Slashdot Mirror

If you actually compare dial-up to current dial-up where you can still get it. bandwidth hasn't gone down that much with that class of service. AS a matter of fact, it's still at 1999 prices.

But let's go back to broadband, shall we?

We were and are paying more than any other industrialized country on Earth for inferior service. AND that's not including these ridiculous pricing plans that broadband providers impose on us to obfuscate just how much they're screwing us.

We're being ripped-off.

Their press release closes with:
"But even as we pursue this additional measure, it will not solve our spectrum shortage and network capacity issues. Nothing short of completing the T-Mobile merger will provide additional spectrum capacity to address these near term challenges."

So basically this is just a ruse by ATT execs to have the T-Mobile merger approved by the government posthaste, by trying to underscore how their poor widdle network is crumbling under the weight of the few people left on the grandfathered unlimited plan. It's ridiculous! You notice how they never define a limit, or put a range on what this top 5% is using. It's because the whole thing is malarkey.

So, AT&T is telling us that we(the customers) are causing harm to the network by using what we were fucking promised. AT&T states that we, as "unlimited" customers, will see a decrease in speed, if we are found to be using "too much data". What the fuck is "too much data"? We don't want to hear about fucking percentages; we want hard data.

I found it even more hilarious when AT&T, in this press release states the following:

"The bottom line is our customers have options. They can choose to stay on their unlimited plans and use unlimited amounts of data, but may experience reduced speeds at some point if they are an extraordinarily heavy data user. If speed is more important, they may wish to switch to a tiered usage plan, where customers can pay for more data if they need it and will not see reduced speeds."

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=20535&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=32318&mapcode=corporate

So, even though we are trying to use what we paid for, and that high usage is causing AT&T a lot of network problems, we will not be affected by the throttling if we pay more money. Excuse me? Either the network cannot handle the traffic, or it can't. With AT&T making almost $20 billion USD, in profit each year, I see no reason why any of us should be paying more for a service we were promised, contractually, would be "unlimited".

What is the excuse going to be? "Limited spectrum"? First off, AT&T is the largest hoarder of spectrum in the United States, if not the world. Secondly, spectrum is no boundary. If AT&T cannot handle the traffic on its network, then it needs to install more towers and improve the overall infrastructure. The number of wireless subscribers that can be handled in a given area is spectrum, multiplied by the number of towers in the area. Of course, AT&T only wants people to focus on the spectrum portion of the equation.

AT&T failed to sufficiently plan for the increased demand for mobile data. Coupled with that, AT&T has failed to completely roll out UMTS/HSDPA over their entire network. severely lagging behind Verizon. I still have yet to see a 3G indicator show up on my phone within 25 miles from where I live. I live close to an interstate highway, and in the metro Atlanta area. Yet, Verizon(yet another company unprepared, but not quite as badly), has EVDO out here, and it has been out here for years.

With all of this, AT&T has also refused to roll out DSL and there are no other options for "broadband" where I live. So, I am a little confused as to what the hell I am supposed to do for data access on my phone. Use one of the non-existent "hotspots" in my area, or use my non-existent DSL service? Oh, wait, AT&T doesn't want us to focus on this problem either.

I have yet to see a commercial that states, directly from AT&T, just how behind the company is in meeting the demands on its customers. All I am seeing is some nice music, happy people, and pretty pictures, while AT&T uses a plethora of euphemisms to describe how it will fuck us, and its employees over, when it takes over T-Mobile. Oh, shit, sorry, we are not supposed to pay attention to that.

Well, you may have not noticed any of this, but your brain did.

For me, the new language features should be added, but their usage should correlate to being able to solve a problem better or faster, or more completely, or something like that.

The C++ committee agrees with you. The sentiment is correct. I would like the GP to explain which new features he/she thinks are unnecessary. Otherwise it is just ranting.

Is there a minimum fee for this or the AT&T pay as you go plan?

On the "Adding funds to your account" tab of AT&T's prepaid info page, there's a table that lists the expiration period for various refill amounts. The effective minimum is $100/year (a bit over $8/month).

FWIW, I don't have an iPhone, but I do have a smartphone (Nokia E71), and I average about $20 a month on AT&T's prepaid--some web browsing, email, and Google maps. I don't watch Youtube or download podcasts over 3G data though; I save that for where I have WiFi.

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-plans/pyg-cell-phone-plans.jsp

I don't use the phone part much so my calls are only a few dollars a month. I only use data for email and web browsing so use less than 100 MB a month.

My cost is usually about $20 a month.

When I was in the US I got a GoPhone pay as you go SIM card and 100MB data for $20. Which is a terrible deal by the standards of most places but it did the job if I needed net access. AT&T seemed like a good option as I was travelling a lot.

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-plans/prepaid-feature-packages.jsp

Actually if you get one of those coupon magazines (e.g. http://www.roomsaver.com/ or http://www.travelcouponguide.com/) you can easily get a discount on an already cheap hotel (e.g. Best Western) which has wifi and do your emailing there. The coupons work during the week when the hotels are empty but the hotel has an option to refuse them if they are busy during the weekend. It's best to call ahead before you check in. Incidentally expensive hotels - the sort your company will check you into - will often charge an outrageous amount for Wifi if you walk in off the street in addition to an already outrageous non discounted (aka Rack) room rate.

Incidentally if you go to the UK get a Tesco Mobile Pay As You go Card. They have a £2 (i.e US$3) per week unlimited data option. You sign up by SMS - they charge you the £2 and subscribe you. It will auto renew each week and charge you another £2 but you can opt out at any time, in which case it will run to the end of the week and then not renew.

http://phone-shop.tesco.com/tesco-mobile/help-and-support/bundles.aspx

So you get unlimited data for about US$14 per month. You can pick up the SIM card from any Tesco store. Tesco is a ubiquitous supermarket, so it's not hard to find one anywhere in the UK.

It's not always HSDPA - you'll drop down to GPRS if you're not near a base station. Still it is unlimited (well subject to an ill defined fair use policy). I.e. it's a much better deal than the AT&T one in the US. Tesco is an MVNO using the O2 network, so the coverage isn't too bad. In fact I've travelled around the UK quite a bit and apart from dropping down to GPRS it seems like it works almost everywhere.

Hello,

Normally, I would recommend Simple Mobile which is contract-free using the T-Mobile network. $60 will get you unlimited everything. Since you have an iPhone though, and 3G is a must, you are probably stuck using AT&T's 3G network. That probably means getting a SIM card and then paying $75/mo for a whopping 200MB on the Pay as you Go plan. But hey, at least you will get 4G.

Welcome to America.

And don't forget their deceitful advertising. Just check their network map.

AT&T has deployed HSPA+ to virtually 100% of our nation's fastest mobile broadband network, which enables 4G speeds when combined with enhanced backhaul.

This is either an outright lie, or intentionally deceitful considering they mention that the "Map depicts current and future 3G coverage. 4G coverage not depicted."

People have some bones to pick with AT&T and rightfully so.

The iPad being replaced by a newer version is completely different from not being able to run an application on all current devices.

Not different at all when they are still selling them anyway so

Rovio

There are over 200,000 applications in the Android Marketplace. Of course, there will be some developers that will push the envelope and not be able to deliver a satisfactory experience on all devices. That is the exception as every single program I have installed on my G1 works on my Droid and my Xoom including some 3D games that require much more from my devices than Angry Birds which is a 2D sprite game consisting of shooting a projectile from one side of the screen to the other. Maybe Rovio is incompetent? They were practically bankrupt until they ripped these guys off so how much should I take from their example anyway?

AT&T, unlike a carrier that it's about to buy, offers no discount on service for customers who buy a handset separately instead of taking a subsidized handset. So I'd be paying $430 (price difference between unsubsidized Nexus S and subsidized comparable phone) for freedom.

I'm fully aware of the fact - I am a Nexus One user on AT&T.

The $430 figure is fairly strange, though, as you can buy a Nexus S online for $480 (scroll down a bit). The equivalent Samsung Captivate is $100 with a 2-year contract. So it's $380. But, yeah, still hefty.

Either way, all the rays of love should properly go to AT&T here.

If I buy a Nexus S now, will it continue to work even after AT&T buys T-Mobile USA?

Unless AT&T would physically remove T-Mobile towers, no. And why would they do that to their own property?

Nexus One also remains an option. Personally, I think it's actually preferable to Nexus S - unlike the latter, it supports external microSD cards, and I find the hardware more solidly built. NFC is still a gimmick and will remain so for a few years to come. And software-wise it's almost the same thing, stock Android 2.3 - IIRC there was some feature in Google Maps that was only available on S but not One, but I can't recall what it is, exactly.

I am still good to go...

Actually you're not. There are caps but they haven't got all their sites updated to reflect that. Take a look at their Broadband Usage FAQs. First paragraph in the FAQ says "As of May 2, 2011, AT&T's residential DSL High Speed Internet plans will have a usage allowance of 150 Gigabytes ("GB") per month, and its residential U-verse High Speed Internet plans will have a usage allowance of 250 Gigabytes ("GB") per month."

Here's what I see when logged into www.myusage.att.com:

AT&T is not able to capture usage data on all of its customers. Customers whose usage is not available for viewing should not be concerned about their usage patterns for billing purposes.

Me, I'm going with what the FAQ says. I did go ahead and do several downloads of Steam games I haven't played yet before today rolled around and caps were in place. I also bit the bullet and installed DD-WRT yesterday (May 1) so that I'd have a reliable usage monitor as opposed to software solutions. Went smoothly thankfully, and I didn't manage to brick my router which was my primary worry.

I am still good to go...

Actually you're not. There are caps but they haven't got all their sites updated to reflect that. Take a look at their Broadband Usage FAQs. First paragraph in the FAQ says "As of May 2, 2011, AT&T's residential DSL High Speed Internet plans will have a usage allowance of 150 Gigabytes ("GB") per month, and its residential U-verse High Speed Internet plans will have a usage allowance of 250 Gigabytes ("GB") per month."

Here's what I see when logged into www.myusage.att.com:

AT&T is not able to capture usage data on all of its customers. Customers whose usage is not available for viewing should not be concerned about their usage patterns for billing purposes.

Me, I'm going with what the FAQ says. I did go ahead and do several downloads of Steam games I haven't played yet before today rolled around and caps were in place. I also bit the bullet and installed DD-WRT yesterday (May 1) so that I'd have a reliable usage monitor as opposed to software solutions. Went smoothly thankfully, and I didn't manage to brick my router which was my primary worry.

If you need help beyond what the jokers on the phone can do, send an email to uversecare@att.com along with your account number, the reason why you are emailing them, phone number, and a good time to call you. The mail address goes to their Social Support Team that can actually help you.

I don't work for AT&T nor do I have their service. I used to have their service before I switched to Time Warner Cable so I still know some of the inside hidden support options that can help people when no one else can.

So, can someone show some proof that doesn't come from a blog that this actually applies to UVerse customers? I'd like something on AT&T's site, if possible...

Here you go...

Go to AT&T Broadband Usage Policy, go to the Data Calculator page, click the "AT&T High Speed Internet Data Calculator" (will popup a window), take a look at the choices in "Select Your Service" dropbox (upper right corner of popup window). That shows "AT&T High Speed Internet 150GB" and "U-verse High Speed Internet 250GB" as selections.

I'd say that is a fairly authoritative source for the 250 GB cap.

It was in the letter they sent out. You'll have to wait till monday to see it on AT$T's site, they haven't updated it to the new terms of service yet (no mention of a 100 gig cap either).

Last update was in June of 2009 - adding link here so it can be found quickly Monday.

http://www.att.com/u-verse/att-terms-of-service.jsp

Why is every comment in this thread complaining about paying $50/mo for 3G service? AT&T charges $15/mo for 250M and $25/mo for 2GB*. Also, you can turn it on and off month by month, so you don't HAVE to pay for it every month if, for example, you only need it when traveling.

That said, I think all U.S. telcos suck donkey balls for charging X dollars for Y GB AND charge extra for tethering/hotspot functionality. What the fuck?!?!? I'm paying this much money for that many bits, why can't I decide what to do with them? All the work is handled by the device--their equipment doesn't need to do a single thing if I want to tether.

