ATT doesn't have to keep the new customer, that's why they make you sign a contract. It's the old customers with the expiring contracts they're trying to retain.

ATT's implementation is indeed to blame. CallerID is the calling presentation of a call, not the source/origination. Using CallerID to authenticate anything requires trusting the person making the call and that's just not smart. ANI or Automatic Number Identification is what should be used to identify the call; it's what is used to bill the call after all. No Bell in the right mind accepts ANI from their customer. The bell switch always lookus up the TN originating the call and set the ANI to appropriate value. The ANI is what should be used to authenticate VM as it cannot be set by the customer. Sprint's implementation is indeed correct as I've tried spoofing my own cell # in the past to call into VM was was unsuccessful.

My company is in the process of designing our new/next data center and we're highly considering a non-battery based UPS solution from Active Power. It's the old 'fly wheel' technology of the past, upgraded to the 21st century. The idea is that the mechanical flywheel can sustain the load for 10-14seconds while the generator kicks on. The theory is that if your generators can't start up and switch over within 10-14 seconds (because of a failure), then they're probably not going to start up/switchover within 45mins--the usually battery backup time in a data center. Some people are using this technology to supplement their traditional battery arrays and make them last longer. The jury is still out on the solution, but looks promising.

Corrected that for you. Assuming, by nerds, you meant scientists and engineers, and not people outside of America. :)

When I worked at Compusa, we had similar quotas on our ESP (extended service plans) later renamed TSP (Technology Service Plans). The quota/goal was 3% of gross individual sales.

We didn't refuse sales, although, we would put sales out the door without going under our name in the system as to not affect our individual percentage.

Store managers were under the same type of pressure to maintain the overall TAP percentage and would basically do whatever was necessary to make it happen. One 'trick' was to 'negotiate' the sale of the TAP with the customer and discount the computer and record the reason as a 'price match'.

On the plus side, I do recall purchasing a couple 2 year Exchange Plans on cell phones there (when they sold them) in case my phone mysteriously died, I could get another phone of equal value [read newer/better] at that time. Strangely enough, both phones purchased failed around 18 months and I had to get an upgrade. Glad I had that instant exchange warranty on it. :)

Some Casinos Do. L'Auberge du Lac in Lake Charles does. I was there 2 years ago playing BlackJack so when I asked to be rated for my level of play, she went to the computer attached to the table and pulled up my stats. She was able to tell my average bit, how many hands I played an hour, etc. That being said, I know that computer must also signal card counting betting patterns. [Note to anyone that plays there: The 'button' the dealer hits before dealing out the cards tells the computer a round has started to collect the wager -> player position for the round.

This has a huge potential to backfire on the ISPs.

IANAL, but I have worked at an ISP before. ISP have some limited immunity from civil suits because they are a common carrier.
i.e. They're providing transport to another network (the internet) and the information the flows between it is the responsibility of the sender / receiver because they're merely providing the transport. The minute they start to police the network at a content level (like Nexicon suggests) they can potentially be liable for the information passing through their networks because they are now 'aware' of the illegal content and have a responsibility to act.

The cons outweigh the pros for this time of agreement. I dont' expect many ISPs to by into this B.S.

There is a bit of a difference. When you send a letter, the letter is being carried by 1 network--the post office/fedex/ups, etc. When you text--espeically if its between networks--then only the sending network gets the revenue and the receiver (company) doesn't get anything, yet still has the 'cost' of delivering it. Sure if there is a reply, it may even out, but notification services would tip the scales in favor of the sender's provider for sure. As for voice calls, quite simply, we're on a metered cellphone system. In the US, if you don't have an 'unlimited' plan for your local [land line] calls, then you would pay per minute--even inbound. Its obvious the cell phone companies are trying to push everyone to unlimited plans to get more revenue up front to improve cash flow and stabilize profits with more fixed A/R than variable.

There is a bright side. Companies start offering 'Unlimited Everything' plans (see Sprint) which force other carriers to do that. Then the carriers get into a price war over the unlimited plans and ultimately, the consumer witll win.