Fact is, currently DNS still relies entirely on *one entity*. It goes completely against the distributed structure of the internet.
So do IP address assignments. So do AS number assignments. Why does nobody ever complain about them? If you want something to be uniquely assigned (domain names, IP addresses, AS numbers) then it seems to me that it's going to have to be centrally managed by someone.
One common method is to break into shared hosting servers via ftp or ssh
Slightly off topic, but I've noticed that in the last year or two that brute force ssh attempts seem to have become so common that they should be considered part of the regular internet background noise. My servers were regularly being probed from multiple IP addresses (most of them in China), sometimes reaching 5-10 ssh attempts per second. They'd go through whole dictionaries of possible usernames and keep trying to hit the root account as well.
I wouldn't run ssh these days without disabling password logins in favor of keyfiles and having some sort of rate-limit on the number of incoming connections. Here's two iptables rules that will do just that:
Completely off topic quibble about your sig. If the purpose of the right to bear arms is really to prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship, shouldn't we be arguing about the right to own RPGs and laser-guided missiles, not the right to carry handguns into churches?
One would assume that if the shit ever hit the fan to the point that rebellion had the support of a majority of the American people that the military (or at least parts of it) would side with the population. Remember that the US military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. As far as the churches go that's for a different purpose -- the right to self defense.
I might argue the issue in the other direction too. Does the military really need to be as large as it currently is? For most of American history the military was an extremely small professional force that mainly existed as a counter-insurgency force (the actions out West) and training force for the militia that would be called up in the event of serious hostilities. It remained this way until WW2 -- in the 1930s the US Army was ranked below Portugal of all places.
The Founding Fathers tended to believe that large standing armies were a threat to liberty. Given the corruption of Congress at the behest of the military-industrial complex I'd tend to think that they were correct. Obviously the 21st century is a little bit different than the 18th century but I see no reason why we couldn't get by with a small Army modeled on what we had during the beginning of the Republic. The Air Force and Navy could be kept larger -- it takes time to build/train them, they are our first line of defense and don't pose the same threat to liberty that a large Army does -- but the Army should mainly be focused on training and the defense of our overseas possessions.
With commercial entities, it's not about the seriousness of the issue, it's all about how many people complain in a given span of time, so if you're one of their few complainers, they'll write you off as a statistic and continue doing whatever it is they're doing (wrong) despite your better judgment.
Umm, that really depends on how much money you've paid for the software/support agreement, doesn't it? When I worked in the insurance business I had a direct line of communication to the programmers who wrote our agency management software. When I found bugs I could report them directly to the people who could fix them and would usually have a patch by the end of business. I had similar experiences working with Cisco back when I worked in the ISP business, although you did have to navigate more bureaucracy with them to get the desired result.
Mind you, we paid tens of thousands of dollars for that software and those support contracts. You won't get that kind of response out of Microsoft when you find a bug in the copy of Office that you paid $120 for. But I still think it's disingenuous to claim that commercial entities don't care about the seriousness of the issue.
It's hardly surprising since the pay at MI5 is abysmal. I requested an information pack during my last year of university but lost interest when I found MI5 was about the worst paying graduate recruiter and especially bad for central London
That's not really that unusual for Governmental agencies. I would imagine that most people who go to work for MI5/CIA/Mossad/etc are not doing it for the money.
Where you see a cartel I see a business charging what the market will bear for a service (SMS) that is basically a novelty item. Voice rates have come down considerably from what they were just a few years ago. That's all the vast majority of Americans who aren't teenage schoolgirls with sore thumbs are going to care about.
How you can look at the telecommunications industry and claim they are providing "less and less" service is beyond me. Go back a decade or two to the days when you had to pay inflated long distance charges to call your relatives across the country. Compare that to today when we have a glut of unlimited long distance plans (landline/voip offerings) and/or free long distance (wireless). Go back a decade or two to when cellular service was spotty to non-existent outside of the major cities and cost a small fortune. Remember the days of analog cellular networks where the call quality sucked, the customers were regularly the victims of fraud (cloning) and the handsets cost a fortune? Remember the days when it cost you $0.69+/min if you crossed the wrong line on the map?
Yes, I can see how you'd lose sleep at night over the fact that we are getting "less and less" service from the telecommunications industry. Clearly the last few years have been a giant step backwards. We should go back to the 1990s before the industry was deregulated. I liked my analog cell phone and $0.10/min long distance bills way better than the system we have now.
You're an idiot for sticking up for big business.
Ooooh, "big business". Sounds scary! Better replace it with something more benign like "big government". That will show those evil bastards at "big business"!
BTW, since we have apparently devolved to the point of throwing personal insults, I would add that you are a naive jackass for thinking that you can use the government to bring "big business" to heel. All you are going to accomplish in the end is to add more bureaucracy to the system while raising the cost of service for everyone. You don't honestly think the carriers are going to accept your mandates without finding a way to pay for them, do you?
One cell phone a mile away from a tower can block the tower from all the other cellphones? I call pure unadulterated BS. This sounds like old wives' tales(esp. coming from a AC) like the tales the G4 and G5 are better than their Intel equivalents. Will not stop it from getting modded up though, as it already is.
Yes, actually it can. Before you call BS you might want to familiarize yourself with the technology.
In a CDMA system each client transmits on the same frequency. The base station tells each client how much power to use so that the received power at the base station is the same for each client. If one client is broadcasting with excess power then it lowers the signal to noise ratio at the base station for the other clients. Taken to the extreme it can disrupt communications.
And does anyone seriously believe that someone willing to launch a DoS on a cell phone tower would be deterred because the jailbreaking process isn't legal?
Why not? Murderers are routinely deterred by the fact that it's illegal to possess firearms while in the commission of a crime.
It's quite possible that none of them are the best tasting. You need flavor to actually have taste, don't you?
But they do have flavor. Several different kinds as I recall. You've got horse piss, skunk, moldy bread and vaginal yeast infection..... and those are just the offerings from Budweiser;)
but as a consumer Wal Mart's monopoly is a good thing for me.
Wal-Mart's monopoly is a good thing if you are only interested in cheap imported garbage that breaks down within a year. If you are interested in something better then you'll have to go elsewhere. Hopefully the "elsewhere" didn't close it's doors trying to compete with your friendly slave-labor (from the factory in China to the poor bastard here at home making min wage with no health benefits) depot.....
You're making the argument that everyone can see the overall benefit of public education and has the foresight to realize that an educated population is a good thing.
Public education has an overall benefit? Could have fooled me. The public education system is a bloated bureaucracy that ceased to be about education a long time ago. These days it's more about protecting your funding sources and ensuring your teachers have lifetime employment than it is about educating your students. Education has a benefit. Public education is just a means to an end and a rather bad one at that.
With enough incentives the worker educated elsewhere will stay and not bother to think of the educational well-being of his children, thus triggering a national race to the bottom.
Then please explain to me how can I stop paying for incoming texts that my idiot friends with unlimited texting plans keep sending me. It's not like I have a choice receiving them
Actually, yes, you do have a choice. Call your carrier and ask for them to be blocked. It's as easy as that.
And speaking of SMS, how come the non bundle cost is $0.20 for ALL carriers? Surely one would realize that reducing the price would mean more customers and we all know that the cost of carrying them is practically 0. Oh, and funny how the price went up to $0.20 with ALL carriers AT THE SAME TIME...
Who cares what the non-bundle cost is? Anyone who is a serious user of SMS is going to pay for a plan. Anyone else should probably just block them. Personally I have them blocked because I don't regard the convenience of SMS as justification for the cost.
And speaking of voice plans, how come I can't select my international provider? I have been able to do that on my landline forever now, which is why it costs me $0.03/minute to call my family in Europe. Calling from my cell phone? $1.50/minute. I know about (and use) calling cards, but why can't I just call directly?
You probably should be able to select your international provider. Until you can I'd vote with my wallet and use a calling card.
I would be perfectly OK with government regulation that would address these points. Yes, it will probably eat into carriers' profits, but tough nuggets, life's like that.
See, that's where your wrong. It won't eat into their profits. They'll just raise prices for everybody and I'll wind up subsidizing the SMS usage of the teenagers down the street.
I don't know how it is where you live, but around here pay phones have all but disappeared. If you get stuck somewhere at night (car problems, etc.) and you don't have a cell phone, you're screwed unless someone is nice enough to stop and help. Which, usually, they aren't. That being said, having a prepaid phone is certainly a great option for those cases.
