how-to block ads
|
Its a Secret
Rabidly yours
Premium
join:2008-02-23
Canada
 ·Shaw
| Death of Free Internet is Imminent - Canada Will Test
»www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?···aid=9627
In the last 15 years or so, as a society we have had access to more information than ever before in modern history because of the Internet. There are approximately 1 billion Internet users in the world B and any one of these users can theoretically communicate in real time with any other on the planet. The Internet has been the greatest technological achievement of the 20th century by far, and has been recognized as such by the global community.
The free transfer of information, uncensored, unlimited and untainted, still seems to be a dream when you think about it. Whatever field that is mentioned- education, commerce, government, news, entertainment, politics and countless other areas- have been radically affected by the introduction of the Internet. And mostly, it's good news, except when poor judgements are made and people are taken advantage of. Scrutiny and oversight are needed, especially where children are involved.
However, when there are potential profits open to a corporation, the needs of society don't count. Take the recent case in Canada with the behemoths, Telus and Rogers rolling out a charge for text messaging without any warning to the public. It was an arrogant and risky move for the telecommunications giants because it backfired. People actually used Internet technology to deliver a loud and clear message to these companies and that was to scrap the extra charge. The people used the power of the Internet against the big boys and the little guys won.
However, the issue of text messaging is just a tiny blip on the radar screens of Telus and another company, Bell Canada, the two largest Internet Service Providers (ISP'S) in Canada. Our country is being used as a test case to drastically change the delivery of Internet service forever. The change will be so radical that it has the potential to send us back to the horse and buggy days of information sharing and access.
In the upcoming weeks watch for a report in Time Magazine that will attempt to smooth over the rough edges of a diabolical plot by Bell Canada and Telus, to begin charging per site fees on most Internet sites. The plan is to convert the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and then pay to visit sites beyond a cutoff point.
From my browsing (on the currently free Internet) I have discovered that the 'demise' of the free Internet is slated for 2010 in Canada, and two years later around the world. Canada is seen a good choice to implement such shameful and sinister changes, since Canadians are viewed as being laissez fair, politically uninformed and an easy target. The corporate marauders will iron out the wrinkles in Canada and then spring the new, castrated version of the Internet on the rest of the world, probably with little fanfare, except for some dire warnings about the 'evil' of the Internet (free) and the CEO's spouting about 'safety and security'. These buzzwords usually work pretty well.
What will the Internet look like in Canada in 2010? I suspect that the ISP's will provide a "package" program as companies like Cogeco currently do. Customers will pay for a series of websites as they do now for their television stations. Television stations will be available on-line as part of these packages, which will make the networks happy since they have lost much of the younger market which are surfing and chatting on their computers in the evening. However, as is the case with cable television now, if you choose something that is not part of the package, you know what happens. You pay extra.
And this is where the Internet (free) as we know it will suffer almost immediate, economic strangulation. Thousands and thousands of Internet sites will not be part of the package so users will have to pay extra to visit those sites! In just an hour or two it is possible to easily visit 20-30 sites or more while looking for information. Just imagine how high these costs will be.
At present, the world condemns China because that country restricts certain websites. "They are undemocratic; they are removing people's freedom; they don't respect individual rights; they are censoring information,” are some of the comments we hear. But what Bell Canada and Telus have planned for Canadians is much worse than that. They are planning the death of the Internet (free) as we know it, and I expect they'll be hardly a whimper from Canadians. It's all part of the corporate plan for a New World Order and virtually a masterstroke that will lead to the creation of billions and billions of dollars of corporate profit at the expense of the working and middle classes.
There are so many other implications as a result of these changes, far too many to elaborate on here. Be aware that we will all lose our privacy because all websites will be tracked as part of the billing procedure, and we will be literally cut off from 90% of the information that we can access today. The little guys on the Net will fall likes flies; Bloggers and small website operators will die a quick death because people will not pay to go to their sites and read their pages.
