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" <Peter@isoc.nl> 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".