[ale] [rant] I dislike "we only supportwinblows/OS X"AT&T internet

Jeff Lightner jlightner at water.com
Tue Mar 4 11:48:03 EST 2008 

Dan,

You were strangely silent in decrying "politics" when someone else
injected Gun Control and "liberals" into a thread about MS a couple of
weeks ago.

Personally I'd rather this list were mostly technical discussions.
However, by and large, when I post technical questions (as I did last
week) they get ignored.   

As to injecting the politics - what I wrote was about something I knew
about which was the FCC stuff with ILECs and CLECs and non-enforcement
by the FCC which was certainly germane to the discussion.  Perhaps I
could have avoided the parting shot at Dubya but as noted above since it
only seems to be an issue when it is a non-conservative injecting
opinions I don't see a reason to avoid it especially because they were
in fact his appointees.  I've seen people go on about fair tax, gun
control and all sorts of hot button issues including the near riot when
someone had the gall to suggest that the list be split into a technical
and a discussion lists because many people don't like the "discussions".

The list is what it is and apparently is the way it is because people
like it that way.   

-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Dan
Lambert
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 4:31 PM
To: ale at ale.org
Subject: Re: [ale] [rant] I dislike "we only supportwinblows/OS X"AT&T
internet

Sorry to have to say so, Jeff, but I am rather tired of you injecting
politics into every discussion you can. It seems you never miss a chance
to inject whatever negative you can about your chosen demon.

If I wanted to be a member of a political forum, I would have joined
one.

I happen to have strong political opinions of my own, but I do
everything I can to make my posts on this list about Linux and it's
associated trials and tribulations.

If I wanted to, I could load this list with political diatribes about
various and sundry politicos and their cronies. I don't. Please do
likewise.

Dan

On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:07 -0500, Jeff Lightner wrote:
> Well it was a specious argument anyway because it assumes that the
phone
> company plays nice the way it is supposed to by law.
> 
> By law the people that own the wire (ILEC = Incumbent Local Exchange
> Carrier) were supposed to open it up to resellers (CLEC = Competitive
> Local Exchange Carrier) in exchange for being allowed to sell long
> distance.  What the ILECs did instead is pretend they were "open" but
> then do everything they could to sabotage the CLECs (e.g. not doing
the
> central office connections in a timely fashion) so that CLECs couldn't
> really make a go of anything other than business connections.
> 
> Unfortunately the FCC which was supposed to insure this didn't happen
> got taken over by Dubya appointees and suddenly it didn't matter that
> the ILECs weren't complying.
> 
> You're supposed to have a choice but you don't really for the most
part.
> Witness the poster who has DSL from AT&T but for some reason can't get
> it from any of the resellers because of the way it is provisioned.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
> Jeremy T. Bouse
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 2:14 PM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] [rant] I dislike "we only support winblows/OS
X"AT&T
> internet
> 
> Actually have you checked out http://www.att.net/legal/tos cause those

> specs you mention are no where within it nor is the explicit mention
of 
> Windows or Mac. Closest I can find is section 3. Equipment & Software 
> and all it really says is:
> 
>     Due to the infinite number of possible combinations of hardware
and
>     software, you are responsible for the compatibility of your system
>     with the Service. Any equipment that was not provided to you by
AT&T
>     is not the responsibility of AT&T , and AT&T will not provide
>     support and will not be responsible for ongoing maintenance or
>     management of such equipment. Any AT&T-provided modem will be
either
>     a new or a fully inspected, tested, and warranted return or
>     repackaged unit.
> 
> Which I can understand, I provide my own router/access point behind 
> their DSL modem I'm not asking them to support that router but I am 
> asking them to support their connectivity which they do provide and
thus
> 
> should support. Yes I've had their modems fail, I've also replaced my 
> separately purchased Sangoma S518 ADSL card with their provided 
> Speedstream to prove a problem was not my modem but the line as the
same
> 
> problem was occuring. If your call to tech support is network 
> connectivity reasons, which I know for me is the only time I do ever 
> call, then nothing in their TOS (so far as I can see) says support can

> be withheld because of your operating system.
> <http://www.att.net/legal/tos>
> Ned Williams wrote:
> > You miss my point.
> >
> > Regardless of what it takes to do a ping..you have their service you

