Read the article - AT&T alerted him to the costs immediately, offered to sign him up in a low-cost plan, and after he chose not to sign-up for an international data plan capped him at $750 and then STILL allowed him to sign up for a low-cost international data plan to lower his bill by $720.
Hard to see what more AT&T could have done to help him...
He knew he didn't have an international data prison, so he turned data roaming off before crossing the border.
As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to sign up for an international data plan via text message, he choose not to.
AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada, again, via text message.
When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M * $15.36/meg he was warned of when he entered Canada).
What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?
In the US cell companies have peering agreements, but the tarrif/tax structure prevents that for cross-border peering agreements.
AT&T warned him of the rate ($15.36/meg), advised him to sign up for an international data plan, and stopped his service when the charge got excessive ($750), and when contacted put him in a lower-cost international data plan that cost him a fraction of the charges he chose to run up after not choosing an international data plan.
What more could AT&T have done for him?
(BTW, he can't plead ignorance - he turned off data before he crossed the border because he knew he didn't have an international data plan and he wanted to avoid the charges.)
As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to sign up for an international data plan (via text), he choose not to.
AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada (via text).
When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M * $15.36/meg he was warned of when he entered Canada).
When AT&T detected his decision to not enroll was going to result in a very large bill ($750) they cut off data service until he took steps to choose an international data plan.
What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?
He knew his data plan was US-only, that's why he turned off data when he crossed the border.
As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to sign up for international data plan, he choose not to.
AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada.
When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M (the estimated usage of the one google map search he *chose* to use after turning data back on in Canada) * $15.36/meg rate he was warned of when he entered Canada).
What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?
At what point do his decisions to: - live near the border - purchase a US-only data plan - not sign-up for an international data plan when offered
As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to dig up for international data plan, he choose not to.
AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada.
When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M * $15.36/meg he was warned of when he entered Canada).
What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?
Freeze spending at current dollar levels, let inflation squeeze out the waste, force the gov't to make hard decisions about what us and isn't necessary.
I'd also freeze tax rates, as the economy increases revenue will increase and we can start reducing our annual deficit spending (not increase spending when tax receipts increase).
If, in a fit of 99%er passion you feel the need to increase tax rates on the wealthy, fine, but every penny in additional tax revenues goes towards paying down debt/decreasing deficit spending.
We have a $3.8 Trillion annual budget, spread out over 330 Million citizens, that comes to over $10,000 per person per year in spending at the federal level - that seems like plenty.
(BTW, we not only have the federal EPA, we also have 50 state EPA agencies, think we might have some overlap we could eliminate and cut costs? Same for education (one federal DoE, fifty state DoEs)...)
I wonder how the US fares when you consider all the children in a given country, not just those that can afford to attend school... The idea is to educate all the children, not just really educate the (comparatively) rich kids.
Why didn't they build a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts? Was it the Koch brothers or Ted Kennedy?
Please describe the foot print of a wind or solar farm that generates electrical output equal to the 24x7 production capability of one nuke reactor plant... Your alternative isn't much of an alternative, really.
Each of the two reactors at Three Mile Island generate about 852 MWe, a comparable wind farm occupies about 9,000 acres (about 14 square miles) and the largest solar power plant takes up 2,400 acres just to generate 290 MWe, so to replace TMI you'd need to dedicate enough space for six such facilities, or about 14,400 acres (about 22.5 square miles)...
The Three Mile Island reactor occupies less than three square miles.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if either facility can generate that much electricity 24x7 as Three Mile Island can.
Untold billions and billions of plants and animals went extinct long before man ever appeared on the planet (thank you Neil Degrase-Tyson & Cosmos) - just because a particular plant that exists today is having problems as the climate changes doesn't mean anything, really. Is there a reason to believe the eucalyptus species won't evolve and adapt to the new climate? Why won't species that feed on the eucalyptus plants "evolve" and start eating something else? Can you not imagine a world without the eucalyptus plants or the animals that eat them? The planet is evolving over time, and, it's quite possible that if they eucalyptus plants and the animals that feed on them can't evolve along with the planet, the planet will go along without them just fine.
BTW, how do you know what "the right temperature" is for Earth? It used to be much hotter than it is now, and it also used to be a lot colder than it is now, who decided what the right temperature is, and how? How can scientists pretend to know what the "proper" temperature is for Earth? Is there a "Creator's Manual" somewhere that outlines the proper temperature? Has the planet ever been the same temperature for an extended period, or hasn't it constantly changed over millennia?
OK, so the planet is getting warmer - maybe it is supposed to be warmer? Our current temperatures are far from any planetary record. So the oceans will rise? And? Who decided that the current sea levels are the proper level, and that they should never change?
Please explain to me how we "know" that the "proper" temperature of the planet is/should be?
With straight-faced results that range from 8 inches to 8 feet over the next hundred years.
