On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 13:06 -0400, Alex Balashov wrote: > But it is a requirement of marketing to do so, as long as your > competitors are doing it--or, at least, claiming to do it, it doesn't > really matter which. So, maybe Bret is right; if there were a strict > and comprehensive regulatory ban on claiming anything is "unlimited," > ever, that might go some way toward solving that problem. >
I am all for people advertising unlimited if it really is unlimited. I just dont think they should say that if its not. Nor do I think people should say "sign up today and get a $1,000,00 check" and then in the TOS say that the check will be voided before being mailed. > Nobody is five-9s[2], nobody's SLA is worth a crap, and nobody's "more > bars in more places" or "always on" has any empirical validity from an > engineering perspective. > you do realize that the bars metric is rigged right? It is not a true signal strength measure like an S-meter would be. And the firmware on some model phones has been shown to be intentionally high when it should not be specifically so they can claim that :) So that one at least they do have, or probably do have, since its a rigged scale. There were some articles about this specifically relating to AT&T phones and their more bars claim. Unless you were referring to bop.gov, they have more bars in more places too :) -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel pgp key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8AE5C721 _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- AstriCon 2009 - October 13 - 15 Phoenix, Arizona Register Now: http://www.astricon.net asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz