Re: They have my full support

ross join:2000-08-16 ·Digizip 1 edit	reply to toobad Re: They have my full support said by toobad : too bad we all know you won't do anything about it ross accept keep paying at&t for there services you stated before you had other options available to you but that your too lazy to go for them so you will whine and complain but in the end you will not stand up and put your money where your keyboard is Once again, for your edification, the choices I have are AT&T and Comcast, and a number of third party providers of VOIP that would require a DSL circuit, or a cable connection. As it happens, I have ADSL service through COVAD over AT&T copper. That means I can just get a VOIP provider, use Skype, Magicjack, etc.. EXCEPT, if I cancel my AT&T landlines, I believe I will lose my ADSL with COVAD, or I will have to convert it to dryline service. I don't think, but haven't investigated the issue fully as yet, I can get a dryline DSL service without going directly with AT&T. I think there may also be a few remaining CLECs in my area, and I will find out more in the next few days. My AT&T services have been reliable, though unimproved, for the 30+ years I've lived here. The service is reasonable, but not as cheap as it could or should be. There is so much noise on my lines I can't get over 3Mbps/520Kbps ADSL. That pisses me off. So does the prospect of having to subscribe to Comcast HSI, unbundled. I like having a hard-wired telephone service, especially with 911 service that is reliable and accurate. I don't understand why I can't get Verizon service in my AT&T area. After all, isn't this the post Bell monopoly era 30 years on? Fuck, where is all that competition that was supposed improve technology and lower costs, and allow me to choose among multiple vendors for service? Lastly, I do have some choices, though they are far from ideal. However, why am I being forced to accept such a major change in terms, and such a lopsided position in a contract that has lasted for so long? Christ, I have excellent credit, and an on-time payment history for the entire length of my service with AT&T. Why should I have to agree with the onerous terms in AT&T's new Residential Service Agreement? Why am I forced to surrender my legal rights to privacy, and indemnify everybody under AT&T umbrella for illegal acts AT&T has, or may, undertake? I have to change telephone company providers, DSL providers, and potentially lose telephone numbers I have had for 30+ years. It is a major PITA, but I will not accept the terms of the new AT&T RSA. Why should my life be disrupted without benefit to me? FUCK AT&T!
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-26 21:44:29 ·
wierdo join:2001-02-16 Tulsa, OK ·Future Nine Corpor.. ·Teliax VOIP	reply to amigo_boy said by amigo_boy : said by Skippy25 : So warrants really have no place in your world? I'm only saying what the laws are today. You can't ignore the existing law, claiming it's something different. That's just a recipe for more of what you say is wrong. The solution is to amend the law. No, you're ignoring the laws that exist (like ECPA, which was mentioned above), which expressly create legislatively an expectation of privacy, and in fact, penalties for interception of communications. The ECPA was passed, in part, because of the ambiguity of other wiretap laws to electronic store and forward communications. -- It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-25 17:09:00 ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK ·AT&T Yahoo ·AT&T DSL Service ·Cox HSI ·AT&T Southwest	reply to amigo_boy said by amigo_boy : All they have to do is look. If they want to break the law. They need to capture and read the data. They're not supposed to by law. Just because they CAN do so does not make it legal to do so. -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-24 19:09:21 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com	reply to KrK said by KrK : All possible, however, just because you don't believe in expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. IMO, the analogy to US postal mail is a bad one. A better analogy would be using postcards to communicate, expecting privacy. Internet traffic isn't sealed in an envelope. It's visible to a lot of people during its journey. All they have to do is look. Just like a postcard. Mark
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-24 18:41:59 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com	reply to Skippy25 said by Skippy25 : So warrants really have no place in your world? I'm only saying what the laws are today. You can't ignore the existing law, claiming it's something different. That's just a recipe for more of what you say is wrong. The solution is to amend the law. Mark
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-24 18:39:03 ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK ·AT&T Yahoo ·AT&T DSL Service ·Cox HSI ·AT&T Southwest	reply to amigo_boy said by amigo_boy : I have no expectation of privacy with the US mail. It could be delivered to the wrong address. Dropped on the ground by the carrier. Torn open by the automated sorting machines. All possible, however, just because you don't believe in expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. It's less about someone writing a letter encouraging a terrorist attack or so on (because these people most likely would communicate in secret and use codes) but more about more mundane things such as bank account numbers, payments, friends and family, medical records, and so on. The type of stuff that if it fell into the hands of an honest person accidently wouldn't be a big deal--- but could be a major problem if dishonest crooks deliberately sought such information to commit fraud or scam you. -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-24 18:36:52 ·
Skippy25 join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO	reply to amigo_boy So warrants really have no place in your world?
