>>The ISPs want to keep promising "unlimited" service and mislead the customer
>I don't think they do it to mislead. They do it because everyone else does it, and they have to follow suit (though admittedly they don't lose any sleep over this). Just another reason why metered service is such a good idea, because it would bring along with it some truth in advertising perhaps.
Absolutely they do it to mislead. Thing about the fact that this very point is under such strong contention, on two fronts: consumers who get shut off for crossing an undocumented usage limit, and attempts to legislate (actually, it's more like getting a legislation EXEMPTION from anti-trust law).
So what I am saying here is the ISPs absolutely and positively know they are misleading consumers, and they do not want ANYTHING to stop their false claims. Since reality does not agree with their definition of unlimited, they are redefining reality. Or as you put it, they're following each other. At this point our difference is probably semantics... the ISPs are wrong on more than one level.
I'll go a step further - the ISPs collectively are holding back broadband and so the US economy. It's so disappointing to see US broadband rates below 50%.
>I'm kinda confused by this too, why is the power grid on the Internet?
Cost.
In a lot of cases, you have the power company desktops on the Internet and they have their own lan for desktops etc. But then those computers CAN access the critical systems. Then they slap a firewall or VPN inbetween the desktops and the critical systems... wow, it's magically OFF THE INTERNETS!
If you disconnect the two LANS, you're much more secure, but then Lazy McFatass has to WALK to a boring green screen to manage it.
It's much cheaper and employee friendly to just let these people access the secure systems from their desktop, using a remote terminal. Very sad, but true... and very risky.
Remember, it was poor desktop security and a WINDOWS VIRUS that knocked out the US Northeast power grid some 5 or 6 years ago.
>Honestly, how is the ISP that's going to have any leverage over the BBC?
>Sure the ISP can send a bill.
A rhetorical question, or better still a "strawman" of your choosing that has nothing to do with the issue discussed.
If you are going to drag in the "regulation" boogeyman of the libertarian, consider that cartel-like collusion is the OPPOSITE of a free market machine.
The ISP's are PERFECTLY capable of selling "metered" service by the megabyte to the consumer. This is a fact, and no one decries such plainly worded terms of service.
The ISPs want to keep promising "unlimited" service and mislead the customer, and they want to do it by colluding on a single domain to bring them down... in effect the ISPs want to derail what has been until now a free market. A free market doesn't care if the bytes you consume on your "unlimited" Internet are Google's bytes or the BBC.
OK, in your example 'Company A' has a chain of mailservers, one acting as the public MX and the other as the internal email server (probably some workgroup server elsewhere on the other network).
You state that to reject bad recipients, the MX needs a list of all the company users, and that involves a list of users being synchronized.
This is incorrect -- the MX _does_ need to know the list of internal users, but it doesn't need a copy of the list. The MX need only perform "recipient verify", calling out to the destination mailserver (see VRFY, or RCPT TO followed by quit techniques documented everywhere). The MX does a quick connect inbound, verifies address, quits the internal connection then resumes accepting the public email address. This is QUICK STUFF to do - the extra connection is nothing at all in terms of resources... it's less than churning out 999,999 backscatters per hour.
As a bonus, the MX can "cache" the results of the recipient verify... say for 10 minutes: that way popular email addresses are "known" to the MX, while "new addresses" go from rejecting to accepting within 10 minutes of the account creation (this is worst case, assuming a spammer was pounding on the mailbox before it was active, and generating a negative cache)
If you're using Exchange, I'm sorry. MAYBE this stuff can be done in Exchange 2007. Personally I wouldn't put Exchange on the Internet.. keep it inside workgroups, and use a real SMTP firewall, or whip up an SMTP proxy using Exim or other OSS mailserver.
>None of those items you mentioned are in any way inherent to the design of Exchange.
Weasel wording or useless semantics.
Perhaps Exchange was not DESIGNED (ie, intended) to be that way, but it IS. You are simply unaware of this real world fact, or find the truth inconvenient. *shrugs*
>Those are easy to shut off in Exchange, but it still requires somebody to actually be aware that it needs shutting off. Exchange may have stupid defaults, but every product is susceptible to that at some point or another. I'm sure whoever set up that machine and paid *such* close attention to it would create an equally bad sendmail box.
