I don't know if you're just nitpicking, but try to see it this way.

- the recording industry lobbied for this bill
- the government passes the bill (not yet, but hypothetically)
- the bill forces raised cost for internet providers
- the cost will be passed on to customers

How is this different from a tax? And your use of scare quotes around tax makes it even more right: it definitely is a "tax".

The point is, if there would not be a recording industry or powerful lobby, this law would not have been proposed. The only reason that the recording industry is trying to get bills like this passed is because they're not making a profit like they're used to. They're not making that profit because they lost the easy (government supported!) monopoly on distribution. They lost it because the internet made it easy to copy material. The entire point of the story is that because the recording industries did not update their business model, they're not making the profit which they feel they're entitled to.

Sure, you and I know this. Slashdot knows this. Over here, it's like preaching to the choir, but you'll be amazed at how many people think that the RIAAs of this world are decent and right, while downloading the latest Britney from the Piratebay.

Or my client could pay me 'money' to create these alternate versions you speak of.

What's the problem? You can buy a netbook from any number of manufacturers. If a "Mac user" really wants a netbook, he can get one as well. He could even put OSX on it, although not legally. If these Mac users really really want an Apple Mac, they've probably weighed the pros and the cons and found that the Mac has more benefits for them that make it worth lugging around a larger piece of hardware.

So, what's the exact problem? There are so many people whining about what Apple is and is not selling them, I just don't get it. Apple is doing terrific even though the economy is in a major slump. I think they're on to something.

Except when they still ass rape you for killing their system. Yes, this happens. You're the admin, you're responsible! Sucks to be you! Sure, you have some bullshit in writing, but who cares? Go look for another job! Oh, you want to sue us now? Go right ahead, see who has the deeper pockets.

Either way, you lose.

Why? The internet is many-to-many, but that includes one-to-many. So what if the public can talk back? Either the tv-sites are going to do something with the feedback (interactive gameshow?) or they're not going to offer a service that permits backtalk.

What's more, the internet routes around damage. TV signals don't, or at least not as easily. Given enough servers (host @ Google?) the internet is a far better way to deliver disaster updates, from a technical point of view.

What's the problem?

Then again, your vote counts more than all those suckers' packed up in the cities, so there's that.

...while Google's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online... There is only one way that newspapers can break out of the prison...

Or they could find other ways to make money with news online in this new century. Looking at the Netherlands, nu.nl (Dutch online newspaper, started out as a news aggregator, employs its own journalists now) is doing fine. Bailing out of Google is bad for traffic, even if Bing would start to see more users. If there's something that newspapers do not want, it's less traffic to their sites. So, if they're not stupid, they'd find some other way to make money and just stay listed in the Google index (and with Bing and all the others).

That's a big "if", though.

That's rich. First you disregard the correct terms the law has set for copyright infringement and theft of property, then you admonish people for not obeying that same law. All without the use of proper punctuation!

> ultimately that will screw poor people who don't have money to buy it.

You mean HEALTHY poor people.

Well, that's not true. If a company fucks something up, like take stock value over efficient delivery of the goods they provide, or prefer short term profit over long term investments, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Sure, you can go to a "competitor" who is equally bad because their bottom line is stock value as well, not consumer satisfaction or crap like that. How is that free market thing working out for you?

At least with a government run utility, you can vote them out of office. I totally agree that that's not working out for most Americans either, but at least you can theoretically change that with your vote.

Also, you don't really think you're not paying for the private companies' investments, right? You're paying for them after the fact, which is good, but you keep on paying for them even when they're paid off. Which bad, unless you own stock in the company... which you're funding by yourself, partly.

Please read the GP. He's talking about the difference between Miss Kittin and Scooter. Scooter! There's a difference between "broadening your taste" and licking out a septic tank.

Are you aware of the Chrome (not Chromium) binaries?

http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel scroll down to Mac and download the dmg.

Exclusivity agreement with the telco.

Though your point is fair, the other side is what you have now. Bottom line is (short term) profit measured in dollars American, not customer satisfaction or cultural significance or being leaders in the online community or any of that socialist crap. Shiny green dollars.
So what if you live in a moderately large city without a good deal on dsl? So what if your neighboring city does have decent broadband? So what if your connection is flaky? There is no competition due to the exclusive license and the way to make the most money is to squeeze every last cent out of you through dialup, then low cost dsl.
Sure, there's loads of dark fiber, but that would screw with the current business model.

All the while, Japan and Europe, especially Scandinavia, are laughing at your slow and expensive connections.

See, I understand where this is coming from, the status quo and a thorough belief in free markets and all. What I don't understand is that if there's a clearly better alternative that would involve government involvement or anything remotely socialist, suddenly loads of people (who would directly benefit from the change!) are against it.

"What is a Social Contract?"

Correct! For $1000!