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-24 18:30:35 ·
toobad @swbell.net from: amigo_boy	reply to ross too bad we all know you won't do anything about it ross accept keep paying at&t for there services you stated before you had other options available to you but that your too lazy to go for them so you will whine and complain but in the end you will not stand up and put your money where your keyboard is
	to forum · permalink · 2008-08-24 17:56:17 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com	reply to KrK said by KrK : The same could be said for mail. You didn't write it in code, it passes through several people's hands, therefore you need to assume anyone is reading it. Not so. It's protected by LAW. I have no expectation of privacy with the US mail. It could be delivered to the wrong address. Dropped on the ground by the carrier. Torn open by the automated sorting machines. What you're really saying is that you have an expectation of privacy when it doesn't really matter to you. It wouldn't be a big problem if a neighbor read the letter. It wouldn't be a big problem if employees read it when it's torn open (or stolen) at the post office. Sure, you'd huff and puff about how that's not supposed to happen. But, it wouldn't matter because you weren't really expecting privacy when it counts. On the other hand, if you were plotting a biological attack, or sharing how to build a dirty bomb, you wouldn't expect privacy through the postal mail. You wouldn't expect it on the internet. It's very hard to take people seriously that they expect internet privacy, but they don't encrypt their emails, or use https when communicating on forums, etc. They don't expect privacy. If they did, they'd encrypt. We know that's true. Mark
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-24 14:21:36 ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK ·AT&T Yahoo ·AT&T DSL Service ·Cox HSI ·AT&T Southwest	reply to amigo_boy said by amigo_boy : That's not true. The 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. If someone voluntarily chooses to communicate over the internet, unencrypted, knowing their data is visible to anyone along 10-20 hops through companies with which they have no contractual relationship, that may be equivalent to standing on the street corner discussing personal matters, expecting privacy. No way. The same could be said for mail. You didn't write it in code, it passes through several people's hands, therefore you need to assume anyone is reading it. Not so. It's protected by LAW. See that's the point.... they could read it.... but they are prohibited from doing so by LAW without warrants. Same with internet information. Sure, people could read it... but they aren't supposed to. Your privacy is supposed to be protected, unless you are the topic of a criminal investigation and a warrant is in place. -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-24 12:43:03 ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK ·AT&T Yahoo ·AT&T DSL Service ·Cox HSI ·AT&T Southwest	reply to keyboard5684 said by keyboard5684 : I think once your data leaves your home and passes onto ATTs network, or anyone else's network, they can do with the data what they wish. This is the nature of the internet. Oh for ..... Ok, then why not the same with your mail, with your banking, etc etc? If it goes over someone else's property, they own it too? What nonsense! Does that mean if you send money from here to there, and it passes over my network, I can just take it if I feel like it? Come on! -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-24 12:36:59 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com	reply to funchords Re: Libertarianism is a joke said by funchords : Fine, but DSLReports is about Broadband, Telecom, DSL, and the like. Libertarinism is about taking so-called personal responsibility. Maybe you need to take responsibility for I think you'll find me very libertarian, anti-government interference, and pro-business. »Re: They have my full support IMO, this is sounding like typical libertarianism. "Let me spout off about my high-sounding principles. But, if anyone challenges me, I want to 'hey mod' them, or claim they're off topic." Mark
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-23 20:37:51 · (locked)
funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC ·Verizon Online DSL ·Skype	reply to amigo_boy Fine, but DSLReports is about Broadband, Telecom, DSL, and the like. I'm sorry I said one of your magic words or whatever set you off, but "Libertarian is a joke" is entirely off-topic and seemed to just serve as an opportunity for you to spout off about something that wasn't being discussed.
