just because the carrier allows you to abuse their TOS

Post #333,435 by boxley 9/30/10 9:57:40 AM Reply	just because the carrier allows you to abuse their TOS doesnt mean they cannot enforce it later Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,441 by beepster 9/30/10 11:28:10 AM Reply	If he pays for the service of sending and receiving unlimited text, why would getting any amount be an abuse of their TOS? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,447 by folkert 9/30/10 3:10:49 PM Reply	And I do pay for unlimited.
Post #333,449 by boxley 9/30/10 3:12:39 PM Reply	Re: If he pays for the service unlimited "non automated" text. Currently they have the bandwidth to carry what he is sending and receiving. If it becomes problematical like ATT they will start lowering the boom Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,448 by folkert 9/30/10 3:11:30 PM Reply	Selective enforcement... This is exactly the issue.
Post #333,450 by drook 9/30/10 3:34:59 PM Reply	Technical solution that proves this is bogus They clearly have the ability to flag "automated" messages, which you're (Box, not Greg) now saying is the issue. Just flag them as automated in the queue. "SELECT * FROM queue ORDER BY flag, timestamp" Presto, all non-automated messages go before any non-automated messages. Bandwidth problem becomes a non-issue. Buyers and senders of automated messages decide whether the delay makes the service unusable or not. Choosing specific senders and specific messages to completely block takes them out of safe harbor provisions. -- Drew
Post #333,474 by folkert 9/30/10 7:09:05 PM Reply	I don't have a problem with... reducing priority of the mass of messages... But he keeps saying they CAN block what the hell ever they want even if the people subscribed to the message service. Personally, since SMS is still effectively free for transmission for the Cellphone companies... (maybe not handling and queuing)
Post #333,475 by boxley 9/30/10 8:39:17 PM Reply	whats this free shyte? http://www.developer...tewayProvComp.asp to get from a computer to you phone you need a gateway, they are not cheap to buy or run. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,527 by folkert 10/1/10 10:32:18 AM Reply	Ok jackass... I said the handling and queuing. That is indeed where the Gateways are. Please READ. The transmission costs are ultimately nil. The costs buy AND run them have come down by orders magnitude. Think back to pagers gateways... one of those... cost a few million dollars for a 64 channel, 120 phone line system, just to get the messages onto the network. Nowadays the effective cost (based on numbers of message being sent and bandied around as costs for gateways) has dropped to about 0.005% of the cost per message handling from 1999.

Welcome to IWETHEY!