Zoho has free accounts and one of the available apps is invoicing. They have all the features you ask for. You can even integrate the "here's an invoice, pay me" emails with payment processors. I've only used it for a few months, but can't complain - it had way more features than I ever needed.
I'm not sure how to interpret this post. Is this basically: "we believe in network neutrality, but here's reality for today: your ISP won't expand capacity, so you can pay us to add special uplink"? It looks like testing the ground for idea of "pay per peering" that becomes a separate line on your invoice. (and I mean for any peering, you rent server and connectivity separately)
I think this might actually a good idea. Instead of just paying the peering fee quietly, they give customers the choice to vote with their money. Alas, "customers" here are not end users, but companies who provide content on the internet.
I don't think it's quite as you put it. I think Hetzner is saying more:
We believe in net neutrality, but some of our customers have noticed that users of these telecom companies cannot access their services during peak hours, or the service is quite slow.
Since we cannot change market dynamics, we are offering our customers a way to offer their customers faster service during peak periods with this "pay per peering" option.
My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that Hetnzer is telling existing customers that instead of having to install servers within the ISP network, they can instead pay a marginal fee per month to bypass the congested peering links to these providers.
> Make sure to clearly state that you would like to order the DTAG uplink in the text field of the request and that you agree to pay the additional € 4.20 a month. The add-on will be called "Double Paid Traffic" on your bill.
I think the name "double paid traffic" is a very clear statement. They are not trying to sugarcoat this or anything. They just don't want to loose customers over this.
It's more like "Your customers/users ISP (in practice DTAG, Deutsche Telekom AG) doesn't participate much in cost-neutral Tier-1 peerings and instead offers an expensive DTAG peering for additional bandwidth". DTAG can do this because they are (one of) the biggest ISP in germany.
Now, how are they going to enforce it will be interesting to see. Our current telephony system looks pretty much like the first days of the internet. Most telcos will happily say "Ah, you're a service provider and send us a call from 011111111111, we'll route it right away!". Add a voip channel or two with a redirection set up and you're unlikely to ever get caught.
While following the trail was hard, another big obstacle was simply to get more law enforcement agencies interested in stopping this guy. It also makes clear that an international approach is necessary.
I'm pretty sure most swatters are kids with limited tech knowledge.
I wonder how many of those calls were even made with voip rather than a burner phone and even that is questionable since many of them were caught shortly after.
Kind of... you're technically right and and practically not. Nobody would describe a PRNG with cycle length of 8 as random. It's just reading numbers off of a list.
In the same section of uuid RFC: "See Section 4.5 for a discussion on random numbers.", and then: "Advice on generating cryptographic-quality random numbers can be found in RFC1750 .", so it's not like authors were unaware of the implications of trivial PRNG. It's just up to the implementation whether CSPRNG is required (user-visible security tokens), or just a PRNG (internal identifiers).
Maybe it's the difference between "Right now it costs..." and what it cost in 1995? Also it's not clear if it's expedited with the lawyer, or was there some program to actually get it expedited with immigration - that could cost extra.