Beware of "9 Net Avenue"
Matt Hucke
I came home today to find a faxed advertisement, purportedly from
9NetAvenue, who claim to be the "#1 web hosting and domain name
services company".
Unsolicted faxes are a violation of the TCPA:
"It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States--
... (C) to use any telephone fascimile machine, computer or
other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a
telephone fascimile machine;..."
The senders of this ad apparently feel they are above the law and
can distribute their shit anywhere they choose.
I would strongly urge that anyone considering website hosting
avoid these vermin.
--
Matt Hucke (hu...@cynico.com) | "Since the beginning of time, man
Cynico Network Consulting | has yearned to destroy the sun."
Graveyards of Chicago: | -- Montgomery Burns
http://www.graveyards.com |
Adam Bailey
> I came home today to find a faxed advertisement, purportedly from
> 9NetAvenue, who claim to be the "#1 web hosting and domain name
> services company".
>
> Unsolicted faxes are a violation of the TCPA:
Considering the folks in nanae have been complaining about 9NetAvenue
for sending UBE for months now, that they'd also use junk faxes
doesn't surprise me.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
ad...@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
ada...@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
Dan Berkes
Hucke) wrote:
>I came home today to find a faxed advertisement, purportedly from
>9NetAvenue, who claim to be the "#1 web hosting and domain name
>services company".
Uh huh... so successful that they have to steal the resources of others to
advertise. Too many flashy banner and print ads must have drained the VC
kitty.
>Unsolicted faxes are a violation of the TCPA:
Oh, I can't wait to hear 9netave's excuse for this. I'll take a guess:
somone was using paisnel's fax machine without his permission and it will
NEVER happen again. ;-)
>I would strongly urge that anyone considering website hosting
>avoid these vermin.
They've been to nanae, at least their top marketing guy was there a few
months ago. In between the flames he did get a lesson in the difference
between acceptable and unacceptable advertising. There's no way in hell
they can plead innocent.
--Dan
Mike Stucka
: I came home today to find a faxed advertisement, purportedly from
: 9NetAvenue, who claim to be the "#1 web hosting and domain name
: services company".
Can't you charge them for damages or some such under the law?
Mike, thinking it would be kinda cool to do more than have spammers lose
their hosts
David Scheidt
: In chi.internet Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
: : I came home today to find a faxed advertisement, purportedly from
: : 9NetAvenue, who claim to be the "#1 web hosting and domain name
: : services company".
: Can't you charge them for damages or some such under the law?
$500 per incident, $1,500 if you can prove they were aware of the
law. The Telecom-Digest (www.telecom-digest.org) archives are
likely to instructions.
David Scheidt
--
dsch...@enteract.com
You could look at our current gun laws as a way of ensuring that
British armed criminals are really *motivated*.
-- Phil Edwards
Matt Hucke
Mike Stucka <mstuck...@math.luc.edu> wrote:
>In chi.internet Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>: I came home today to find a faxed advertisement, purportedly from
>: 9NetAvenue, who claim to be the "#1 web hosting and domain name
>: services company".
>
>Can't you charge them for damages or some such under the law?
I'm going to try. I know someone who has done this in the past;
after talking to him I'll compose and send a demand letter.
Alun Jones
> In article <7johdn$lec$2...@calchas.it.luc.edu>,
> Mike Stucka <mstuck...@math.luc.edu> wrote:
> >In chi.internet Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >: I came home today to find a faxed advertisement, purportedly from
> >: 9NetAvenue, who claim to be the "#1 web hosting and domain name
> >: services company".
> >
> >Can't you charge them for damages or some such under the law?
>
> I'm going to try. I know someone who has done this in the past;
> after talking to him I'll compose and send a demand letter.
Do let us know how it comes out - I received a junk fax from them on March
29, sent a response by email to them on same date to both ab...@9netave.com
and j...@9netave.com (listed at the time as their admin contact, I believe),
noting that their faxing me was illegal, and that I was not interested in
the service of an ISP that has no problem in doing illegal unsolicited
advertising, and clearly wasn't going to be interested in controlling spam.
I got a response from secu...@9netave.com indicating that they'd received
my message, would be investigating it (hah!), and that any further
communication on the matter should be sent to secu...@9netave.com. Not a
peep from that address since.
On June 10, I received _two_ further junk faxes from them. Copies plus a
complaint letter are on their way to our local AG, as well as the FCC's
consumer complaints section, as detailed on their web site. Frankly I'm not
sure I care about the monetary damages (although I _would_ be very pleased
to receive them), I just want to shut down all the various junk faxers.
Over the last year, I got an average of one junk fax every other
business day, and the frequency of these occurrences is rising to the point
where more of my faxes are junk than are regular business. We'll see how
this complaint is handled, and go from there, I guess.
Alun.
~~~~
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find it
1602 Harvest Moon Place | at web site http://www.wftpd.com or email
Cedar Park TX 78613 | us at al...@texis.com. VISA / MC accepted.
Fax +1 (512) 378 3246 | NT based ISPs, be sure to read details of
Phone +1 (512) 378 3246 | WFTPD Pro, NT service version - $100.
*WFTPD and WFTPD Pro now available as native Alpha versions for NT*
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
> Do let us know how it comes out - I received a junk fax from them on March
> 29, sent a response by email to them on same date to both ab...@9netave.com
> and j...@9netave.com (listed at the time as their admin contact, I believe),
> noting that their faxing me was illegal, and that I was not interested in
> the service of an ISP that has no problem in doing illegal unsolicited
> advertising, and clearly wasn't going to be interested in controlling spam.
>
> I got a response from secu...@9netave.com indicating that they'd received
> my message, would be investigating it (hah!), and that any further
> communication on the matter should be sent to secu...@9netave.com. Not a
> peep from that address since.
You've also very likely put your e-mail address on a new spammer list.
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cliff Sharp | "Speech isn't free when it comes postage-due." |
| WA9PDM | -- Jim Nitchals, founder, FREE |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- http://www.spamfree.org/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+