A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
 

"RichA" wrote


"I begin by speaking of the threat of a nationalized information system. I
wish now to make an important distinction. I wish to distinguish between a
nation-wide information system base upon computers or television on the one
hand and a nationalized system on the other. (Net neutrality IS
nationalization, in reality). A nation-wide system can exist as a
partnership between government and private industry. In a nationalized
system the products of industry are expropriated.


He's worried about socialism. The anti-net-neutrality
position is based on dimwitted scaremongering: If rich
people are not allowed to own everything then we'll
inevitably slide into socialism and you'll only be able
to buy one flavor of toothpaste.

If we give all resources to rich people as grants,
they'll make lots of money and provide us with jobs.
Heck, they'll even set up a company store where we
can buy our groceries. Rich people are nice people.
And with enough rich people running things we don't
have to think for ourselves. Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett are geniuses. Just ask them. We should let
them own stuff and sell it back to us.

That's been the argument all along. It's nothing
new. The liberals call it welfare for the rich. It's
essentially a flavor of plutocratic monarchy. A
structured version of king-of-the-hill. Dimwitted
statemen whose greed overshadows their intellect,
like Ryan, Hatch and McConnell, call it helping the
working man. (And they probably say that sincerely.
It's too preposterous to say otherwise. I'm giving
them the benefit of the doubt in assuming that
they're honest insofar as that they're incapable
of seeing their own dishonesty; men of minimal
moral and intellectual development.)

Net neutrality simply means the people who sell
you access can't control how you use it. Period.
It doesn't mean the gov't owns the wires or the
websites. Just as the phone company can't put
ads in your phone call or downgrade the transmission
to competing companies. There's net neutrality for
phones, and that just means you can call anyone
you like. It doesn't mean you can only call gov't
propaganda sources.

A lot of people are trying to get to own the
whole thing before the dust has settled. Microsoft,
Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon... They're all
examples of small-minded people who see a new
world coming and want to own it. Actually they want
to own you. Just as AOL managed to do for awhile.
But people don't complain about that because they
think they've chosen to spend their days diddling
Facebook or iPhone apps.
No net neutrality would mean those companies
have to make deals with the likes of Comcast and
Verizon, because your ISP would be deciding what
you can access. That's why the tech companies are
for net neutrality. But at least with them you still
have some choice.

What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in
a world without net neutrality -- the people who are
trying to do something useful for the public? They're
at risk now because of the walled garden strategies
of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality
they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that
they're not profit-oriented.
What about hospitals that provide medical advice
websites, florists who provide gardening tips, newsgroups
like this? All gone if they don't have a business model
that justifies paying to be online. They'll be like the
small town that gets bypassed by the new interstate
highway. You can still go there. There just isn't a road
to do it, or if there is, there's no way for you to
discover it. Comcast Search won't list those sites.

A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
 

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Net neutrality simply means the people who sell
you access can't control how you use it. Period.
It doesn't mean the gov't owns the wires or the
websites. Just as the phone company can't put
ads in your phone call or downgrade the transmission
to competing companies. There's net neutrality for
phones, and that just means you can call anyone
you like. It doesn't mean you can only call gov't
propaganda sources.

that part is (mostly) true.

A lot of people are trying to get to own the
whole thing before the dust has settled. Microsoft,
Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon... They're all
examples of small-minded people who see a new
world coming and want to own it. Actually they want
to own you. Just as AOL managed to do for awhile.
But people don't complain about that because they
think they've chosen to spend their days diddling
Facebook or iPhone apps.

that part is complete bull****.

No net neutrality would mean those companies
have to make deals with the likes of Comcast and
Verizon, because your ISP would be deciding what
you can access. That's why the tech companies are
for net neutrality. But at least with them you still
have some choice.

no, that's not why.

those companies are for net neutrality because they understand how
important it is, and unlike idjit pai, they don't have a vested
interest in the telecom companies.

What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in
a world without net neutrality -- the people who are
trying to do something useful for the public? They're
at risk now because of the walled garden strategies
of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality
they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that
they're not profit-oriented.

no. the reason they would be gone is because they won't be able to
afford additional fees.

A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
 

"nospam" wrote

| What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in
| a world without net neutrality -- the people who are
| trying to do something useful for the public? They're
| at risk now because of the walled garden strategies
| of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality
| they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that
| they're not profit-oriented.
|
| no. the reason they would be gone is because they won't be able to
| afford additional fees.