Ironically, the only medium that can save us is the one we are trying to save- the Internet (free). This article will be posted on my Blog, www.realitycheck.typepad.com and I encourage people and groups to learn more about this issue. Canadians can keep the Internet free just as they kept text messaging free. Don't wait for the federal politicians. They will do nothing to help us.
I would welcome a letter to the editor of the Standard Freeholder from a spokesperson from Bell Canada or Telus telling me that I am absolutely wrong in what I have written, and that no such changes to the Internet are being planned, and that access to Internet sites will remain FREE in the years to come. In the meantime, I encourage all of you to write to the media, ask questions, phone the radio station, phone a friend, or think of something else to prevent what appears to me to be inevitable.
Maintaining Internet (free) access is the only way we have a chance at combatting the global corporate takeover, the North American Union, and a long list of other deadly deeds that the elite in society have planned for us. Yesterday was too late in trying to protect our rights and freedoms. We must now redouble our efforts in order to give our children and grandchildren a fighting chance in the future.
author's website: »realitycheck.typepad.com/
--
"In the future, that which is not madatory will be illegal" | |
Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| In many respects, how an ISP chooses to operate and structure their charges and access is up to them and any governing authorities involved in their service locales. There are many theoretical business models for providing Internet service to a customer base... and what Bell Canada and Telus are purportedly planning seems to indeed be one of them. To individual customers dependent solely on those companies for service, this means they could face some serious issues of loss-of-choice, compromise of privacy, and cost. But whether that business model actually succeeds in Canada (or anywhere else worldwide) is dependent on factors besides the simple desire of those companies for "control" in order to generate more money... not the least of which is simple customer ISP choice, where such exists.
It is my firm belief that in those vastly more numerous locations worldwide where choice of ISP exists, the limitations and threats represented by a business model requiring a sign-up to specific sites and per-site payment for visitation outside those boundaries will actually cost the companies involved far more in lost business in their competitive locales than they will ever hope to gain in their exclusive-provider zones. In a competitive world, providing service akin to that seen today will become a tremendous marketing edge for any company jockeying to take business away from the likes of a Bell Canada or Telus attempting to market with site tiering or limitations.
In June 2008, Netcraft calculated there were over 172,000,000 websites in existence, with the number exploding daily. An ISP trying to limit user access to the common internet structure and that staggering number of sites in a competitive marketplace is in a radically different market posture than companies currently controlling access to a comparatively limited array of TV channels via those companies' self-owned wire or satellite links. (And, for the record, China is not a competitive marketplace... it started out and remains a governmentally micro-controlled and highly-censored marketplace.) In my metro area of 350,000 people, there are over 20 ISPs available - via cable, copper, fiber, and microwave. And while there unfortunately are many users in places with choices of only 1 or 2 ISPs, a vastly greater number of customers live in areas supplied by a multiplicity of competing ISPs. And that competitive arena is where any company that seriously impairs internet site access in any significant manner will have to face the heat of market choice - at their overall financial peril.
Threats to the internet are real. As are threats to all manifestations of public access, communication, and information... constantly. It takes continual vigilance and citizen/customer action to swat down the unending attacks and intrusions - in the marketplace, in the legislatures, and in cultural whims d'jour. And it is especially critical that restraints in one arena not be manipulated by vested interests in another arena.
But I just have a hard time discerning the threat described in the article as representing the impending end of the internet as we know it. I have more confidence in the realities and the marketplace than that.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... | |
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI | But you are missing the obvious in your argument. All the big ISPs will get together before this is launched outside Canada. Then what choice will you have...dialup. | |
salzan
Experienced Optimist
Premium
join:2004-01-08
WA State
| reply to Its a Secret
said by Its a Secret  :From my browsing (on the currently free Internet) I have discovered that the 'demise' of the free Internet is slated for 2010 in Canada, and two years later around the world. Do you have any links for this information? | |
Krispy
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
| reply to Its a Secret
Oh nos, not the internet!!!
