CFWhitman

They essentially stopped development after the last DOS based Windows was released, which was Windows ME, around 2000, when MS-DOS was officially retired. I think that was why it wasn't officially retired before that. They still needed it to make the consumer versions of Windows work. The last standalone MS-DOS was 6.22, but in Windows 98 when you entered real mode, you got MS-DOS 7. You couldn't enter real mode in ME, but I suspect that it would still have had 7.x as a version number.

Of course PC-DOS (IBM's DOS) had it's last release after the last standalone MS-DOS, and DR-DOS (Digital Research and later Novell's DOS version) was used for embedded systems for quite a while after that. (I think it still is sometimes, but FreeDOS just makes more sense at this point.)

That's an interesting take on the situation, but it's not accurate.

Every company is interested in maximizing profit and minimizing expense. So, yes, these companies that are lobbying for Net Neutrality are concerned about themselves rather than you. However, this by itself does not prove that your interests would be better served without Net Neutrality.

People thinking about this issue should be aware that Net Neutrality is what we've always had up till now. The rules about it are to prevent things from changing rather than to change things.

The post is rather so much nonsense because the only costs of infrastructure to the ISP are the costs of its customers, not Netflix's ability to upload content (unless Netflix is one of their customers). The infrastructure being in place at the ISP's end is necessary for the customers to get low latency, high bandwidth connections for whatever use they want to put them to, not just Netflix. If the customer doesn't want any service or use of the Internet that requires this, he is welcome to go to a lower tier of service right down to a dial-up connection if he wants.

Yes infrastructure to support everyone who wants to stream video over their network connection is expensive to the ISP, but that expense is unavoidable unless the ISP expects everyone to just stop wanting to stream video and settle back into their cable TV service (actually that would be just fine with most ISPs, because then they get to make their extraordinary fees on cable TV service).

The ISP who wants to charge Netflix for all the data that they upload can already do that. This does not make it so consumers have to foot a bill for services they don't need. That's so much nonsense.

The real issue is that ISPs want to replace the revenue they are losing from cancellation of cable services. The monopoly that the cable industry has enjoyed in this country for so long is finally losing its effectiveness. As long as Net Neutrality continues, ISPs can only charge you for the amount of data you pay for access to, rather than charging you based upon what data is available to you. That burns them up because that's how they've been making huge profits for the last forty plus years.

If you really believe that the person on that Web site has no bias about this issue, then I might have bridge or some land in Florida on the market that could interest you.