That's like a fortune teller telling a young man that his future wife will weigh between 100 and 1,000 pounds - only no self-respecting fortune teller would give such a wide-ranging answer.
The inability to estimate results within an order of magnitude is a hurdle such predictions will have to overcome if they are to be believed/acted upon...
Even the agency's best-case scenario assumes that sea levels will rise at least 8.4 inches by the end of this century. NOAA's worst-case scenario, meanwhile, predicts that the oceans will rise nearly 7 feet in the next 86 years.
They really can't seem to nail it down, can they?
As a serious question, how much longer does everyone think we are going to keep using our current 30-40 year-old reactors? If, as the best estimate suggests, the water rises about 8 inches by the year 2100, do we still plan on running 1970's reactors?
And it's RACIST to say that people of other nations can't do it as well as we can in the US.
Why? Are all American programmers of one race? Do we not have, for example, Indian programmers here in the US that "can do it as well as we can in the US." since they are here in the US?
I think you went looking for race in the previous comment and believe you found it - the statement is either a correct or incorrect one, it is not racist in and of itself. You imagine the previous poster meant to say "people of other nations can't do it as well as we (white programmers) can in the US.". but they didn't say that.
Hundreds of millions of Americans own cars and use them daily, but that doesn't mean they need to study automotive engineering and design for four years in college...
I'm shocked that 3-4% of all college graduates are studying Compiler Design in college... (That is still a required course for CompSci majors, isn't it?)
OK, so the percentage of college students studying Computer Science as a major is between 3-4% annually for the last 30 years, but what percentage of the workforce is employed in careers that require computer science degrees? Do Computer Science careers really amount to more than 3-4% of the workforce? Using computers in your job doesn't require one to major in computer science in college, and many, many workers do things that don't require the ability to design and code an operating system or compiler...
When you want to compare gasoline engines and electric engines, you Nerf to consider the efficiencies of the source of the electricity and the transmission system, not just the engine/battery. How much coal does it take to fully recharge a Tesla, considerig generator efficiency, transmission efficiency, charge efficiency, and electric motor efficiency ?
Slashdot Mirror
If they are selling items, doesn't that make them "released"?
You do realize Microsoft produces software for the Macintosh, right?
Bookstores and coffee shops seem to have an insatiable need for highly-educated clerks...
Too bad Starbucks Barrista and Barnes & Nobel sales clerk positions aren't'tenure-track'...
Read the article - AT&T alerted him to the costs immediately, offered to sign him up in a low-cost plan, and after he chose not to sign-up for an international data plan capped him at $750 and then STILL allowed him to sign up for a low-cost international data plan to lower his bill by $720.
Hard to see what more AT&T could have done to help him...
Did you read the article?
He knew he didn't have an international data prison, so he turned data roaming off before crossing the border.
As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to sign up for an international data plan via text message, he choose not to.
AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada, again, via text message.
When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M * $15.36/meg he was warned of when he entered Canada).
What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?
International Data plan, not domestic.
You realize it's another country, right?
In the US cell companies have peering agreements, but the tarrif/tax structure prevents that for cross-border peering agreements.
AT&T warned him of the rate ($15.36/meg), advised him to sign up for an international data plan, and stopped his service when the charge got excessive ($750), and when contacted put him in a lower-cost international data plan that cost him a fraction of the charges he chose to run up after not choosing an international data plan.
What more could AT&T have done for him?
(BTW, he can't plead ignorance - he turned off data before he crossed the border because he knew he didn't have an international data plan and he wanted to avoid the charges.)
So the selfish cellphone company you worked for helped people sign-up for lower-cost data plans AFTER they ran up crazy bills...
Those bastards!
As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to sign up for an international data plan (via text), he choose not to.
AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada (via text).
When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M * $15.36/meg he was warned of when he entered Canada).
When AT&T detected his decision to not enroll was going to result in a very large bill ($750) they cut off data service until he took steps to choose an international data plan.
What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?
What is the story here?
He knew his data plan was US-only, that's why he turned off data when he crossed the border.
As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to sign up for international data plan, he choose not to.
AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada.
When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M (the estimated usage of the one google map search he *chose* to use after turning data back on in Canada) * $15.36/meg rate he was warned of when he entered Canada).
What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?
At what point do his decisions to:
- live near the border
- purchase a US-only data plan
- not sign-up for an international data plan when offered
Become the fault of AT&T?
Did you read the article?
As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to dig up for international data plan, he choose not to.
AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada.
When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M * $15.36/meg he was warned of when he entered Canada).
What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?
Or, you know, demanded by the customer.
You don't get $15/hr now, you get it in 2021 - now you get $10.10/hr, maybe.
Freeze spending at current dollar levels, let inflation squeeze out the waste, force the gov't to make hard decisions about what us and isn't necessary.