This article has been showing up in my Google alerts for a few days now - at best it's humorous, at worst it's poorly researched FUD.
said by Its a Secret :Our country is being used as a test case to drastically change the delivery of Internet service forever. The change will be so radical that it has the potential to send us back to the horse and buggy days of information sharing and access. One of my many questions after reading this article...who's the they who's apparently in a position to decide on which country to test? ICANN? ARIN? UN? Shadow government?
said by Its a Secret :In the upcoming weeks watch for a report in Time Magazine that will attempt to smooth over the rough edges of a diabolical plot by Bell Canada and Telus, to begin charging per site fees on most Internet sites. The plan is to convert the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and then pay to visit sites beyond a cutoff point. Diabolical indeed considering I've never gotten wind of this despite my ~8 years in the Canadian ISP industry.
said by Its a Secret :From my browsing (on the currently free Internet) I have discovered that... Ah, ok, it is researched 
Seriously, this author seems to have balled up several issues, interpreted them in a wildly creative way, added their own touch of conspiracy and then mashed them together. The fundamental core of what they're trying to be outraged about seems to actually be usage billing but they appear to have missed the boat on it slightly and have interpreted pay-per-bit as pay-per-site with a bit of the net neutrality and throttling debates thrown in for good measure.
I applaud the spirit of their message, they seem genuinely concerned about the internet and are trying to do their part in alerting the public but, again, unless there is a truly diabolical plot by some shadow government this is just FUD, well meaning or not. The author would do better to dig a little more, delve into the technical aspects and then participate in industry and public groups regarding the future of the internet.
Sadly many will jump right on this bandwagon and those that attempt to defuse the situation will not be heard or understood but in the end all will be surfing just fine, albeit probably a little faster, come 2010. I, for one, am not afraid.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
| |
Shriyash
Sungazer
Premium
join:2005-02-23
PuNe, InDiA
edit:
July 23rd, @08:37AM
| reply to Its a Secret
Thanks for posting.
If the illuminati (or whatever you wanna call it,ok?) have their way, internet strangulation is the next step.
Information is power, the elite 1% of the population wants to control the information, and keep the rest of the world from finding out how royally they are screwing we the people.
So this 'internet package' will only further brainwash the people into thinking what THEY want them to think.
Controlling what information people look at, they control how the masses will think, and worse, along what lines they will think. | |
N10Cities
Is it quittin' time yet?
join:2002-05-07
Podunk, AR
clubs: | reply to Its a Secret
I thought the walled garden approached died with AOL a few years ago.... don't see how it will work again.... folks won't accept it....  | |
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | reply to Its a Secret
If this comes to pass, Darknets completely out of reach
of their control will spring up like never before. | |
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA | reply to Its a Secret
That page needs more unsubstantiated claims and links to someone's blog. 10 more of each should be enough.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Sports Chat
| reply to Blackbird
It's easy to be dismissive of articles using phrases like "New World Order", etc. But doing some current reading outside this forum, elsewhere on this site, what is going on is tending in the direction the author cites. Bell Canada has, unilaterally and without prior notice, throttled customers of third-party providers using Bell's lines for part of their transport. There have been multiple articles on the front page about this, and numerous threads, mostly in the Teksavvy forum and some in the Sympatico forum. At the same time that Bell did this throttling, citing "congestion", they opened their new online video store.
Third party providers have challenged this, and when asked to support its assertions of "congestion" Bell has submitted data which does not support its assertions. They just did what they did. And if you have DSL in the eastern part of Canada the chances are excellent that it's throttling you, no matter what provider you pay for service.
There have been heads-ups by owners of 2 independent ISP's in Canada saying Bell Canada is next planning pay-per-use billing for all. That includes all third party ISP customers who use Bell lines for part of their transport. Bell Canada is a monopoly, by the way. And pay-per-use is suddenly going to look desirable to those whose use has recently been cut back by Bell Canada.
