Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
35 views
Skip to first unread message
RichA
Jan 12, 2018, 9:09:30 PM1/12/18
to
Infinity: American Society for Magazine Photographers:
Lee C. Deighton, Chairman, The Macmillan Company, Aug. 1967: (Two years before any internet existed).
"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.
It is necessary at this point to review the capability of nation-wide systems. Public debate has informed us recently of plans for a government-endowed public television corporation that could provide programs simultaneously via satellites to the entire country. Substantial sums of money would be available for creating programs. Presumably, a teeny-weeny part of these sums could be used to purchase transmission rights from copyright owners.
Similarly, it is proposed that thousands of computers be linked to each other and hundreds of thousands of consoles located in schoolrooms, libraries, laboratories, dormatories and scholar's study. The dream is that every user, by pressing the proper button, can have the world's literature or the latest technical information displayed upon his console screen. This is a dream, but a powerful dream. No sensible man can oppose it.
The problem is how to achieve this dream without destroying deeply-rooted values of our society. A nationalized information system the pre-empts the work of authors and publishers would destroy these values. In a nationalized system, there is no place for the private sector. The system would inevitably operate as a government bureaucracy, and it would control what goes into the system.
Lee C. Deighton, Chairman, The Macmillan Company, Aug. 1967: (Two years before any internet existed).
"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.
It is necessary at this point to review the capability of nation-wide systems. Public debate has informed us recently of plans for a government-endowed public television corporation that could provide programs simultaneously via satellites to the entire country. Substantial sums of money would be available for creating programs. Presumably, a teeny-weeny part of these sums could be used to purchase transmission rights from copyright owners.
Similarly, it is proposed that thousands of computers be linked to each other and hundreds of thousands of consoles located in schoolrooms, libraries, laboratories, dormatories and scholar's study. The dream is that every user, by pressing the proper button, can have the world's literature or the latest technical information displayed upon his console screen. This is a dream, but a powerful dream. No sensible man can oppose it.
The problem is how to achieve this dream without destroying deeply-rooted values of our society. A nationalized information system the pre-empts the work of authors and publishers would destroy these values. In a nationalized system, there is no place for the private sector. The system would inevitably operate as a government bureaucracy, and it would control what goes into the system.
Savageduck
Jan 12, 2018, 9:54:32 PM1/12/18
to
On Jan 12, 2018, RichA wrote
(in article<73d9d10a-7a44-4927...@googlegroups.com>):
> Infinity: American Society for Magazine Photographers:
> Lee C. Deighton, Chairman, The Macmillan Company, Aug. 1967: (Two years
> before any internet existed).
>
> "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.
> It is necessary at this point to review the capability of nation-wide
> systems. Public debate has informed us recently of plans for a
> government-endowed public television corporation that could provide programs
> simultaneously via satellites to the entire country. Substantial sums of
> money would be available for creating programs. Presumably, a teeny-weeny
> part of these sums could be used to purchase transmission rights from
> copyright owners.
> Similarly, it is proposed that thousands of computers be linked to each other
> and hundreds of thousands of consoles located in schoolrooms, libraries,
> laboratories, dormatories and scholar's study. The dream is that every user,
> by pressing the proper button, can have the world's literature or the latest
> technical information displayed upon his console screen. This is a dream, but
> a powerful dream. No sensible man can oppose it.
No sensible man can oppose it?? I guess back in 1967 he hadn’t heard of
that guy with bone spur, and hair problems.
of our society is no problem at all.
> A nationalized information system the pre-empts the
> work of authors and publishers would destroy these values. In a nationalized
> system, there is no place for the private sector. The system would inevitably
> operate as a government bureaucracy, and it would control what goes into the
> system.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
(in article<73d9d10a-7a44-4927...@googlegroups.com>):
> Infinity: American Society for Magazine Photographers:
> Lee C. Deighton, Chairman, The Macmillan Company, Aug. 1967: (Two years
> before any internet existed).
>
> "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.
> It is necessary at this point to review the capability of nation-wide
> systems. Public debate has informed us recently of plans for a
> government-endowed public television corporation that could provide programs
> simultaneously via satellites to the entire country. Substantial sums of
> money would be available for creating programs. Presumably, a teeny-weeny
> part of these sums could be used to purchase transmission rights from
> copyright owners.