Speaking of AT&T, they're selling last year's 3G iPads at steep discounts which would cover many, many months of 3G service.

* Maybe not the best rates, and maybe not as much data as you'd like, but still... the point is it's not $50/mo.

Remember, you can add more APs for wifi, but not for phones.

Not true. Residential users can use broadband backhaul for relatively cheap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtocell)

• Verizon
• AT&T
• Sprint

Bigger users can get bigger equipment. Last year, my office installed entire cell stations for major providers in our main equipment rooms and wired them with low-loss coax to little dome antennas scattered around the buildings. Helps coverage immensely :)

NEW: $25 FOR 500MB $5 for 10MB (previously $4.99 for 1MB) $15 for 100MB (previously $19.99)

It is only $500/GB if someone were to sip 10MB at a time. Although the price for the best deal ($50/GB) is still way higher than those on contract.

maybe you'll get this like I did from http://www.myusage.att.com/

"AT&T is not able to capture usage data on all of its customers. Customers whose usage is not available for viewing should not be concerned about their usage patterns for billing purposes. To learn more about how to manage your usage, please visit www.att.com/internet-usage"

It could be outdated equipment in the CO here in Key West or my old Bell South modem (ANT).

Don't think the Alltel acquisition fits your "population density of at least 10/sqMi" criteria. I.e., if you had coverage before that acquisition in those areas, it is highly unlikely that AT&T could screw it up by piping more traffic through those towers.

Also don't think that saying "I did not ever say there are only two providers." when you admit to saying "I said there are at least two providers." does a very good job of ruling out areas where there are only two providers...else you'd have said "at least three providers", eh?

And as far as those other prepaid providers? Coverage isn't as nearly as universal across America in the prepaid arena as it is in the traditional contract arena....they haven't attained the monopolies the mainstream cell carriers are working on - which is why prepaid is still a viable and economical alternative. (For now, anyway...but after a Tmobile/AT&T merger? Maybe not.)

And seriously...using SiriusXM as an example of how good monopolies are for people? A purely entertainment choice - meaning that people can dump them without any hesitation or qualms whatsoever should their service start sucking or they start charging outrageous fees...as compared to the literally life and death necessity of a phone? lollll....SiriusXM's Karmazin knows he better keep a handle on his greed, or people will pop out to FM and/or their CD collection and/or their 32 Gb SD card. That ain't the case with the CEOs of the major cell providers.

That about sums it up. And here's a source.

You didn't pay full price. That's the whole point. Your grandparents were given the choice : pay full price, or pay 1/4th or less, and pay a monthly fee.

Most municipalities obviously chose the cheap option, but there were quite a few that didn't, and the government created the phone network for them. Then a number of companies started to offer them money for the network (and these municipalities were ... "somewhat lax" ... in maintaining the networks, and upgrades were all but unheard off).

So after a while, sometimes a long while, but mostly a very short while people demanded these municipalities sell their networks, to the Bell. Because you know, as horrible as AT&T service is (granted it was better then, but not much), it was a lot better than government service. Additionally it gave these munis some money. Never seen a politician refuse that.

Nothing was "stolen" from you, all was bought and paid for, the price agreed with properly elected officials.

the last mile issue is the only thing that will make internet access fair and unbiased, and at a decent price

Might I attract your attention to this document ? Fair and unbiased indeed. Either you're beyond naive, or you're malicious.

And, frankly, compared to European telcos (or, curse these moronic assholes, Asian ones), this is quite tame. Also, the peering policy of AT&T is not a lie : you fulfill the conditions, and they will actually peer with you. You can jump through Telefonica's (many) hoops as much as you want, and you'll get nothing at all in return ever, and if they don't like you for whatever reason, they'll openly sabotage you.

