[TAG] ISP email goes down in flames

Mon Nov 14 05:50:32 MSK 2005

Mike Orr wrote:

>On 11/13/05, Mike Orr <sluggoster at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 11/13/05, Adam Engel <bartleby.samsa at verizon.net> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>> I guess my main question was whether it was possible to prevent the big
>>>guys from becoming even bigger and the small, independent ISPs froam
>>>disappearing altogether.
>>>      
>>>
>>Like with RIAA and MPAA, the only solution is "We don't want your
>>friggin' content anyway!"  Enjoy the leisurely pace of a dialup ISP.
>>(Unfortunately the modems now cost $250 unless you want a crippled
>>WinModem.)  Set up a community wireless network with your friends and
>>get your parents and neighbors on it too.  Write to your city
>>councilmembers and tell them you want a municipal wireless network or
>>municipal cable TV/Internet network, and write to your legislators
>>telling them not to illegalize it (as they did in Pennsylvania).  Tell
>>everybody you know not to vote for legislators that support cable
>>monopolies.  My father suggested, "Why not treat the wiring as a
>>public utility and let each person subscribe to whatever
>>Internet/cable/phone service they want?  It's gonna be the same union
>>workers making repairs anyway, no matter who their employer is."
>>    
>>
>
>You *have* heard that broadband penetration has slowed significantly
>in the US, right?  People who just do email don't see much advantage
>over dialup and are switching back.  People who are satisfied with
>access at work or indirectly through a relative are cutting it off
>completely.  The Bells and Comcast have noticed this and are wringing
>their hands trying to entice more subscribers.  The FCC is in a tizzy
>trying to figure out how to expand broadband usage, although one
>wonders why they treat broadband as an end rather than a means. 
>Supposedly universal broadband will unleash a new generation of
>digital content, although RIAA/MPAA are coming right up behind to
>ensure that no such content exists except a few extensions to their
>storefronts.   VoIP may take off someday, although the telcos/cablecos
>would really prefer that you use *their* VoIP at a cost comparable to
>a regular phone line.  So the execs and officials are running around
>in circles.  "Let's get universal broadband so people can do *THIS*
>... Oh wait, we don't really want people to do that.  But we need
>broadband anyway.  Why?  So people can do *THIS*... Oh wait, ..."
>
>So the telcos and cablecos know that people are fed up with their
>service and its cost and restrictions, and will switch to an
>alternative as soon as it appears.  As the restrictions get more
>onerous, this will accellerate the process.  (Unless Joe Sixpack
>contentedly says, "Funny, we used to record TV shows no problem.  But
>I guess if I can't record shows any more, that's the way it is.  Look,
>there's the Broncos on channel 6!  Gotta go now.")
>
>  
>
>>--
>>Mike Orr <sluggoster at gmail.com>
>>
>>    
>>
I have heard/read that certain cities are caving in to Cable/Comm 
interests and "illegalizing" or discouraging small dial-up network 
access.  That was the impetus for my original question -- spurred on by 
your first message.  How can anyone argue for giving away "space" to one 
interest over the other, "eminent domain?"   I'm on broad-band by 
"default:" my wife is a designer who also teaches computer animation, so 
she needs the fat pipe for work.  I, on the other hand, seldom send out 
an article that  can't be handled over Pine or any other text-based 
mailer, and most of the sites I read are text-based and well within the 
capacities of Lynx.   True,  it's quicker to download applications and 
source material over DSL, but  it's not like I can't work on other 
things while I'm downloading a file.   In short, I didn't even 
understand the "need" for universal broadband until I left my text-based 
world and saw the types of graphic-heavy site designs being pushed over 
the mainstream -- most mainstream newspapers, for instance, as well as 
"alternatives" offer video and audio clips as if they were TV news 
broadcasts rather than web sites.  Well and good, but not at the expense 
of the choice for cheap, low-bandwidth access for those who want it.   
I'm gonna have to do some serious reading/research to get up to speed 
with the current situation since I appear to be living in the late 90s 
-- using a 1998 Dell Inspiron running kernel 2.4 on SuSE 9.0 (I'm still 
"wowed" by KDE 3.1x and Gnome 2.4x though I appear to be "outdated."  I 
never thought I'd feel such "pressure" to upgrade  a Linux system).  
Regardless, I'm no neo-Luddite, but when Big Telecomm tells me to get 
big, get fast -- fast, my reaction is to proceed with caution. 

For  instance, in addition to my seven-year-old Linux box, I have a 
two-year-old iBook G4 running  Mac OSX system 10.3.7 (Panther, 
"upgraded" gradually from 10.3 outta the box).   Though I only use Aqua 
for work (text based) and even there I use Open Office, Abiword, 
Firefox, and Thunderbird, spending most of my time in Darwin (I found 
Enlightenment to be the best winmanager to run "rootless," allowing me 
access to both X and the main Mac GUI apps etc.)  subtle hints are in 
the air that it's time for me to "upgrade" to 10.4 (Tiger) if I know 
what's good for me.  Why?   Most Darwin tools are GNU utils.   Do I need 
to pay $120 to "upgrade" to free software?   "Open Source" indeed.   
Hence my concern about who "owns" the internet -- poorly phrased, I 
know.   Do we need cable and DSL?  Will we be forced to "need" cable and 
DSL?

Adam

>
>
>--
>Mike Orr <sluggoster at gmail.com> or <mso at oz.net>
>
>+-+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-+
>You've asked a question of The Answer Gang, so you've been sent the reply
>directly as a courtesy.  The TAG list has also been copied.  Please send
>all replies to tag at lists.linuxgazette.net, so that we can help our other
>readers by publishing the exchange in our monthly Web magazine:
>              Linux Gazette (http://linuxgazette.net/)
>+-+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-+
>_______________________________________________
>TAG mailing list
>TAG at lists.linuxgazette.net
>http://lists.linuxgazette.net/mailman/listinfo/tag
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linuxgazette.net/mailman/private/tag/attachments/20051113/b1617912/attachment-0001.htm 