Yet another reason why anti-trust laws screw the consumer. Who gains from removing built in features from Windows (such as IE and Windows Media Player)? If they're free, who cares? And now security features are being removed because it's "not fair." Again, who gains from this? I also find it interesting that only microsoft is being forced to remove stuff from their operating systems. Why not remove Quicktime from Apple computers? That's just as unfair as it is to have Windows Media Player on Windows PC's.
On another note, this kinda kills the whole "It's Microsoft's fault for any virii that get on my computer" argument. This basically frees Microsoft from having to be responsible for any Windows malware.
If the market isn't providing enough incentive, then the market doesn't really want more innovation/services, which means it would be wasteful and rather stupid for corporations to innovate. Once the general public (because this is what the French service is catering to) actually wants huge bandwidth, you can bet that companies will be falling over themselves to provide it. Right now though, only a small percentage of people will actually find a benefit from a higher bandwidth internet connection. The general public's internet usage consists mainly of surfing the web. How many Mb/s do you need for that?
Abusing how?
For that matter, where's the monopoly? As has been pointed out many times on slashdot, Linux is a perfectly viable alternative.
No one is forced to use Microsoft software. They offer a product, and if people don't like it, they don't have to use it. If the EU doesn't want to use linux, fine, but does that give them the right to dictate what the software they choose to use must do?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the LoTR trilogy was funded by New Zealand, not New Line. The risks New Line took were actually fairly minimal, all things considered.
Yet another reason why anti-trust laws screw the consumer. Who gains from removing built in features from Windows (such as IE and Windows Media Player)? If they're free, who cares? And now security features are being removed because it's "not fair." Again, who gains from this? I also find it interesting that only microsoft is being forced to remove stuff from their operating systems. Why not remove Quicktime from Apple computers? That's just as unfair as it is to have Windows Media Player on Windows PC's.
On another note, this kinda kills the whole "It's Microsoft's fault for any virii that get on my computer" argument. This basically frees Microsoft from having to be responsible for any Windows malware.
If the market isn't providing enough incentive, then the market doesn't really want more innovation/services, which means it would be wasteful and rather stupid for corporations to innovate. Once the general public (because this is what the French service is catering to) actually wants huge bandwidth, you can bet that companies will be falling over themselves to provide it. Right now though, only a small percentage of people will actually find a benefit from a higher bandwidth internet connection. The general public's internet usage consists mainly of surfing the web. How many Mb/s do you need for that?
Abusing how? For that matter, where's the monopoly? As has been pointed out many times on slashdot, Linux is a perfectly viable alternative. No one is forced to use Microsoft software. They offer a product, and if people don't like it, they don't have to use it. If the EU doesn't want to use linux, fine, but does that give them the right to dictate what the software they choose to use must do?