$5 a month? AT&T (my carrier) charges $20 a month on top of existing plans. Source: http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/services/serviceDetails.jsp?LOSGId=&skuId=sku1160055&catId=cat1470003 (may have to enter a zip code) Why exactly do you think sending messages over the MAP signaling channel would be so expensive or resource-intensive? We're talking about a sub-protocol of GSM that was already in existence and in use for carrier-related messaging. We're also talking about max of approx. 1 KB per message. The message goes from your phone to a relatively simple routing node. It's best effort, so there's really not much overhead or verification. Not to mention if this routing infrastructure is really as expensive as you think, there's really no reason why they can't move it to the IP layer. That's how 3G and other non-GSM devices function, they wrap the SMS in their native data format. I've got a 3-year-old GSM phone with data capabilities. I don't think there's a single teenager, especially first-borns, that gets a cell phone and then doesn't go over the texting limit in the first month. Back in high school I remember people getting chewed out all the time for racking up something like $200 worth of overages. Honestly, we'd be better off without the telcos as they are. Remember this? http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html

Let's just hope they clarify those "just and reasonable" conditions. These are AT&T's "fair and reasonable" conditions :

* A peer of AS7018 must operate a US-wide IP backbone whose links are primarily OC192 (10 Gbps) or greater. For AS7132, the peer’s US-wide IP backbone links must be predominantly OC48 (2.5 Gbps) or greater.
* Peer must meet AT&T at a minimum of three mutually agreeable geographically diverse points in the US. The US interconnection points must include at least one city on the US east coast, one in the central region, and one on the US west coast, and must currently be chosen from AT&T peering points in the following list of metropolitan areas: New York City/Newark NJ, Washington DC/Ashburn VA, Atlanta (for AS7018 only), Chicago, Dallas, Seattle (for AS7018 only), San Francisco/Palo Alto/San Jose, and Los Angeles.
* In addition a peer of AS7018 must interconnect in two mutual non-US peering locations on distinct continents where peer has a non-trivial backbone network. These non-US peerings will be with AT&T’s regional AS only.
* Peer’s traffic to/from the interconnected AT&T US network must be on-net only and must amount to an average of at least 7 Gbps in the dominant direction to/from AT&T in the US during the busiest hour of the month for peers of AS7018. An average of at least 200 Mbps in the dominant direction to/from AS7132 during the busiest hour of the month will be required to be considered for public peering with AS7132.
* Interconnection bandwidth for private peers must be at least 1 Gbps at each US interconnection point.
* A network (ASN) that is a customer of an AT&T US network for any dedicated IP services may not simultaneously be a settlement-free peer of that same network.
* Peer must have a professionally managed 24x7 NOC. Peer must agree to repair or otherwise remedy any problems within a reasonable timeframe. Peer must also agree to actively cooperate to resolve security incidents, denial of service attacks, and other operational problems.
* Peer must maintain a balanced traffic ratio between its network and AT&T. In particular, a new peer must have:
a. No more than a 2.00:1 ratio of traffic into AT&T: out of AT&T, on average each month.
b. A reasonably low peak-to-average ratio.
* Existing peers whose in: out ratio rises above 2.00:1 will be expected to work with AT&T to implement best-exit routing or to take other suitable actions to balance transport costs.
* Peer must abide by the following routing policy:
a. Peer must use the same peering AS at each US interconnection point and must announce a consistent set of routes at each point, unless otherwise mutually agreed.
b. No transit or third party routes are to be announced; all routes exchanged must be peer's and peer’s customers' routes.
c. Peer must filter route announcements from its customers by prefix.
d. Neither party shall abuse the peering relationship by engaging in activities such as but not limited to: pointing a default route at the other or otherwise forwarding traffic for destinations not explicitly advertised, resetting next-hop, selling or giving next-hop to others.
* Peer must be financially stable.

(source http://www.corp.att.com/peering/)

So by these conditions, the law would achieve exactly nothing. I especially love the 7 Gbit in several loc

Apparently* it's an external problem and there will be "no need for a system software update.".

Makes you wonder about who can do what with your Windows Phone 7...

*As I noted in my submission. Which was earlier. WTF editors!?

Or your Android device or your iPhone. Newsflash, it's a smartphone and it's tied to a carrier, just about every smartphone platform has had this very same issue - pretty much exclusively on AT&T - yet some people aren't noticing the pattern.