Were I an advocate or employee of a monopoly telco or monopoly cable provider in Canada, I would scoff at this talk as a silly quixotic bandwagon by clueless alarmists. I would take the issue apart into components, discuss each, say there is no pattern or plan. The fact that independent ISP owners are part of the group issuing the warnings makes it apparent that it's not quixotic, or silly. The fact that customers of independent ISP's are throttled at will by Bell Canada makes it more apparent.
Stay tuned.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex.. | |
kewlkeed
join:2005-02-05
Knowlton, QC
| reply to Its a Secret
What a load of garbage... Sheesh the sky is falling too ya know. 
There isn't an ISP on the planet that has the financial/personal/technological resources to make this happen. Such a thing would blow up so big in their face that it would be unreal. Take AOL's example of trying to do something even remotely close to this.
Most ISPs have trouble tracking routes and DNS, now to individually control each one as a "packaging" or pay per use deal?? Get real. | |
Krispy
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
| reply to fatness
said by fatness :It's easy to be dismissive of articles using phrases like "New World Order", etc. But doing some current reading outside this forum, elsewhere on this site, what is going on is tending in the direction the author cites. Bell Canada has, unilaterally and without prior notice, throttled customers of third-party providers using Bell's lines for part of their transport. There have been multiple articles on the front page about this, and numerous threads, mostly in the Teksavvy forum and some in the Sympatico forum. At the same time that Bell did this throttling, citing "congestion", they opened their new online video store. Third party providers have challenged this, and when asked to support its assertions of "congestion" Bell has submitted data which does not support its assertions. They just did what they did. And if you have DSL in the eastern part of Canada the chances are excellent that it's throttling you, no matter what provider you pay for service. Fine, the author should talk about usage billing or net neutrality then and not confuse the issues and make wholly unsubstantiated claims like "ISPs are going to charge you by the website". Doing so destroys credibility of the author and confuses the general public ergo neither side of the issue at hand gets real attention.
said by fatness :Were I an advocate or employee of a monopoly telco or monopoly cable provider in Canada, I would scoff at this talk as a silly quixotic bandwagon by clueless alarmists. I assume you mean "wouldn't scoff at this" - if so, I have indeed read the entire article, considered it and then decided that there's far too many credible authors making real claims regarding these issues for me to spend any further time dissecting this poorly researched and highly confusing article. Additionally it's been my experience that most (not all but most) alarmists authors like this and their audiences are not the rational debating types but rather choose to dismiss and/or attack anyone who may disagree with their opinion. I'm actually a huge fan of intelligent discussion and debate but I doubt I'd get any regarding this article if I actually tried to pursue it outside of this forum (even in this forum is debatable).
said by fatness :The fact that independent ISP owners are part of the group issuing the warnings makes it apparent that it's not quixotic, or silly. What independent ISP owner is issuing warnings that there's a secret plan to use Canada as a test bed for limited web surfing trials in 2010? I'm aware of most of their claims but have not see any such reference regarding this to date.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
| |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| I actually wound up running this report down a little last month, going so far to even talk on the phone to the kid who was supposedly crafting the article for Time. He was supposed to e-mail me absolutely any substantive proof of the claims from his sources, but I never received them.
Not that I doubt the incumbent telecom brain trust could devise a plan that billed by websites viewed, but I didn't find anything to substantiate the claims, and their major pushers were a group that includes the non-existent "Time reporter" who has never had an article published online, a Belgian "internet activist" who promised blowjobs to get elected to Belgian Congress, and a strange humor website that spams WOW gold.
This link posted above is a smarter re-write of the story that mixes in a lot of truths, but I still haven't seen any real confirmation that any ISP would plan to bill by the website.
They're having a hard enough time convincing the public they should pay more money and get less service (metered usage). Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it's one they'll never be able to implement. | |
Vista RTM
join:2006-09-13
ChilliwackBC
edit:
July 23rd, @10:31AM
| reply to Its a Secret
I think you already posted this topic.....
»Canadian ISPs Plan Net Censorship | |
Krispy
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Not that I doubt the incumbent telecom brain trust could devise a plan that billed by websites viewed, Also consider that, like most industries, there's often lots of discussion about lots of things that never materialize. Marketing depts aren't necessarily the most technical folk (much as I'm not the most marketing savvy folk) so sometimes crazy ideas come up but most never make it beyond the crazy idea stage. I consider this normal, it's their job to come up with crazy ideas and it's our (techs/engineers) job to hash out why that is or is not a good idea and advise them. The problems occur when someone hears something while it's still in the crazy idea stage and runs off to sound warning bells before bothering to hear the end result.
So, sure I don't doubt that some marketing person posited the idea at some point but it's my opinion that the effort involved in combination with the obvious consumer backlash would negate any benefit and that would be the message I would give my marketing group if they came to me with such an idea and I'm sure any other tech/engineering resource would do the same.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
| |
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by Krispy :So, sure I don't doubt that some marketing person posited the idea at some point but it's my opinion that the effort involved in combination with the obvious consumer backlash would negate any benefit and that would be the message I would give my marketing group if they came to me with such an idea and I'm sure any other tech/engineering resource would do the same. But, all-in-all, would your opinion really have a bearing one way or the other, if the company saw that they could turn a tidy profit in this endeavour?
What comes to mind with your comment, is the Cogeco curfuffle of last fall, when they instilled the hard caps and how they began enforcing them, and then killing the customer connection once reached. I'm not trying to re-hash a prior episode, but make a point.
There was major backlash in the forums as a result of this by many Cogeco subscribers. You yourself were very involved in the forum, responding to many posts. The general drift of the comments you made at the time, were that executive decisions were made, and whether you or other Cogeco rep's agreed with them or not, it was your job to impliment them. So in essence, taking your previous comments for face value, it wouldn't really have a bearing what recommendations or arguments you, or employees of any ISP, would/could make. If the BoD and exec's deem it beneficial to their bottom line, then it will be done. | |
Krispy
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
| said by Candoo3 :said by Krispy :So, sure I don't doubt that some marketing person posited the idea at some point but it's my opinion that the effort involved in combination with the obvious consumer backlash would negate any benefit and that would be the message I would give my marketing group if they came to me with such an idea and I'm sure any other tech/engineering resource would do the same. But, all-in-all, would your opinion really have a bearing one way or the other, if the company saw that they could turn a tidy profit in this endeavour? I like to think so and while I don't always get my way I do feel that I'm heard (maybe sometimes I have to yell ) and over the years I've seen many of these ideas get killed based on tech/engineering feedback.
said by Candoo3 :What comes to mind with your comment, is the Cogeco curfuffle of last fall, when they instilled the hard caps and how they began enforcing them, and then killing the customer connection once reached. I'm not trying to re-hash a prior episode, but make a point. There was major backlash in the forums as a result of this by many Cogeco subscribers. You yourself were very involved in the forum, responding to many posts. The general drift of the comments you made at the time, were that executive decisions were made, and whether you or other Cogeco rep's agreed with them or not, it was your job to impliment them. So in essence, taking your previous comments for face value, it wouldn't really have a bearing what recommendations or arguments you, or employees of any ISP, would/could make. If the BoD and exec's deem it beneficial to their bottom line, then it will be done. I'm not going to rehash it either but your point is valid so I'll comment on it. There are obviously things I cannot fully detail in a public forum and while I *personally* may not have agreed with everything that was done at the time I did/do support the fundamental technical aspects of the change. Also, I'm just one of Cogeco's tech/engineering resources and while it's just my word to you guys I can guarantee you that MUCH discussion occurred for a longtime regarding that change so it definitely wasn't marketing et al. ordering us to make a senseless change.
