> > Op 26-12-18 om 23:21 schreef jim bell: > > > I think there was a time in the late 1970's when phone companies > > > expressed resentment that their users were employing modems on their > > > phone lines.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:37:01PM -0300, Juan wrote: > On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 13:11:31 +0100 > "P.J. Westerhof" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Correct. > > If memory serves me right, not only because some modems caused technical > > issues with installed telephone infrastructure. But also because the > > then customary flat rate for local telephone use > > there was no flat rate here. the phone company was a state > monopoly then turned into a 'free market' 'private' government > chartered monopoly. I think they were pleased wtih people using > modems and paying their extortionary prices. Indeed, with the marginal cost being electricity use per connection, i.e. negligible. > > meant that you could > > get on the Internet almost indefinitely if an Internet access point was > > within reach, f.i. university or library. > > This extra and sustained load could cause technical issues in itself, > > but it also cost the phone companies a pretty penny in lost income. No > > wonder the phone companies were quick to change their tariffs to usage > > based. > > Hardly surprising. Re "it also cost the phone companies a pretty penny in lost income": This is an example of insidiously successful 'thought control' or effective/de-facto control of our conversation. RMS highlighted this with respect to e.g. "intellectual property" as a concept inserted into our discussion. In the present instance "lost income" is the same furfy that the MAFIAA http://mafiaa.org/press_room/ uses to claim "lost sales" due to music and film "pirates". This ought be preaching to the converted 'round here, BUT, when we use our opposition's languaging/ phrases, our opposition has gained significantly. At the very least, we owe it to ourselves to insert the word "claimed" before the conjunction "lost income".
