Search forums

Forums

Export thread

The Internet will never satisfy its lust for Net Neutrality and Bandwidth

Limit: 500

Jan 2, 2015#1

GasBandit

Google Fiber’s latest FCC filing is Comcast’s nightmare come to life. Basically it says that if ISPs are classified as Title 2 carriers, Google Fiber will get access to utility poles (something they lack now), and thus be able to spread to more places much faster. Screw you, cable companies, you brought this on yourselves.

Jan 2, 2015#2

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
Google Fiber’s latest FCC filing is Comcast’s nightmare come to life. Basically it says that if ISPs are classified as Title 2 carriers, Google Fiber will get access to utility poles (something they lack now), and thus be able to spread to more places much faster. Screw you, cable companies, you brought this on yourselves.

Just to clarify, it's not just poles, but other infastructure as well. Hopefully this includes underground as well as above. Just one more reason that internet should be classified as a utility, which it is at this point.

Sadly, this may not make a difference to apartment dwellers, but one can hope.

Jan 7, 2015#3

PatrThom

Also, this headline made me grin a happy/evil grin.
Only 25Mbps and up will qualify as broadband under new FCC definition

--Patrick

Jan 7, 2015#4

Ravenpoe

PatrThom said:
Also, this headline made me grin a happy/evil grin.
Only 25Mbps and up will qualify as broadband under new FCC definition

--Patrick

And I'm back to not having broadband.

Jan 7, 2015#5

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
And I'm back to not having broadband.

The difference is, now the company not providing you broadband can't tell the government they are.

Jan 8, 2015#6

PatrThom

Title II for Internet providers is all but confirmed by FCC chairman

--Patrick

Jan 8, 2015#7

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Title II for Internet providers is all but confirmed by FCC chairman

--Patrick

Jan 8, 2015#8

Bubble181

GasBandit said:

We'll get a non-ironic "thanks, Obama" out of you yet

Jan 8, 2015#9

DarkAudit

Bubble181 said:
We'll get a non-ironic "thanks, Obama" out of you yet

Jan 8, 2015#10

Dave

I have been a big fan of my local cable company and have phones/cable/internet through them. If this happens and we can get Google Fiber, I will dump them like a bad dream. I'll get VOIP and stream TV. My only issue will be sporting events. It's impossible to get NFL games without Direct TV or cable.

Jan 8, 2015#11

Shakey

It's good to know the 7 million my telephone provider got from the government to give me high speed Internet just last year was wasted. I'll no longer qualify as having high speed Internet. Money well spent.

Jan 8, 2015#12

PatrThom

Dave said:
I have been a big fan of my local cable company and have phones/cable/internet through them. If this happens and we can get Google Fiber, I will dump them like a bad dream. I'll get VOIP and stream TV. My only issue will be sporting events. It's impossible to get NFL games without Direct TV or cable.

It'll become a lot easier to get NFL games when no network carries them any longer and it's "Stream it yourself or get lower ratings than chess competitions."

--Patrick

Jan 9, 2015#13

DarkAudit

Dave said:
I have been a big fan of my local cable company and have phones/cable/internet through them. If this happens and we can get Google Fiber, I will dump them like a bad dream. I'll get VOIP and stream TV. My only issue will be sporting events. It's impossible to get NFL games without Direct TV or cable.

You live in Omaha. Don't you have OTA stations? It's a whole lot flatter there, so you shouldn't need a 400' tower to get the nearest CBS or fox station like I do.

Jan 9, 2015#14

bhamv3

Aww... I'm back to having narrow-band Internet because I'm too cheap to get a package that offers more than 12Mb/s.

Jan 9, 2015#15

Dave

DarkAudit said:
You live in Omaha. Don't you have OTA stations? It's a whole lot flatter there, so you shouldn't need a 400' tower to get the nearest CBS or fox station like I do.

Yeah, I have to get an antenna.

Jan 9, 2015#16

GasBandit

You guys lamenting you're "back to narrowband" are missing the point. The ISPs got federal money to get you guys broadband, but you don't have broadband. They just SAID you do so they could get the federal money. Your actual internet access is the same as it was, but now if the ISPs are going to want that federal money, they're gonna have to get you ACTUAL BROADBAND.

Jan 9, 2015#17

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
if the ISPs are going to want that federal money, they're gonna have to get you ACTUAL BROADBAND.

Oh no, I totally get it. It's put up or shut up time. They either put up the broadband (as advertised) or else the gvt will shut up its subsidy wallet. :devil:

--Patrick

Jan 9, 2015#18

Shakey

PatrThom said:
Oh no, I totally get it. It's put up or shut up time. They either put up the broadband (as advertised) or else the gvt will shut up its subsidy wallet.

--Patrick

I'll believe it when I see it.

Jan 9, 2015#19

PatrThom

Shakey said:
I'll believe it when I see it.

Shh. Let me dream.

--Patrick

Jan 29, 2015#20

GasBandit

Not bandwidth/neutrality related per se, but it's good to see common sense out of the FCC -

FCC Confirms hotels (or anyone else) blocking your wifi hotspot is illegal

Jan 29, 2015#21

Dave

And:

FTC says Unlimited Data with Throttling doesn't count as Unlimited

Jan 29, 2015#22

GasBandit

Boy, I hope all this common sense good news isn't building us up for a massive whedon-whiplash vis a vis the official death of net neutrality.

Jan 29, 2015#23

PatrThom

Today's the day they're supposed to vote on the official definition/classification of Broadband, too.

--Patrick

Jan 29, 2015#24

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Today's the day they're supposed to vote on the official definition/classification of Broadband, too.

--Patrick

It's official, if they want to claim they got you broadband, it has to be 25 megabit or better.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/interne...-sets-new-definition-broadband-speeds-n296276

Jan 29, 2015#25

PatrThom

No word on the minimum definition for UPload speed, though.

--Patrick

Jan 29, 2015#26

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
No word on the minimum definition for UPload speed, though.

--Patrick

Twitter says 25/3.

Jan 29, 2015#27

jwhouk

Oops. I just did a speed test an I'm only at 21/4.

Jan 29, 2015#28

PatrThom

Ugh.

--Patrick

Jan 29, 2015#29

GasBandit

My workplace is no longer broadband, too. I get 50 down at home (but only like 4 up)... here at work we're 16 up 16 down.

Jan 29, 2015#30

SpecialKO

*Phew* I was worried for a second.

Jan 29, 2015#31

Bubble181

I may or may not have a fairly decent connection at work.

Jan 29, 2015#32

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
View attachment 17373

And that's exactly why this came about. The US lags behind europe in broadband so badly it's like they're not even running the same race. Let the ISPs squall like infants with their lollies taken away, they've been getting fat off sub-par service for decades now, and it's time to reap what they have sown.

Jan 29, 2015#33

Dei

*sigh*

Jan 29, 2015#34

GasBandit

GasBandit said:
You guys lamenting you're "back to narrowband" are missing the point. The ISPs got federal money to get you guys broadband, but you don't have broadband. They just SAID you do so they could get the federal money. Your actual internet access is the same as it was, but now if the ISPs are going to want that federal money, they're gonna have to get you ACTUAL BROADBAND.

Jan 29, 2015#35

Dei

I'm not complaining, I just don't actually see Comcast fixing our shit anytime soon.

Jan 29, 2015#36

GasBandit

Dei said:
I'm not complaining, I just don't actually see Comcast fixing our shit anytime soon.

Depends on how bad they want that subsidy money to go to them instead of their potential competition/municipal broadband solution, I suppose.

Jan 29, 2015#37

Dei

Well I see them fixing their shit quickly in the next town over, because they are about to open up town owned fiber to the masses. But there is no competition for here except terrible DSL so I think it will be slow.

Jan 29, 2015#38

jwhouk

Last Result:
Download Speed: 65.97 Mbps (8.25 MB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 4.34 Mbps (0.54 MB/sec transfer rate)
Latency: 13 ms
Jitter: 9 ms

1/29/2015, 7:00:07 PM

That was Charter's test on its own through Ookla. I went to Ookla's servers:

Jan 29, 2015#39

Shakey

GasBandit said:
Depends on how bad they want that subsidy money to go to them instead of their potential competition/municipal broadband solution, I suppose.

What will happen is they'll whine that it'll cost too much, and get even more money from the government to update their infrastructure. Unless of course it's in a well populated area that can foster a lot of competition. And what about all the places that still have a government enforced monopoly? They still have no incentive to do anything.

Jan 29, 2015#40

GasBandit

Shakey said:
What will happen is they'll whine that it'll cost too much, and get even more money from the government to update their infrastructure. Unless of course it's in a well populated area that can foster a lot of competition. And what about all the places that still have a government enforced monopoly? They still have no incentive to do anything.

We can only hope the FCC continues to make sound decisions, realizing that the true path to innovation and cost effectiveness is through competition, and breaks monopolies wherever it can find them.

Jan 29, 2015#41

PatrThom

PatrThom said:
View attachment 17372
Ugh.

I just want to point out that this is my actual usual speed.
I also want to point out that I often get less than this at work.

I am extreeeemely interested in how this whole situation plays out, especially since it means I might finally be able to get decent Internet speed at my home. I live just one block (literally just under 500 feet) from this area's AT&T distribution node (the "terrorist target" type of node), and less than 1000 feet from another commercial provider's actual backbone (which for some reason detours around our downtown, probably due to pole placement), but we still can't get service > 25Mb/s, and even if we "settle" for the 25, the only carrier who'd bring it to our house is Charter, and we'd have to pay them about $75/mo for that privilege.

--Patrick

Jan 29, 2015#42

Shakey

I will admit that this is a good start. Hopefully the trend continues. I just don't see this changing much other than giving the ISP's an excuse to squeeze more money out of us and the government.

Jan 29, 2015#43

PatrThom

Ideally what will happen is that the bigger ISPs that constantly whine, "Oh, we can't do all of that rollout. It would be soooooo expeeeeeensiiiiive" will start to lose subscribers to the other, smaller companies/municipalities that are more than willing to accept the federal subsidies to build out infrastructure at a less inflated cost, and they will come to realize that they had better also get with the program unless they want to go the way of the Pony Express and the telegraph.

--Patrick

Jan 29, 2015#44

Ravenpoe

Where I live, we -still- don't even have any hard cable isp's. We can't even get cable television. And DSL? Pfft, what's that? Hell, we don't even have over the air tv out here, your only sources for connectivity are satellite for tv/internet or cellular.

Jan 30, 2015#45

Eriol

My craptacular DSL:

And that's the BEST result I've ever seen from this type of test.

What burns more is that the next community of any size up the road (admittedly, 120 miles up the road) is getting 75Mbps down and 30 up for cheaper, or 150 down, 30 up, and the greater of those is the SAME PRICE SAME COMPANY!!!! %$(*#$@(*$#@)$(!!!!! They don't have fibre here, but they have it there. GRRRR!!!

Jan 30, 2015#46

PatrThom

Eriol said:
that's the BEST result I've ever seen from this type of test.

I can now say that my Internet speed is on par with that delivered to northeastern Canada.

--Patrick

Feb 2, 2015#47

GasBandit

And now the FCC is looking at squashing state laws that were put in place to hamper municipal broadband deployment in favor of perpetuating cable mega-monopolies.

http://techraptor.net/content/fcc-fights-public-broadband-service

Feb 2, 2015#48

Dei

Oh god, so the town next to us tried for years to pass a measure to allow this massive fiber optic loop under the town to also be used domestically instead of just for businesses. The amount of money the big companies dumped into the campaign against it was hilarious. They succeeded the first time but lost the second.

Feb 4, 2015#49

evilmike

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler said:
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission.
(via Gizmodo)

Feb 4, 2015#50

Covar

The article I saw didn't have the quote and left out the paid part of paid prioritization, which really bugged me. While I still feel that busting up then regulating infrastructure from the content and internet providers would lead to better service, look at any market where customers have competition between broadband providers (not DSL), this is better than what we could have.

Feb 4, 2015#51

grub

What's so bad about DSL? I have customers on 100Mbps on it, as long as you are near to the port.

Feb 4, 2015#52

DarkAudit

grub said:
What's so bad about DSL? I have customers on 100Mbps on it, as long as you are near to the port.

You're dependent on the quality of the copper at the utility poles. In some cases copper dating back to the Truman administration. Those lines are insulated with pulp, essentially paper. And the outer casing has been exposed to decades upon decades of weather. Meaning they leak. In a heavy rain, the lines fill with water and bye bye goes the DSL. In a hard enough rain, the rest of the phone service goes with it.

I could tell within a a five-minute window when my DSL would go out just by looking at the weather radar. Verizon's answer to the downpour outside? "Reboot Windows."

Feb 4, 2015#53

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
You're dependent on the quality of the copper at the utility poles.

...and the quality of the home wiring. Many homes still have two-pair wiring at best, and who knows what all else attached to the line.

--Patrick

Feb 4, 2015#54

grub

There is that. We have mostly new wiring around here (thanks to copper thieves), and I always try to run a new cat5 if I can. You can typically hide it pretty well.

We are running a lot of fibre to the home now. I am jus waiting for my splicing kit.

Feb 4, 2015#55

Shakey

He's done a lot more than I thought he would. This will definitely be a step in the right direction. Too bad the last mile won't be touched. Not many companies have big enough pockets to lay all that infrastructure.

Feb 4, 2015#56

PatrThom

Shakey said:
Not many companies have big enough pockets to lay all that infrastructure.

