Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract

4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-
b656-7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:

> AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had
the
> option of using devices and applications other than those
offered by
> AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure
that
> consumers "know all their options" before making a final
purchase.
>

Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....

Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more than
one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for
years about.

Larry
--
It's the standing in front of them KNOWING he's lying through his
teeth to you that pisses me off.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
BFEE6B.10003409122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> Do you actually own, pay for, and use a device that allows you to
have
> voice communication over one of the established cellular
telephone
> networks?
>
>
>

Sure. Do you? What a stupid question....

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

At 09 Dec 2007 14:25:48 +0000 Larry wrote:

> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....
>
> Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more than
> one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for
> years about.


While TECHNICALLY you always could, the current billing and authorization
systems used by the major carriers simply don't allow for it, so they're
telling a half-truth- they can't do it because it's not worth it to them to
overhaul their systems to allow it. Using a two-phone family plan with
forwarding set from one to the other is a cheap way to accomplish the same
thing.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
8F70E1.18034109122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> No, it's not. Not the way you keep talking about "SELLphones".
I'd
> think that you simply stay out of the whole thing that you
disparage so
> readily and constantly.
>
>
>

SELLphone more accurately describes the devices' functions, to
SELL you some "function" the phone already had in it before the
SELLphone carrier locked it out in hopes of SELLing it back to
you.

Wouldn't you agree?

Case in point....We all now have GPS receivers built into our
phones so the Illuminati's government bureaucrats can track us
more accurately, even if we don't make a call to 911, the cover
story.

Can you see your GPS' most basic data, latitude and longitude on
your SELLphone's display? Why not? You already paid for that
receiver and should be able to at least read its basic output,
right? No, not in the eyes of the SELLphone company. You need
to pay us $10/month to have access to YOUR receiver's data.

What a pure line of bullshit! SELLphone didn't provide the data,
the US Taxpayers did! The phone's MINE...as pointed out to me
every time it stops working! Why can't I use MY phone's GPS
receiver....FOR FREE?! Why doesn't my phone's GPS receiver
Bluetooth pair with my computer so IT can use MY GPS receiver's
data? I had to buy ANOTHER GPS receiver for that. Why??

Gee, Elmo, I'm sorry if my pointing these things the assholes at
SELLphone companies do to their paying customers like this. But,
alas, I don't think I'm the only one this pisses off, am I?

If you don't like it.....FUCK OFF!

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:9i_6j.7264$061.5664@fe117.usenetserver.com:

> At 09 Dec 2007 14:25:48 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....
>>
>> Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more
than
>> one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for
>> years about.
>
>
> While TECHNICALLY you always could, the current billing and
> authorization systems used by the major carriers simply don't
allow
> for it, so they're telling a half-truth- they can't do it
because it's
> not worth it to them to overhaul their systems to allow it.
Using a
> two-phone family plan with forwarding set from one to the other
is a
> cheap way to accomplish the same thing.

Nonsense. It's not done to SELL you more SELLphone
product...another number, another account, another charge.

The phones aren't tied to your cell number. They each have a MAC
address, just like your Ethernet card. They can each be
addressed, all at once, unless we can force you to pay more
money.

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
9193EB.19542409122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> Only Verizon. Not so with anything Cingular/AT&T has ever
sold.
>
>

Is that why iPhones:

Don't act like USB hard drives so you can copy songs, videos,
pictures to them and PLAY THEM because they're YOURS?

Don't allow external software to run on them so we can sell you
some web-based subscription crapware that STILL won't let you run
the songs, videos and pictures you finally got copied to them?

Don't have common browser plugins used to STREAM video to
computers over the internet for free?

What you say may have been true before iPhone....but no more.
iPhone prevents bandwidth usage on ATT, and is hobbled to do so.



Larry
--
Merry Christmas!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_NhFS4xEE

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
1BFE94.21050109122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> and you'll find that AT&T has never restricted features on
phones only
> to SELL those features back to you for a monthly fee.
>

Notice I didn't say anything about it was ATT. It's iTunes, in
this case. Stevie Jobs thinks that you should pay HIM for ever
tune you ever play on HIS equipment.

