dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5188
share rss forum feed


JasonOD

@comcast.net

Anything that takes google down a notch is good.....

ATT is no saint, but they are regulated and have to play by the rules. To the google fanboys, when are you lemon heads going to wake up and realize google knows more about you than even your worst tin hat big brother nightmares? Who's evil now?



woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

2 recommendations

who cares, google hasn't screwed me like the death star has
--
BlooMe



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to JasonOD

ATT is no saint, but they are regulated and have to play by the rules.
AT&T, with one of the most powerful lobbying operations across any industry, literally wrote many of the very rules they play by. Google, in contrast, literally just started lobbying a few years ago, opening their first DC office I think in like 2005 or something. There are differences.

That said, there are plenty of Google privacy issues at play, and I imagine as Google shifts from innovative, youthful attacker to having to defend against innovation they'll increasingly employ many of the same, disgusting tactics companies like AT&T and Verizon use to protect their positions of power.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to woody7

Honest question, but how exactly has AT&T "screwed" you?


caco
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to JasonOD

said by JasonOD :

ATT is no saint, but they are regulated and have to play by the rules. To the google fanboys, when are you lemon heads going to wake up and realize google knows more about you than even your worst tin hat big brother nightmares? Who's evil now?
People aren't naive about GOOGLE, they just see thru the BS that ATT is trying to push.

Top All-Time Donors 1989-2010 Summary

»opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Check out who is number 1 baby!
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil


verolom

join:2002-03-23
Reston, VA
reply to Karl Bode

Seems that you have absolutely no idea how the PSTN was set up, why there was a monopoly in the first place, why the government created it, then demolished it and made a mess of everything. There are plenty of deeds the Bell system has done in history to really despise them for, but this is not one of them. This is a clear case where the company's interest and that of their customers align.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

There are plenty of deeds the Bell system has done in history to really despise them for, but this is not one of them.
I wasn't aware that using nuns to smear competitors was so worthy of praise. I also wasn't aware of how intentionally muddying the net neutrality discourse helps consumers. Yes. Clearly I have to re-assess.


verolom

join:2002-03-23
Reston, VA

I think the argument is quite clear and the example they used attempts to underline what the issue is and what the repercussions are if "telephone" providers randomly decide whether or when to route your calls. It is analogous to the i-net neutrality argument Google and co are making against ISPs with two very important differences. The first, ISPs still route your traffic where as Google blocks the phone calls. The second, there are laws and regulations in this country governing phone calls, but there really aren't any governing internet access.



DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to verolom

I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious...

If you're being serious, I'll raise the same claim against you based upon your comment and add to it, you not having a clear understanding of how Google Voice works.

Google is NOT regulated. VoIP providers are NOT regulated. They have no governmental obligation to provide phone service to anyone or terminate calls to everywhere.

Naturally AT&T is going to want to support their business interests, but they're in no way looking out for consumers. Let the FCC allow any regulated phone provider decide for themselves if they'll continue to support these rural providers and you'll see how quickly "Ma and Pa" will lose contact with their city dwelling kinfolk.


chimera

join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

AT&T kicked me once in the shin, it hurt.



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to DaSneaky1D

this is exactly right.

i say let them block these conference services. as far as I am concerned the call never even makes it off the voip network and onto the PSTN. which is perfectly legal because VOIP is NOT regulated. just because you started the call on PSTN does not mean that it is a completely PSTN call. it is PSTN -> VOIP -> PSTN. when you call the blocked numbers it never makes the 3rd segment, therefore perfectly legal.



morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

Honest question, but how exactly has AT&T "screwed" you?
by illegally handing over all my phone, internet, and cell records to the NSA and receiving favorable government treatment in return, of course. do we really have to go over this all the time?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

We can over it until we have a legitimate "screwing". If we're discussing the wiretapping issue, then perhaps woody7 See Profile should have stated the Government is doing the "screwing".



woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

I was replying to `another post, Google hasn't done anything to me, But ATT has with my wireless account, I wasn't complaining about the Illegal wire tap from them. If not mistaken, the wiretap was done by ATT (or facilitated at the least) , not the government. My problem isn't with the government, but with ATT. All they had to say was no. I believe they have the money and the resources to have resisted. Peace
--
BlooMe



nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

We can over it until we have a legitimate "screwing". If we're discussing the wiretapping issue, then perhaps woody7 See Profile should have stated the Government is doing the "screwing".
With complicity from the phone companies. The phone companies didn't have to help, at all, without the government presenting warrants/subpoenas. However, they chose to help without those legal requirements because they could cash in future considerations.

The *AAs couldn't really give the telcos such future considerations. Thus, Verizon had no real compunction against telling them to pound sand.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to woody7

So, your "screwing" is your AT&T wireless account? Care to share? I'm honestly curious, because a lot of people tend to throw around various attacks at various large companies, with little to no real reason. I'm not suggestion you don't have a legitimate gripe, but I'm curious what it is.