Oh, they do, and they would, except that since there's no protocol/infrastructure interoperability standard, nobody wants to be the one to string all that cable and then have fiber win out, or vice versa, or have some miracle occur with DSL (i.e., copper) that has it come from behind to bury the both of them.

I'd rather see municipalities be responsible for their own loop, and just have that hook up to the backbone providers at some trunk point, and it looks like that could potentially be what eventually happens.

--Patrick

Feb 7, 2015#57

Frank

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...a-had-improper-influence-over-net-neutrality/

Soooo, uh, what are they going to find? That he didn't get enough money from telecoms?

Feb 19, 2015#58

GasBandit

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-customer-that-data-caps-are-mandated-by-law/

Comcast agent tells customer that data caps are mandated by law. Someone needs to go to jail for this shit. You can't fine them, they'll just pass that on to the consumer in rates and fees. JAIL.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...tomer-ct-after-she-reports-cable-box-problem/

Time warner customer reports a cable box problem, TWC calls her a cunt and disconnects her service.

Feb 19, 2015#59

PatrThom

I see that AT&T is still rolling out their gigabit service at a very Google-like price of $70/mo but with their usual catch...

AT&T's $70 per-month pricing for gigabit service is the same price as Google Fiber, but AT&T charges an additional $29 a month to customers who opt out of AT&T's "Internet Preferences" program.

What program is that, you ask? Why, it's the DPI program where AT&T...

...tracks "the webpages you visit, the time you spend on each, the links or ads you see and follow, and the search terms you enter... AT&T Internet Preferences works independently of your browser's privacy settings regarding cookies, do-not-track, and private browsing. If you opt-in to AT&T Internet Preferences, AT&T will still be able to collect and use your Web browsing information independent of those settings." [...] If you chose to participate in the AT&T Internet Preferences program, your Internet traffic is routed to AT&T's Internet Preferences web browsing and analytics platform. If you chose not to participate in the AT&T Internet Preferences program, your Internet traffic is not routed to the Internet Preferences analytics platform.

Oh, but...

"AT&T may collect and use web browsing information for other purposes, as described in our Privacy Policy, even if you do not participate in the Internet Preferences program."

So why should I pay $30 extra if you're just going to collect my data anyway???
If that's how it's gonna be, I'd rather pay a VPN that $30/mo just to slam the door in AT&Ts face.

--Patrick

Feb 26, 2015#60

PatrThom

Welp, they did it.

The [new?] core net neutrality provisions are bans on blocking and throttling traffic, a ban on paid prioritization, and a requirement to disclose network management practices. Broadband providers will not be allowed to block or degrade access to legal content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices or favor some traffic over others in exchange for payment. There are exceptions for "reasonable network management" and certain data services that don't use the "public Internet." Those include heart monitoring services and the Voice over Internet Protocol services offered by home Internet providers. The reasonable network management exception applies to blocking and throttling but not paid prioritization.

--Patrick

Feb 26, 2015#61

grub

Being Canadian I'm not sure how the FCC is run but, thanks Obama?

Feb 26, 2015#62

GasBandit

It's not title 2 carrier status, but it's a step in the right direction.

Now comes the frantic wiggling to try to squeeze malevolent practices through loopholes.

Feb 26, 2015#63

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Now comes the frantic wiggling to try to squeeze malevolent practices through loopholes.

--Patrick

Feb 26, 2015#64

GasBandit

I stand corrected, apparently it IS title 2 common carrier status. So yay.

http://techreport.com/news/27867/isps-to-be-common-carriers-under-new-fcc-rules

Feb 26, 2015#65

GasBandit

SQUEAL LIKE A PIG YOU SHITS

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

LEMME SEE YOU RUB YOUR NIPPLES NOW.

COMPETITION.

Feb 26, 2015#66

Krisken

GasBandit said:
SQUEAL LIKE A PIG YOU SHITS

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

LEMME SEE YOU RUB YOUR NIPPLES NOW.

COMPETITION.

I like it very much.

Feb 26, 2015#67

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
SQUEAL LIKE A PIG YOU SHITS

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

LEMME SEE YOU RUB YOUR NIPPLES NOW.

COMPETITION.

This might be my favorite post of yours, ever.

Feb 26, 2015#68

Krisken

GasBandit said:
SQUEAL LIKE A PIG YOU SHITS

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

LEMME SEE YOU RUB YOUR NIPPLES NOW.

COMPETITION.

I do admit, I'm a little surprised you're ok with this. I know you like competition, but I figured you'd be against this particular because it pits private companies against government, generally considered an unfair advantage because the city won't need to make a profit necessarily, just cover costs in whatever way necessary (taxes, etc).

Not complaining, mind you. I think the competition would be good for society, as it would be in a couple other instances (health care insurance). Just surprised me is all.

Feb 26, 2015#69

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I do admit, I'm a little surprised you're ok with this. I know you like competition, but I figured you'd be against this particular because it pits private companies against government, generally considered an unfair advantage because the city won't need to make a profit necessarily, just cover costs in whatever way necessary (taxes, etc).

Not complaining, mind you. I think the competition would be good for society, as it would be in a couple other instances (health care insurance). Just surprised me is all.

Well, I might feel differently if the private providers hadn't spent my entire adult life being complete and utter fucksticks that would make the days of the Ma Bell monopoly look like a county fair.

Granted, I do have concerns about one or two little super-tiny addenda that were quietly put in it that, under certain interpretations, could lead to horrifying abuses of power, but shit, we have that now. It's not like the NSA hasn't already tapped every single one of our cell phones and put spyware in all of our harddrive firmwares already.

We're too far gone down the dystopian road, I want my handbasket to have good internet on the way to hell.

Feb 26, 2015#70

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Well, I might feel differently if the private providers hadn't spent my entire adult life being complete and utter fucksticks that would make the days of the Ma Bell monopoly look like a county fair.

Granted, I do have concerns about one or two little super-tiny addenda that were quietly put in it that, under certain interpretations, could lead to horrifying abuses of power, but shit, we have that now. It's not like the NSA hasn't already tapped every single one of our cell phones and put spyware in all of our harddrive firmwares already.

We're too far gone down the dystopian road, I want my handbasket to have good internet on the way to hell.

Hey, fair enough.

Feb 26, 2015#71

Terrik

There sure is a lot of Republican whining over this. Get with the program guys, this is good for everybody.

Feb 26, 2015#72

jwhouk

I've already seen a "ban title II" ad on cable.

Feb 26, 2015#73

Ravenpoe

Terrik said:
There sure is a lot of Republican whining over this. Get with the program guys, this is good for everybody.

Not the cable companies/isps who have been getting away with murder and anti-consumer practices. And that means less money funneled into politicians pockets, so of course they're against it.

Feb 26, 2015#74

GasBandit

Terrik said:
There sure is a lot of Republican whining over this. Get with the program guys, this is good for everybody.

Cable and wireless companies have a LOT of money to throw around... who's a big corp gonna bankroll, a DEMOCRAT?

Feb 26, 2015#75

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
SQUEAL LIKE A PIG YOU SHITS

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

LEMME SEE YOU RUB YOUR NIPPLES NOW.

COMPETITION.

Hey, if it'll finally end the possibility of being locked into contracts forcing customers to acquire and pay for 25 to 75 years of crappy service whether they want it or not, I'm all for it.

--Patrick

Feb 26, 2015#76

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Cable and wireless companies have a LOT of money to throw around... who's a big corp gonna bankroll, a DEMOCRAT?

Yes, though admittedly less than a Republican.

Feb 26, 2015#77

figmentPez

My mom forwarded this email to me, that she got from a friend. The whole thing was in comic sans, so you know it's good.

greetings –

I really wasn’t aware of this until end of last week when glenn beck had one of only 2 republican fcc commissioners on – a whistleblower. net neutrality – sounds good doesn’t it – JUST LIKE OBAMACARE SOUNDED GOOD.

remember: if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?

well that same song and dance number worked SO well last time that it’s back for a reprise, simple translation: DON’T BUY INTO THE BS

these wonderfully worded letters from true believers (example letter below) would have you support net neutrality so that the service providers don’t slow down your speed – it’s hype people, that’s how they get you ta rear up appalled by such treatment and vote the way they want you to, the end result will not be a speedier inet – that’s already happening by virtue of simple customer demand (just think, can you remember as far back as a mere 10 years ago – waiting for a phone to dial in to a mysterious place to connect you and you paid by the minute and things took forever, you’d NEVER download a movie in anything under an overnight wait IF you could even download a movie) no - the end result will be GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the inet. the website you own, the blog you write, well, you won’t be paying whatever domain name fees you currently pay, you’ll be paying a government licensing fee, taxed, and that license – will be issued by the government, government rules will preside, the government will decide what you may put up or even if they’ll allow you a license to have a website to begin with. the issue between Netflix and Comcast is a simple business issue, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the claims made by supporters of net neutrality.

here’s a copy of the Mozilla petition:

<Mozilla petition>

sounds innocent doesn’t it – sounds GOOD doesn’t it? that’s how it works, it was the same with health care. and Mozilla is so hot to have you support this (which is beyond me – how can they be so stupid, it’s going to kill their business – they’re all about freedom, shareware, if net neutrality passes whatever they want to do that the govt doesn’t like, they could be shut down and all the work they currently do for free and pay for via contributions, they won’t be able to because they will have to be licensed and pay mega fees to the govt which means YOU and I will pay much higher inet access fees and you may have to pay to visit individual websites because it will cost the website owner to HAVE their site!)

but – they set you up to sign the petition, then they have a robo call that connects you to your reps in dc. I called, but told them to NOT support the fcc vote and do whatever they could to stop the fcc’s march to a vote to take over the inet.

this is bad, very very bad….as with all liberal agendas this is couched in: it’s for YOUR own good, it’s for YOUR benefit, it will put the kibosh on the big boys and make things more ‘equal’

what it WILL do is give the govt the ability to shut down the voices they don’t like….

when are the gullible going to wake up and smell the s—t they’ve asked to have shoveled all over themselves?

that is all
<name removed>

if you want to call your reps to tell them to get the pres and fcc to back off, type ‘who represents me – add your state, you should get some good options, several states have sites that will provide you the info , we’ve got a great one here (tx) but that won’t serve anyone else out there.

To sum up, net neutrality would be bad because:
- We've already got fast internets because people demanded it
- Domain name registration would become hella expensive because it would be a government tax!
- Mozilla would go out of business because they'd have to license everything they do at exorbitant gubernmint costs
- The big scary government will have the ability to shut down voices they don't like if the net is neutral

:fu:

Feb 26, 2015#78

figmentPez

Oh, and to be clear, my mother forwarded it to me because she thought I might be able to refute some points and help her understand. She knows it sounds fishy. But still, that's the kind of misunderstanding that's out there.

Feb 27, 2015#79

Eriol

figmentPez said:
Oh, and to be clear, my mother forwarded it to me because she thought I might be able to refute some points and help her understand. She knows it sounds fishy. But still, that's the kind of misunderstanding that's out there.

Kudos to your Mom then. I'd rather have people consult experts (or close enough) who are family members than blindly accept, or even blindly reject.

Feb 27, 2015#80

bhamv3

which means YOU and I will pay much higher inet access fees and you may have to pay to visit individual websites

That... that is exactly what net neutrality PREVENTS, genius.

Mar 6, 2015#81

evilmike

The pushback begins. Republicans have introduced "The Internet Freedom Act" which would essentially remove the FCC's power to regulate net neutrality.
(Ars Technica)

Mar 6, 2015#82

Dave

It'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes it'll be vetoed and unable to be overridden. Empty gesture is empty.

Mar 6, 2015#83

Ravenpoe

evilmike said:
The pushback begins. Republicans have introduced "The Internet Freedom Act" which would essentially remove the FCC's power to regulate net neutrality.
(Ars Technica)

But... that's... does anyone there know what freedom actually means?

Mar 6, 2015#84

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
But... that's... does anyone there know what freedom actually means?

Well, to be perfectly honest, for both parties it means "pass this bill, stupid"

Mar 6, 2015#85

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
Well, to be perfectly honest, for both parties it means "pass this bill, stupid"

I want to propose a bill stating that the terms "Freedom," "Liberty," and all other such patriotic buzzwords cannot be used in bill titles.

Mar 6, 2015#86

MindDetective

Ravenpoe said:
I want to propose a bill stating that the terms "Freedom," "Liberty," and all other such patriotic buzzwords cannot be used in bill titles.

What would you title your bill?

Mar 6, 2015#87

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
What would you title your bill?

I think it'd be fun to make it so bill titles must be made by the other party's whip.

"The Selling out America act"
"The enslavement of the underclass act"
"The we hate brown people act"
"The we want to exploit brown people act"

Mar 6, 2015#88

figmentPez

Ravenpoe said:
But... that's... does anyone there know what freedom actually means?

Clearly the "freedom" in that bill isn't for the internet. It's giving cable companies the freedom to screw over internet customers.

Mar 6, 2015#89

Dave

Why not just go back to the bill numbers themselves?

Mar 6, 2015#90

GasBandit

Dave said:
Why not just go back to the bill numbers themselves?

Because nobody cares if you're for or against HB343577349etc. The hoi polloi cares, however, whether you're for or against the "Saving babies with hugs" act.

It's the same emotional blackmail that is used in the name "Mothers Against Drunk Driving." Who could be against MOTHERS? Or FOR drunk driving? So you better not argue when they want to require breath-locks as standard in ALL new cars, and ban GTA. Because otherwise you're against mothers and for drunk driving.