And sure, I'm not an idiot (I think!) so I know that not all companies are the same and I'm sure there's sometimes senseless changes being ORDERED from on-high however typically you'll see those be reversed and/or you'll see the company get hurt financially or get new leaders, etc.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
| |
ultracooldave
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to Its a Secret
I would pay whatever it takes for high speed, its our last freedom. I am already assuming it will be more costly - by eliminating regular phones lines and even Vonage for the MagicJack, I refuse to consider cell phone "contracts" anymore prefering unlocked phones and the "go Phone'-these things free up money to spend on the internet if I have to. | |
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Sports Chat
| reply to Krispy
said by Krispy : I'm actually a huge fan of intelligent discussion and debate but I doubt I'd get any regarding this article if I actually tried to pursue it outside of this forum (even in this forum is debatable). said by Krispy :There are obviously things I cannot fully detail in a public forum and while I *personally* may not have agreed with everything that was done at the time I did/do support the fundamental technical aspects of the change. Saying you're in favor of intelligent discussion, and saying that you're obligated not to buck the company line on some issues contains a basic contradiction. It casts no aspersions on you as a person, I trust you a great deal. But when people you're discussing things with are accurate, and you cannot say so due to conditions of employment, I think you can see that that undercuts intelligent discussion. Perhaps even this one.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex.. | |
Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
July 23rd, @12:50PM
| reply to fatness
said by fatness :...But doing some current reading outside this forum, elsewhere on this site, what is going on is tending in the direction the author cites. Bell Canada has, unilaterally and without prior notice, throttled customers of third-party providers using Bell's lines for part of their transport. ... At the same time that Bell did this throttling, citing "congestion", they opened their new online video store. Third party providers have challenged this, and when asked to support its assertions of "congestion" Bell has submitted data which does not support its assertions. ... There have been heads-ups by owners of 2 independent ISP's in Canada saying Bell Canada is next planning pay-per-use billing for all. That includes all third party ISP customers who use Bell lines for part of their transport. Bell Canada is a monopoly, by the way. And pay-per-use is suddenly going to look desirable to those whose use has recently been cut back by Bell Canada. ... To my thinking, there's a major difference between controlling traffic rates and volume across your data lines (or pricing them according to volume used at any given time) and regulating what sites customers can access, either by interception or preferrential pricing rules. In one sense, dial-up technology itself represents an inherent throttling of data flow rates... DSL technology also represents a similar throttling. Neither technology is necessarily operated nor maintained at their maximum possible data rates. At the trunk levels, certainly "artificial" throttling of 3rd-party customer traffic is a debatable practice - and is its own controversial issue that hasn't reflected well on the key carriers involved. Pay-per-use edited to add: (at a fixed, even rate per call or use) is simply another telecom business model that has many-years' precedence in phone service all over the world... not necessarily the best model for high-volume customers, but a long-time model nevertheless.
However, a critical "electro-political" line is crossed when one extrapolates these traffic level-related business practices and corporate behaviors into business models that would govern, by price or outright dictate, a customer's access to specific 3rd-party web sites - either singly or in bundles. The Internet has more in common with telephony than with television... like a telephone, it is a two-way communications medium, whereas television is traditionally a one-way communications media (whether delivered via broadcast or cable). And in the two-way communications arena, customers, regulators, and even the comm carriers themselves have always taken an extremely dim and critical view of any communications business models that impinge on unfettered, evenly balanced access to all terminals of the system.
IMHO, it's right to always question what games corporations might be playing at any given time. And it's right to crawl all over legislators and regulators when monopolistic practices surface or business models threaten to be implemented that impinge on free speech or balanced access for and to all citizens or opinions. Indeed, this all bears close watching, particularly by Canadians at the moment.
But to argue that the "death of the free Internet is imminent" is to ignore the very large philosophical differences between regulating data rates over one's own lines and interfering with open access to specific information sources or customers over a system that is far larger than one's own portion of it. I believe those large differences will have profound impact on: the success of such a business model in the market, the attitude of regulators/legislators on the very real 'freedom' issues raised, and on the corporations themselves as they come to realize the hornet's nest they've stirred up. And, at the end of the day, I have an equally hard time believing that enough corporate inertia across the broad industry will accumulate in the face of such negative realities that such a business model will spread very far. The imminent death of the free Internet has been greatly overblown.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... | |
-
|