Congratulations. You not only agreed
with someone but also restated the point
clearly, in a useful way, despite yourself. :)

Now maybe you should get back to hunting for
a keyboard with a shift key. Don't the Macs you
buy have those?

A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
 

On 1/15/2018 10:19 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"nospam" wrote

| What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in
| a world without net neutrality -- the people who are
| trying to do something useful for the public? They're
| at risk now because of the walled garden strategies
| of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality
| they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that
| they're not profit-oriented.
|
| no. the reason they would be gone is because they won't be able to
| afford additional fees.

Congratulations. You not only agreed
with someone but also restated the point
clearly, in a useful way, despite yourself. :)

Now maybe you should get back to hunting for
a keyboard with a shift key. Don't the Macs you
buy have those?



I almost had a heart attack from laughing. He is so anxious to argue,
that he argues with himself.


--
PeterN

A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:


| What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in
| a world without net neutrality -- the people who are
| trying to do something useful for the public? They're
| at risk now because of the walled garden strategies
| of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality
| they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that
| they're not profit-oriented.
|
| no. the reason they would be gone is because they won't be able to
| afford additional fees.

Congratulations. You not only agreed
with someone but also restated the point
clearly, in a useful way, despite yourself. :)

Now maybe you should get back to hunting for
a keyboard with a shift key. Don't the Macs you
buy have those?


I almost had a heart attack from laughing. He is so anxious to argue,
that he argues with himself.

i'm not arguing with myself.

there is no walled garden strategy. that's simply false.

A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
 

On 2018-01-16 17:16:10 +0000, nospam said:

In article , PeterN
wrote:


| What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in
| a world without net neutrality -- the people who are
| trying to do something useful for the public? They're
| at risk now because of the walled garden strategies
| of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality
| they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that
| they're not profit-oriented.
|
| no. the reason they would be gone is because they won't be able to
| afford additional fees.

Congratulations. You not only agreed
with someone but also restated the point
clearly, in a useful way, despite yourself. :)

Now maybe you should get back to hunting for
a keyboard with a shift key. Don't the Macs you
buy have those?


I almost had a heart attack from laughing. He is so anxious to argue,
that he argues with himself.

i'm not arguing with myself.

there is no walled garden strategy. that's simply false.

Gardens have Gates...
--
teleportation kills

A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
 

In article , android
wrote:


Gardens have Gates...

gates has gardens.

A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
 

On 2018-01-17 09:51:05 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 17:18:28 UTC, android wrote:
On 2018-01-16 17:16:10 +0000, nospam said:

In article , PeterN
wrote:


| What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in
| a world without net neutrality -- the people who are
| trying to do something useful for the public? They're
| at risk now because of the walled garden strategies
| of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality
| they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that
| they're not profit-oriented.
|
| no. the reason they would be gone is because they won't be able to
| afford additional fees.

Congratulations. You not only agreed
with someone but also restated the point
clearly, in a useful way, despite yourself. :)

Now maybe you should get back to hunting for
a keyboard with a shift key. Don't the Macs you
buy have those?


I almost had a heart attack from laughing. He is so anxious to argue,
that he argues with himself.

i'm not arguing with myself.

there is no walled garden strategy. that's simply false.

Gardens have Gates...

Mricrosoft had Gates too ;-P

You're really with it, man!
--
teleportation kills

A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:51:05 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 17:18:28 UTC, android wrote:
On 2018-01-16 17:16:10 +0000, nospam said:

In article , PeterN
wrote:


| What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in
| a world without net neutrality -- the people who are
| trying to do something useful for the public? They're
| at risk now because of the walled garden strategies
| of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality
| they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that
| they're not profit-oriented.
|
| no. the reason they would be gone is because they won't be able to
| afford additional fees.

Congratulations. You not only agreed
with someone but also restated the point
clearly, in a useful way, despite yourself. :)

Now maybe you should get back to hunting for
a keyboard with a shift key. Don't the Macs you
buy have those?


I almost had a heart attack from laughing. He is so anxious to argue,
that he argues with himself.

i'm not arguing with myself.

there is no walled garden strategy. that's simply false.

Gardens have Gates...

Mricrosoft had Gates too ;-P


Do you mean Bill the Gates of Micromush?

Dave:

LIfe is a Game
It comes without batteries
or instructions
-Earl Pickles-