Mar 6, 2015#91

Eriol

A better example IMO: Renaming the Department of War to the Department of Defense. Has happened in virtually every country where they pretend to care what the people think.

Mar 6, 2015#92

GasBandit

Eriol said:
A better example IMO: Renaming the Department of War to the Department of Defense. Has happened in virtually every country where they pretend to care what the people think.

Though it's not canon by a LONG shot, Professor Quirrel in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality lambasts how his subject is labeled "Defense Against the Dark Arts" and insists his students call it by its original name, "Battle Magic." Because you don't have to be a dark wizard to fight with magic.

Mar 8, 2015#93

GasBandit

copypasta from Imgur:

Representative Marsha "Give Me Your Money And I'll say Whatever You Want" Blackburn, has proposed "The Internet Freedom Act" an ironically named piece of legislation that would wipe out any steps made to maintain freedom on the internet by the FCC.

Like most Republicans, however, she didn't actually come up with this herself. Mrs. Blackburn has been paid:
$25,000 from AT&T,
$20,000 from Comcast,
$20,000 from the Cable Industry Associated PAC,
$15,000 from Verizon,
$20,000 from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, (which represents the largest companies in the industry)
$6,000 from Time Warner,
$5,500 from Dish Network, and
$5,000 from CenturyLink.

So clearly, she is in the best position to offer an unbiased and objective alternative to the FCC's plan. We should trust her implicitly because she obviously is acting independently of any outside source or influence, and is definitely not at all being controlled by anyone.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00003105&cycle=2014&type=C&newMem=N&recs=100

Mar 8, 2015#94

Frank

Jesus, it's always shocking how little corporations have to pay politicians to ensure favourable legislation that earns them untold profits.

Mar 8, 2015#95

GasBandit

Frank said:
Jesus, it's always shocking how little corporations have to pay politicians to ensure favourable legislation that earns them untold profits.

That's just how much they've donated this cycle. She probably gets that much every 2 years.

Mar 8, 2015#96

PatrThom

Frank said:
Jesus, it's always shocking how little corporations have to pay politicians to ensure favourable legislation that earns them untold profits.

That's almost $125,000, and doesn't include whatever other "donations" and salary she receives.

--Patrick

Mar 8, 2015#97

Frank

PatrThom said:
That's almost $125,000, and doesn't include whatever other "donations" and salary she receives.

--Patrick

Split between a half dozen corporations worth billions.

Mar 8, 2015#98

GasBandit

Frank said:
Split between a half dozen corporations worth billions.

It's not exactly expensive to buy a congressman. Who's going to pay them to do the RIGHT thing?

Mar 8, 2015#99

PatrThom

Frank said:
Split between a half dozen corporations worth billions.

Yes, but to her it's a lot of money.

--Patrick

Mar 8, 2015#100

PatrThom

NOT HELPING, EU.

--Patrick

Mar 9, 2015#101

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
NOT HELPING, EU.

--Patrick

The European Parliament makes lovely bills and has great ideas; the European Council and European Commission hold all the actual power and one's made up of all the nation's government leaders, all just looking out for themselves and against any sort of push from Europe to do anything, and the other's 15 former national politicians who've been promoted away out of their little pond. both are surrounded by a horde of aids and assistants who make their policy for them, and who are...not that expensive, really. Same ballpark as that Congresswoman up there.

Mar 10, 2015#102

figmentPez

9-year-old explains net neutrality:

Pretend ice cream stores gave away free milkshakes. But you had to buy a straw to drink them. But that's okay, because you still get free milkshakes. One day you're drinking a free milkshake and you look down and the guy that sold you the straw is pinching it almost shut. You can still get your milkshake, but it's really hard and takes a lot longer.

So you say, "Hey! Stop that!" And the straw guy says, "NO! Not until the ice cream store pays me money." And you say, "But I already paid you money for the straw." And the straw guy says, "I don't care. I just want more money."

Mar 10, 2015#103

figmentPez

Remember the set of political cartoons recaptioned "The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Net Neutrality Works"? Well, apparently one of the cartoonists issued a DMCA takedown notice, because he has no idea how fair use works.

The most hilarious part is this quote from the cartoonist in question, Chip Bok:

Really, you people should stop hacking my cartoons to make a point. It’s not “fair use”. It’s illegal. Think the FCC will help me out here? You’re destroying my intellectual property and inserting your own stupid message. Are you Chinese? Come up with something on your own.

The amount of stupidity in that quote is astounding. "Hacking", ignorance of what parody and transformative work is, arrogantly assuming his own work was somehow destroyed, all with with a smattering of casual racism as well.

Mar 10, 2015#104

GasBandit

Things of which Chip Bok has no idea how they work:
Net neutrality
Fair use
The Streisand effect.

Mar 11, 2015#105

PatrThom

Give it time, I'm sure we can add more to that list.

--Patrick

Mar 13, 2015#106

GasBandit

The FCC has released a 400 page report detailing exactly what the new rules for ISPs are, now that they're reclassified as common carriers. So far, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (good guys) like what they see and AT&T and Verizon do not. Sounds like it is on the right track.

http://techreport.com/news/27959/fcc-details-net-neutrality-rules

Mar 20, 2015#107

figmentPez

That is not how Net Neutrality works. If a hospital wants to prioritize packets on their network, nothing about Net Neutrality prevents that. I'm even pretty sure that if an ISP wants to sell dedicated bandwidth to businesses at a more expensive rate, that they can do that under net neutrality. Beyond that, there's no reason cat videos and teleconferencing can't co-exist.

Mar 20, 2015#108

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
That is not how Net Neutrality works.

Yes, it is.
Packets are packets. They all get sorted and delivered equally and agnostically, whether they are cat videos or cardiac teleconference. If that is not happening, then that is a capacity/routing issue, not a legal one.
Would you also claim, Mr. McClintock, that the Government seized unprecedented control over elections under the guise of Suffrage? Is Suffrage the notion that all votes should be treated equally, regardless whether they come from white men, black women, etc.? Here's a hint: YES IT IS.

--Patrick

Mar 20, 2015#109

SpecialKO

Good lord, it's not as bad as "full of tubes" territory, but it's pretty close.

Mar 20, 2015#110

PatrThom

SpecialKO said:
Good lord, it's not as bad as "full of tubes" territory, but it's pretty close.

It's a calculated statement framed in such a way as to encourage the listeners' emotions to override their rationality, same as a phishing email, and as such is reprehensible, or at a minimum disingenuous.

--Patrick

Mar 20, 2015#111

figmentPez

PatrThom said:
Yes, it is.
Packets are packets. They all get sorted and delivered equally and agnostically, whether they are cat videos or cardiac teleconference. If that is not happening, then that is a capacity/routing issue, not a legal one.
Would you also claim, Mr. McClintock, that the Government seized unprecedented control over elections under the guise of Suffrage? Is Suffrage the notion that all votes should be treated equally, regardless whether they come from white men, black women, etc.? Here's a hint: YES IT IS.

You're talking about technicality, I'm talking about the appeal to emotion. Net Neutrality is not the statement that cat videos are of equal importance to hospital information. It is the statement that data is data, and companies have to treat data in the way that they've promised to. You're right that if cat videos are keeping cardiac teleconferencing from happening, then it's a capacity/routing issue, but the general public doesn't realize that, and that's why I'm saying this guy is wrong.

He's wrong because there is zero technical reason why a cat video should ever cause a problem with a teleconferencing call. The hospital is free to set it up it's own network so that it's own system sets priority to video conferencing (this is already done by businesses, and they're still free to block whatever content they want). The hospital is also free to pay the ISP for a dedicated business line, as businesses have done for years, both major institutions and small offices. They don't have to share bandwidth the way most residential connections do (and presumably still will, even under net neutrality). Lastly the backbone connection between those business lines should have more than enough capability to transfer all the cat videos and CAT scans everyone who paid for internet connections could want.

What he's implying is that what I've described isn't the case. He's implying that somewhere in the chain is the inability for both types of communication to happen at the same time, and that is not how the internet functions. Net Neutrality is not saying "we have to choose between frivolous and serious communication", because that choice doesn't exist. It's a statement based on false assumptions. It's not false because he's wrong about cat videos being sent with the same speed as echocardiograms, it's false because of even implying that Youtube should ever impact a medical consultation in any way shape or form, other than from incompetence on the part of the ISPs.

Mar 20, 2015#112

PatrThom

Glad we're on the same page.

figmentPez said:
Youtube should ever impact a medical consultation in any way shape or form, other than from incompetence on the part of the ISPs.

Also then this would be the ISP's fault, and not that of YouTube cat videos.
If people legitimately die because of ISP shenanigans, some people will be out on the street in a heartbeat, and stuff will change, Jack.

--Patrick

Mar 20, 2015#113

figmentPez

An analogy, imagine if this were about overnight shipping, instead of internet traffic. As far as I know, FedEx treats all overnight packages the same (there's probably some minor favoritism, but I'm assuming it's not on a scale of the favoritism ISPs show). Someone ordering an overnight box of chocolates gets the same treatment as someone ordering a box of insulin. FedEx doesn't care that the insulin is more important than the chocolates, both packages get delivered overnight and FedEx doesn't choose which packages to deliver based on what it thinks is most important. If they didn't, customers would be rightly pissed about not getting the service they paid for.

Now imagine if some asshat Senator wanted to claim that overnight shipping should be a flexible term, and FedEx should be able to decide what packages it actually delivers overnight, and which ones it doesn't. And the senator described the current system of just delivering all packages as "claiming that a package of insulin is as important as a box of candy". He'd be wrong because he's implying that FedEx isn't fully capable of delivering all the packages it takes on. FedEx delivers pretty much all it's overnight packages overnight on a regular basis (with some hiccups, but a severe winter storm is going to stop packages, and construction accidentally severing a fiber optic line is going to stop some packets, doesn't matter what content is in either).

Mar 29, 2015#114

figmentPez

The FCC chairman spoke to Ohio State's law school recently.

“To understand the problem, it is necessary to understand the power of the biggest ISPs. Consider this simple fact: About three-fourths of American households have zero or one choice for highspeed, wired broadband to their homes. No choice or one choice,” he said, “does not make an attractive marketplace from a consumer’s perspective.”

If you define highspeed broadband as at least 25Mbits up / 3Mbits down, that means that nearly 75% of US households have only one provider to purchase from, or none at all. FCC PDF on the matter.

Also, the chairman knows how to throw shade:

Even Comcast, AT&T and Verizon who oppose what we did continued to invest in their networks even knowing the rule was coming. Verizon did so very
dramatically in the Commission’s recent AWS-3 spectrum auction, which attracted more than $41 billion in net bidding, more than double the previous record.
Most importantly, ISP share prices were not adversely affected by the contemplation and adoption of the regulations. Very curious.

Jun 5, 2015#115

GasBandit

Carnival Cruise Lines offers its customers a look at what internet access is like without Net Neutrality.

Jun 5, 2015#116

AshburnerX

Monopolies in action man... monopolies in action.

Jun 5, 2015#117

figmentPez

I wonder how realistic that restriction is. I'm sure the prices are inflated beyond what's necessary, but I wonder how much gating off is necessary to ensure performance for those who do pay for it. I'm betting that if everyone on the cruise could pay for unlimited access to the internet, that it would pretty quickly become all but useless. I know Carnival wants to block streaming video because it means they can sell their own entertainment, but I'm betting that a satellite connection that can provide an entire ship with Youtube and Netflix just isn't feasible.

Jun 5, 2015#118

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
I wonder how realistic that restriction is. I'm sure the prices are inflated beyond what's necessary, but I wonder how much gating off is necessary to ensure performance for those who do pay for it. I'm betting that if everyone on the cruise could pay for unlimited access to the internet, that it would pretty quickly become all but useless. I know Carnival wants to block streaming video because it means they can sell their own entertainment, but I'm betting that a satellite connection that can provide an entire ship with Youtube and Netflix just isn't feasible.

Youtube and netflix is one thing.. but having to spring for premium for e-mail? LIVE IN FEAR OF ATTACHMENTS I guess.

Jun 5, 2015#119

AshburnerX

figmentPez said:
I wonder how realistic that restriction is. I'm sure the prices are inflated beyond what's necessary, but I wonder how much gating off is necessary to ensure performance for those who do pay for it. I'm betting that if everyone on the cruise could pay for unlimited access to the internet, that it would pretty quickly become all but useless. I know Carnival wants to block streaming video because it means they can sell their own entertainment, but I'm betting that a satellite connection that can provide an entire ship with Youtube and Netflix just isn't feasible.

It's not. Even military quality ones are restricted use for this reason... there's a reason they ask you send that stuff on flash drives in care packages.

Jun 5, 2015#120

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
I wonder how realistic that restriction is. I'm sure the prices are inflated beyond what's necessary, but I wonder how much gating off is necessary to ensure performance for those who do pay for it. I'm betting that if everyone on the cruise could pay for unlimited access to the internet, that it would pretty quickly become all but useless. I know Carnival wants to block streaming video because it means they can sell their own entertainment, but I'm betting that a satellite connection that can provide an entire ship with Youtube and Netflix just isn't feasible.

The whole reason cruises can charge such huge prices is because there are no other options. Not unless you know Aquaman's wifi password.

Jun 11, 2015#121

Cheesy1

At least for a few months:
Court refuses to halt FCC rules, net neutrality rules go into effect on Friday

Jun 11, 2015#122

bhamv3

Ravenpoe said:
Not unless you know Aquaman's wifi password.

SSID: Atlantis_WIFI
Password: NamorSucks

Jun 17, 2015#123

GasBandit

SQUEAL PIGGY, SQUEAL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-fine-after-slowing-down-its-unlimited-data/

Let's get those damn asterisks off the word Unlimited*!

Working in advertising, I'm of the opinion that any statement that requires a disclaimer is de facto fraud.

Jun 17, 2015#124

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
SQUEAL PIGGY, SQUEAL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-fine-after-slowing-down-its-unlimited-data/

Let's get those damn asterisks off the word Unlimited*!

Working in advertising, I'm of the opinion that any statement that requires a disclaimer is de facto fraud.

I'd tend to agree, except maybe *While Supplies Last, but even then they are usually upfront about it.

At any rate, let the fines flow!

Jun 19, 2015#125

sixpackshaker

AT&T told a coworker of mine that he should expect interruptions in his DSL service, until he switches to U-Verse.

Jun 19, 2015#126

PatrThom

sixpackshaker said:
AT&T told a coworker of mine that he should expect interruptions in his DSL service, until he switches to U-Verse.

AT&T told this guy that his neighbors could have Internet, but not him. "Not enough ports," they said.

--Patrick

Aug 4, 2015#127

PatrThom

tl;dr:
100/100 = $40/mo
1000/1000 = $60/mo

--Patrick

Aug 4, 2015#128

GasBandit

Damn, yo. Now if only there were jobs there.

Aug 4, 2015#129

Frank

Fuck. That's like half the price I pay for 100/10 here.

Aug 4, 2015#130

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Damn, yo. Now if only there were jobs there.

It's only 30mi from Portland.
That's 10mi shorter than my current commute.

Frank said:
Fuck. That's like half the price I pay for 100/10 here.

It's the price I pay for 7000k/768k here.

--Patrick

Dec 7, 2015#131

PatrThom

Streaming video now accounts for 70 percent of all broadband usage

"It's a capacity problem, honest!" - Comcast.
No it's not, you disingenuous fraudsters.

--Patrick

Feb 28, 2016#132

PatrThom

Per day, huh?
Sigh.

--Patrick

Feb 28, 2016#133

GasBandit

It DROPS to 100 megabit. AGH. AGH.

Maybe I should start learning Korean. They got any english language radio stations in SoKo, I wonder?

Feb 28, 2016#134

Terrik

I wish I could say it was an exaggeration, but having been to Korea, the internet does kick ass.

Feb 28, 2016#135

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
It DROPS to 100 megabit.

Yeah, but it only drops after you've downloaded the equivalent of the entire Skyrim installation six times over.
And then they reset your speed back up to max the next day.

--Patrick

Feb 28, 2016#136

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
It DROPS to 100 megabit. AGH. AGH.

Maybe I should start learning Korean. They got any english language radio stations in SoKo, I wonder?

Considering the large number of American ex-pats and military bases, the answer to this is almost certainly yes.

Jun 14, 2016#137

evilmike

The 2-1 court ruling Tuesday forces Internet providers such as Verizon and Comcast to obey federal regulations that ban the blocking or slowing of Internet traffic to consumers. The regulations from the Federal Communications Commission also forbid carriers from selectively speeding up websites that agree to pay the providers a fee — a tactic critics have said could unfairly tilt the commercial playing field against startups and innovators who may not be able to afford it.

(Washington Post)

Jun 14, 2016#138

PatrThom

evilmike said:
(Washington Post)

Beat me to it!
They say they are going to appeal, of course, and that they always expected the issue would be decided after going all the way to the Supreme Court.

--Patrick

Jun 14, 2016#139

jwhouk

And a Supreme tie would go to Net Neutrality.

Jun 14, 2016#140

PatrThom

jwhouk said:
And a Supreme tie would go to Net Neutrality.

I don't care if it's a tie or not...so long as it still goes to Net Neutrality.

--Patrick

Jun 15, 2016#141

strawman

jwhouk said:
And a Supreme tie would go to Net Neutrality.

Trump and Clinton would both put a corporation friendly judge in place.

Jun 15, 2016#142

AshburnerX

stienman said:
Trump and Clinton would both put a corporation friendly judge in place.

It's almost a sure bet that the Republicans are going to vote to confirm before the election if it looks remotely like Clinton will win or if she does. The guy up for vote right now isn't as conservative as some Republicans would like, but he's a fair choice and a far better deal than they'd get from Clinton.

Jun 15, 2016#143

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
It's almost a sure bet that the Republicans are going to vote to confirm before the election if it looks remotely like Clinton will win or if she does. The guy up for vote right now isn't as conservative as some Republicans would like, but he's a fair choice and a far better deal than they'd get from Clinton.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Obama withdrew his nomination in that eventuality, after all the squalling and rancor about getting him a confirmation vote, so that a more liberal candidate could be nominated.

Jun 15, 2016#144

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Obama withdrew his nomination in that eventuality, after all the squalling and rancor about getting him a confirmation vote, so that a more liberal candidate could be nominated.

I'm not entirely sure he could, but if that is the plan, he'd have to pull a quick draw contest with Congress to do it. He'd have to do it after he felt the Democrats were going to sweep congress and the white house, but before the Republicans felt the same way. Then again, he could just resubmit and rush it through in January if the Democrats retake Congress so he's not exactly losing a lot by doing it ether.

Aug 10, 2016#145

Covar

Court rules that FCC can't block laws banning municipal wifi

While I hate the end result I think it's absolutely the right call by the courts. Basically it's been ruled that the FCC doesn't have the power to ban state laws that regulate municipal broadband networks.

Aug 10, 2016#146

Dave

Unless it gets passed as a federal law. Which it won't. Because ((refers back to the origin of lobbyists.)).

Aug 10, 2016#147

AshburnerX

Ehh... it could still get kicked to a higher court.

Oct 12, 2016#148

PatrThom

Now newly made available in Michigan!

So assuming I upload about 1/4 of what I download, you're saying that even though I am paying you for a 100Mb/sec connection, you are going to charge me extra unless I deliberately restrict myself AND MY ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD to using less monthly than what I would get with a 3Mb/sec connection?
Thanks, Comcast. Thanks a lot. You suck.
Full disclosure: I do not have Comcast...but that's mainly because they're not available in my area (which is a bit of a shame because I could get a discount through work).

--Patrick

Oct 12, 2016#149

strawman

I've used 100+ GB on my phone in the last week (not tethered or wifi - just cellular data use on the phone itself), nevermind my work and home computer connections.

They're just trying to find new ways to rake consumers over the coals.

Oct 12, 2016#150

figmentPez

The real problem comes in a few years when they haven't raised the cap, but data usage has increased. This a long-term strategy to find upcharges to replace cable television.

Oct 12, 2016#151

PatrThom

stienman said:
They're just trying to find new ways to rake consumers over the coals.

...to "encourage" you to purchase their movie/television packages instead of just going 100% Internet.

figmentPez said:
The real problem comes in a few years when they haven't raised the cap, but data usage has increased. This a long-term strategy to find upcharges to replace cable television.

I really want to know how this is not obvious to everyone.
Phone, voice, television, radio, etc...it's all digital now! Why do we still have to pay for Data + [service]? Answer: Because then we can charge you for a separate revenue stream...nothing more.

--Patrick

Oct 12, 2016#152

Bubble181

stienman said:
I've used 100+ GB on my phone in the last week (not tethered or wifi - just cellular data use on the phone itself), nevermind my work and home computer connections.

They're just trying to find new ways to rake consumers over the coals.

OK, now, I know I'm not hip to all kind sof modern stuff and all that, but....a hundred GB in a week, on a phone, while not at home/on Wifi? The f*** do you do on your phone, man? I average about 40 GB a month on my desktop, including occasional game downloads from Steam and such.

Oct 12, 2016#153

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
OK, now, I know I'm not hip to all kind sof modern stuff and all that, but....a hundred GB in a week, on a phone, while not at home/on Wifi? The f*** do you do on your phone, man? I average about 40 GB a month on my desktop, including occasional game downloads from Steam and such.

I average 1.5GB-2GB per year on my phone.
My at-home connection is quite another story.

--Patrick

Oct 12, 2016#154

strawman

Bubble181 said:
OK, now, I know I'm not hip to all kind sof modern stuff and all that, but....a hundred GB in a week, on a phone, while not at home/on Wifi? The f*** do you do on your phone, man? I average about 40 GB a month on my desktop, including occasional game downloads from Steam and such.

My home connection is often cluttered with other use (besides being a terrible 3mbit/second DSL connection anyway), so I've been using my phone with an HDMI converter to watch netflix and other media on my bigger screens.

My terrible home connection is one of the reasons I got a $50/mo unlimited everything plan from sprint when those were still available, and why I still hang on to the grandfathered ATT $30/mo ipad unlimited data we got with our first iPad years ago.

So, not exactly representative of normal use, but we can't even count on 720p media via our home connection, while the cellular connections are ok. They won't do 1080p, though.

Lots of tradeoffs living out in the rural area, but I wouldn't trade them for a better internet setup.

Oct 12, 2016#155

Eriol

PatrThom said:
...to "encourage" you to purchase their movie/television packages instead of just going 100% Internet.

I really want to know how this is not obvious to everyone.
Phone, voice, television, radio, etc...it's all digital now! Why do we still have to pay for Data + [service]? Answer: Because then we can charge you for a separate revenue stream...nothing more.

--Patrick

They're also regulated differently. The government needs its tentacles in every "pipe" into your house, phone, life, etc.

Oct 12, 2016#156

Dave

I have a 700 GB cap. I can blast through the cap and I do not get downgraded or charged extra. If I do it often than they'll tell me to upgrade to the next level, but I've only broken the 700 GB once. And I game, stream, torrent, have 4+ concurrent wireless devices on, etc. I'd call myself an above-average user.

1 TB is a lot.

Oct 12, 2016#157

strawman

You only have to watch 33 hours of streaming HD daily to reach a TB.

Oct 12, 2016#158

GasBandit

My personal bandwidth useage has dwindled staggeringly ever since I got a seedbox.

Oct 12, 2016#159

mikerc

33 hours per day?

Okay, yeah, I suppose if you've got multiple people watching different things at the same time it's possible. For your family thats what, 10 minutes per person per day?

Oct 12, 2016#160

Dei

We're at 700gb a month of usage, my husband checked after he saw this. I like to watch Twitch a lot. 3 of us download a lot of games. Everyone in the house watches YouTube and Netflix and rarely watches TV, even though for some reason we pay for cable. I also blow through a 12gb data plan every month for my phone, but not so much lately since my son takes a bus this year so I don't spend as much time sitting in my car waiting for kids to come out. We're still safely within the limit... For now.

Oct 12, 2016#161

GasBandit

When I was having trouble with my connection a few weeks ago, I went ahead and upgraded my connection to 200 down/20 up with no monthly data cap for 60 bucks/mo.

It's no google fiber, but it's nice to have a cable company that isn't a complete and utter dipshit.

Oct 12, 2016#162

figmentPez

stienman said:
You only have to watch 33 hours of streaming HD daily to reach a TB.

Or, you know, 5 hours a day of 4k streaming. Not really a believable number now, but that's where content is headed, assuming internet providers, ya know, actually provide internet capable of such.

My roommate and I hit a high of 545GB in the month of August. Most moths have been below 400GB, but considering that even that would have been mind-boggling not that many years ago, I'm looking to the future with trepidation. Time will tell if Comcast will raise their data caps over time, but I'm betting they won't unless forced to.

Also, keep in mind that Comcast's data cap includes upload as well as download. People who do a lot of video conferencing, streaming, or otherwise upload a lot will eat into their cap even faster because of that.

Oct 12, 2016#163

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Comcast's data cap includes upload as well as download. People who do a lot of video conferencing, streaming, or otherwise upload a lot will eat into their cap even faster because of that.

Yeah, I think a lot of people don't realize that upload counts against the cap, too. That's why I assumed a 4:1 ratio in my napkin calculations.
(This is the sort of thing you keep in mind when you host a Minecraft server from your home)

--Patrick

Oct 20, 2016#164

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
Just got an email from Comcast. Blast! is now 200Mbps.

Didn't have to do the reset they said to do because the modem does it all by itself multiple times every weekday between 10am and noon. It's so consistent I think Comcast is doing it on purpose.

Ours is right around 2am. It's frustrating.

--Patrick

Oct 21, 2016#165

Officer_Charon

I need to look into our Comcast stuff more often, when it gets back up. The only issue is that I subscribed YEARS ago, and have since forgotten every single password I had on the account, so I can't log in online and find stuff out conveniently.

Maybe if I walked in to the office and talked to them, something could be worked out. And we could unfuck that data cap, especially since my daughter has discovered Minecraft videos...

Jun 23, 2017#166

figmentPez

Saw this today on Tumblr and

Here is the response I posted:

That’s going to backfire when people who understand the purpose of toll roads get confused by such a terrible analogy. Roads and internet have to be paid for. Toll roads are paid for by the tolls they collect, if you get rid of toll roads you just have to find some other way to pay for roads (read: more of your tax money going to fund road construction). The Internet is not paid for by taxes, it’s paid for by your internet subscription. In analogy, it’s already a toll road.

And I’m not just nit-picking here. My father has asked me several times “So, who pays for the internet to get built?” He thinks of paying for internet service as like paying for your driveway. He thinks you pay to connect your home to the roads that exist, but the roads and highways still have to be maintained by other costs. He doesn’t understand that part of the monthly bill for internet is the cost of your portion of keeping the entire internet running.

This is why some conservatives actually think they’re helping make the internet better by opposing Net Neutrality. They don’t understand how the internet works, so they think that ISPs need to have this control in order to recoup the cost of building the internet.

Jun 23, 2017#167

PatrThom

Well there's also this ongoing case, where a small ISP ("Telecom Cable" with just > 200 customers) claims that Comcast moved into their service area, asked them to mark their lines, then accidentally cut their (marked) backbone, and then when told about it "accidentally" cut their other backbones as well, causing their customers to switch to Comcast and then didn't compensate them for repairs nor ultimately for the total loss of their business.

--Patrick

Jun 27, 2017#168

PatrThom

Why Net Neutrality matters.

Well, not Net Neutrality, exactly, but it's still a prime example of how one telecom will deliberately try to force out another.

--Patrick

Jun 28, 2017#169

Eriol

PatrThom said:
Why Net Neutrality matters.

Well, not Net Neutrality, exactly, but it's still a prime example of how one telecom will deliberately try to force out another.

Patrick, you're usually "on" with this type of thing, but IMO this has basically nothing to do with net neutrality, and more with the idea of "you idiots, why didn't you just implement OpenID?" rather than the proprietary crap they obviously DID implement. The way I read it, it would be like your local ISP saying "you can now log into SomeOtherWebsite with your ISP's account name and password!" They have a partnership where there's a secure authentication chain there. But then the partnership ends, and you can't use "that account" anymore for it.

This is different than (but related to) OpenID because that relies on a login to the ACTUAL person that holds the username/password, and then passes a token along to say "yep, they're this email address" whereas it sounds like the integration was MUCH closer with the AT&T/Yahoo relationship. It'd be like if one of the big providers of OpenID (google, facebook) said "ya, we're not supporting that anymore" then any service that you used that to login, you'd be in trouble. But the company that used OpenID still has your email address, so even if this went "wrong" they could still send you an actual email, and set you up with a "normal" username/password through a reset process, so you aren't hooped. This is just kind of a sub-set of this with Yahoo and AT&T specifically, and not OpenID, with them obviously not having this type of mechanism to still contact people.

It's just a bit odd really.

Jun 28, 2017#170

strawman

The way they're doing it, then, is particularly unfortunate.

What they should do is send out an email forcing those users to follow a typical account recovery process. Go to a page, request a link sent to the email, the link contains a password reset form for that email, and instead of resetting the original password it creates a user entry in the DB for the new system.

Jun 28, 2017#171

PatrThom

Eriol said:
this has basically nothing to do with net neutrality

I actually state that fact right in my post.

But it is DEFINITELY anti-competitive behavior. The only group being required to change their email address are those held by a rival telecom (and not AOL, not gmail, not rocketmail, etc.), and the deadline for the transition is egregiously short.

--Patrick

Jun 28, 2017#172

strawman

It's possible AT&T demanded it as part of the agreement, or it was written into the contract long before the company parts were sold. The contracts around using login systems can be particularly burdensome.

Jul 12, 2017#173

Eriol

Again proving that AT&T is one of the shittiest companies ever: The Internet Ripoff You’re Not Protesting

Jul 12, 2017#174

Gared

Eriol said:
Again proving that AT&T is one of the shittiest companies ever: The Internet Ripoff You’re Not Protesting

If anyone should know how to get around anti-competition laws and regs, it should be Ma Bell.

Jul 12, 2017#175

PatrThom

Gared said:
If anyone should know how to get around anti-competition laws and regs, it should be Ma Bell.

Aye, those were the days.

--Patrick

Jul 13, 2017#176

Eriol

Again, headline is enough, but the link is there too: For Every 1 Net Neutrality Comment, Internet & Cable Providers Spent $100 on Lobbying Over Decade
$572M

Fucking money & politics.

Jul 23, 2017#177

GasBandit

Verizon users on both the Verizon subreddit and Howard Forums are reporting speed throttling for both Netflix and Google to 10Mbps. Verizon also admitted to throttling the users and uses "video optimization" as their pretense.

https://www.privateinternetaccess.c...rently-now-throttling-netflix-youtube-10mbps/
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/...-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii
https://arstechnica.com/information...parently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps/

Jul 23, 2017#178

PatrThom

The (tech) news has been trumpeting this pretty strongly over the last few days. I'm sure the ISPs feel like 10Mbps should be enough for anyone, right? Can't wait for wide area mesh networking to become a thing. Also this is just going to pump up the market for VPNs.

--Patrick

Jul 23, 2017#179

AshburnerX

And that's basically the thrust of it. Making more money off of everyone is nice, but the real benefit of this is that the cable providers don't have to upgrade their ground networks anymore. And then once wireless is good enough they can start broadcasting it from towers, they'll charge a fortune for it because "it's so much faster" than the fiber they've successfully killed.

Though really, I'm wondering how long until somebody like Netflix files suits.

Jul 23, 2017#180

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
Verizon users on both the Verizon subreddit and Howard Forums are reporting speed throttling for both Netflix and Google to 10Mbps. Verizon also admitted to throttling the users and uses "video optimization" as their pretense.

https://www.privateinternetaccess.c...rently-now-throttling-netflix-youtube-10mbps/
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/...-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii
https://arstechnica.com/information...parently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps/

I'm on Verizon, and have noticed over the past week that data stream to YouTube will sometimes just stop. It'll load fine, and then halfway through a video it just won't load anymore.

Nov 14, 2017#181

GasBandit

Lawmakers Demand Investigation of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai

Nov 14, 2017#182

Krisken

I"m so surprised.

Nov 14, 2017#183

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I"m so surprised.

I'm not surprised by the corruption, but I WILL be surprised if something actually comes of the investigation.

Nov 14, 2017#184

PatrThom

Pai's pals are of course painting it as yet another Democrat attack on conservatives.

--Patrick

Nov 23, 2017#185

Eriol

This is interesting:

I hope there's a legal way to slow down all internet to this guy. And make sure to offer up a "premium" plan for $4B or something that takes him to 28.8k... and the full plan is only available if ALL people get it, ie: he changes the regulations back to neutrality.

Note: the person replying there is the CEO of Cloudflare.

Nov 23, 2017#186

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
This is interesting:

I hope there's a legal way to slow down all internet to this guy. And make sure to offer up a "premium" plan for $4B or something that takes him to 28.8k... and the full plan is only available if ALL people get it, ie: he changes the regulations back to neutrality.

Note: the person replying there is the CEO of Cloudflare.

But aren't ISP owners the ones most against net neutrality?

Once that tech billionaire buys the ISP, he'll just be part of the club.

Nov 28, 2017#187

GasBandit

Nov 28, 2017#188

PatrThom

Lore Sjöberg said it best, I think:

—Patrick

Nov 28, 2017#189

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Lore Sjöberg said it best, I think:

—Patrick

I miss Brunching Shuttlecocks.

Nov 28, 2017#190

GasBandit

No links cuz I'm lazy atm, but some noteworthy shenanigans have been going on at Tumblr. Many users started complaining through other media (like Imgur) that they found themselves being mysteriously automatically unsubscribed from monitoring tags like #netneutrality and that previously known/bookmarked pro-net neutrality posts were disappearing. This seems odd, since David Karp, the founder and CEO of Tumblr has, in past years, been loudly and obstinantly pro-NN.

Until Verizon bought Yahoo last year, which owns Tumblr.

And now today, David Karp is resigning.

The Tumblrinas are not happy.

Nov 28, 2017#191

PatrThom

It’s no secret that Tumblr’s formerly prominent NN stance vanished almost as soon as the sale went through.

—Patrick

Nov 28, 2017#192

figmentPez

I'm reading an editorial on Net Neutrality, and it dismisses the social justice side of NN. One of the points the writer makes is this:

"One hears lots of stories about how activists are using the Internet, and how small, typically minority-owned, businesses rely on the Internet and therefore on net neutrality. The reality is that there is exceptionally little reason to believe that any ISP would ever do anything to hurt these users."

Except for the fact that they have repeatedly done just that. Early on in the days of Revision 3, they tried to distribute their content via Bitorrent, and repeatedly had their content blocked by ISPs. They'd talk to the ISPs, tell them it was legitimate and legal traffic, only to find it blocked again later. It happened over and over again, until Rev3 finally moved on to other distribution methods. ISPs had enough plausible deniability in this case to keep it from going to court, but can you imagine how much more they'll be able to do when they're not pulling something illegal?

ISPs have proven themselves, time and time again, willing to screw over their customers. They're hated and distrusted for good reason.

Nov 28, 2017#193

PatrThom

ISPs do not view users as customers. They view users as hair follicles that grow money, and then try to shave those hairs as low as possible every single time.

—Patrick

Nov 29, 2017#194

figmentPez

I'm honestly a little worried that most people think the joke images about internet getting priced just like cable TV are the reality of what will happen if Net Neutrality is abolished. Because it's probably not going to be that blatant right out of the gate, and ISPs know they'll have a hard time shaking down consumers for more money than they're already raking in.

What's going to happen is a lot of plausible deniability, "protection racket", type of asshattery. It's not going to be that all of YouTube suddenly disappears unless you get an add-on to your bill. It's going to be that any video about Net Neutrality might pause and buffer a lot, and "we're sorry, there seems to be some technical difficulties outside our network" or "that's not a very popular video, so we didn't give it priority in our system, and it wasn't cached on our local servers like streams from our partnered sites are!"

Think about it in telephone terms. If Common Carrier status were revoked for telephone systems tomorrow, you wouldn't see them start charging for a "Pizza package" to be able to order pizza from a local store. What might happen, is that you'd just get a busy signal 9 out of 10 times when you tried to call any place that hadn't paid for prioritization. All the big chains would either pay up (cutting big deals because of their size), or would already be owned by the mega conglomeration that also own a telco. Which would then screw the local pizza places who would either have to pay up at exorbitant prices, or hope that customers will keep trying to get through to them. And they'd lose a lot of business that way. "I called my phone company to complain about the busy signal, they just said I should try another pizza company because the busy signal wasn't an error on their end."

Removing Net Neutrality is carte blanche for ISPs to shake-down, or even shut-down, any business that relies on the internet for customers. They want to compete with GrubHub? Start up service in any city they want, then suddenly GrubHub (and all other food delivery services) start getting error messages during peak hours, but the new ComcastFood never goes down. How many "network timeout" errors do customers put up with before finding another service, do you think?

Nov 30, 2017#195

strawman

Honestly?

My expectation is that we'll see a few ISPs start lowering costs in some competitive markets. I'll never see it, but if comcast can extract $$$ from netflix, amazon, and others, then in those markets where they're fiercely competing with ATT, Google, Verizon, etc they'll drop their $29/mo packages down to $10. It's possible that in some markets they'll start bundling beyond phone an cable. Rather than paying netflix directly the ISP will include netflix service in its cost. You will be free to pay for netflix seperately and just have their basic internet, but they may not give you the full HD stream unless you're on one of their higher tiers (ie, 100mb service, rather than the 25mb service).

So the funny images are probably correct in that bundling will start to happen, but the implication that unless you buy the bundle you won't have access to certain internet sites at all is probably incorrect.

Beyond that, though, I fully expect things to be worse for the consumer, particularly for people like me in rural areas.

I have no doubt we will see a lot of market segmentation, though, extracting money from the highest grossing services, and the most affluent customers at a more profitable rate than they can do now.

I'm not looking forward to it, but I'm a pragmatic engineer. I'll manage, and at the end of the day if it's really bad, trust me - it will be fixed, with or without the help of the ISPs or government.

The internet - or rather, the people that make the internet - routes around damage. Whether it be new laws and regulations, or simply home-grown networks spanning the country, it will be hard to keep people down.

Dec 4, 2017#196

figmentPez

I'm beginning to wonder if part of the attacks on Net Neutrality are part of a long-term plan to get telephone networks out from under Title II regulations. I've heard that one of the changes being proposed drops IP addresses from a mention alongside telephone numbers in the listing of what constitutes a public network. If they can get VOIP calls to no longer be regulated by Title II, and then they start transitioning customers away from phone numbers (all under the guise of making it easier for consumers, of course), pretty soon phone networks are no longer legislated, either. Or at least a huge volume of voice calls are no longer considered part of the telephone network.

Dec 5, 2017#197

PatrThom

So a bunch of entities vested in Internet stuff wrote this letter to petition for a delay to the NN vote coming on the 14th. They just want to wait until after a final decision is reached in the AT&T throttling case (which is under review) which should ultimately decide whether it is the FCC or the FTC which is in charge of regulating these things. The FCC's response?

This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed Internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom has stalled. The vote will proceed as scheduled on December 14.

Or, in other words, "No, and you can't make me."
Really, if they are telegraphing so strongly how they intend to vote and what they expect the outcome will be, why even bother having a so-called election?

--Patrick

Dec 5, 2017#198

figmentPez

The stupidest arguments against Net Neutrality I've heard this week:

- We already don't have Net Neutrality because you can't make your Amazon Echo run Siri, or your Apple Homepod run Google, etc.

WHAT? Unlike cable providers, 30% of the population isn't forced to choose only one of those. Also, the convenience of those aside, they don't do anything you can't do any other way, and anyone is free to create their own competing version.

- Net Neutrality is bad for video services that want to compete with Netflix because new startups can't pay ISPs to catch up to the CDN that Netflix already has. Allowing startups to pay cable providers for prioritized service is a cheaper option than having to build Content Delivery Networks of their own.

No, really, this was the argument I heard. I'm not sure if the person who proposed this was ignorant, or hoping their readers would be. First, there's no way that prioritization beats out actual hardware, unless you're doing something shady to undermine the hardware. More servers, closer to customers beats out paying for snake oil. Second, what's stopping companies from leasing out CDN space... OH WAIT, that's what a lot of cloud computing companies already do.

Dec 10, 2017#199

GasBandit

The FCC literally doesn't know how the internet works.

Dec 10, 2017#200

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
The FCC literally doesn't know how the internet works.

Potential Pat Tallman notwithstanding, there’s some argument about whether the FCC truly doesn’t understand how the Internet works, or whether they are deliberately misstating/misrepresenting things so that their proposal will match.

—Patrick

Dec 10, 2017#201

mikerc

GasBandit said:
The FCC literally doesn't know how the internet works.

I would rate this post informative but it's not actually telling me anything I wouldn't have guessed anyway.

Now the link further down that page to Portugese DRM laws is a surprise. I never thought I would say this about any government but THAT is how you write reasonable, well thought out laws to cover DRM.

Dec 10, 2017#202

figmentPez

PatrThom said:
Potential Pat Tallman notwithstanding, there’s some argument about whether the FCC truly doesn’t understand how the Internet works, or whether they are deliberately misstating/misrepresenting things so that their proposal will match.

Yup, they're trying to reframe what an ISP is in the minds of the public. I'm not sure it matters if that's because they don't understand themselves, or if they're deliberately trying to spread misinformation.

I've used this analogy before, but I can't remember if I've posted it here: ISPs are trying to sell the idea that they're merely the driveway that connects your house to the roads that are the internet. They want people to think that what they're paying for in their monthly bill is a nice driveway that connects them to the roads and highways, so that they can drive out and do things, and that packages can come in. Then, they can claim that they need to charge tolls for highways, or for building more roads, or for maintenance. They don't want to admit that an ISP isn't a driveway company, it's a roads and highways company; and customers have been paying for (more than) their fair share of those roads and highways all along.

Dec 10, 2017#203

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Yup, they're trying to reframe what an ISP is in the minds of the public. I'm not sure it matters if that's because they don't understand themselves, or if they're deliberately trying to spread misinformation.

I feel like it’s the latter, since what Pai is using as his justification for reclassification is the assertion that the Internet is merely an information service, not a telecommunication service. I find this assertion to be exceedingly disingenuous, if not outright deceitful. I mean, I get that politics is about saying stuff and hoping nobody finds out the whole truth, but when people give the lie to him about what he says, you’d expect him to be all, “you caught me, and I would’ve gotten away with it if it weren’t for you miserable activists,” but instead his reply has consistently been, “that evidence conflicts with my beliefs, so I choose to ignore it.”

...sound familiar?

—Patrick

Dec 11, 2017#204

strawman

I suspect that this redefinition actually serves the purpose of allowing the ISPs, and by extention the government, to control the content of the internet. Regulating the ISPs as information services they are allowed now to care about the content, and thus restrict it (not just charge extra) according to other guidelines.

So, like the ATF, who can't prevent ownership of weapons, they can regulate the transfer of information.

Dec 11, 2017#205

PatrThom

I don’t know if that’s the whole story, but I figure the model of “information service” just fits whatever it is they want to do more than “telecommunication service” does, and so they believe it will be simpler to convert to info than it would be to graft all the riders and stuff they want into the definition of telecom.

—Patrick

Dec 11, 2017#206

Dei

FCC, FTC announce partnership to police internet after net neutrality is repealed.

Dec 11, 2017#207

Bubble181

...and "informing", of course, juist means "put it in a huge wall of text like a EULA which nobody will read". Also, regional monopolies will just get that much stronger. "I only have one choice for an ISP" used to mean "I get shafted on price". Now it will also mean "so there's no way for me to read CNN.com, only Fox.com."

Dec 11, 2017#208

figmentPez

Nearly a third of Americans only have ONE option for broadband internet. I sure hope someone has the legal resources to sue when they get throttled. This is blatant abuse of a limited monopoly.

And that's just the commercial concerns. I sure hope an ISP messes up and manages to find themselves in a 1st Amendment case over this.

Dec 11, 2017#209

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Nearly a third of Americans only have ONE option for broadband internet.

That’s ok, they’re actually planning to reduce the requirement to be called “broadband” back down to what phone and satellite internet can deliver. Problem solved!

—Patrick

Dec 11, 2017#210

PatrThom

PatrThom said:
Pai is using [...] the assertion that the Internet is merely an information service, not a telecommunication service. I find this assertion to be exceedingly disingenuous, if not outright deceitful.

Arstechnica decided to go into a little more detail on this:

It is important to understand that the FCC's proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.

The FCC "ignored" this analysis from experts and failed to hold any public hearings to hear from citizens and experts before repealing the rules, the letter said.

--Patrick

Dec 12, 2017#211

Eriol

This article raises the very good point that the Amazon/Google "dust-up" with streaming devices only weakens their position with regards to Net Neutrality: (emphasis mine)

We’re witnessing the worst kind of petty bickering from two tech giants, and consumers are taking the brunt of this escalating feud. If that’s not embarassing enough, the companies are already being mocked by industry groups in favor of dismantling net neutrality. USTelecom wasted little time in piling on. “Broadband ISPs are committed to providing an open internet for their customers, including protections like no content blocking or throttling,” CEO Jonathan Spalter said. “Seems like some of the biggest internet companies can’t say the same. Ironic, isn’t it?” This stubborn conflict is turning into fodder for FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s supporters.

@Gared and I mentioned this in another thread, but now it's "important" to this as well.

Get your acts together Amazon/Google. This will bite us ALL in the ass later (and I'm in Canada, and I think long-term USA going non-neutral is horrible for ME down the road).

Dec 12, 2017#212

figmentPez

Actually, I think that whole fight makes it obvious why we need Net Neutrality. Big companies will inevitably end up using their customers as bargaining chips, and that's going to hurt free speech because of just how much the internet is capable of.

People feel "locked in" to using a >$100 device, when there are numerous other competing devices available, so much so that companies know they use that to their advantage. It's a case where people can move on, leave negative reviews, etc, but obviously they don't in large enough numbers to matter.

Then there's internet, where a number of people can't change to an equivalent service. Where changing services is often difficult, and frustrating, if you can manage to do it at all. Where you can't leave customer feedback where lots of people know to see it. Basically, none of the usual resources for promoting consumer awareness and choice exist. It's pretty obvious that in such a situation consumers are going to get screwed without protection.

Dec 12, 2017#213

GasBandit

I know it's preaching to the choir here, but still good stuff:

Dec 12, 2017#214

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
I know it's preaching to the choir here, but still good stuff

Ooo! A sequel!

—Patrick

Dec 12, 2017#215

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
I know it's preaching to the choir here, but still good stuff:

I need a video like this, but without the swearing. If either of my parents watched this, they'd automatically dismiss it's message because of the foul language.

Dec 12, 2017#216

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
I need a video like this, but without the swearing. If either of my parents watched this, they'd automatically dismiss it's message because of the foul language.

—Patrick

Dec 12, 2017#217

figmentPez

PatrThom said:
—Patrick

Cute, but it doesn't do anything to address the actual reasons why companies are greedy for wanting to charge more. To a lot of people, saying that ISPs want to charge more for some services is on the same level as companies charging more for First Class on a plane, overnight shipping, the collector's edition Blu-ray, etc. I need a video that explains why Net Neutrality is important, not just comedy about how awful it will be when we don't have it. I keep seeing videos that explain how it's important, but the presenters swear too much for me to present them to a conservative crowd.

Honestly, it's really hard to find good explanations of why Net Neutrality is not only preferable, but explaining why there's no technical or economic need for ISPs to try to recoup fees.

Dec 12, 2017#218

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
I need a video that explains why Net Neutrality is important, not just comedy about how awful it will be when we don't have it.

Here, this one was the third in the list:

But this one may be more ... relatable for them:

...though he does say "Hell" once.

--Patrick

Dec 14, 2017#219

Frank

Today's the day.

Dec 14, 2017#220

Eriol

Frank said:
Today's the day.

"Tonight's the night. And it's going to happen, again and again. It has to happen." (it's what went through my head, and seemed appropriate)

Dec 14, 2017#221

Dave

Want to watch the internet die live?

https://www.fcc.gov/general/live

Dec 14, 2017#222

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
Want to watch the internet die live?

https://www.fcc.gov/general/live

As soon as it hits:
"You've exceeded your streaming bandwidth. Please upgrade your account to continue"

Dec 14, 2017#223

PatrThom

Dave said:
Want to watch the internet die live?

https://www.fcc.gov/general/live

"The service is unavailable."

--Patrick

Dec 14, 2017#224

Dave

Weird. I was just able to get it.

Dec 14, 2017#225

GasBandit

Dave said:
Weird. I was just able to get it.

And then SUDDENLY THE FCC.

Dec 14, 2017#226

PatrThom

Could just be their choice of video player has not been blessed by my browser.
...OR IS IT?

--Patrick

Dec 14, 2017#227

Gared

Yeesh, and now a security ~~evacuation~~ break while they call in a K-9 unit.
Edit: And now the security break is over.

Dec 14, 2017#228

PatrThom

Ugh.

Not actually the best fit, but you get the sentiment.

--Patrick

Dec 14, 2017#229

GasBandit

Aaaand it's gone.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...m-idUSKBN1E81CX?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Dec 14, 2017#230

figmentPez

Are the courts our only hope now? Or do we actually have some chance of the FTC doing something?

When this inevitably becomes a 1st amendment issue, I'm going to have the BIGGEST "I told you so" to a lot of people in my life.

Dec 14, 2017#231

Dei

figmentPez said:
Are the courts our only hope now? Or do we actually have some chance of the FTC doing something?

When this inevitably becomes a 1st amendment issue, I'm going to have the BIGGEST "I told you so" to a lot of people in my life.

Congress can override with a simple majority.

Dec 14, 2017#232

sixpackshaker

Hard to believe that the gov't is fucking with the engine that has made so much money for this country over the last 25 years.

Dec 14, 2017#233

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Hard to believe that the gov't is fucking with the engine that has made so much money for this country over the last 25 years.

They don't understand what it is.

Dec 14, 2017#234

strawman

Net neutrality rules were put in place in February 2015, under three years ago.

I don't like that they're going away, but honestly all this panic is really overblown.

The FCC's new ruling does require that ISPs provide their customers with exactly how their managing their traffic, and even if they aren't clear we know that good technical people will out bad ISP actions.

It'll be awhile before anyone mounts a serious challenge to the ruling, so we will have some experience under it before they mess with it again.

Dec 14, 2017#235

Dei

Internet access should be classified as a utility. But good luck there.

Dec 14, 2017#236

figmentPez

sixpackshaker said:
Hard to believe that the gov't is fucking with the engine that has made so much money for this country over the last 25 years.

I don't find it that hard to believe at all. I'm guessing there are a lot of politicians who:
1. Honestly believe that removing restrictions on business is for the best.
2. Know this will screw things over in the long run, but stand to make enough money from it that they don't care about what will happen to other people, possibly after they're dead.
3. Don't understand how the internet is any different from cable TV, and think that everyone is whining about entertainment.[DOUBLEPOST=1513284459,1513284068][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
Net neutrality rules were put in place in February 2015, under three years ago.

Far later than they should have been, but a lot of people are slow to realize just how powerful the internet is when it comes to freedom of speech and innovation in all areas of science, business, etc.

Net Neutrality wasn't put in place 3 years ago on a whim. It was a recognition of the long term plans of ISPs to stifle competition in businesses, and to control the spread of information. It wasn't just a case of "just in case we need it", Net Neutrality was an absolute necessity that was being put in place to prevent changes that had already started to be implemented.

The FCC's new ruling does require that ISPs provide their customers with exactly how their managing their traffic, and even if they aren't clear we know that good technical people will out bad ISP actions.

And what good will that do? A lot of people can't change ISPs to an equivalent service.

Dec 14, 2017#237

PatrThom

Dei said:
Congress can override with a simple majority.

...but they must do so within 60 days, according to the procedure for the Congressional Review Act.

--Patrick

Dec 14, 2017#238

strawman

figmentPez said:
And what good will that do? A lot of people can't change ISPs to an equivalent service.

As we reach saturation of the 4G LTE network and start rolling out 5G networks (right now a few carriers are rolling out pre-5g, or 4.5g, but 5G is still just over the horizon) I suspect this will become a non issue except for very rural areas.

But 90% of the population will have several choices with reasonable speeds, and the carriers will have to compete, particularly since they're largely unbundled from lengthy contracts now, and most will pay the broken contract fees when switching.

That said, yes, there's going to be a lot of pain as they all try to figure out what they can get away with and what they can surcharge for.[DOUBLEPOST=1513284928,1513284881][/DOUBLEPOST]

PatrThom said:
...but they must do so within 60 days, according to the procedure for the Congressional Review Act.

--Patrick

I don't think that's going to happen. The majority of the republicans appear to support the ISPs.

