On 2 Apr 2005 03:58:20 -0800, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "AvianFlux"
<neomoniker@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> There's something to be said for dial up connections.
>
> One) It's cheaper.
>
[snip]

Nearly always, correct.

> Two) Can be accessed over any available phone line connection.
>
[snip]

Well, most of them. Office PBX systems can be problematic. The same used be
so for hotels, but now most of them offer at least a POTS jack for dial-up
us;, and those who cater to the "business traveler" often offer some form of
broadband connection (with WiFi fast becoming the most popular form, since it
is so cheap to install).

> Three) More secure, anonymous, dynamic IP's.
>
[snip]

Ooops! And you were doing so well, up to this point.

No. Dial-up is neither "more secure" (except perhaps in the "security by
obscurity" sense, which is always very poor security at best) or even close to
anonymous. And dynamic IP is not a distinguishing characteristic of dial-up,
since most "consumer broadband" (i.e., DSL and "cable modem") services also
use DHCP to assign dynamic IPs to their users.

> I'm sticking with dial up. It's all I really need.

That's fine. But don't kid yourself about what it does (and does not)
provide.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.