Apples and oranges though:
Sendmail: free updates, free security updates, free major revision upgrades
Exchange: Several thousands of dollars to upgrade, security updates are sunset for "old" versions -- thus people too "cheap" to upgrade Exchange end up running insecure setups. Actually, "cheap" isn't fair.. I've seen Exchange shops where IT was incapable of attempting a +1.0 version upgrade on Exchange.
So 2 points against Exchange in terms of staying secure and up to date. This of course demonstrates itself in the real world... there are tens of thousands of Exchange 2000 (and even Exchange 5.5) systems out there spewing Delivery Status notices, Out of Office, blindly accepting email wildcarded for their domain (no SMTP rejection possible upon a bad RCPT TO mailbox), etc.
Perhaps Exchange 2007 is better in this respect by default, but that's not my point... the installation base is a tiny fraction of Exchange 2K and 2K3, and will be for years to come. If Microsoft ever decided to spare the Internet, they would time-bomb their servers or lease their servers as a subscription service. They make it hard for their mistakes to disappear.
I'm not sure what the exact average BD price is, but I see a LOT of the movies ~ $20, +/- $5 (deepdiscountdvd has plenty of BD movies for $15)
Selection is the big problem. I have a BD player (PS3), and own 3 movies and 3 games. Over the long haul, I bought it for movies, and expect to get more... but I'm not going to be one of those collector people with 3 bookshelves worth of media.
For me to buy more movies, the studios must release more from my "must have" list, including the original 3 star wars (no doubt held up by Lucas so he can get Jar Jar revised into in Episode IV...), or the LotR series, Akira, and maybe some Iron Maiden releases:)
FYI - Everyone quotes $400 for the entry PS3, but for the last year or so sonystyle.com has had a $100 off deal on them with NO INTEREST for 1 year. You _do_ need to apply for a SonyStyle (Citibank) Visa, which I did so my 40GB PS3 was $299, and will be paid off before the 12 month anniversary to avoid any interest charges.
The PS3 BTW makes a GREAT UPnP media player... unlike a 'regular' BluRay player would. It's not quite MythTV, but you can hide away a backend server which records and streams video to the PS3, or just browse your music collection. If anyone's looking at BluRay players, I strongly urge you to check out these "extra" features that you get in a PS3 vs a limited standalone BR player.
As a source for spam, and a plague of server-generated 'automated' notices, Exchange beats EVERYTHING.
Exchange is fine if you keep it where it belongs: inside a workgroup or protected by a SMTP-protocol filter (which is not running on the same box).
Recently I had to defend a customer who was the target of a DDOS... 80% of which were "bounces" from Exchange (forged From: undeliverables, permanent Out Of Office, DSNs, Mailbox full emails, etc). Exchange is pathetic in terms of controlling what gets "onto" the server.
By comparison, Google mail is a VERY good Internet citizen. They may have had Captcha compromised, but they'll plug it up. I'll them over their competition anyday.
ISP's DO promise bandwidth speeds. Are they the Service Level Agreements?
No, but if that's your point you're WAY off: using "no SLA" does not equate to "no guarantee"... lack of an SLA only means it's "undefined" what they will do in terms of CREDIT if there is service degradation.
Comcast is violating FTA, FCC and even USPS directives about false advertising.
Really all Comcast needs to do here is stop forging packets, and employ a REAL traffic shaper. They are within their rights to do so PROVIDED they cease being misleading: Just tell the consumer your PEAK bandwidth depends on availability, but you are guaranteed XX bandwidth. That's something every ISP should do, because it is SO easy (and tempting) for an ISP to over-sell by a large degree.
>Let me ask you this: Would you be happy with somebody cutting the electricity to your house for a week to get you to complain to your power company about the fact that your neighbourhood has not yet been updated to use the latest most efficient transformers?
That's a loaded question. You're implying "somebody" can be someone OTHER than the provider of the service in question.
The service provider IS entitled to cut service. Especially since the recipient paid nothing. Especially since the recipient obviously VIOLATED the TERMS of service by not subscribing to once-a-month system status emails.
You'll hear a lot of people blaming ORDB simply because they were negligent, and don't want to get FIRED for it.
>On a side note, given that this move by ORDB specifically targets people other than those who they want to change the behaviour of in an attempt to get those innocent bystanders to affect change upon the real people they want to affect, this actually meets the FBI's definition of terrorism.
You obviously do not know how RBLs work, and you dilute the meaning of the word 'terrorism' by invoking it here.
While I can not agree with ORDB's decision, I don't know what their burden is either. I can say it is their network and they are entitled to reclaim their IP addresses from negligent freeloading bandwidth thieves... this is some SERIOUS bandwidth.