Dec 14, 2017#239

figmentPez

stienman said:
As we reach saturation of the 4G LTE network and start rolling out 5G networks (right now a few carriers are rolling out pre-5g, or 4.5g, but 5G is still just over the horizon) I suspect this will become a non issue except for very rural areas.

You really think that the data caps and pricing for wireless are going to be practical for most people compared to wired internet? They won't be, not if any significant number of people try to switch to a wireless carrier from landline for streaming, downloading games, etc.

EDIT: Dammit, something went wrong ate my edit. Retyping.

Anyway, I laugh at your optimistic ideas about cellular coverage. I live right next to a major highway, close to a hospital and a college, across from a shopping center for one of Houston's larger and more affluent suburbs. I'd describe my cell coverage as spotty, at best. Right now I'm getting 2 bars out of 5, and it's not even registering as LTE. If I'm away from WiFi in this area (at the college, shopping, out to lunch) I struggle to even load basic webpages. If I had to rely on cellular data for internet, I wouldn't be able to stream video, I wouldn't be able to download large games, I would have trouble even just browsing Halforums. Cellular is NOT equivalent to landline.

Dec 14, 2017#240

strawman

figmentPez said:
You really think that the data caps and pricing for wireless are going to be practical for most people compared to wired internet? They won't be, not if any significant number of people try to switch to a wireless carrier from landline for streaming, downloading games, etc.

The carriers are experimenting with unlimited plans again. I got on board when ATT started theirs up earlier this year, and I'm grandfathered in now that they've altered it significantly. I generally use about 500GB per month and still get better speed than my terrible DSL I had before.

As I said, as the bandwidth grows, they will want to compete with comcast, cox, and other landline services. Customers are clamoring for them, they will eventually provide products suitable for that market.

No, it won't happen immediately. Yes, there's going to be a lot of pain. Yes, some people will be at the mercy of their provider with little real choice.

That's already occurring, though, in terms of raw speeds. We were lucky to convince the DSL provider to change their settings to allow 3mbit/s on our line even though we were "too far away" according to their tables. We had no other reasonable choice until ATT rolled out their plan, and I was seriously considering rolling my own fiber.

Those underserved people are going to remain underserved, and the fight about net neutrality already rang hollow with them because they don't get enough internet to worry about whether netflix is slower - it's only going to come at them at 480p no matter which ISP is fighting with netflix.

Everyone else will have multiple choices. I could choose between comcast and att DSL at all my previous residences, and they were competitive.

I don't think the net neutrality fight will really make or break those that only have one choice, so I don't think it's worth crafting national regulations based on such a small portion of the population.

As such it's not worth arging about the people who don't have choice.

What's worth arguing about is collusion - whether intentional or undirected - such that even if you have multiple choices it doesn't matter.

It's worth arguing about whether this may stimulate competition because - perhaps - ISPs will have something more to compete about rather than just bandwidth. Maybe your two choices provide the same speeds, but one includes HBO now for the same cost. You never watch HBO, but it's "more" so you might choose it, and the ISP is able to gain a customer it wouldn't have otherwise.

I don't know.

Let's see.

Mostly my apathy for this is high simply because I'm already underserved.

It's like the big kids arguing over the thanksgiving feast while I'm stuck at the kids table with the macaroni and cheese.

For all the words spilled over the poor and underprivileged, I don't think this fight is about them, nor will it truly affect them. It's about the big players trying to get money from each other - comcast wanting a piece of netflix's pie, and so forth.

And before you pretend netflix or any other internet company is an innocent party, they are an 8 billion dollar a year company and will do anything to protect that from others.

Maybe consumers will lose. I guess we will find out.

Dec 14, 2017#241

Dei

I expect Colorado to get another migration flood as more cities here start building city utility internet.

Dec 14, 2017#242

figmentPez

stienman said:
Mostly my apathy for this is high simply because I'm already underserved.

And that fact doesn't scream to you that internet service needs to be treated as essential as phone lines?

Dec 14, 2017#243

strawman

Dei said:
I expect Colorado to get another migration flood as more cities here start building city utility internet.

I'm expecting city utility internet to take off, at least in those states that allow it. And as long as tech companies make it priority, I suspect more states will make it possible.

We just had a township nearby approve a millage for fiber to every single home in the township (about 40 square miles, with 4,000 people). It'll still be run by a corporation, and I bet comcast, ATT, or someone else will come knocking at the door to buy it after it's built, but the provisions of the millage have some requirements regarding cost, and other riders which would still apply to anyone running the network.

My township is only 2,000 people, so while the millage would be the same, effective cost would be two times per household, so I'm not holding my breath. But there are about 3 groups in my general area all working on fiber projects.

Eventually whatever the corporations don't provide, the people will build for themselves.

Dec 14, 2017#244

figmentPez

stienman said:
I'm expecting city utility internet to take off, at least in those states that allow it. And as long as tech companies make it priority, I suspect more states will make it possible.

And any places that try it will most likely get sued by ISPs, as they have every single time it's been done in the past. Why do we have to put up with this bullshit over and over and over?

Dec 14, 2017#245

Dei

figmentPez said:
And any places that try it will most likely get sued by ISPs, as they have every single time it's been done in the past. Why do we have to put up with this bullshit over and over and over?

It's working out here so far, albeit in only one city. But it's working very well for them.

Dec 14, 2017#246

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
And any places that try it will most likely get sued by ISPs, as they have every single time it's been done in the past. Why do we have to put up with this bullshit over and over and over?

Because people haven't gotten mad enough about it yet to actually force action against it. We'll see if that changes.

Dec 14, 2017#247

strawman

figmentPez said:
And that fact doesn't scream to you that internet service needs to be treated as essential as phone lines?

Do you know what Obama's "broadband" initiatives did for me and those in most rural areas?

Absolutely nothing. They enriched the coffers of the ISPs and "broadband" providers.

Pretending that net neutrality solves this is, and here I'm being unkind, sorry, but it's, idiocy.

The rules and regulations on the phone lines has actually held them back anyway. We would have crystal clear voice over copper right now if the phone companies had been allowed to compete, but the growth of the bell monopoly, and then the successful lobbying to regulate phone companies allowing mini monopolies has, arguably, stifled the industry because they didn't have to compete on features. They didn't have to compete at all. It wasn't until cell phones came along that companies had to start thinking about free long distance and other normally expensive options.

So if you really want to discuss "essential as phone lines" i think there are a few very hard lessons we have to take away from that industry and be gun shy about.

More providers to each household, and more freedom for those providers to compete on features MIGHT not be a bad thing.

It might be, and certainly a lot of the industry will be shaken up and changed due to the altered landscape, but there's no proof it'll be bad for consumers, just a lot of speculation.

When it's provably bad for consumers, we lobby the FTC, then the FCC, then congress. And if nothing is done, we fix it ourselves by voting with our wallets.

90% of consumers will have a choice, and they'll have hundreds of billions of dollars to vote with.

Let's see what happens.

(though I'd still have preferred if net neutrality stayed. But it didn't, and so like watching trump get elected I'm sitting here eating my popcorn and watching with rapt attention to see how things actually shake out)

Dec 14, 2017#248

figmentPez

Dei said:
It's working out here so far, albeit in only one city. But it's working very well for them.

Municipal broadband was stopped from expanding beyond Chatfanooga in Tennessee.

Even before the FCC became corrupt, courts ruled it couldn't override states making municipal internet illegal. So, all the big ISPs have to do is lobby hard enough to get municipal internet made illegal in other states, just as they prevented it's spread in TN.

Dec 14, 2017#249

GasBandit

stienman said:
When it's provably bad for consumers,

It *was* provably bad for consumers, which is why Neutrality was enacted in the first place.

Dec 14, 2017#250

strawman

And all of those problems were resolved before the net neutrality ruling was made. None of them persisted until or were dismantled by the ruling, they were dismantled by the customers.

Dec 14, 2017#251

GasBandit

stienman said:
And all of those problems were resolved before the net neutrality ruling was made. None of them persisted until or were dismantled by the ruling, they were dismantled by the customers.

The thing is, were I in their shoes, I'd interpret the repeal to be a tacit wink-and-nod to proceed with other things of that nature, plus the ones that only Neutrality regulation determined to be illegal - such as "fast lanes."

They now have carte blanche to reduce speed of any "non-premium" traffic they desire, extorting more money from both end user and content provider, enforced by geographic monopoly.

Dec 14, 2017#252

PatrThom

The most egregious example I can think of is this one, and I wish I could find the article so you can read about it yourself.

-City residents complain that service is too slow.
-City residents convince city to lay its own network.
-City agrees, starts laying its own network.
-ISP notices, sues city due to technicality or some junk.
-Case goes to court for 6 months or something.
-City is prohibited from proceeding while case is pending.
-MEANWHILE: ISP "suddenly" decides area is ripe for an upgrade, finally gets off its butt and lays infrastructure for improved network to city. They're not prohibited from doing so while the court case is pending.
-Court case drags on.
-City's hands are tied, has to watch ISP build out improved network.
-Court case finally ends, city is finally given go-ahead to proceed...but lo! ISP has completed its upgrade and is offering low-priced promotional upgrades to their brand new, faster service!
-City residents, taking path of least resistance, upgrade their plans, leaving city's effort to lay network high and dry and with insufficient funding to continue.
-City abandons network plans, or severely curtails them as a result.
-ISP wins!

The single biggest thing I see this ruling doing is to change requirements such that an ISP can enact whatever restrictions it wants provided that they fully disclose these restrictions, ostensibly so you can go to a different ISP if you don't like their terms, wink wink, nudge nudge, good luck.

EDIT: Oh hey, looks like it was Chattanooga, which is practically the poster child for "what could be." They offer 1GB symmetric for $70/mo, BUT only if you live in the area actually served by the utility that delivers it. If you don't, too bad.
EDIT2: No, it was not Chattanooga, but I don't remember exactly what city it was. I know that it was several years ago (2010-2012 maybe?) and that I am pretty sure I mentioned it on the board, but don't remember much else beyond what I said above.

--Patrick

Dec 14, 2017#253

figmentPez

stienman said:
And all of those problems were resolved before the net neutrality ruling was made. None of them persisted until or were dismantled by the ruling, they were dismantled by the customers.

And how many cases aren't on that list because ISPs got away with it?

Like, for instance, how ISPs repeatedly blocked Revision3's attempts to distribute their shows via Bittorrent, to the point that Rev3 eventually had to drop that distribution method.

Dec 14, 2017#254

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
And how many cases aren't on that list because ISPs got away with it?

None of those were dismantled by customers. They were all dismantled because customers made enough noise that a regulatory agency of some sort heard about it and started to take an interest. None of those were resolved by people "voting with their wallets," they all required the intervention of some higher authority. So basically, the only demonstrable power the customer has to effect change is to make enough noise that the ISP has to finally make some concessions in order to shut them up before mom and dad wake up and hear them arguing and decide to come downstairs and Do Something About It.

--Patrick

Dec 14, 2017#255

figmentPez

In case that anyone was in doubt that Net Neutrality is a 1st Amendment issue, from the ACLU:

"AT&T's jamming of a rock star's political protest. During an August 2007 performance by the rock group Pearl Jam in Chicago, AT&T censored words from lead singer Eddie Vedder's performance. The ISP, which was responsible for streaming the concert, shut off the sound as Vedder sang, "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush, find yourself another home." By doing so, AT&T, the self-advertised presenting sponsor of the concert series, denied viewers the complete exclusive coverage they were promised. Although Vedder's words contained no profanity, an AT&T spokesperson claimed that the words were censored to prevent youth visiting the website from being exposed to "excessive profanity." AT&T then blamed the censorship on an external Website contractor hired to screen the performance, calling it a mistake and pledging to restore the unedited version of Vedder's appearance online.

"Verizon Wireless's censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off access to a text-messaging program by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL that the group used to send messages to its supporters. Verizon stated it would not service programs from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after widespread public outrage.

"Telus' blocking of striking workers' web site. In 2005, the Canadian telecom, involved in a bitter labor dispute, blocked its internet subscribers from accessing a website run by the union that was on strike against Telus."

Dec 15, 2017#256

Eriol

Motherboard & VICE Are Building a Community Internet Network

I wish them well. They have a lot of challenges to overcome, but I hope they are able to do so, even if just to promote GOOD behavior from the "big guys". Other than technical challenges (which I don't mean to minimize) their biggest is going to be some kind of pro-monopoly legislation, both on local/state, and national levels.

Dec 15, 2017#257

Frank

Guys, I'll say this honestly, I'd probably fist fight Ajit Pai if given the opportunity. I just saw that smarmy fuck faced video he was in. He needs an old fashioned dust up.

I think I'd win too.

How the fuck can he be in charge of something so important?

I say this without irony in a world that has Donald Trump as president of the United States.

Dec 15, 2017#258

GasBandit

Frank said:
Guys, I'll say this honestly, I'd probably fist fight Ajit Pai if given the opportunity. I just saw that smarmy fuck faced video he was in. He needs an old fashioned dust up.

I think I'd win too.

How the fuck can he be in charge of something so important?

I say this without irony in a world that has Donald Trump as president of the United States.

He is the metaphorical wolf in charge of the hen house. A Verzion lawyer, in charge of the FCC. I often wondered why Obama made him a commissioner, but I don't wonder why Trump made him chairman.

Dec 17, 2017#259

GasBandit

Dec 18, 2017#260

figmentPez

I don't think this person understands how things work, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm the one who is confused.