Yes, wiretap was facilitated by AT&T. Since they own and operate a significant portion of the PSTN, they had to be involved. Government was involved when they walked into AT&T's offices (and others) and requested/directed AT&T's assistance.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to nixen

said by nixen:

The phone companies didn't have to help, at all, without the government presenting warrants/subpoenas.
It's very easy to sit on the outside and say that they didn't "have" to without having all of the details. It'd be an interesting exercise to see how the situation would've been handled by the complainants if they'd been in the CEO's position.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter

said by openbox9:

said by nixen:

The phone companies didn't have to help, at all, without the government presenting warrants/subpoenas.
It's very easy to sit on the outside and say that they didn't "have" to without having all of the details. It'd be an interesting exercise to see how the situation would've been handled by the complainants if they'd been in the CEO's position.
see Qwest for the relevant comparison. Qwest said "no" to the illegal request. it's actually very easy to reject any requests that are illegal, yet somehow AT&T still said "yes".


nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

1 edit
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

said by nixen:

The phone companies didn't have to help, at all, without the government presenting warrants/subpoenas.
It's very easy to sit on the outside and say that they didn't "have" to without having all of the details. It'd be an interesting exercise to see how the situation would've been handled by the complainants if they'd been in the CEO's position.
Actually, no. There's only two legitimate methods for discovery: warrant/subpoena and the ever-sketchy NSL. If either mechanism had been used, there'd have been no need for "immunity". Immunity only needs to be granted when a (potential) defendant or witness for the prosecution has done something illegal (e.g., to get a criminal to testify against other criminals - a completely apt comparison in this case).
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell


N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2
reply to JasonOD

I've got news for you, it's not just Google that has that much information on you.

We recently signed up for a new service at work that pulls together every little bit of public information about you off the internet. It is impressive. Used myself as a Guinea pig.

It knew my address. when I was 5 years old. Even had the moving date correct.

The 6 page dossier this thing produced was astounding. Problem is access costs $100/mo per person.

So one person has access to it, and it isn't me.

Privacy died back in the 70's when the NSA started having computers large enough to do REAL data mining.

Unless you were born in a log cabin, never went to school, never had a bank account, a phone, a computer, a debit card, a drivers license, owned a car, and bartered pigs and chickens for everything you owned, you really don't have any privacy.

To jip a movie line, the only privacy anyone really has left is inside your head.

Not that I agree with the other half of the character's quote, but it's true.

Shit, with a few keystrokes, and access to free public on line databases, enough information exists within the confines of this post for you to get a picture of my house. From the street AND SPACE....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power…

Expand your moderator at work

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to morbo

Re: Anything that takes google down a notch is good.....

How's Qwest doing these days? What's their relevance in the telecom market?


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to nixen

Actually, no what? I think you most people might think differently had they been in the position of decision maker when the government knocked on their door. I understand the definition of immunity....



nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

said by openbox9:

Actually, no what? I think you most people might think differently had they been in the position of decision maker when the government knocked on their door. I understand the definition of immunity....
Actually, no: they didn't have to give over the data absent a warrant or subpoena (or even an NSL). That's the underlying requirement for any type of wiretapping or diversion of data to the government. My suggestion to you, if you think otherwise, is to go read the text and legal interpretations of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Clearly, if you understood the concept of legal immunity, you would know that it's only granted in situations where the grantee has done something for which they would otherwise be held legally liable (i.e., they committed a crime or even just a tort violation).
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

I did not state that AT&T had to provide the government access to wiretaps sans a warrant. Clearly if you had read my post, we wouldn't be continuing this dialog.



nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

said by openbox9:

I did not state that AT&T had to provide the government access to wiretaps sans a warrant. Clearly if you had read my post, we wouldn't be continuing this dialog.
No, what you said was that they may have had other motives or pressures. Irregardless, that doesn't give them a legal reason to turn over private data. As such, they don't deserve the immunity that they bought and paid for.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

How's Qwest doing these days? What's their relevance in the telecom market?
Do you have a point, or are you just babbling again?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

When you start making points in your posts, then we can discuss.



woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
reply to openbox9

I and my wife have been without a new contract since we went to gsm. When we ask them about phones or any thing the want us to get a new contract, when I needed an updated sim, I got crap at the store about my phone not being the one I got with the sim (that phone fell in the john and I bought a go phone at walmart to replace it) . I cracked the display on a phone and they told me I needed a new one, bought a new face plate on line for 5$ and replaced my self. I know it is a bunch of little things but they add up. Not to mention weird charges on my bill that take forever clear up.
Hence my comment about Google.
--
BlooMe


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to nixen

said by nixen:

No, what you said was that they may have had other motives or pressures.
That's what you inferred. What I stated was it's easy for people not involved in the negotiations/discussions to be armchair lawyers and I'm curious what the outcome of the situation might have been if some of the naysayers where in the positions of the management that made the decisions.