1) When ORDB.ORG was up, their non-enforcable terms of service required mail admins to sign up for ORDB system-stats emails....Many foolish people obviously DID NOT. 2) ORDB shut down in *2006*, and in addition to the shutdown email they hosted a website indicating their status.... Again, admins too cheap to pay for RBLs take the free ones for granted, and continue to abuse their IPs long after the party is over. 3) It's up to the email admin what happens. I use different RBLs and URIBLs and not necessarily to "block". You can scrutinize emails or tag it as spam. ORDB doesn't "block" anything.
>Hell, even the printing press was initially thought of as a horrible thing for humanity. Where would we be had our leaders been successful in stopping it's spread?
Where would we be? Hmm... MOST likely you would be in Kansas, but there's a small chance you would be in Kentucky.
By your criteria, the mainstream press fails just as badly.
>When I can a.) call the White House and get a serious answer to a serious question
Are you SERIOUS? Can you not remember ANY of the press coverage post-911, when the PRESS was as guilty as the White House in drumming up The War?
Remember, this ALSO came at a time when 2 of the 3 major networks are subsidiaries OF military industrial complex corporations.
To keep pressure on the fourth network, Fox... oh wait, no pressure was needed.
Oh yeah, to keep pressure on the third network (Disney), the FCC was looking to "relax ownership limits" on broadcast TV (which leads to greater concentration in one network but the real value is the individual local channels become inflated, can actually have buyers)
The press wasn't misled... they dodged some very serious issues and questions. After all, they have an obligation to serve the stockholders (funds mostly, and funds could see the spending spree written on the wall)
I got a picture frame as a gift, but honestly... how many of us would BUY one? These picture frames typically have built in memory or require USB synching... what about 802.11 or bluetooth instead? Batteries?
Which brings me to my point.... the Nokia N800 is $200 and runs to 400 MHz, and can do all this and more. The Nokia N770 closed out at $125 (if you can still find one) and has the same relevant features.
>Maybe they should worry about making sure I remain a customer rather than worry about how much I'm downloading.
Why should they care? If you lived in an area where FIOS was an option, you would have already switched. This is a calculated business decision on their part, weighted against your known market options.
This is why the Fairpoint deal is SO bad for New Hampshire... because those of us on the FIOS waiting list will just keep waiting, and remain stuck with Comcast in the meantime.
>If BOP would really work, why do we still have human meter readers? Why doesn't the meter transmit its usage back over the same lines it's pulling power?
Very good point.
A lot of electric utilities have recently upgraded electric meters with RFID or radio, so the meter worker can simply drive by the house for a reading. This suggests two things: a) they know that powerline transfers are not reliable. (Why 'modernize' to radio if you can simply phone home?) b) Stock pumping. All those 'powerline trials' occurred.. what.. 10 years ago? This lead to stock bumps, mostly to serve the company and the analysts.
When Google takes an interest in data over power, then things get interesting, as they tend to look at technology investments from a technology perspective first.
This technology has gone nowhere, so far.
But back to the topic, I can't get FIOS where I live. The whole zipcode is FIOS, but our condo association dragged their feet on inviting FIOS to do an install. By the time they did contact Verizon, Verizon had already stopped NH installations (and sent all their NH engineers deep into long Mass commutes to punish them for speaking out on the FairPoint sale...)
OK, I'm confused by this statement: >And remember, most of that money is flowing out of the US public purse, straight into the hands of... Bush's golfing buddies.
Did you mean into the hands of Bush's US telco golfing buddies, or did you mean into the hands Bush's OVERSEAS golfing buddies (you know, the Dubai investors who want things to stay EXACTLY AS THEY ARE in the US)?
Slashdot Mirror
>>The ISPs want to keep promising "unlimited" service and mislead the customer
>I don't think they do it to mislead. They do it because everyone else does it, and they have to follow suit (though admittedly they don't lose any sleep over this). Just another reason why metered service is such a good idea, because it would bring along with it some truth in advertising perhaps.
Absolutely they do it to mislead. Thing about the fact that this very point is under such strong contention, on two fronts: consumers who get shut off for crossing an undocumented usage limit, and attempts to legislate (actually, it's more like getting a legislation EXEMPTION from anti-trust law).