Appleware has a long history of PROPRIETARY built into it....
Look at the connectors...(c;

fuck off

Larry
--
Merry Christmas!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_NhFS4xEE

At 10 Dec 2007 00:02:31 +0000 Larry wrote:

> SELLphone more accurately describes the devices' functions, to
> SELL you some "function" the phone already had in it before the
> SELLphone carrier locked it out in hopes of SELLing it back to
> you.
>
> Wouldn't you agree?

No, not really. That might be the M.O. of Verizon or maybe Alltel, but it
isn't an industrywide thing.

Of course you already know that, and choose to use a more restrictive
company because they provide better coverage in your neck of the woods.
That's the free market in action- you're free to choose the "open" company
with less coverage, or the restrictive company with more.


> Case in point....We all now have GPS receivers built into our
> phones so the Illuminati's government bureaucrats can track us
> more accurately, even if we don't make a call to 911, the cover
> story.


No- you have a GPS-like system relying, in part, on proprietary data that
belongs to the cell company that they paid for to comply with a federal
regulation.

> Can you see your GPS' most basic data, latitude and longitude on
> your SELLphone's display? Why not? You already paid for that
> receiver and should be able to at least read its basic output,
> right?

No, because it doesn't have a "real" GPS. It has a limited-view (small #
of channels) GPS radio receiver that's data gets sent to the carrier and is
combined with tower location data to compute your position OUTSIDE the
handset. Unlike a real GPS, your handset doesn't "know" where it is. The
carrier knows where it is.

> No, not in the eyes of the SELLphone company. You need
> to pay us $10/month to have access to YOUR receiver's data.


No, you pay $10 for the licensed map data and their service computing your
location.

If you used an "open" provider, you could buy a cellphone with a real GPS
in it (some Blackberries, Nokias or WinMo phones,) and use your choice of
free or commercial software with it.


> What a pure line of bullshit! SELLphone didn't provide the data,
> the US Taxpayers did! The phone's MINE...as pointed out to me
> every time it stops working! Why can't I use MY phone's GPS
> receiver....FOR FREE?!

Because it doesn't have one!

> Why doesn't my phone's GPS receiver
> Bluetooth pair with my computer so IT can use MY GPS receiver's
> data?

Because it doesn't have one!
> I had to buy ANOTHER GPS receiver for that. Why??
>


Because it doesn't have one.

> I don't think I'm the only one this pisses off, am I?


Nope- there's certainly hobbl9ng going on, but your "GPS" isn't part of it.

> If you don't like it.....FUCK OFF!


Ironically, that's exactly how your cellular carrier feels about you (or
any of us...)

At 10 Dec 2007 01:04:37 +0000 Larry wrote:

> > Only Verizon. Not so with anything Cingular/AT&T has ever
> sold.
> >
> >
>
> Is that why iPhones:
>
> Don't act like USB hard drives so you can copy songs, videos,
> pictures to them and PLAY THEM because they're YOURS?


To be fair, there's a difference between a _carrier_ crippling a phone and
a manufacturer doing it.

There's no "uncrippled, unlocked" iPhone to compare the AT&T version to.
The lack of UMS (USB Mass Storage) support is all Apple's doing.

> Don't allow external software to run on them so we can sell you
> some web-based subscription crapware that STILL won't let you run
> the songs, videos and pictures you finally got copied to them?


Again, Apple. There are plenty of AT&T phones that support 3rd-party apps,
file transfer, etc. I even own some (that I unlocked to use on T-Mo.)

> Don't have common browser plugins used to STREAM video to
> computers over the internet for free?

Again, blame the manufacturer- AT&T doesn't write the browser software.

> What you say may have been true before iPhone....but no more.
> iPhone prevents bandwidth usage on ATT, and is hobbled to do so.

But it's no different than the O2-version sold in Britan, the Orange (and
unlocked) in France, or the T-Mo version sold in Germany- all hobbled by
APPLE exactly the same way. Probably to enrich Apple, not the carrier!