I'd also freeze tax rates, as the economy increases revenue will increase and we can start reducing our annual deficit spending (not increase spending when tax receipts increase).
If, in a fit of 99%er passion you feel the need to increase tax rates on the wealthy, fine, but every penny in additional tax revenues goes towards paying down debt/decreasing deficit spending.
We have a $3.8 Trillion annual budget, spread out over 330 Million citizens, that comes to over $10,000 per person per year in spending at the federal level - that seems like plenty.
(BTW, we not only have the federal EPA, we also have 50 state EPA agencies, think we might have some overlap we could eliminate and cut costs? Same for education (one federal DoE, fifty state DoEs)...)
That his reports on math skills around the world only includes the 58% of children that attend secondary school in the first place, right?
I wonder how the US fares when you consider all the children in a given country, not just those that can afford to attend school... The idea is to educate all the children, not just really educate the (comparatively) rich kids.
Why didn't they build a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts? Was it the Koch brothers or Ted Kennedy?
Please describe the foot print of a wind or solar farm that generates electrical output equal to the 24x7 production capability of one nuke reactor plant... Your alternative isn't much of an alternative, really.
Each of the two reactors at Three Mile Island generate about 852 MWe, a comparable wind farm occupies about 9,000 acres (about 14 square miles) and the largest solar power plant takes up 2,400 acres just to generate 290 MWe, so to replace TMI you'd need to dedicate enough space for six such facilities, or about 14,400 acres (about 22.5 square miles)...
The Three Mile Island reactor occupies less than three square miles.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if either facility can generate that much electricity 24x7 as Three Mile Island can.
Untold billions and billions of plants and animals went extinct long before man ever appeared on the planet (thank you Neil Degrase-Tyson & Cosmos) - just because a particular plant that exists today is having problems as the climate changes doesn't mean anything, really. Is there a reason to believe the eucalyptus species won't evolve and adapt to the new climate? Why won't species that feed on the eucalyptus plants "evolve" and start eating something else? Can you not imagine a world without the eucalyptus plants or the animals that eat them? The planet is evolving over time, and, it's quite possible that if they eucalyptus plants and the animals that feed on them can't evolve along with the planet, the planet will go along without them just fine.
Maybe, if the temperature rising just one degree kills you, maybe you're supposed to die.
BTW, how do you know what "the right temperature" is for Earth? It used to be much hotter than it is now, and it also used to be a lot colder than it is now, who decided what the right temperature is, and how? How can scientists pretend to know what the "proper" temperature is for Earth? Is there a "Creator's Manual" somewhere that outlines the proper temperature? Has the planet ever been the same temperature for an extended period, or hasn't it constantly changed over millennia?
OK, so the planet is getting warmer - maybe it is supposed to be warmer? Our current temperatures are far from any planetary record. So the oceans will rise? And? Who decided that the current sea levels are the proper level, and that they should never change?
Please explain to me how we "know" that the "proper" temperature of the planet is/should be?
With straight-faced results that range from 8 inches to 8 feet over the next hundred years.
That's like a fortune teller telling a young man that his future wife will weigh between 100 and 1,000 pounds - only no self-respecting fortune teller would give such a wide-ranging answer.
The inability to estimate results within an order of magnitude is a hurdle such predictions will have to overcome if they are to be believed/acted upon...
They really can't seem to nail it down, can they?
As a serious question, how much longer does everyone think we are going to keep using our current 30-40 year-old reactors? If, as the best estimate suggests, the water rises about 8 inches by the year 2100, do we still plan on running 1970's reactors?
And, of course, not all citizens are tax payers...
Why? Are all American programmers of one race? Do we not have, for example, Indian programmers here in the US that "can do it as well as we can in the US." since they are here in the US?
I think you went looking for race in the previous comment and believe you found it - the statement is either a correct or incorrect one, it is not racist in and of itself. You imagine the previous poster meant to say "people of other nations can't do it as well as we (white programmers) can in the US.". but they didn't say that.
And?
Hundreds of millions of Americans own cars and use them daily, but that doesn't mean they need to study automotive engineering and design for four years in college...
I'm shocked that 3-4% of all college graduates are studying Compiler Design in college... (That is still a required course for CompSci majors, isn't it?)
OK, so the percentage of college students studying Computer Science as a major is between 3-4% annually for the last 30 years, but what percentage of the workforce is employed in careers that require computer science degrees? Do Computer Science careers really amount to more than 3-4% of the workforce? Using computers in your job doesn't require one to major in computer science in college, and many, many workers do things that don't require the ability to design and code an operating system or compiler...
When you want to compare gasoline engines and electric engines, you Nerf to consider the efficiencies of the source of the electricity and the transmission system, not just the engine/battery. How much coal does it take to fully recharge a Tesla, considerig generator efficiency, transmission efficiency, charge efficiency, and electric motor efficiency ?