So what I am saying here is the ISPs absolutely and positively know they are misleading consumers, and they do not want ANYTHING to stop their false claims. Since reality does not agree with their definition of unlimited, they are redefining reality. Or as you put it, they're following each other. At this point our difference is probably semantics... the ISPs are wrong on more than one level.
I'll go a step further - the ISPs collectively are holding back broadband and so the US economy. It's so disappointing to see US broadband rates below 50%.
>I'm kinda confused by this too, why is the power grid on the Internet?
Cost.
In a lot of cases, you have the power company desktops on the Internet and they have their own lan for desktops etc.
But then those computers CAN access the critical systems.
Then they slap a firewall or VPN inbetween the desktops and the critical systems... wow, it's magically OFF THE INTERNETS!
If you disconnect the two LANS, you're much more secure, but then Lazy McFatass has to WALK to a boring green screen to manage it.
It's much cheaper and employee friendly to just let these people access the secure systems from their desktop, using a remote terminal. Very sad, but true... and very risky.
Remember, it was poor desktop security and a WINDOWS VIRUS that knocked out the US Northeast power grid some 5 or 6 years ago.
>Honestly, how is the ISP that's going to have any leverage over the BBC?
>Sure the ISP can send a bill.
A rhetorical question, or better still a "strawman" of your choosing that has nothing to do with the issue discussed.
If you are going to drag in the "regulation" boogeyman of the libertarian, consider that cartel-like collusion is the OPPOSITE of a free market machine.
The ISP's are PERFECTLY capable of selling "metered" service by the megabyte to the consumer. This is a fact, and no one decries such plainly worded terms of service.
The ISPs want to keep promising "unlimited" service and mislead the customer, and they want to do it by colluding on a single domain to bring them down... in effect the ISPs want to derail what has been until now a free market. A free market doesn't care if the bytes you consume on your "unlimited" Internet are Google's bytes or the BBC.
OK, in your example 'Company A' has a chain of mailservers, one acting as the public MX and the other as the internal email server (probably some workgroup server elsewhere on the other network).
You state that to reject bad recipients, the MX needs a list of all the company users, and that involves a list of users being synchronized.
This is incorrect -- the MX _does_ need to know the list of internal users, but it doesn't need a copy of the list. The MX need only perform "recipient verify", calling out to the destination mailserver (see VRFY, or RCPT TO followed by quit techniques documented everywhere). The MX does a quick connect inbound, verifies address, quits the internal connection then resumes accepting the public email address. This is QUICK STUFF to do - the extra connection is nothing at all in terms of resources... it's less than churning out 999,999 backscatters per hour.
As a bonus, the MX can "cache" the results of the recipient verify... say for 10 minutes: that way popular email addresses are "known" to the MX, while "new addresses" go from rejecting to accepting within 10 minutes of the account creation (this is worst case, assuming a spammer was pounding on the mailbox before it was active, and generating a negative cache)
If you're using Exchange, I'm sorry. MAYBE this stuff can be done in Exchange 2007. Personally I wouldn't put Exchange on the Internet.. keep it inside workgroups, and use a real SMTP firewall, or whip up an SMTP proxy using Exim or other OSS mailserver.
>None of those items you mentioned are in any way inherent to the design of Exchange.
Weasel wording or useless semantics.
Perhaps Exchange was not DESIGNED (ie, intended) to be that way, but it IS. You are simply unaware of this real world fact, or find the truth inconvenient. *shrugs*
>Those are easy to shut off in Exchange, but it still requires somebody to actually be aware that it needs shutting off. Exchange may have stupid defaults, but every product is susceptible to that at some point or another. I'm sure whoever set up that machine and paid *such* close attention to it would create an equally bad sendmail box.
Apples and oranges though:
Sendmail: free updates, free security updates, free major revision upgrades
Exchange: Several thousands of dollars to upgrade, security updates are sunset for "old" versions -- thus people too "cheap" to upgrade Exchange end up running insecure setups. Actually, "cheap" isn't fair.. I've seen Exchange shops where IT was incapable of attempting a +1.0 version upgrade on Exchange.
So 2 points against Exchange in terms of staying secure and up to date. This of course demonstrates itself in the real world... there are tens of thousands of Exchange 2000 (and even Exchange 5.5) systems out there spewing Delivery Status notices, Out of Office, blindly accepting email wildcarded for their domain (no SMTP rejection possible upon a bad RCPT TO mailbox), etc.
