From: pjb@ny.ubs.com (Paul J. Bell)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 06:27:22 +0800
To: grafolog@netcom.com
Subject: Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
Message-ID: <9608021922.AA06774@sherry.ny.ubs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From grafolog@netcom.com Fri Aug  2 11:48:53 1996
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:48:47 +0000 (GMT)
> From: jonathon <grafolog@netcom.com>
> X-Sender: grafolog@netcom10
> To: "Paul J. Bell" <pjb@ny.ubs.com>
> Subject: Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
> X-No-Archive: yes
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> 
> Content-Length: 772
> 
> 	Paul:
> 
> On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Paul J. Bell wrote:
> 
> > in general, i suspect that the rip-off is going the other way. after all, 
> > no one forces anyone buy from microsoft, AT&T, etc., but people do steal from
> 
> 	When I purchased my computers, I had to pay $150 to not have
> 	Windows and Dos installed on them.  That $150 went to Microsoft.
> 	It seemed to me that I was being ripped off, by Microsoft.
> 
> 	As far as AT&T goes, do you know how to determine what their
> 	lowest residential rate is?   Secondly, do you know how to
> 	sign up for it?  
> 	
> 
>         xan
> 
>         jonathon
>         grafolog@netcom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 	Illiterate: adj.  Inability to read write or speak five 
> 	or fewer languages.
> 	Funksioneel Ongeleerd:  a.  Die wat kon nee elf or meer tale 
> 	lees, skryf and gesprek. 
> 
> 
> 

as i said, i have no use for microsoft, whats more, i don't use microsoft. 
that said, if a person really must pay to not have their products installed, 
i agree that that is intorelable, and at the least calls for finding a new vendor
for computers. if you really don't plan to use dos or windows, there is 
no reason why you should pay for them. frankly, this sounds like a real stupid
move on the part of your hardware vendor. maybe you need to shop around.

as for at&t, no, i don't know the lowest residential rate, but i'm sure that
the rate varies depending on your long distance calling pattern. i'm sure that
the rate is less for someone who rarely makes an ld call but wants to have the 
ability to do so when and if the need/desire arises then for someone who makes 
a few call per month and for another user who makes a lot of call each month. 
at any rate, all you need to do is to ask them for the lowest rate for your 
calling pattern, and if you don't like the answer, hang up and call mci, s
print, etc. at least thats better than microsoft, where you don't have a lot 
of choice.

take a quick look around the world, paying particular attention to those many 
countries where the telephone company was directly controlled by the government. 
was the service they provided really great? was it cheap? did they every provide 
anything new or improved?  as one who has spent a lot of time in some of these
countries i can answer from experience, hell no.  a one time, in the late 50's 
i lived and worked in a certain west african country. th erule was, taht the first
person in the office in the morning would take the phone off the hook, and maybe 
by 10:30 or 11:00 we would get a dial tone. of course, you would never hang the 
thing up again taht day, just pass it along to anyone else that needed to make a 
call.  egypt and all of france was not a lot better. as late as 1983 it was a real 
challenge to get a phone installed or make a long distance call in france.  
no matter what the french say, telecommunications services still suck in france.

i agree with you that a lot of companies do gouge the customer for all that they
can get, and maybe AT&T is one of them, but maybe not.  

i have spent my entire working life providing for myself, asking and taking nothing 
from anyone, other than what i earned for myself. i payed for my education and for 
everything else that i ever had.  however, once i had the money to invest, i did 
so, in, among others, AT&T, and since i take a chance with the money that i worked 
for by investing in them, i, by god, expect a return on my investment, and if AT&T 
can't provide it, i will dump them and take my chances elsewhere.  however, 
whether its AT&T or someone else, if i risk my money, i expect something in 
return, and i can only expect that if the company (AT&T or who ever) makes a
profit.  profit is not a dirty word, it is what makes it all possible. AT&T did 
not build the worldwide network that serves us all for fun, not did they invent 
the transistor or UNIX, or all the other thinks that we take for granted just for 
the fun of it, or without risk.  if you take the risk, you deserve a return on 
your investment.  i have yet to meet a stockholder who said that they were satisfied with any given profit level and wished the company to give away goods or services 
rather then increase the dividends to the stockholders.  the name of the game is 
PROFIT, its what keeps us all alive and employed. the real saving grace is in having a choice.

i am not suggesting that as long as a company makes a profit that anything goes.  
what i am suggesting is that a company, or an individual for that matter is
only obliged to see to there own well being.  if an individual so chooses, they
may spend their life, or any portion thereof, working for the good of someone
else, or giving the results of all their labors to others, as they choose.  in 
many ways this is a good thing and is what makes civilized life.  however, i
do not believe that it is ever permissable to dictate to an individual or to 
a company which is, after all, only the sum of it's employees and stockholders,
the requirement or terms of how they will dispense the profits of their labors.

if AT&T or any other company doesn't give you what you want, tell them to fuck-off,
and take your business elsewhere.

oh that we could so easily deal with a government that provides so little of what
the people want.  i think that it is rare for a company to forget who is really
calling the shots, but our very own government seems to be completly unaware
that they exist to serve us, not the other way around. they seem to have forgotten
that the purpose of the constitution is not to define what rights are given to the 
people, but rather to define what powers the people give to the government.


cheers,
	-paul