Umm, I don't buy that you are "screwed" if your car breaks down with no cell phone. Inconvenienced might be a better word. I've had to walk a few miles when my car has broken down out in the sticks before. It was annoying but I wasn't "screwed". Anyway, as you said, prepaid is good option here.
Wireless plans are designed so that part of the monthly plan goes toward the purchase of the phone, so by paying full price for a phone and plan you are not coming out ahead.
Then sign the contract if that's the way you think. Personally I would rather have my freedom of action than the best possible deal on a phone. To each their own, that's why we have freedom of choice in this country. You want to take that choice away and use the power of Government to intervene in a perfectly functional market because you don't happen to like the way that market is working.
You get to switch carriers whenever you want? Great! Except you'll have to buy a new phone, which will cost more than the contract penalty would have.
I guess you've never heard of an unlocked GSM phone, have you?
If you go online and check out each of the four major carriors, all their plans are pretty much exactly the same. They all charge relatively the exact same prices for everything.
I'm sorry but I just can't take you seriously. Off the top of my head, here are some differences between the providers:
AT&T: Has rollover and mobile to mobile as standard feature, no "myfavs" unlimited calling
Verizon: No rollover, mobile to mobile is standard feature, "myfavs" unlimited calling on some plans
T-Mobile: No rollover, no standard mobile to mobile, "myfavs" plans are available, plans are generally cheaper and/or have more minutes than the other three carriers
Sprint: No rollover, mobile to mobile is standard feature, can pay a few extra bucks for 7pm nights, overages are handled in "blocks" that are cheaper than the other three carriers
But the fact is that with normal competition, prices should have fallen by now and they have not. It doesn't cost them $5 to send 100 text messages but that's what they charge me.
They charge that because idiots like you are willing to pay for it. Evidently you regard SMS as important enough to pay $5 for 100 messages. The fact that it doesn't cost them that much is irrelevant. They are charging what the market will bear. If you think it's overpriced then stop paying for it. It's also interesting that you don't think they have "normal competition" -- if that's the case then how do you explain the fact that neither AT&T nor Verizon offered unlimited SMS plans until T-Mobile and Sprint started doing so?
Our system has produced some of the cheapest voice calling on the planet. If you divide my cell phone bill by the number of minutes I use it works out to less than two cents per minute. What did cellular service cost just 10 or 15 years ago? What did landline long distance cost 20 years ago? You don't regard this as an improvement?
And, always in the background, some pompous, know-it-all dick saying, "If you don't like it, don't sign the contract." If that was the case, you wouldn't have a cell phone, telephone, car, bank account, investment account, 401(K) or internet connection. When companies collude on contract language, they are functioning as a cartel not free market players. When you don't have a choice, it's not a free market.
Actually I bought my car with financing from a local credit union that has it's own contracts that don't contain any of the usual (binding arbitration being the big one) anti-consumer clauses. There are choices out there for most of the services that you mentioned -- you just have to look for them.
Yes, believe it or not, they are. Most people can get through life just fine without being reachable 24/7. If you must have one then don't come whining to me about the contract that you willingly signed. Particularly when there are other options (prepaid, T-Mobile Flexpay) available to you.
There are cities on the US/Canadian border that you can pick up Canadian towers, and they will indeed charge you for roaming.
And if you live in one of those cities it would seem to me to be your responsibility to pay attention to the roaming indicator on your phone. If you don't want to do that then you can lock your phone in "home only" mode (CDMA) or manually specify the carrier's network (GSM) to keep it from roaming.
Slashdot Mirror
Fact is, currently DNS still relies entirely on *one entity*. It goes completely against the distributed structure of the internet.
So do IP address assignments. So do AS number assignments. Why does nobody ever complain about them? If you want something to be uniquely assigned (domain names, IP addresses, AS numbers) then it seems to me that it's going to have to be centrally managed by someone.
One common method is to break into shared hosting servers via ftp or ssh
Slightly off topic, but I've noticed that in the last year or two that brute force ssh attempts seem to have become so common that they should be considered part of the regular internet background noise. My servers were regularly being probed from multiple IP addresses (most of them in China), sometimes reaching 5-10 ssh attempts per second. They'd go through whole dictionaries of possible usernames and keep trying to hit the root account as well.
I wouldn't run ssh these days without disabling password logins in favor of keyfiles and having some sort of rate-limit on the number of incoming connections. Here's two iptables rules that will do just that:
iptables -A INPUT -i INTERNET-INTERFACE -p tcp --syn --dport 22 -m hashlimit --hashlimit 15/hour --hashlimit-burst 3 --hashlimit-htable-expire 600000 --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-name ssh -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i INTERNET-INTERFACE -p tcp --syn --dport 22 -j DROP
(Alternatively instead of "-j DROP" you can do "-j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset" but I'd rather let their connection hang)
Does that actually "report" it or does it merely remove it from your search results?
Completely off topic quibble about your sig. If the purpose of the right to bear arms is really to prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship, shouldn't we be arguing about the right to own RPGs and laser-guided missiles, not the right to carry handguns into churches?
One would assume that if the shit ever hit the fan to the point that rebellion had the support of a majority of the American people that the military (or at least parts of it) would side with the population. Remember that the US military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. As far as the churches go that's for a different purpose -- the right to self defense.
I might argue the issue in the other direction too. Does the military really need to be as large as it currently is? For most of American history the military was an extremely small professional force that mainly existed as a counter-insurgency force (the actions out West) and training force for the militia that would be called up in the event of serious hostilities. It remained this way until WW2 -- in the 1930s the US Army was ranked below Portugal of all places.
The Founding Fathers tended to believe that large standing armies were a threat to liberty. Given the corruption of Congress at the behest of the military-industrial complex I'd tend to think that they were correct. Obviously the 21st century is a little bit different than the 18th century but I see no reason why we couldn't get by with a small Army modeled on what we had during the beginning of the Republic. The Air Force and Navy could be kept larger -- it takes time to build/train them, they are our first line of defense and don't pose the same threat to liberty that a large Army does -- but the Army should mainly be focused on training and the defense of our overseas possessions.
With commercial entities, it's not about the seriousness of the issue, it's all about how many people complain in a given span of time, so if you're one of their few complainers, they'll write you off as a statistic and continue doing whatever it is they're doing (wrong) despite your better judgment.
Umm, that really depends on how much money you've paid for the software/support agreement, doesn't it? When I worked in the insurance business I had a direct line of communication to the programmers who wrote our agency management software. When I found bugs I could report them directly to the people who could fix them and would usually have a patch by the end of business. I had similar experiences working with Cisco back when I worked in the ISP business, although you did have to navigate more bureaucracy with them to get the desired result.
Mind you, we paid tens of thousands of dollars for that software and those support contracts. You won't get that kind of response out of Microsoft when you find a bug in the copy of Office that you paid $120 for. But I still think it's disingenuous to claim that commercial entities don't care about the seriousness of the issue.
It's hardly surprising since the pay at MI5 is abysmal. I requested an information pack during my last year of university but lost interest when I found MI5 was about the worst paying graduate recruiter and especially bad for central London
That's not really that unusual for Governmental agencies. I would imagine that most people who go to work for MI5/CIA/Mossad/etc are not doing it for the money.
I can see that Bush/Blair defense at their respective war crime tribunals now...
Yeah, that's likely to happen......
Where you see a cartel I see a business charging what the market will bear for a service (SMS) that is basically a novelty item. Voice rates have come down considerably from what they were just a few years ago. That's all the vast majority of Americans who aren't teenage schoolgirls with sore thumbs are going to care about.
How you can look at the telecommunications industry and claim they are providing "less and less" service is beyond me. Go back a decade or two to the days when you had to pay inflated long distance charges to call your relatives across the country. Compare that to today when we have a glut of unlimited long distance plans (landline/voip offerings) and/or free long distance (wireless). Go back a decade or two to when cellular service was spotty to non-existent outside of the major cities and cost a small fortune. Remember the days of analog cellular networks where the call quality sucked, the customers were regularly the victims of fraud (cloning) and the handsets cost a fortune? Remember the days when it cost you $0.69+/min if you crossed the wrong line on the map?
Yes, I can see how you'd lose sleep at night over the fact that we are getting "less and less" service from the telecommunications industry. Clearly the last few years have been a giant step backwards. We should go back to the 1990s before the industry was deregulated. I liked my analog cell phone and $0.10/min long distance bills way better than the system we have now.