If you want a phone and not a computer, How about this? http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-details/?device=Sony+Ericsson+W518a+-+Red&q_sku=sku4270495

I have it's retarded older brother. Works adequately. iOS is not your only other option it seems.

Let's ask Bjarne the same question: List of C++ Applications
Chop off half of the software applications on that list, at random -- can you still use your computer now? How about the internet?

So you think in a true marketplace we'd still have multiple carriers? I somehow doubt it.

Yes, I think we would, because that's how it was with the standard utilities before they became monopolized by the government. I don't know how everyone can get away with claiming we have a free market in telecom when we haven't for over 100 years. We never even gave it a chance. There used to be 200 electric companies in my section of Ohio. It's a simple matter of history. You can even see that on the wikipedia page for Ohio Edison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Edison#Ohio_Edison

It's important to know that it doesn't say WHO consolidated them. That's because we all know the government is who did it.

Even on the AT&T page, we can even see that on A Brief History: The Bell System

http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html

For much of its history, AT&T and its Bell System functioned as a legally sanctioned, regulated monopoly. The fundamental principle, formulated by AT&T president Theodore Vail in 1907, was that the telephone by the nature of its technology would operate most efficiently as a monopoly providing universal service. Vail wrote in that year's AT&T Annual Report that government regulation, "provided it is independent, intelligent, considerate, thorough and just," was an appropriate and acceptable substitute for the competitive marketplace.

The United States government accepted this principle, initially in a 1913 agreement known as the Kingsbury Commitment.

We accepted government consolidation and monopolization of the utility companies under the assumption that it would be better to have regulation than competition. Then it somehow gets blamed on free market competition. Well, I think it's safe to say it was a dismal failure...

AT&T announced these probably within the last year. They are the only way you can buy data access from AT&T.

DataConnect 200MB
DataConnect 5GB

If the links don't work, you can navigate to it by looking at their rate plans from their homepage.

AT&T announced these probably within the last year. They are the only way you can buy data access from AT&T.

DataConnect 200MB
DataConnect 5GB

If the links don't work, you can navigate to it by looking at their rate plans from their homepage.

I have good news for you. I don't see anywhere AT&T's Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy where they forbid running a server from your home. While they aren't as explicit as Qwest in stating that you have the right to run servers they come pretty close:

The dynamic IP address is a single Internet address intended for use with a single Member Account and any associated Sub Accounts. The static IP address or multiple static IP address is intended for use with a single computer or a network of computer/servers. You may not use the Service in a manner that is inconsistent with these intended uses.

Furthermore, AT&T will configure reverse DNS for your residential home service (with a static IP), although they may require you to transfer your forward DNS to them to avoid confusion with a split record. They wouldn't do this if they forbid running servers.

I live in New Mexico, and I know what you mean about not having many options. The town where I grew up didn't have broadband until around 2002, and I think Comcast is still the only option. The town where I went to college, the only options were dial up or a wireless WAN where you pointed a directional dish toward the tower and lost connection when the wind picked up :) Most places here have both cable and DSL now though. Comcast and Time Warner are both pretty hostile to home servers, insisting you upgrade to their business package, but most DSL providers will work with you.

I have good news for you. I don't see anywhere AT&T's Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy where they forbid running a server from your home. While they aren't as explicit as Qwest in stating that you have the right to run servers they come pretty close:

The dynamic IP address is a single Internet address intended for use with a single Member Account and any associated Sub Accounts. The static IP address or multiple static IP address is intended for use with a single computer or a network of computer/servers. You may not use the Service in a manner that is inconsistent with these intended uses.

Furthermore, AT&T will configure reverse DNS for your residential home service (with a static IP), although they may require you to transfer your forward DNS to them to avoid confusion with a split record. They wouldn't do this if they forbid running servers.

I live in New Mexico, and I know what you mean about not having many options. The town where I grew up didn't have broadband until around 2002, and I think Comcast is still the only option. The town where I went to college, the only options were dial up or a wireless WAN where you pointed a directional dish toward the tower and lost connection when the wind picked up :) Most places here have both cable and DSL now though. Comcast and Time Warner are both pretty hostile to home servers, insisting you upgrade to their business package, but most DSL providers will work with you.