Perhaps Exchange 2007 is better in this respect by default, but that's not my point... the installation base is a tiny fraction of Exchange 2K and 2K3, and will be for years to come. If Microsoft ever decided to spare the Internet, they would time-bomb their servers or lease their servers as a subscription service. They make it hard for their mistakes to disappear.
>Given the interest rates most cards charge, only a mentally defective person would carry a balance on a card and pay it off over time.
You're obviously not aware of the business model of Rent-A-Center. Or most Republican presidents for that matter.
I'm not sure what the exact average BD price is, but I see a LOT of the movies ~ $20, +/- $5 (deepdiscountdvd has plenty of BD movies for $15)
:)
Selection is the big problem. I have a BD player (PS3), and own 3 movies and 3 games. Over the long haul, I bought it for movies, and expect to get more... but I'm not going to be one of those collector people with 3 bookshelves worth of media.
For me to buy more movies, the studios must release more from my "must have" list, including the original 3 star wars (no doubt held up by Lucas so he can get Jar Jar revised into in Episode IV...), or the LotR series, Akira, and maybe some Iron Maiden releases
FYI - Everyone quotes $400 for the entry PS3, but for the last year or so sonystyle.com has had a $100 off deal on them with NO INTEREST for 1 year. You _do_ need to apply for a SonyStyle (Citibank) Visa, which I did so my 40GB PS3 was $299, and will be paid off before the 12 month anniversary to avoid any interest charges.
The PS3 BTW makes a GREAT UPnP media player... unlike a 'regular' BluRay player would. It's not quite MythTV, but you can hide away a backend server which records and streams video to the PS3, or just browse your music collection. If anyone's looking at BluRay players, I strongly urge you to check out these "extra" features that you get in a PS3 vs a limited standalone BR player.
>Exchange trumps Gmail easily. No Contest.
As a source for spam, and a plague of server-generated 'automated' notices, Exchange beats EVERYTHING.
Exchange is fine if you keep it where it belongs: inside a workgroup or protected by a SMTP-protocol filter (which is not running on the same box).
Recently I had to defend a customer who was the target of a DDOS... 80% of which were "bounces" from Exchange (forged From: undeliverables, permanent Out Of Office, DSNs, Mailbox full emails, etc). Exchange is pathetic in terms of controlling what gets "onto" the server.
By comparison, Google mail is a VERY good Internet citizen. They may have had Captcha compromised, but they'll plug it up. I'll them over their competition anyday.
>Consumer ISP's don't promise bandwidth.
Weasel talk.
ISP's DO promise bandwidth speeds.
Are they the Service Level Agreements?
No, but if that's your point you're WAY off: using "no SLA" does not equate to "no guarantee"... lack of an SLA only means it's "undefined" what they will do in terms of CREDIT if there is service degradation.
Comcast is violating FTA, FCC and even USPS directives about false advertising.
Really all Comcast needs to do here is stop forging packets, and employ a REAL traffic shaper. They are within their rights to do so PROVIDED they cease being misleading: Just tell the consumer your PEAK bandwidth depends on availability, but you are guaranteed XX bandwidth. That's something every ISP should do, because it is SO easy (and tempting) for an ISP to over-sell by a large degree.
>If my spam filter service did this to me, I would never us them again!
You actually download ALL your spam, and check each and every one?
Uh-huh.
>Let me ask you this: Would you be happy with somebody cutting the electricity to your house for a week to get you to complain to your power company about the fact that your neighbourhood has not yet been updated to use the latest most efficient transformers?
That's a loaded question. You're implying "somebody" can be someone OTHER than the provider of the service in question.
The service provider IS entitled to cut service. Especially since the recipient paid nothing. Especially since the recipient obviously VIOLATED the TERMS of service by not subscribing to once-a-month system status emails.
You'll hear a lot of people blaming ORDB simply because they were negligent, and don't want to get FIRED for it.
>Intentionally causing large numbers of emails to be lost is a risky move indeed.
Agreed, so it's a good thing the blame lies with local admins mis-using ORDB.
>On a side note, given that this move by ORDB specifically targets people other than those who they want to change the behaviour of in an attempt to get those innocent bystanders to affect change upon the real people they want to affect, this actually meets the FBI's definition of terrorism.
...Many foolish people obviously DID NOT. ... Again, admins too cheap to pay for RBLs take the free ones for granted, and continue to abuse their IPs long after the party is over.
You obviously do not know how RBLs work, and you dilute the meaning of the word 'terrorism' by invoking it here.