You're an idiot for sticking up for big business.
Ooooh, "big business". Sounds scary! Better replace it with something more benign like "big government". That will show those evil bastards at "big business"!
BTW, since we have apparently devolved to the point of throwing personal insults, I would add that you are a naive jackass for thinking that you can use the government to bring "big business" to heel. All you are going to accomplish in the end is to add more bureaucracy to the system while raising the cost of service for everyone. You don't honestly think the carriers are going to accept your mandates without finding a way to pay for them, do you?
One cell phone a mile away from a tower can block the tower from all the other cellphones? I call pure unadulterated BS. This sounds like old wives' tales(esp. coming from a AC) like the tales the G4 and G5 are better than their Intel equivalents. Will not stop it from getting modded up though, as it already is.
Yes, actually it can. Before you call BS you might want to familiarize yourself with the technology.
In a CDMA system each client transmits on the same frequency. The base station tells each client how much power to use so that the received power at the base station is the same for each client. If one client is broadcasting with excess power then it lowers the signal to noise ratio at the base station for the other clients. Taken to the extreme it can disrupt communications.
And does anyone seriously believe that someone willing to launch a DoS on a cell phone tower would be deterred because the jailbreaking process isn't legal?
Why not? Murderers are routinely deterred by the fact that it's illegal to possess firearms while in the commission of a crime.
It's quite possible that none of them are the best tasting. You need flavor to actually have taste, don't you?
But they do have flavor. Several different kinds as I recall. You've got horse piss, skunk, moldy bread and vaginal yeast infection..... and those are just the offerings from Budweiser ;)
the bigger question I have is why does the Fed allow phone carriers to consistently scam their citizens?
Because Mr. Bernanke too busy trying to keep the financial system from melting down to worry about cell phones? ;)
Consequently, either the product quality suffers and the conditions under which the product is manufactured suffer (e.g., factory farms, slave labor).
Fixed that for you :)
but as a consumer Wal Mart's monopoly is a good thing for me.
Wal-Mart's monopoly is a good thing if you are only interested in cheap imported garbage that breaks down within a year. If you are interested in something better then you'll have to go elsewhere. Hopefully the "elsewhere" didn't close it's doors trying to compete with your friendly slave-labor (from the factory in China to the poor bastard here at home making min wage with no health benefits) depot.....
You're making the argument that everyone can see the overall benefit of public education and has the foresight to realize that an educated population is a good thing.
Public education has an overall benefit? Could have fooled me. The public education system is a bloated bureaucracy that ceased to be about education a long time ago. These days it's more about protecting your funding sources and ensuring your teachers have lifetime employment than it is about educating your students. Education has a benefit. Public education is just a means to an end and a rather bad one at that.
With enough incentives the worker educated elsewhere will stay and not bother to think of the educational well-being of his children, thus triggering a national race to the bottom.
I don't think you give parents enough credit.
Then please explain to me how can I stop paying for incoming texts that my idiot friends with unlimited texting plans keep sending me. It's not like I have a choice receiving them
Actually, yes, you do have a choice. Call your carrier and ask for them to be blocked. It's as easy as that.
And speaking of SMS, how come the non bundle cost is $0.20 for ALL carriers? Surely one would realize that reducing the price would mean more customers and we all know that the cost of carrying them is practically 0. Oh, and funny how the price went up to $0.20 with ALL carriers AT THE SAME TIME...
Who cares what the non-bundle cost is? Anyone who is a serious user of SMS is going to pay for a plan. Anyone else should probably just block them. Personally I have them blocked because I don't regard the convenience of SMS as justification for the cost.
And speaking of voice plans, how come I can't select my international provider? I have been able to do that on my landline forever now, which is why it costs me $0.03/minute to call my family in Europe. Calling from my cell phone? $1.50/minute. I know about (and use) calling cards, but why can't I just call directly?
You probably should be able to select your international provider. Until you can I'd vote with my wallet and use a calling card.
I would be perfectly OK with government regulation that would address these points. Yes, it will probably eat into carriers' profits, but tough nuggets, life's like that.
See, that's where your wrong. It won't eat into their profits. They'll just raise prices for everybody and I'll wind up subsidizing the SMS usage of the teenagers down the street.
Simply use low tax rates to draw workers from other, better-educated states, and get the benefits of an educated workforce for free.