...AT&T is a different story.

Right...AT&T will only provide you with unlock codes so long as you're not using an AT&T-exclusive phone.

Not seeing a huge difference here.

C++ is still the language invented by Bjarne Stroustrup, and he still writes the definitive book on the language. He is active in assisting in the development as it involves, and here is his FAQ on C++0x, which will be the next C++ standard expected to be released in 2011 according to his FAQ.

That being said, I believe the GP meant why not use C++, sticking to the subset of the C++ language that is very similar to C, but taking advantage of C++ classes. In reality, the only difference between a struct and a class in C++ is that the later has a default of private for it's members functions and data, while the prior defaults to public. This is just one example of where C and C++ are different in important ways (C structs can't have member functions, while C++ structs can.)

For what it is worth, every time a person complains about C++ being a bad language, it always comes down to them thinking that they understand it when they don't, or trying to use it when it is not the right tool for the job at hand. That being said, C is a great language for Linux kernel development, and moving to C++ would be absurd, because you just don't have the kind of low level control regarding what happens when. This is why it is a good high level language in application space, but a rather poor language for OS development, as anyone familiar with both Linux and Windows with a clue will surely know.

The whole point of a Tier 1 is that you don't have to transit another network. If Level 3 depeered with Comcast, they'd HAVE to transit another network in order to get to Comcast.

You think they're just going to dump the traffic off to AT&T and say "handle this"? AT&T's peering policy says "No transit or third party routes are to be announced; all routes exchanged must be peer's and peer’s customers' routes"[1], so Level 3 isn't even getting Comcast's routes from AT&T. Qwest and Verizon's policies say something similar. So who is level 3 going to dump the traffic off to without arranging for transit?

Each of those peering agreements also mention a 1.5:1 or 1.8:1 or at most a 2:1 traffic ratio must be maintained and exceeding the ratio will require compensation.

Level 3 paid because they knew they were exceeding the ratio and it would cost more to buy transit.

[1] http://www.corp.att.com/peering/

This looks like a web bug to me. If you want to use an image for rendering purposes, you would link to an image with a static name like http://image.att.com/spacer.gif .

The article specifically shows the image name as http://click.wireless.att.com:8080/31198108.178649.1159326048.-3 If you think that is not passing information back to at&t you would probably believe that IE is the most secure and standards compliant browser.

This looks like a web bug to me. If you want to use an image for rendering purposes, you would link to an image with a static name like http://image.att.com/spacer.gif .

The article specifically shows the image name as http://click.wireless.att.com:8080/31198108.178649.1159326048.-3 If you think that is not passing information back to at&t you would probably believe that IE is the most secure and standards compliant browser.

Really - you weren't provided with a copy of your service contract? The thing you had to sign in order to activate service? The contract you sign with AT&T, not Apple? And the "store workers" couldn't find a copy of the thing you needed to sign to activate service?

And you can't remember much about the contract, except that there's a part in there that was "awful, just awful," and you paraphrase it from memory, rather than, you know, citing relevant portions of the contract which is posted online for all to read?

You fail at trolling. Your story doesn't even pass the most rudimentary smell test. You're full of shit, you don't own an iphone, and this "story" never happened.

Amazing. I love how the Anti-Apple folks on Slashdot are so quick to jump on the bandwagon based on hearsay without the slightest bit of proof offered except for word of mouth.

Here is the Oh So Elusive customer agreement. it's offered with every phone. I seriously doubt the AT&T store couldn't give you a copy. It's freely available on the web.