Grab any Motorola, Nokia, HTC, etc. T-Mo or AT&T phone, and it's a lot
different than what you put up with on the US CDMA carriers.

At 10 Dec 2007 00:15:11 +0000 Larry wrote:

> Nonsense. It's not done to SELL you more SELLphone
> product...another number, another account, another charge.


Back in the analog days, Cingular used to let you add extra phones to your
number- at $20/month/phone. All phones rang simultaneously and which ever
you answered first, took the call. They couldn't offer this service with
digital due to the way the authorization system worked. (This was in the
days before family plans.)


> The phones aren't tied to your cell number. They each have a MAC
> address, just like your Ethernet card. They can each be
> addressed, all at once, unless we can force you to pay more
> money.

Except the systems only allow one addressable device per number, ostensibly
to limit fraud.

I agree that if carriers WANTED to, they could create a system to address
multiple phones per number, as Cingular once did. You don't think they'd
do it for FREE though, do you? And why, in an age when you can have a
whole 2nd phone with unique number for $10/extra a month, would you pay $x
for an "extension" that was limited in functionality (i.e. couldn't call
the other handsets sharing the number?)
Again, you want an extension? Pay $10 for a family line, conditionally
forward one number to the other, or a Grandcentral.com number to auto-ring
both simultaneously (first to answer wins.)

Cellphone companies' services are not obligated to work like you think
they should work (which is apparently "like Skype works.")

If you have a better way to do it, feel free to bid at the upcoming 700MHz
auction! ;-)

4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:63998c56-c073-48e1-
b46b-e2e49c01aac3@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 10, 5:55 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...
@nastydesigns.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <Xns9A01D8F458FA1noonehome...@208.49.80.253>,
>>
>> Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>> > Notice I didn't say anything about it was ATT. It's iTunes,
in
>> > this case. Stevie Jobs thinks that you should pay HIM for
ever
>> > tune you ever play on HIS equipment.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> So you've never used iTunes or an iPod, yet you don't have a
problem
>> ranting about them despite your sheer ignorance of how they
work.
>>
>> There's no paying Apple for every tune you ever play on an
iPod or in
>> iTunes. Where the fuck did you get THAT idea?
>>
>> Take your ignorance back to your shack in the woods.
>
> You are right Elmo. I have a hundred and fifty GB of audio in
iTunes
> and I haven't spent dime one at the Apple Store. I use the
Apple Store
> to help locate and manage PodCasts and my wife likes the
Internet
> Radio feature. I pick up a couple of gigs of new free video
each day
> also from Video podcasting. I also snag the occasional YouTube
Video
> or a clever one from Manaic.com for download to my iTouch.
>

I'm just so proud of you fine boys I could.......puke.

M:\ROCK> COPY *.MP3 L:\ROCK [RETURN]

Doesn't that suck? That line copies over 2200 MP3 files to my
8GB SD card for the N800 to play. No begging one at a time, no
reporting to Crapple what I play, it just copies files that play,
as fast as the damned card can store them, ready to be played by
one of many MP3 players.

N:\MOVIES> COPY *.AVI L:\MOVIES

That one put 63 DivX movies on another 8GB drive labeled MOVIES
so I can swap 'em. No funny business. No screwing around with
webpages and permission from some Crapple bureaucrat and his
shitty software.

Question: How long does it take to load 2200 songs into an iPod
or iPhone or iAnything? How many keystrokes if you want 'em all?

I've never owned ANY "player", either audio or video, that
required me to use some proprietary bullshit to install playable
files onto any device, not just Crapple's. I never will....(c;

I've never owned ANY "player", either audio or video, that I
couldn't copy those files OFF the device onto something else
either locked out by the manufacturer or requiring some
proprietary bullshit to filter what I take off the device to move
some license nonsense to the other device, some hidden files from
some locked up, hidden directories. I never will......(c;

To pay for a locked up device is just STUPID!....