> > agreed to their terms of service, that TOS states they only support 
> > windows...that means you understood at the time of getting the
service
> 
> > that calling in because your Linux connected machine has a problem
is 
> > a lost cause. The effect of the operating system is not what is  up 
> > for debate, the effect of the contract the customer agrees too, is.
Is
> 
> > it a wrongly minded contract sure if your a Linux person, but that
is 
> > not of any consequence to AT&T. .If you don't like, don't be their 
> > customer. That is your greatest method to effect chance upon them.
> >
> >
> > Ned
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Jeremy T. Bouse 
> > <jeremy.bouse at undergrid.net <mailto:jeremy.bouse at undergrid.net>>
> wrote:
> >
> >     But again these specs you quote also fall back to the issue of
> what
> >     affect the Operating System has on OS-independent network
routing
> >     issues. Those are really specs for software being installed not
> >     what is
> >     needed to provide a level of network service connectivity. If
they
> ask
> >     you to do a ping does it really matter what OS you do it from?
> >     Same for
> >     traceroute, opening a web page, etc...
> >
> >     Ned Williams wrote:
> >     > If you have 19 machines on a network, why don't you have a
> >     switch and
> >     > a router and not force a linux box to do the job of the
> >     aforementioned
> >     > 10 dollar router?
> >     > Sorry I know there are people out there who insist on
> demonstrating
> >     > value in their stll creaking along  486/66 by making it their
> dsl
> >     > router/firewall...but I mean rather than get spitting mad on
the
> >     phone
> >     > with techs who you KNOW are not going to know squat about
linux
> nor
> >     > are they required too...(a google of "AT&T system
requirements"
> >     first
> >     > hit spells out what they are required to support)
> >     >
> >     >     * Intel or equivalent Pentium Pro, II, III, or IV at
133MHz
> >     or faster
> >     >     * Windows 95/98/ME/XP or Windows NT 4.0/2000 (TCP/IP and
> >     Ethernet
> >     >       support must be enabled)
> >     >     * RAM -
> >     >           o Windows 95/98/XP - 32 MB
> >     >           o Windows NT - 32 MB
> >     >     * Hard drive with 100 megabytes available
> >     >     * Ethernet Network Interface Card (NIC) or built-in
Ethernet
> >     port
> >     >       supporting 10 Base-T
> >     >     * CD ROM
> >     >     * Microsoft^(r) TCP/IP stack
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > This means when you, you're gf, your mom,dad uncle or whomever
> has
> >     > their service all agreed to these terms when you got the
> service..
> >     >
> >     > don't agree fine, get speak easy, they support Linux and your
> blood
> >     > pressure will be lower...but don't expect the AT&T's  Chennai
> >     support
> >     > center to understand the eccentricities of the  latest Debian
> >     release,
> >     > when their product list is limited to windows only..
> >     >
> >     > and hey if it helps..they don't support Vista either
> >     >
> >     > Ned
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Jeremy T. Bouse
> >     > <jeremy.bouse at undergrid.net
<mailto:jeremy.bouse at undergrid.net>
> >     <mailto:jeremy.bouse at undergrid.net
> >     <mailto:jeremy.bouse at undergrid.net>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >        The other problem with being able to go with any one
> >     other than the
> >     >     telco is if you're like me, stuck behind a remote DSLAM
the
> >     telco
> >     >     won't
> >     >     provide the resellers with the ability to service you.
Every
> DSL
> >     >     provider claims they can't service my house but I have the
> top
> >     >     speed DSL
> >     >     from AT&T. Luckily I don't have to call them for support
too
> >     often
> >     >     considering I've got a very non-standard configuration in
> the
> >     >     house that
> >     >     would drive their script-readers nuts, along with myself
> >     trying to
> >     >     explain it to them.
> >     >     _______________________________________________
> >     >     Ale mailing list
> >     >     Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org> <mailto:Ale at ale.org
> >     <mailto:Ale at ale.org>>
> >     >     http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > Ale mailing list
> >     > Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
> >     > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >     >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Ale mailing list
> >     Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
> >     http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> ----------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or
confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic
transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you
have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
> ----------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

More information about the Ale mailing list