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-23 20:30:21 · (locked)
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com	reply to funchords said by funchords : you and I are have different definitions I'm just going by what is official Libertarian dogma from the Libertarian party. And, from Ayn Rand's "objectivism." The premise is the "non-coercion" principle. If you've found a "pragmatic" position that accepts "coercion" sometimes, that's fine with me. That's what Libertarians do. They either follow the dogma to its natural conclusion (irrelevancy and anarchy). Or, they do the same thing everyone else does: be pragmatic. As I said before, everyone else is pragmatic without claiming to be defenders of individual liberty, according to a perfect standard. Libertarianism is essentially self-deceit. said by funchords : with residential telecom, we have a choice between private regulation by the company or companies that serve our address, or public regulation by the government. Again, simplistic libertarian world views. Telcos are corporations, a fictional, yet legal entity created by state legislatures. To serve as the "fall guy" if officers and investors make the wrong "free market" choices. That's the problem I have with libertarianism. It redefines reality. Ignore all the social moderation of capital markets, and then claim that some isolated, narrow activity is anti-liberty. Like I've said a few times. For libertarianism to have any significant meaning, it would have to oppose things like state-creation of corporate charters (a social interference in consentual relationships). Or, libertarians have to be pragmatic and say "that's ok, but something else is wrong." Which makes them no different than any other political idelogy. I.e., it's not about liberty, it's about pragmatism and "the common good." Mark
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-23 20:24:53 · (locked)
funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC ·Verizon Online DSL ·Skype 1 edit	reply to amigo_boy Mark, That is not resonating with me at all. If that's your view of libertarianism or Libertarians, then you and I are have different definitions, and before you help me figure out that you're right and I'm wrong, let me tell you now that I don't care. I used the word to describe my point of view, and if I used it wrong I'll still have the same basic point of view -- just one with the wrong name. Perhaps it's best that you forget I used the word or just assume that I don't know what it is. That said, my position remains -- with residential telecom, we have a choice between private regulation by the company or companies that serve our address, or public regulation by the government. Private regulation by companies is usually not a major problem because people can often switch to a company that suits their wants and needs. But when the situation doesn't allow that choice, then I am not opposed to limited government involvement. That's all. Whether that's right, left, up, or down -- I don't care. It's how I feel on the matter. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-23 20:12:03 · (locked)
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com 3 edits	reply to funchords said by funchords : Every single political persuasion has its "high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else." I've never seen the Right or Left refer to the "non-coercion" principle. Only libertarians (and so-called Ayn Rand "objectivsts") do. The obvious problem is if you take "non-coercion" to its natural conclusion. At that point you're in a Lockean "state of nature." No social contract. Perfect rights -- that are only as perfect as you, as an individual has the power to assert/protect. As I said in a previous post, such a state of nature only lasts a few minutes. A few bad people join together in a "society" to overpower the "principled" individuals. The "principled" individuals join together to protect themselves from the bad people. And, in about 19 minutes, you have social contracts. An emphasis on the "common good." Where "common" always leaves some people better or worse than they would have been in a Lockean state of nature. Rs and Ds argue for more or less government in different areas (banning weed, or same-sex marriages, or abortion, etc.). But, you never see them refer to some kind of so-called absolute standard of Libertarian "consentualism." Neither argue for "less government" (as if those who call for more government are anti-American, or anti-Liberty). They simply call for different kinds of government (throwing Cheech and Chong Fans in prison, or defining marriage differently). It's only the libertarians who toss around high-sounding terms like "consent" (or lack of consent). But, the odd thing is, they're perfectly happy with using government in an unconsensual manner -- while depicting themselves as focused on non-coercion. They're no different than anyone else. They just feel they can pretty themselves up with high-sounding, idelogical rhetoric. Mark
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-23 20:01:05 · (locked)
funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC ·Verizon Online DSL ·Skype	reply to amigo_boy said by amigo_boy : (...a bunch of repeated stuff, deleted...) You're the one who invoked libertarianism as some kind of standard to follow. No, I said no such thing. I said that it was my point of view and it was possibly an explanation of why hotboiinnc were in some rare agreement here. Every single political persuasion has its "high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else." Again, you are contributing nothing and making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling and its off-topic. Have you noticed that I haven't refuted anything that you've said? Yet you continue to argue back. My next step is to hit "hey mods" and let them delete the whole thread, including this message, if they so desire. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-23 19:48:35 · (locked)
TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ ·Sprint Mobile Broa.. ·Comcast 1 edit	reply to funchords said by funchords : said by amigo_boy : said by funchords : -- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."... ...Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy... ...Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand... ...if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions... Other than childish name calling, the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. You have persuaded nobody and have contributed nothing. If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, or hotboiinnc and my rare agreement on any issue, feel free to contribute. Making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling. His post laid out his ideas and there wasn't any name calling or trolling. And taking potshots(as you call it) at political groupings isn't trolling either. But accusing others of trolling is trolling. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-23 19:29:18 · (locked)
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com 3 edits	reply to funchords said by funchords : the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. But, that's the problem with "libertarianism." It uses high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else who is supposedly using government (coercion) to impede perfect liberty. If taken seriously, and followed to its logical conclusion, "libertarianism" is irrelevant. If relevancy matters, and adherents make pragmatic choices about when government intervention is useful, they're no different than everyone else participating in the social contract (goring oxes). It's just that everyone else doesn't pretty themselves up with high-minded rhetoric, false claims to "liberty," etc. said by funchords : If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, ... You're the one who invoked libertarianism as some kind of standard to follow. Mark
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-23 19:29:10 · (locked)
funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC ·Verizon Online DSL ·Skype 1 edit	reply to amigo_boy WARNING TO READERS -- THIS POST AND EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS OFF TOPIC, TROLLING, FLAMING, AND BAITING -- Robb said by amigo_boy : said by funchords : -- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."... ...Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy... ...Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand... ...if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions... Other than childish name calling, the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. You have persuaded nobody and have contributed nothing. If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, or hotboiinnc and my rare agreement on any issue, feel free to contribute. Making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
	to forum · permalink · · 2008-08-23 19:07:10 · (locked)


Thursday, 03-Dec 04:47:30	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole page compression OFF