While I can not agree with ORDB's decision, I don't know what their burden is either. I can say it is their network and they are entitled to reclaim their IP addresses from negligent freeloading bandwidth thieves... this is some SERIOUS bandwidth.
1) When ORDB.ORG was up, their non-enforcable terms of service required mail admins to sign up for ORDB system-stats emails.
2) ORDB shut down in *2006*, and in addition to the shutdown email they hosted a website indicating their status.
3) It's up to the email admin what happens. I use different RBLs and URIBLs and not necessarily to "block". You can scrutinize emails or tag it as spam. ORDB doesn't "block" anything.
>but who's going to institute the battery recycling? you know you can't just throw that away.
Google: China, or Canada
>For closed source software you're stuck trying arcane trickery like this guy did in order to find out when a program is spying on you.
Arcane trickery to see what the code is doing?
You've obviously never edited someone else's Perl...
O RLY?
MONSANTO!
>Hell, even the printing press was initially thought of as a horrible thing for humanity. Where would we be had our leaders been successful in stopping it's spread?
Where would we be? Hmm... MOST likely you would be in Kansas, but there's a small chance you would be in Kentucky.
By your criteria, the mainstream press fails just as badly.
>When I can a.) call the White House and get a serious answer to a serious question
Are you SERIOUS? Can you not remember ANY of the press coverage post-911, when the PRESS was as guilty as the White House in drumming up The War?
Remember, this ALSO came at a time when 2 of the 3 major networks are subsidiaries OF military industrial complex corporations.
To keep pressure on the fourth network, Fox... oh wait, no pressure was needed.
Oh yeah, to keep pressure on the third network (Disney), the FCC was looking to "relax ownership limits" on broadcast TV (which leads to greater concentration in one network but the real value is the individual local channels become inflated, can actually have buyers)
The press wasn't misled... they dodged some very serious issues and questions. After all, they have an obligation to serve the stockholders (funds mostly, and funds could see the spending spree written on the wall)
I got a picture frame as a gift, but honestly... how many of us would BUY one?
These picture frames typically have built in memory or require USB synching... what about 802.11 or bluetooth instead? Batteries?
Which brings me to my point.... the Nokia N800 is $200 and runs to 400 MHz, and can do all this and more. The Nokia N770 closed out at $125 (if you can still find one) and has the same relevant features.
Ugh, dude... did you RTFC (read the comment) you replied to? Did you read what he was replying to?
:)
Obviously not. Don't flame people for what you alone are guilty of... it makes people wince.
>and good-old fashioned good will are examples
... and he hasn't missed a payment yet! (get it?)
Well then, China should LOOOVE George Bush: He's borrowed hundreds of billions from Bejing...
>Maybe they should worry about making sure I remain a customer rather than worry about how much I'm downloading.
Why should they care?
If you lived in an area where FIOS was an option, you would have already switched.
This is a calculated business decision on their part, weighted against your known market options.
This is why the Fairpoint deal is SO bad for New Hampshire... because those of us on the FIOS waiting list will just keep waiting, and remain stuck with Comcast in the meantime.
>If BOP would really work, why do we still have human meter readers? Why doesn't the meter transmit its usage back over the same lines it's pulling power?
Very good point.
A lot of electric utilities have recently upgraded electric meters with RFID or radio, so the meter worker can simply drive by the house for a reading. This suggests two things:
a) they know that powerline transfers are not reliable. (Why 'modernize' to radio if you can simply phone home?)
b) Stock pumping. All those 'powerline trials' occurred.. what.. 10 years ago? This lead to stock bumps, mostly to serve the company and the analysts.
When Google takes an interest in data over power, then things get interesting, as they tend to look at technology investments from a technology perspective first.
This technology has gone nowhere, so far.
But back to the topic, I can't get FIOS where I live. The whole zipcode is FIOS, but our condo association dragged their feet on inviting FIOS to do an install. By the time they did contact Verizon, Verizon had already stopped NH installations (and sent all their NH engineers deep into long Mass commutes to punish them for speaking out on the FairPoint sale...)
OK, I'm confused by this statement:
>And remember, most of that money is flowing out of the US public purse, straight into the hands of... Bush's golfing buddies.
Did you mean into the hands of Bush's US telco golfing buddies, or did you mean into the hands Bush's OVERSEAS golfing buddies (you know, the Dubai investors who want things to stay EXACTLY AS THEY ARE in the US)?
I mean really, his buddies win either way.