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/legal/index.jsp?q_termsKey=wirelessCustomerAgreement&q_termsName=Wireless+Customer+Agreement&print=true#whatIsTheTermOfMyService

FYI, jailbreaking is legal, so it doesn't meet the definition of 'unlawful' in the contract. In addition, this won't satisfy your anti-Apple craving because the contract is with AT&T, not Apple.

if we have reasonable cause to believe that your Equipment is being used for an unlawful purpose or in a way that (i) is harmful to, interferes with, or may adversely affect our Services or the network of any other provider, (ii) interferes with the use or enjoyment of Services received by others, (iii) infringes intellectual property rights, (iv) results in the publication of threatening or offensive material, or (v) constitutes spam or other abusive messaging or calling, a security risk, or a violation of privacy,

Of course what you do with that phone after it's jailbroken is up to you. You might also try to remember the fact that every cell provider has similar verbiage in regards to unauthorized tethering, IP Rights, etc. If you opt to break the contract after signing it, then that is your responsibility, not theirs.

On the other hand there's a lot of C syntax that is not valid C++.

... uhm ... WTF are you talking about. I've been doing dev in C for 20 years and I've yet to see one thing in C that is invalid in C++. I fully admit to not reading the actual language specification, but I call bullshit and would say your problem is with a shitty compiler that either didn't detect the problem you had in C mode or doesn't compile C++ properly.

http://public.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#C-is-subset

Did you seriously just say C++ wasn't a superset of C?

Bjarne Stroustrup himself says it isn't:

http://public.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#C-is-subset

T-mobile SIM card and T-mobile prepaid/pay as you go plans.

AT&T SIM card and AT&T prepaid/pay as you go plans.

Vodafone SIM card/pay as you go plan.

I have personally used T-mobile pay as you go when I was both living in Europe and America on an unlocked, quad-band phone, which is the same specification that John's Phone offers for wireless connectivity.

Practically any GSM provider with prepaid plans (ie. all of them) will work with it. Are you really trying to say that there is no such thing?

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

Because I don't have the wherewithal to go through the account registration process, which is a valid reason. That still doesn't answer the question of why you sockpuppet. Do you really have that much free time to make all of those accounts and switch between them every ten minutes to make a bigger fool of yourself? I guess you have no friends or life.

you're completely pathetic.

In other words, I've systematically crushed all of your arguments into a fine powder and you have nothing else to bring to the discussion. You are incredibly predictable and you might want to get help with your little anger/drinking/drug problem. :)

T-mobile SIM card and T-mobile prepaid/pay as you go plans.

AT&T SIM card and AT&T prepaid/pay as you go plans.

Vodafone SIM card/pay as you go plan.

I have personally used T-mobile pay as you go when I was both living in Europe and America on an unlocked, quad-band phone, which is the same specification that John's Phone offers for wireless connectivity.

Practically any GSM provider with prepaid plans (ie. all of them) will work with it. Are you really trying to say that there is no such thing?

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

Because I don't have the wherewithal to go through the account registration process, which is a valid reason. That still doesn't answer the question of why you sockpuppet. Do you really have that much free time to make all of those accounts and switch between them every ten minutes to make a bigger fool of yourself? I guess you have no friends or life.

you're completely pathetic.

In other words, I've systematically crushed all of your arguments into a fine powder and you have nothing else to bring to the discussion. You are incredibly predictable and you might want to get help with your little anger/drinking/drug problem. :)

Wasn't there already a seminal paper on this topic?
http://public.research.att.com/~bs/whitespace98.pdf

http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/plans/data-plans.jsp

7) lower uid than you on slashdot.

I have one rule about C++ complaints; I don't listen to them unless the person behind them indicate that they've actually read "The Design & Evolution".

Too much like listening to high-schoolers discussing "2.999... is 3" or doors with goats behind them otherwise.

For some reason I (really!) thought I read 'the now perverse replacement language for C'. I was probably thinking of his earlier interview:

http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/May/stroustrup.html

(about which Stroustrup is apparently Not Amused: http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#IEEE ).

I don't like that this is opt-out, but if you don't want to receive the ads, it's easy for you to change.

Log in to your AT&T Wireless account -> Click My Account -> Click Marketing Preferences -> uncheck the marketing methods you don't want

Seeing how it is AT&T, what hemisphere were you expecting?

http://www.corp.att.com/ap/about/where/australia/ ok, they don't mention satellite phones, but as the previous chap said: Frikking Northernhepisphereocentrics. And 'Southern Sky" _is_ usually taken to be the sky above the southern hemisphere