Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Denies DSL Because of Subscriber's Name
mikek2 writes "When retired Philadelphia-area doctor and Vietnam veteran Dr. Herman I. Libshitz went to upgrade his dial-up connection to Verizon DSL, he was informed they wouldn't complete the order because his last name contained an expletive. Repeated calls to several levels of management at Verizon failed to resolve the problem, with several managers suggesting he change his last name. It all worked out in the end, after the Philadelphia Enquirer intervened."
Next time someone will claim that monopolies' power over the market does not negate the very mechanism that is supposed to implement the market, refer him to this.
Then punch him in the face.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
In the end he changed his name to "Harold I. Libshitz" and everything finally went through.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
People who have odd names (it seems especially prevalent in the Jewish community) are at a serious disadvantage in the culture that considers the name odd. This is the reason that the most famous Lipshitz ever changed his name to Ralph Lauren.
So, let me see if I have this straight: Verizon wanted someone to change their last name in order to get DSL, and that person didn't do it??? What, are you going to get a cablemodem or something? Just change your name, already. This is internet connectivity we're talking about here. It's important. It isn't like you haven't been getting libshitz for yoru name all your life, anyway.
http://xkcd.com/386/
They gladly gave him DSL. What they didn't do was allow a username/email address with 'shit' in it and he insisted since that was part of his name. I'm glad he got his way in the end, but he wasn't being denied the service itself.
Oh come on. Don't defend these losers. He asked for an email address based on his name, just like millions of other customers.
It's a perfectly reasonable request, which Verizon denied solely because some arbitrary filter detected a naughty word buried in the address, a word that would only be noticed by someone with a juvenile mindset. The filter is obviously intended to screen out truly nasty phrases, like "verizonisfullofshit@verizon.com", but like most such filters it is crude and inflexible, and unsuited for its purpose.
And to make things worse, no one at Verizon had the authority or inclination to override this zero tolerance policy for the substring "shit". The only choice they gave him, if he wanted DSL, was to select an email address that was not based on his name. Naturally he refused, as would anyone with an ounce of pride in his family name.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
I can't even get dial up and had to wait until my neighbors had wireless to steal it.
-- John Fuckinson
It has everything to do with the EMAIL ADDRESS he apparently wasn't willing to change. They wouldn't grant him the address he requested. All he had to do was pick another email address and he would have been fine. I'm sorry, but you are not entitled to any email address you want.
Are you serious? Why in the hell should he have to -- IT'S HIS NAME. It's on his birth certificate, his Social Security card, his drivers license. It's probably in the phone book, and on every check he's ever written. And now he can't use his OWN LEGAL NAME that he has had since birth for his e-mail address because it "contains an expletive?" It's not even like he's some anarchistic goofball who somehow managed to legally change his surname to "Shit" in an attempt to be cute or radical -- it's his family name, borne by his ancestors, and it just happens to contain that four-letter sequence in the middle of the name. And, what, he can't use it because somewhere, somehow there might be some handful of insanely moralistic wackos who would be offended by it?
I'm sorry, but this is just about the most ridiculous thing I've heard of in my life. And, given what I've witnessed in my half century on this planet, that's really saying something.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Or Fucking, Austria.
The "National Enquirer" is a notorious scandal sheet.
The "Philadelphia Inquirer" is a respectable daily newspaper.
I just felt the need to point that out.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
There's nothing inherently liberal or socialist about objecting to monopoly power. Monopolies destroy the market mechanisms vital for capitalism to work.
Pointing out the obvious:
The headline and summary aren't really accurate to the linked article.
Has anyone considered the impact this sort of thing has on Slashdot's credibility?
Maybe I'm looking at it through rose colored glasses, but I used to like reading through all the summaries and linked articles on Slashdot. Now it seems like in the last 8-12 months, more and more headlines and their accompanying sumamries are deliberately misleading and inflammatory. I skim the RSS headlines and have found myself assuming that any headline that says "Microsft does X", "Comcast now doing Y", "Verizon did Z" etc. is probably off the mark and just nother boy crying wolf. It seems that I'm right about hald the time; which is about 45% more then I should be.
Most of these "inaccuracies" seem to pander to various anti-insert-company-here sentiments - ie., Verizon has been shown to have done a bunch of shady shit regarding spying or Comcast with it's throttling/filtering/P2P blocking or whatever, so now they do something stupid and it gets twisted into something much larger and more sinister.
Yes, Verizon is moronic for not allowing customer serivce people a little latitude or for having simplistic filtering, but nowhere did I read they denied DSL. They did deny an email address though. Verizon should also probably work on dealing with people-telling someone to misspell their name in order to avoid some stupid email address name filter misses the point. BUT, everything I read suggests that he would have been ok with an email address like DrHermanIL@XXX; not that he should he have to do that though.
If Slashdot's motto was something like "It's not news, it's Slashdot", I'd make a little one line post about how the headline and linked article disagree. But with a motto of "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters", I'd expect accuracy and a little less hysteria and/or pandering.
I usually tend to use this angle when it actually applies. If he had already paid for service, they were being scum by denying him a legitimate email and violating THEIR contract. I have a feeling that being Jewish, this fellow would have been educated on the issues of contracts (the Torah seems to be quite specific that contracts are the way things are done, between humans and between them and their god(s), devils, etc). I'm fairly sure it wasn't just dragging them through the mud that did the trick. However, the Constitution has no provisions for "large corporations violating contracts into which they entered voluntarily wanting someone's money but failing in the providing of full service as paid for"... stuff like that. Laws and rules about that precede most national governments, and tend to be grandfathered in, since they work.
