AT&T's Filters, Lies & Financial Statements

[Duncan Meyer]

Speaking of substantiated proof...

It is proven that AT&T made almost $12 BILLION in NET PROFITS in 2007.

Good for them.

It is proven that AT&T has never considered or tested a metered bandwidth
solution (you know - like they do with their cell phone services - you pay
for what you use).

And how do you know what AT&T did or didn't consider. How do you know they
didn't investigate this and simply decide *not* to implement it.

And why should they? Because you said so? Tell you what... when you get to
run AT&T you can change it. Until then STFU.

It is proven that AT&T spent 6 years and MILLIONS of dollars lobbying for
a law that would protect them from having to filter their subscribers'
internet communications for copyrighted materials

So what. Lots of big companies lobby. This includes just about every single
telecom.

- and "AT&T argues that it must get involved in stopping the flow of
pirated
content because much of this content is shared using peer-to-peer
protocols,
which eats up valuable network bandwidth, slowing network connections for
many of its customers."
(http://www.news.com/Should-ATT-police-the-Internet/2100-1034_3-6226523.html)

So it's eating up their valuable network bandwidth. What's so difficult to
understand?

 

[Jim Richardson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

MS has been *very* careful to only spout FUD about patents, no legal
papers, no concrete claims of infringement. Despite repeated "show us
the infringement and we'll fix it" statements from Linus et al.

They are swinging the FUD bat as hard as they can, but it's not working,
and it's starting to really worry them.

Thats basically my point. MS has made vauge threats about patent
infringement, but have repeatedly ignored all requests to outline
any infringement in detail. If they start pushing for specific
trade restraining actions based on patent claims, they better be
prepared to pony up proof or they could lose their patents in the
ensuing counter-suit backlash, not to mention face serious
financial sanctions.

Thad[/QUOTE]


I don't think they will bring any infringment suits. Instead, they will
continue with the FUD, and try and shake licensing agreements out of
anyone they can in an attempt to legitimize the FUD.

They know that to put concrete claims out in legal documents would be a
disaster for them in the long run. Also, I don't think MS likes software
patents in general anyway, they just view them as part of business, like
other forms of bribery. SW patents are bad for business, and we'd all be
better off if they went away.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHolYyd90bcYOAWPYRAjPwAKDskudBQ7ifJ4k3pV/HA9u7BHZmaACgz8/d
roTIYAYOVtaq2hcKNyBL6Bg=
=Jflm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Jim Richardson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There are so many "ifs" "buts" and "coulds" in your postings when you're
doing the COLA conspiracy theory RPG that I sometimes wonder what, if
anything you post, is actually based on substantiated proof.

And there was NO linux port of that game btw....

You mean this game?
<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...&ref=06&loc=01&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=8286213>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHoldjd90bcYOAWPYRAiDYAKDsf5c2er8atnj/dW36aS/RM2GK8wCfQttV
CLu62FwC386q9EQ70pTa0D0=
=kSOk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[CB]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Thats basically my point. MS has made vauge threats about patent
infringement, but have repeatedly ignored all requests to outline
any infringement in detail. If they start pushing for specific
trade restraining actions based on patent claims, they better be
prepared to pony up proof or they could lose their patents in the
ensuing counter-suit backlash, not to mention face serious
financial sanctions.

Thad

I don't think they will bring any infringment suits. Instead, they will
continue with the FUD, and try and shake licensing agreements out of
anyone they can in an attempt to legitimize the FUD.

They know that to put concrete claims out in legal documents would be a
disaster for them in the long run. Also, I don't think MS likes software
patents in general anyway, they just view them as part of business, like
other forms of bribery. SW patents are bad for business, and we'd all be
better off if they went away.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHolYyd90bcYOAWPYRAjPwAKDskudBQ7ifJ4k3pV/HA9u7BHZmaACgz8/d
roTIYAYOVtaq2hcKNyBL6Bg=
=Jflm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[/QUOTE]

Jim Richardson,

You state "SW patents are bad for business, and we'd all be better off
if they went away". Jesus, do you belong to the "I deserve to have everything
without paying for it" club, or do you belong to the "I exist, therefore you
must take care of me" club?

I'll make a suggestion to you. You can spend millions of dollars or a
billion dollars researching and producing a product. I will then sell it and
retain all the profits, giving you nothing for your efforts. That seems to
fit your sense of fairness, doesn't it?

I have another idea. You can build and equip a very large, very
expensive home and I will live in it. I expect you to pay all utilities and
property taxes for me also. You will be required to find housing elsewhere.
Sounds fair to me, based upon your criteria.

I have one more good idea. You can spend 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 years in
college obtaining a degree. I will then use your degree as my own, earning a
lot of money based upon your efforts. You can work for Manpower or Temps.
Again, this is a fair tradeoff, based upon your assumptions.

I just love your method of thinking. Have you been chasing any rabbits
lately? Fallen down a hole lately? Eaten any magic mushrooms lately? I ask
you these questions because you seem to be an Alice looking for a wonderland.

C.B.

 

[On the Road to Damascus]

AT&T wants to cut service while maintaining rates.

In the mid nineties they decided it was okay to change their unlimited
dial up plans to I think 50 hours a month. I think that bright idea
was scrapped 2 or 3 months later.

 

[HeyBub]

Instead of innovating and investing some of their ~$12 BILLION NET
PROFIT in 2007 in higher bandwidth technologies and networks (like
the 33Mb/s common lines in homes in Japan) AT&T wants to cut service
while maintaining rates. (Look under Financials>Net
Income>2007(Annual) at http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T to
see their ~$12 BILLION of *reported* profits for yourself.)

$12 billion on total assets of $270.6 billion.

A piddly 4% ROI.

You're lucky they don't go completely out of business and leave you with
nothing but a 'phone cord.