Larry
--
Merry Christmas!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_NhFS4xEE

4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:10848371-eb6e-4a33-
a153-5a9d869da2a1@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> Larry where do you get the theory that the iPod is locked. I
can put
> my audio on an iPod and I can copy it off the iPod to another
> computer. I dare say there are at least thousands that can do
the same
> thing.
>
>

My parameters are quite simple.....

Can this player, whatever player, be plugged into any USB port,
and loaded with any simple file manager of any files on the
drives, then played without hacking or begging the player to play
them? Then, can this player, plugged into ANY other USB port on
any other computer, copy or move these files to that computer,
using that computer's simplest of file managers, without
destroying the file or refusing to copy/move certain types of
files.

There's no reason to buy a player that must be hacked to play ANY
file. If that company, any company, chooses to hobble its
equipment in cooperation with RIAA or MPAA or USGA (the golf
people) or NASCAR or USMC, they do not want our business. I only
buy from companies who have MY interest at heart. MY interest is
to be able to play ALL the files, ALL the time. I'm sure yours
are, too.

I don't drive cars under the remote control of some cops. I
certainly am not going to drive electronic entertainment devices
under similar remote controls by the music cops.

If a majority of the music listeners would simply refuse to buy
this shit.....it would all go away. I don't know how old you are
or how long you've been playing with PCs, but we went through a
terrible period where every program you were licensed to play had
this goddamned "dongle" that had to be plugged into all the other
dongles on a serial port to make SURE you didn't steal it. Lots
of them simply wouldn't play, dongle or no dongle. The computer-
buying public had had enough. It stopped buying ANY programs
that required some kind of hardware or software key before the
program would run. Software companies went down the tubes for a
while until they FINALLY got the message we, the computer public,
wasn't going to put up with their shit. Software suddenly, as
they starved for cash, came out without the protective nonsense.

I think Billy Gates, multi-billionaire, is feeling this effect
with his new electronic-dongled Vista OS, right now! I'm one who
won't buy it. I didn't buy XP for years because of its locks. I
don't buy software with dongles of any kind, either....no matter
how wonderful it is.....

We're going to see another dongle period very soon. The FCC, in
cooperation with the media money mongers, has allowed them to put
dongles in all your new, wonderful digital TVs! Isn't that
wonderful? Every TV is as addressable as your cable modem. Even
the over-the-air broadcasters, who like the AMPS carriers never
had control of what system your AMPS phone would connect to until
these PRL dongles were invented, has individually-addressable
control of your new TV...right over its transmitter. Wanna watch
the Dallas game on HDTV? Call 1-800-Feed-Me-Money and have your
credit card ready! This is coming, people, PAY OVER-THE-AIR
BROADCASTING they wanted since Dumont put the knobs on the front.
You don't think NASCAR and NFL are going to let you watch it for
free, do you? Not if they can help it.

No ZUNE or other "them" machines, here. No thank you! You still
have a choice....please choose freedom.

We'll now hear from the Sheeple side of the newsgroups....(c;

Larry
--
Merry Christmas!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_NhFS4xEE

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-12-11, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> Do you have different thicknesses of foil hat for different seasons?

Yes, he does.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:00:34 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <Xns9A01603541E57noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....
>
> Do you actually own, pay for, and use a device that allows you to have
> voice communication over one of the established cellular telephone
> networks?

I'm not him but I have done this for as long as I can remember. I have a
Nokia N95-3 which CANNOT be bought from any carrier. If your carrier uses
a sim card, throw it in and configure the network. Most phones
autoconfigure these days.


Dave

On 16 Jan 2008 21:47:28 GMT, David W Studeman
<eat_your_own_spam@hormel.com> wrote in
<478e7b70$0$491$815e3792@news.qwest.net>:

>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:00:34 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9A01603541E57noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
>> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....
>>
>> Do you actually own, pay for, and use a device that allows you to have
>> voice communication over one of the established cellular telephone
>> networks?
>
>I'm not him but I have done this for as long as I can remember. I have a
>Nokia N95-3 which CANNOT be bought from any carrier. If your carrier uses
>a sim card, throw it in and configure the network. Most phones
>autoconfigure these days.

Really? I've yet to see one that can autoconfigure data and email
settings.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>