This is just your typical bureaucratic monkeys being bureaucratic monkeys, that usually get attracted to bureaucratic jobs (management, government, etc...) and doing exactly what and WHY they are hired. Being bureaucratic monkeys, with just enough firing neurons to be annoying bureaucratic monkeys, but not enough to actually be reasonable men... this is usually why you hear of bureaucratic monkeys, or monkeys obedient to bureaucrats tazering paralized kids 19 times or shooting old ladies full of juice even though they're wheelchair bound. Bureaucratic monkeys are examples of scumbags that would've been aborted (post natal if need be) by any self respecting parent, long before they got to breed more bureaucratic monkeys... until they bred and over bred to the situation we have today.
Again, the Constitution of the USA or for the USA (depending on which one you take an oath to when you get sworn in to your bureaucratic job) has nothing on this issue... this is purely a contract law issue, and that precedes the Constitution by several centuries at the least.
Also, his name containing an expletive can easily be explained as NON expletive, and can be interpreted as such by any lawyer or judge with enough functional brain matter. Why, you ask? Simple. Cultural difference. If a man who is a DOCTOR can carry that name and not change it, you can be fairly sure he has traded on it.
That being said i've seen some screwy names in the past, so while I want to believe this article is bogus, I am unsurprised if it is true. Bureaucratic monkeys make every part of the world miserable, where the locals allow them to infest. Voting has never been a cure. It wasn't when they did it in the name of the king, or the oligarch, or the tyrant (in the greek meaning of word) or the dictator or "the people's party" or any other reason for which bureaucratic monkeys perform their unquestioning duties. People to whom "duty" is a primary prerogative, should concern you, worry you, and scare you. These are the monkeys who shot kids in the back of the head for merely not complying with the new "party" or for their parents being rich (see Che and Cuba literature on this issue). Sure, here they're obeying a different "letter of the law", but its all the same. Monkey see, monkey do. We don't need "less abortions", we need a lot more. They should be looking for bureaucratic monkey genes, but who would be doing the legislating but other bureaucratic monkeys... the sense of survival is strong in the bureaucratic monkeys.
MUD: Thou canst not put this genie back into the bottle. The genie reads a scroll of rules and regulations. Thou art Screwed... royally, and without vaseline.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
"bad words"? what are you fucking 5 years old? this whole thing is insane and anyone who defends it needs to be quarantined and watched closely.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I don't live all that far from Fucking. It's a tiny, tiny village and they can not afford to replace the signs that get stolen... mostly by tourists from the UK.
So when you go to fucking, please just the pictures of the Fucking Signs and do not steal the fucking signs.
Really.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
FFS stop posting my e-mail address on the Internet. Now I'm going to get spammed.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
The whole concept of 'swearwords', IMHO is terribly outdated anyway. As someone else mentioned above, while these select words are considered taboo, their synonyms are not. Why is it okay to say 'crap' or 'poo' and not 'shit'? They mean the exact same thing. I can only imagine it was taboo to say 'shit' in public because of what it meant, but no-one seems to care about that any more. Everyone remembers it's a taboo word, but not why.
Monopolies destroy the market mechanisms vital for capitalism to work.
Unfortunately for many theories and schools of economics, it turns out that capitalism destroys the market mechanisms supposedly vital for capitalism to work.
The markets - and capitalism - go on working all right, but not along the lines of Adam Smith's fairy-tale "hidden hand". Oh no.
Free markets go either of two ways. Either they remain entirely free and unregulated, in which case they sooner or later evolve into "robber baron" markets dominated by players like Microsoft and IBM. Or else governments step in to regulate them, in a process that soon comes to resemble the Ptolemaic system of astronomy - adjustments to adjustments to adjustments, while the whole thing becomes steadily less stable and credible.
Our current system is a compromise between raw capitalism and socialism. You can argue that it has the strengths of both, or the weaknesses of both, or both. One aspect that has recently hit the headlines is the tendency to privatise profits and nationalise losses, thus giving rich speculators a free run at even greater wealth.
Well, if you were an influential politician, what kind of friends would you have - rich ones or poor ones?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Unfortunately for many theories and schools of economics, it turns out that capitalism destroys the market mechanisms supposedly vital for capitalism to work
I took a class in high school called 'social justice', which was ran by a very liberal teacher who said that communism works -- but only on a small scale and only if nobody cheats.
It turns out he was right. But that goes for any theory of economics.
Capitalism, socialism, it doesn't matter what system you use. The fact is that turn out that none of the theories and schools of economics work the way that economists theorize them. In the end, there will always be those who will find out how to abuse the system and those people will abuse it.
In the end, the only way to make any system work is to punish the cheaters.
My blog
So, what you're saying is that Fucking tourists from the UK visit and then steal the Fucking signs. Since the Fucking village is so small, they can't afford to replace the Fucking signs.
And what you're asking is, then, for the Fucking tourists to keep their Fucking hands off the Fucking signs? Sounds Fucking good to me.
My blog
All markets are regulated.
The free market does not exist and idealistically never has existed.
Somebody enforces and writes the rules by which the markets run; which INCLUDES fundamental things like ownership, law enforcement, a legal system...
Even the most free markets-- the black markets are defined by law (indirectly) and how those laws are enforced.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news