One would assume that those better-educated workers would want the same educational benefits to be available to their children......
I don't know how it is where you live, but around here pay phones have all but disappeared. If you get stuck somewhere at night (car problems, etc.) and you don't have a cell phone, you're screwed unless someone is nice enough to stop and help. Which, usually, they aren't. That being said, having a prepaid phone is certainly a great option for those cases.
Umm, I don't buy that you are "screwed" if your car breaks down with no cell phone. Inconvenienced might be a better word. I've had to walk a few miles when my car has broken down out in the sticks before. It was annoying but I wasn't "screwed". Anyway, as you said, prepaid is good option here.
Wireless plans are designed so that part of the monthly plan goes toward the purchase of the phone, so by paying full price for a phone and plan you are not coming out ahead.
Then sign the contract if that's the way you think. Personally I would rather have my freedom of action than the best possible deal on a phone. To each their own, that's why we have freedom of choice in this country. You want to take that choice away and use the power of Government to intervene in a perfectly functional market because you don't happen to like the way that market is working.
You get to switch carriers whenever you want? Great! Except you'll have to buy a new phone, which will cost more than the contract penalty would have.
I guess you've never heard of an unlocked GSM phone, have you?
If you go online and check out each of the four major carriors, all their plans are pretty much exactly the same. They all charge relatively the exact same prices for everything.
I'm sorry but I just can't take you seriously. Off the top of my head, here are some differences between the providers:
AT&T: Has rollover and mobile to mobile as standard feature, no "myfavs" unlimited calling
Verizon: No rollover, mobile to mobile is standard feature, "myfavs" unlimited calling on some plans
T-Mobile: No rollover, no standard mobile to mobile, "myfavs" plans are available, plans are generally cheaper and/or have more minutes than the other three carriers
Sprint: No rollover, mobile to mobile is standard feature, can pay a few extra bucks for 7pm nights, overages are handled in "blocks" that are cheaper than the other three carriers
But the fact is that with normal competition, prices should have fallen by now and they have not. It doesn't cost them $5 to send 100 text messages but that's what they charge me.
They charge that because idiots like you are willing to pay for it. Evidently you regard SMS as important enough to pay $5 for 100 messages. The fact that it doesn't cost them that much is irrelevant. They are charging what the market will bear. If you think it's overpriced then stop paying for it. It's also interesting that you don't think they have "normal competition" -- if that's the case then how do you explain the fact that neither AT&T nor Verizon offered unlimited SMS plans until T-Mobile and Sprint started doing so?
Our system has produced some of the cheapest voice calling on the planet. If you divide my cell phone bill by the number of minutes I use it works out to less than two cents per minute. What did cellular service cost just 10 or 15 years ago? What did landline long distance cost 20 years ago? You don't regard this as an improvement?
Step 2) Don't allow any "allowed" phone to have features such as requiring confirmation to switch to high-priced "roaming" towers
Except that every single phone I've ever seen offered by Verizon does offer the ability to disable roaming. So try again.....
And, always in the background, some pompous, know-it-all dick saying, "If you don't like it, don't sign the contract." If that was the case, you wouldn't have a cell phone, telephone, car, bank account, investment account, 401(K) or internet connection. When companies collude on contract language, they are functioning as a cartel not free market players. When you don't have a choice, it's not a free market.
Actually I bought my car with financing from a local credit union that has it's own contracts that don't contain any of the usual (binding arbitration being the big one) anti-consumer clauses. There are choices out there for most of the services that you mentioned -- you just have to look for them.
Cell phones are NON-essential?
Yes, believe it or not, they are. Most people can get through life just fine without being reachable 24/7. If you must have one then don't come whining to me about the contract that you willingly signed. Particularly when there are other options (prepaid, T-Mobile Flexpay) available to you.
Then don't sign a contract. Get a prepaid phone or sign up with T-Mobile's "flexpay" contract-less option.
See how easy that was?
There are cities on the US/Canadian border that you can pick up Canadian towers, and they will indeed charge you for roaming.
And if you live in one of those cities it would seem to me to be your responsibility to pay attention to the roaming indicator on your phone. If you don't want to do that then you can lock your phone in "home only" mode (CDMA) or manually specify the carrier's network (GSM) to keep it from roaming.