Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NTO] Re: The End of the Internet?

Expand Messages
  • hsavage
    ... Stefan, You are laboring under a misconception concerning communication companies having bright people in decision making positions. They do have bright
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Stefan Elssner wrote:
      > Interesting idea, from the point of a major communications provider at
      > least...
      >
      > But I'm not afraid.
      >
      > They would break the medium as a whole, and by this they would break
      > the real base of their prospected revenues.
      >
      > The current plans may underestimate this point, but they would notice
      > it soon if they make the plans reality. Probably some of their
      > brighter people will point this out _before_ the plans get reality.
      >
      > The internet is a concept, first, then a medium, and both are
      > established now beyond any thinkable undo, as far as I can see.
      >
      > Access providers of any kind are mere side effects of the general
      > scheme. Sometimes they dont like this role, I'll understand. But... :-)
      >
      > -- Stefan

      Stefan,

      You are laboring under a misconception concerning communication
      companies having bright people in decision making positions. They do
      have bright people, in my experience, mostly in the peon class, the
      people that actually do the work.

      Having retired in 99 after 34 years with GTE/Verizon it's my opinion
      that if they think they can make a dollar or 2 they'll try, no matter
      what it costs.

      The communications companies could eventually wreak havoc on a fairly
      good operating web.

      I just mean, don't discount the harm they may do.

      ºvº
      06.02.02
      "And your crybaby whiny-a--ed opinion would be...?"
      hrs ø hsavage@...
    • Greg Chapman
      ... I m not afraid either. What was described sounded exactly like AOL to me. The only difference is that AOL started as a family friendly rival to the
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > Interesting idea,
        ...
        > But I'm not afraid.
        ...
        > The internet is a concept, first, then a medium, and both are
        > established now beyond any thinkable undo, as far as I can see.

        I'm not afraid either. What was described sounded exactly like AOL to me.
        The only difference is that AOL started as a "family friendly" rival to the
        internet, but eventually, through customer pressure, had to provide a back
        door out into the wild, untamed, world of the Internet.

        Interestingly, rival Microsoft was the one that caved in, giving up on its
        own AOL-like independent MSN service and turning it into just another web
        site.

        Greg
      • Stefan Elssner
        ... Wrong wording from my side. What I meant was rather _Hopefully_ some of their brighter people will point this out ... ... I don t. But they simply will
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com, hsavage <hsavage@...> wrote:
          ...
          > > it soon if they make the plans reality. Probably some of their
          > > brighter people will point this out _before_ the plans get reality.
          ...
          >
          > Stefan,
          >
          > You are laboring under a misconception concerning communication
          > companies having bright people in decision making positions. They do
          > have bright people, in my experience, mostly in the peon class, the
          > people that actually do the work.

          Wrong wording from my side. What I meant was rather
          "_Hopefully_ some of their brighter people will point this out ..."

          >
          > Having retired in 99 after 34 years with GTE/Verizon it's my opinion
          > that if they think they can make a dollar or 2 they'll try, no matter
          > what it costs.
          >
          > The communications companies could eventually wreak havoc on a fairly
          > good operating web.
          >
          > I just mean, don't discount the harm they may do.

          I don't.

          But they simply will not do that. Since, if they do, the Web will
          sidestep. And they will lost it. And so they will loose the whole base
          of their idea to make a dollar or 2 more.

          The Web is only good as the special advertising or marketing platform
          that it has become as long as it is still the Web -- (generally) free,
          uncontrolled, wild, global and flexible.

          Canalizing it in any way would make it into just another TV station.
          Global, yes. But who needs another TV station?

          So, after some time, it will be clear that this was not such a good
          idea. Some of the inclined companies will crash, others will simply
          pay less for some time.

          The Web will still be there as it was. Since it (or even more: the
          Internet as it's parent) was _designed_ from birth to do exactly that:
          staying alive regardless of circumstances.

          Stefan
        • loro
          ... Uhu... I just saw a rerun of Terminator III. Lotta
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Stefan Elssner wrote:
            >The Web will still be there as it was. Since it (or even more: the
            >Internet as it's parent) was _designed_ from birth to do exactly that:
            >staying alive regardless of circumstances.

