Things break "in the ordinary course of business" and that's the reason UNIX shops need UNIX admins, even though it's my experience that UNIX breaks less often than other OS's.

As far as our obligation to not disclose the contents of mail we see doing our job, I don't believe that satisfies any privacy concerns...

Peeping through a peep-hole at someone taking a shower and promising not to tell is still a violation of their privacy.

I do the same, but consider that reading the e-mail. I think a court would too, if it came to that.

"Fortunately for everybody, this is not true — most ISPs do not allow their employees to read customer e-mails 'in the ordinary course of business' "

I disagree. When something starts filling /var/spool/mqueue it's common that customer e-mail get read.

I ignored no spec - they need to go back to the customer for revision 'cause they're technically unfeasible. I guess I COULD talk myself into believing I know what the customer wants... ...but then I'd suck as a tech.

I haven't gotten where I am by doing that.

So, then you suck as a tech since you want to read things into the specs that aren't there. It's OK, I've seen plenty of crappy techs at IBM, AT&T, Boeing and McDonnell Dogulas before that. You'll still be able to make a living.

I've seen really good techs there, too, and they'd not misread the specs.

That's it, right there! You're apparently not a tech!

"meaningless semantics" to you, "technical specifications" to me. I guess over 30 years in the industry will do that.

The specs speak for themselves:

Aggregate multiple ISP connections to provide high bandwidth site-to-site link, yet not expensive 'cause it's for a small business.

As stated, it's not technically feasable. You go ahead and keep imagining those are "meaningless semantics" or imagining they mean something else entirely. Have fun with that.

The OP said "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple ISP connections".

What's funny is how you keep ignoring the original premise and want to infer based on subsequent statements that don't support the challenge you're trying to make...since "site-to-site" links can be created over the internet, it's irrelevant to your argument yet you try to use it as a focal point.

On second thought, no, it's not funny... not "ha-ha" funny, at any rate. Read a book and get back with me.

So, you agree that site-to-ISP requires link aggregation...

There's a difference between a customer network and an ISP network.

An ISP provides a connection to the internet, by defintion. So, "site-to-internet-at-large" is what was the topic of discussion.

What difference does that make? My original post applies - you need a device that supports port trunking. A "site-to-site link" can be created using one or more ISP's, so that criteria doesn't require any particular prerequisite. As written, the "multiple ISP connections" means "multiple ISP" unless you suggest the adjective doesn't modify the noun directly following it.

If so, the internet cojones apparently don't require intelligence.

Perhaps English isn't your first language...

The OP wrote "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple ISP connections"

Had he written "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple connections from an ISP" you'd just be a jerk, but as it stands, you're an ignorant jerk.