From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: clemc@ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:54:44 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ] In-Reply-To: <201712061849.vB6InBKS031624@darkstar.fourwinds.com> References: <20171206010736.GA16514@minnie.tuhs.org> <1512576671.3978479.1196132360.0C9F95D9@webmail.messagingengine.com> <201712061615.vB6GFKYd013874@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <201712061849.vB6InBKS031624@darkstar.fourwinds.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Jon Steinhart wrote: > > There's another aspect of this that I think that many people misunderstand > which is that Judge Green gave AT&T exactly what they wanted. AT&T knew > that in the future the money was in data and were willing to trade their > monopoly for that business. From their perspective, it worked. For the > rest of us, not so good. > > Some of us remember the days in which phones were reliable and you could > understand the person on the other end. Or when your phone lasted 60+ > years. Or the current debate about whether it's ok to eliminate exchange > powered phones that work in an emergency. > > During the primaries when Ted Cruz would stand up and hold a dial phone > and say "this is what government regulation got you" I always thought > "Yeah, give me more of that. It's 60 years old, still works better than > what you can get today, and if you hurl it across the room it'll still > work which is more than you can say for anything made post-split." > > Not to mention it ended one of the best research labs in history. ​Amen brother Jon....​ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: