server for remote router management, nor did they recommend that their users do so -- it was just a lightly documented option in the back of the supplied user documentation.
  3. Even though it wasn't being used, Qwest left the HTTP server enabled and configured to accept connections on the WAN port of the router.
  4. Cisco made specific provisions in the 67x series for easy ISP default configuration customization; Qwest didn't take advantage of them.

Conclusion: Qwest was negligent in needlessly exposing its users to HTTP server flaws, and deserves to pay for not following accepted security procedures -- i.e., turn off all unused network services.

Unbelieveable.... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 13 years ago | (#2206566)

It takes all types, and obviously comuters and the internet are now rife with the types of the clueless. (Ok, I know, that ain't a news flash by any means) First off the TOS with any isp states that they are responsible for nothing, and if something happens that is not of their doing that interrupts your service then tough cookies. This is like asking the Cable company to refund your money because while your power was out you couldn't watch tv! or demanding a refund from the phone company because you couldnt use your phone while your house was burning down.

Unfortunatly, the courts will either help these "poor" users. or it will be swept under the table.
I just wish for once we'd get a judge that would publically announce that the plaintiffs in a friviouls lawsuit were morons and idiots... but then that'll bring more friviolus lawsuits... and so starts the spiral downward...

If this case is won by the users.... when can we sue microsoft for all the lost productivity their operating system causes weekly?

Shouldn't.. (2)

RainbowSix (105550) | about 13 years ago | (#2206575)

... their target be Microsoft or the creater of the virus? This is just as frivilous as suing for allowing users to copy artist's work.

Isn't this like my non-use of MS software refund? (1)

mugamba (324812) | about 13 years ago | (#2206579)

I have to accept paying for the pre-installed OS that I wiped clean, waste my time loading Linux the way I want, and then throw the still-shrink-wrapped software in the trash. I don't peel the stupid Microsoft Windows license sticker glued to my new machine and mail it back to either the manufacturer OR Microsoft. I deal with it.
This virus outage complaint is the EXACT same thing. I don't ask for a refund because my modem light is glowing, even though I have no systems on, nor when my Apache logs are filled to the brim, nor when it takes five to ten minutes to check my mail due to the latency.
It is part of life. Sorry. Get over it.

Doing what they need to do. (1)

pjbass (144318) | about 13 years ago | (#2206592)

One thing people need to realize is that when someone pays for a service, DSL or any other type of net connection, they are paying for a service. They are not "purchasing" the lines, they are essentially "renting" the use of the lines. Qwest should not be held responsible, neither should any other ISP for that matter, for users who unfortunately didn't know better to patch their machines. The only way I think ANY ISP should be held accountable is if THEIR machines caused the outage or decrease in service.

I also wanted to address the business of AT&T, as well as many other smaller ISP's, blocking port 80. This again is a measure taken by AT&T, who by contract holds the discretion and right to do with their service as they see fit. If they had in their contract that they MUST provide access to port 80, then people have something to go after them for. I'm not saying that this was "right" or anything. It sucks. But AT&T and others took the proactive approach (as proactive as possible) to stop the spread of this worm, and to save their bandwidth, so they WOULDN'T have a complete outage.

If an ISP doesn't cut the worm off at the source, how is the ISP supposed to defend itself? I think the people who should be approached are the ones who left their machines open for infection, and then saying "I'm not infected" when people start talking about all the infected machines.

but what about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2206597)

I have not experienced loss of service, but it's all the big ass ISPs that I'm getting hit the most by. I've gotten just a hair under 30,000 Code Red/II attempts since July 19th between the two domains I host. Both servers were salvaged PPro 200's with relatively small hard drives. Having 99% capacity in /var is not good, as before CR, it topped out at 20%. Thanks to lazy admins and lazy ISPs that refuse to discipline their offending customers, I'm running out of drive space.

My company being a small company, there's not always $$$ to throw around for upgrades.

Anyway, at last count, AOL customers alone (* had over 4,000 attempts, and AOL's PROXIES for god sake tried a few hundred. I'll grep for qwest tomorrow. But why should *I* suffer for not installing inferior software? I don't get it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>