            Uhu... I just saw a rerun of Terminator III.

            Lotta
          • loro
            ... I just realized that my comment may seem odd if you haven t seen the movie or don t have it fresh in memory. In the movie the world is taken over by a
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I wrote:
              >Stefan Elssner wrote:
              > >The Web will still be there as it was. Since it (or even more: the
              > >Internet as it's parent) was _designed_ from birth to do exactly that:
              > >staying alive regardless of circumstances.
              >
              >Uhu... I just saw a rerun of Terminator III.

              I just realized that my comment may seem odd if you haven't seen the movie
              or don't have it fresh in memory. In the movie the world is taken over by a
              computer network that is designed to stay alive regardless of
              circumstances. ;-)

              Lotta
            • Kathy Jungjohann
              related story: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/05/business/email.php AOL and Yahoo take lead in putting price on e-mail
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 6, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                related story:

                http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/05/business/email.php

                AOL and Yahoo take lead in putting price on e-mail

                <http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/05/business//cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=By
                Saul Hansell&sort=swishrank>By Saul Hansell The New York Times

                Cheers,
                Kathy
              • sisterscape
                Oh joy! Now spammers can pay to bypass filters. In time other providers will likely follow suit. Just follow the money . . . BTW, the second link didn t
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 6, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Oh joy! Now spammers can pay to bypass filters. In time other
                  providers will likely follow suit. Just follow the money . . .

                  BTW, the second link didn't work even when I joined it.


                  --- Kathy Jungjohann <kjj@...> wrote:

                  > related story:
                  >
                  > http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/05/business/email.php
                  >
                  > AOL and Yahoo take lead in putting price on e-mail
                  >
                  >
                  <http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/05/business//cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=By
                  >
                  > Saul Hansell&sort=swishrank>By Saul Hansell The New York Times
                  >
                  > Cheers,
                  > Kathy
                  >


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                • sisterscape
                  This is the best analysis to date, IMO: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004398.php#004398 AOL, Yahoo and Goodmail: Taxing Your Email for Fun and Profit
                  Message 8 of 11 , Feb 8, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    This is the best analysis to date, IMO:


                    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004398.php#004398


                    AOL, Yahoo and Goodmail: Taxing Your Email for Fun and Profit

                    February 08, 2006

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • Alan
                    http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=396 That s news info and opinion about Telco s wanting to charge $ , for example, to charge Google
                    Message 9 of 11 , Feb 16, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=396

                      That's news info and opinion about Telco's wanting to charge $ , for example,
                      to charge Google for use of their lines (toll bridge similarity -- use the
                      bridge, pay a toll -- but such toll is *only* for *big-heavy* users) but it's
                      Telco's lines instead of a bridge on a highway.

                      Unless I've taken it wrong, it appears that some of these very Telcos are
                      scrambling to get up a new something like graphic fiber line so as to offer
                      even more broadband internet services. And also some complain (perhaps to
                      congress, even) that "Google gets by on cheap servers" while our (new fiber)
                      line costs us a gazillion dollars to finance/build.

                      Perhaps it is needed, what is it -- something like "net neutral" in congress
                      (a regulation that marshalls that the net is to be free of regulation)

                      Is that right? Do I have that right about the meaning of net neutral? (if
                      so, that's kinda, er uh, ____.

                      Alan.

                      On Thursday 02 February 2006 12:15, sisterscape wrote:
                      > Our 1984ish, Orwellian future continues . . .
                      >
                      > Published on Thursday, February 2, 2006 by The Nation
                      > The End of the Internet?
                      > by Jeff Chester
                      >
                      > The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an
                      > alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and
                      > nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded
                      > service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.
                      >
                      > Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are
                      > developing strategies that would track and store information on our
                      > every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing
                      > system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency.
                      > According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone
                      > and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest
                      > pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major
                      > advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these
                      > providers would have first priority on our computer and television
                      > screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer
                      > communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.
                      >
                      > Read more at - http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0202-26.htm
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.