> Similarly, it is proposed that thousands of computers be linked to each other
> and hundreds of thousands of consoles located in schoolrooms, libraries,
> laboratories, dormatories and scholar's study. The dream is that every user,
> by pressing the proper button, can have the world's literature or the latest
> technical information displayed upon his console screen. This is a dream, but
> a powerful dream. No sensible man can oppose it.
that guy with bone spur, and hair problems.
>
> The problem is how to achieve this dream without destroying deeply-rooted
> values of our society.
For that guy with bone spur, and hair issues, destroying deeply-rooted values
> The problem is how to achieve this dream without destroying deeply-rooted
> values of our society.
of our society is no problem at all.
> A nationalized information system the pre-empts the
> work of authors and publishers would destroy these values. In a nationalized
> system, there is no place for the private sector. The system would inevitably
> operate as a government bureaucracy, and it would control what goes into the
> system.
Regards,
Savageduck
RichA
Jan 13, 2018, 2:12:48 AM1/13/18
to
nospam
Jan 13, 2018, 7:35:15 AM1/13/18
to
In article <d3cb8175-a2dd-4555...@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Net neutrality
> was a way for government to gain complete control (eventually) over the
> internet. It was also illogical since every other service I know of works
> off the idea that if you pay more, you get more.
you clearly have *zero* understanding of net neutrality.
>
> Net neutrality
> was a way for government to gain complete control (eventually) over the
> internet. It was also illogical since every other service I know of works
> off the idea that if you pay more, you get more.
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
Jan 15, 2018, 8:26:42 PM1/15/18
to
In article <d3cb8175-a2dd-4555...@googlegroups.com>
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ....
> I think he agrees with Trump's position more than you think. Net neutrality was a way for government to gain complete control (eventually) over the internet. It was also illogical since every other service I know of works off the idea that if you pay more, you get more.
Please remind me, what was the name of that private company that
had DARPA invent DARPAnet?
LOL!
RichA
Jan 15, 2018, 8:56:23 PM1/15/18
to
Mayayana
Jan 15, 2018, 9:06:53 PM1/15/18
to
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> 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.
>
"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.
>
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.
Mayayana
Jan 15, 2018, 9:18:27 PM1/15/18
to
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote
> How about the WWW?
What about it? There's a basic system of organization
and oversight. For just a few dollars per month
you can have your own front door on the Internet --
a website of any size about anything you like. Your
only limitation is that you can't break laws and you
have to conform to some standards if you want
people to be able to see your website.
The point of net neutrality is that people should be
able to reach www.richa.com just as easily as they
can reach www.buy_more_stuff_at_a_giant_store.com.
> How about the WWW?
What about it? There's a basic system of organization
and oversight. For just a few dollars per month
you can have your own front door on the Internet --
a website of any size about anything you like. Your
only limitation is that you can't break laws and you
have to conform to some standards if you want
people to be able to see your website.
The point of net neutrality is that people should be
able to reach www.richa.com just as easily as they
can reach www.buy_more_stuff_at_a_giant_store.com.
nospam
Jan 15, 2018, 9:25:35 PM1/15/18
to
In article <p3jmnp$lrv$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
> 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 bullshit.
> 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.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> 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.
> 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.
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.
afford additional fees.
Mayayana
Jan 15, 2018, 10:19:52 PM1/15/18
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> 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?
| > 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.
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?
PeterN
Jan 16, 2018, 12:10:58 PM1/16/18
to
that he argues with himself.
--
PeterN
nospam
Jan 16, 2018, 12:16:26 PM1/16/18
to
In article <p3lbl...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
i'm not arguing with myself.
there is no walled garden strategy. that's simply false.
there is no walled garden strategy. that's simply false.
android
Jan 16, 2018, 12:18:28 PM1/16/18
to
--
teleportation kills
nospam
Jan 16, 2018, 12:19:54 PM1/16/18
to
In article <fc6qf0...@mid.individual.net>, android <he...@there.was>
wrote:
>
> Gardens have Gates...
gates has gardens.
wrote:
>
> Gardens have Gates...
gates has gardens.
Whisky-dave
Jan 17, 2018, 4:51:13 AM1/17/18
to
android
Jan 17, 2018, 5:01:46 AM1/17/18
to
--
teleportation kills
Old Geezerr
Jan 22, 2018, 5:26:03 PM1/22/18
to
Dave:
LIfe is a Game
It comes without batteries
or instructions
-Earl Pickles-
Whisky-dave
Jan 23, 2018, 5:08:10 AM1/23/18
to
0 new messages