I thought it was state/city/county laws that kept anyone and everyone from running cable to whomever and wherever. That and just the cost of running wires because of distance. Poland is more densely populated than all but 8 of the United States. It has nearly the population of California in half the area.

Also, Poland most definitely does have several different regulatory groups involved in telecommunications, and has all sorts of control over pricing, negotiation disputes and all sorts of stuff. I'm not sure why this person thinks that they don't have the equivalent of an FCC.

Dec 18, 2017#261

Eriol

figmentPez said:
I don't think this person understands how things work, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm the one who is confused.

I thought it was state/city/county laws that kept anyone and everyone from running cable to whomever and wherever. That and just the cost of running wires because of distance. Poland is more densely populated than all but 8 of the United States. It has nearly the population of California in half the area.

Also, Poland most definitely does have several different regulatory groups involved in telecommunications, and has all sorts of control over pricing, negotiation disputes and all sorts of stuff. I'm not sure why this person thinks that they don't have the equivalent of an FCC.

Maybe their regulator is actually enforcing competition instead of trying to regulate monopolies. There's a concept.

Dec 18, 2017#262

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
I don't think this person understands how things work, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm the one who is confused.

I thought it was state/city/county laws that kept anyone and everyone from running cable to whomever and wherever. That and just the cost of running wires because of distance. Poland is more densely populated than all but 8 of the United States. It has nearly the population of California in half the area.

Also, Poland most definitely does have several different regulatory groups involved in telecommunications, and has all sorts of control over pricing, negotiation disputes and all sorts of stuff. I'm not sure why this person thinks that they don't have the equivalent of an FCC.

Maybe Poland is small enough, with a dense enough population, that redundant physical networks are no longer a financial impossibility (or at least not when the networks were being built). I mean, Poland is slightly smaller than New Mexico, but as you said, has the population of California. That's a lot smaller a capital outlay to get into the game, so more might have been willing to dig the ditches and run the fiber. That would eliminate the geographic monopoly problem we're having.

Or the guy could just be mistaken.

Dec 18, 2017#263

GasBandit

You wanna know how blatant and lazy the fraud was on the "pro-repeal" comments to the FCC?

This blatant and lazy.

String the bums up.

Dec 18, 2017#264

PatrThom

I saw the alleged tweet about it, but can’t find it to post right now.

—Patrick

Dec 18, 2017#265

Dei

Dec 20, 2017#266

figmentPez

Had a talk with my dad over lunch about Net Neutrality. He's a pipeline measurement engineer, so his major experience with government regulating utilities are how they've regulated the oil and gas industry to prevent monopolies, and how that's quite often done with ulterior motives, so he assumes that the same was true about the Net Neutrality laws that were just done away with. He thinks it will be better to have the FTC stopping things after the fact than trying to regulate things beforehand, because of the vague reasons of electricity and phone being more expensive since those industries had government intervention.

I honestly don't know enough about how electricity works in Texas, but I thought deregulation was more of a problem than the regulation was? And I'm pretty sure that the Bell monopoly was really a bad situation that was blatantly bad for consumers, and there was very little hope of change without government intervention.

Also, he also shot down the idea that internet is more important to free speech than electricity or gas, and on the surface that's true, you need electricity and gas to do a lot of things, but I could not convince him that it's a lot harder for companies to decide what you can do with electricity and gas once they sell it to you. I think he's coming at it from a business angle, that if you can't get sold enough electricity and gas to run your business, then you can't compete. While I'm coming at it from a more individual level, where if you've got enough to heat your house, you can also run a radio and listen to political ideas. With internet, they can give you enough bandwidth to stream movies, while at the same time blocking your communications with a political group.

Dec 20, 2017#267

Shakey

And now they are planning to classify cell based internet as broadband...

Dec 21, 2017#268

PatrThom

So how does this bill preserve the open Internet, exactly?

...to limit the authority of the Federal Communications Commission and to preempt State law with respect to internet openness obligations, to provide that broadband internet access service shall be considered to be an information service, and for other purposes.

Wait, how does that...

BROADBAND TO BE CONSIDERED INFORMATION SERVICE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provision of broadband internet access service or any other mass-market retail service providing advanced telecommunications capability (as defined in section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 1302)) shall be considered to be an information service.

But that means it can never be reclassified as a "common carrier," and that the FCC will no longer have authority over it since it's "information" and not "communication." But that's not...

The term ‘broadband internet access service’ means a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up internet access service.

Oh, I see how you include Internet delivered by cell phone data, but specifically exclude data delivered by dialup landline (that nobody really uses) since that would bring the FCC back into this...

PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.—No State or political subdivision of a State shall adopt, maintain, enforce, or impose or continue in effect any law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to or with respect to internet openness obligations for provision of broadband internet access service.

Ok, now you're explicitly preventing any state from taking any action that could...wait, didn't you try to do this back in 2015? And again before that in 2011? Don't you have any other issues you care about?

What, no FDA? No USDA? No laws on banking...again? I don't think we really need that.

...well, at least we know where we stand, I guess?

--Patrick

Jan 4, 2018#269

@Li3n

Got to love how they're not even trying to address it from the PoV of internet access, but they go witht he ol' "we could spend it on something else":

Jan 4, 2018#270

Dei

@Li3n said:
Got to love how they're not even trying to address it from the PoV of internet access, but they go witht he ol' "we could spend it on something else":

I mean, that bill already passed, so at least the commercials Comcast paid for didn't work.

Jan 4, 2018#271

PatrThom

"Don't you want roads more than you want Internet access?"
Dude, Internet access is roads. The fact you keep trying to gloss over that is disturbing.

--Patrick

Jan 4, 2018#272

PatrThom

"Having to ensure Net Neutrality is hampering our ability to expand and grow, and that is why we need to repeal it."

(FCC repeals Net Neutrality)

Hundreds of metro AT&T employees laid off just before Christmas (after paying 200,000 of their workers $1000 bonuses each)
Comcast fired 500 despite claiming tax cut would create thousands of jobs
AT&T looking to cut 80,000 jobs in five years

--Patrick

Jan 4, 2018#273

figmentPez

So, wait. While we had Net Neutrality, investment in internet grew, but as soon as it's repealed, internet companies start cutting back?

Hmm, it's almost like they know they have to work to keep competitive when the internet is neutral, and realize they can fuck people over with impunity if they can control what's going over their network.

Jan 4, 2018#274

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
So, wait. While we had Net Neutrality, investment in internet grew, but as soon as it's repealed, internet companies start cutting back?

Some companies have even been trumpeting the amount they're going to invest post-repeal, never mind that it's the same as what they were spending pre-repeal, or that their spending actually increased while Title II was in effect..
Of course, these figures don't include the amount they were spending on lobbyists, but whatever...

--Patrick

PS: The repeal order has finally been finalized (they continued to revise and edit it after passage, which doesn't sound suspicious at all), you can read about that here, including a copy of the order itself. You can also read a strongly-worded dissent here.

Jan 5, 2018#275

Dei

@Li3n said:
Got to love how they're not even trying to address it from the PoV of internet access, but they go witht he ol' "we could spend it on something else":

BTW, this is going to be what every city is CO is going to model their internet after (hopefully)

http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_31570326/longmont-nextlight-cuts-rate

Jan 5, 2018#276

Ravenpoe

I haven't had stable internet access at home since just before Christmas. I keep calling, they keep saying they know there's a problem and then claim it's fixed, and then it goes right back out again.

I of course don't know that this is related to net neutrality, it's just a standard "telecoms are shit and they know they can get away with it because they have a monopoly in my area" type post.

Jan 5, 2018#277

@Li3n

Dei said:
BTW, this is going to be what every city is CO is going to model their internet after (hopefully)

http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_31570326/longmont-nextlight-cuts-rate

Time until the feds get involved, because it's only about states right when it comes to discriminate against people, not corporation (even if they're people, my friend)?

....

P.S. Fuck Ajit Pai

Jan 9, 2018#278

Dei

Repeal is going to Senate vote

Even if it doesn't get repealed, every Senator who denies the appeal will be on record.

Jan 15, 2018#279

PatrThom

City-owned Internet services offer cheaper and more transparent pricing

Well, duh.
Here's the chart. It's painful to witness.

(chart source)

--Patrick

Jan 15, 2018#280

jwhouk

Dear City of Mesa, Arizona:

PLEASE consider city-wide community-owned Broadband and Wi-Fi.

Sincerely,
Me

Jan 16, 2018#281

GasBandit

Senate Democrats close to majority in drive to restore net neutrality

Jan 16, 2018#282

Dei

GasBandit said:
Senate Democrats close to majority in drive to restore net neutrality

Too bad they probably need 2/3s and the GOP is determined to keep torpedoing itself.

Jan 16, 2018#283

PatrThom

No, a simple majority will be enough (assuming this is the review thing).

—Patrick

Jan 16, 2018#284

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
No, a simple majority will be enough (assuming this is the review thing).

—Patrick

Unless somebody wants to filibuster.

Jan 16, 2018#285

Dei

I meant to override a veto.

Jan 16, 2018#286

Tress

Dei said:
I meant to override a veto.

It won’t even come to that. The House isn’t on the same page as the Senate, last I heard. Even if they get it passed in the Senate the House will kill it.

Jan 16, 2018#287

DarkAudit

Tress said:
It won’t even come to that. The House isn’t on the same page as the Senate, last I heard. Even if they get it passed in the Senate the House will kill it.

Net Neutrality isn't in the Bible. Nor is the internet, for that matter. That will be enough for at least a handful of House members to kill it. And you can bet Fox and Friends would defend that position.

Jan 24, 2018#288

MindDetective

*edit* Oh, man. The giant mug at the end. Zing!

Jan 24, 2018#289

PatrThom

Oh good, there was a YouTube version. I so want more people to see this.
"We have chicken sandwiches."
"But I don't want a chicken sandwich!"

--Patrick

Feb 3, 2018#290

PatrThom

It's like Rémi Gaillard, only with an actual message.

--Patrick

Feb 7, 2018#291

PatrThom

--Patrick

Feb 7, 2018#292

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
--Patrick

His voice makes me want to give him a wedgie and stuff him in a locker.

Feb 7, 2018#293

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
His voice makes me want to give him a wedgie and stuff him in a locker.

He's deliberately pushing his voice into a lower register and making use of vocal fry, things which speakers do when they are trying to sound convincing. But he'll never become a YouTube star if he keeps doing that.

--Patrick

May 16, 2018#294

Dei

May 16, 2018#295

Dave

That's great but unless democrats take over the house by a veto-proof margin it won't matter.

May 17, 2018#296

@Li3n

Well, since they put the repeal on hold until they can pass laws that stop states from implementing their own NN laws (can't have native examples of it working better then tiered and capped internet), you might not need a veto proof margin, or this law, just enough votes to not allow Reps to pass aforementioned laws.

Jun 13, 2018#297

PatrThom

AT&T merger with Time Warner approved without conditions
Net Neutrality officially eliminated at the Federal level
EU on brink of legislating requirement that all posted content must be submitted for copyright testing prior to being posted
Internet slated to finally surpass TV in 2019 as majority source of entertainment
Future gaming moving to "server-side" sub model, no more "purchasing" games, everything streaming-only
Tanzania effectively outlaws publicly posting your opinion (or anything else) online

Fuck.

--Patrick

Jun 13, 2018#298

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
AT&T merger with Time Warner approved without conditions
Net Neutrality officially eliminated at the Federal level
EU on brink of legislating requirement that all posted content must be submitted for copyright testing prior to being posted
Internet slated to finally surpass TV in 2019 as majority source of entertainment
Future gaming moving to "server-side" sub model, no more "purchasing" games, everything streaming-only
Tanzania effectively outlaws publicly posting your opinion (or anything else) online

Fuck.

--Patrick

Time to make the dark web the actual web, now, I guess.

Jun 13, 2018#299

figmentPez

PatrThom said:
EU on brink of legislating requirement that all posted content must be submitted for copyright testing prior to being posted

Man, that's going to make forum posts take longer than snail mail!

Jun 13, 2018#300

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Man, that's going to make forum posts take longer than snail mail!

It's not the time that's the issue, it's that everything will need to be compared against a database, and the database will only spit back "approved" or "rejected," has no appeals process, and also has insufficient oversight over what gets put in the database in the first place. So if something gets rejected, there's no real way to argue it, it's just "well it's in the database so it must belong to somebody."

--Patrick

Jun 13, 2018#301

Gared

PatrThom said:
AT&T merger with Time Warner approved without conditions
Net Neutrality officially eliminated at the Federal level
EU on brink of legislating requirement that all posted content must be submitted for copyright testing prior to being posted
Internet slated to finally surpass TV in 2019 as majority source of entertainment
Future gaming moving to "server-side" sub model, no more "purchasing" games, everything streaming-only
Tanzania effectively outlaws publicly posting your opinion (or anything else) online

Fuck.

--Patrick

Sorry, can't help you. This is what the people voted for.

Jun 13, 2018#302

Gared

Gared said:
Sorry, can't help you. This is what the people voted for.

Oooh, or how about, vote with your wallet.

Jun 13, 2018#303

figmentPez

Gared said:
Oooh, or how about, vote with your wallet.

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Jun 13, 2018#304

Gared

figmentPez said:
Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Yes.

Jun 13, 2018#305

PatrThom

Gared said:
Sorry, can't help you. This is what the people voted for.

I know you’re probably referring to the Presidency, but it’s not even that. In just the Net Neutrality thing, for instance, the polling and comments showed something like 80% popular support for maintaining the current regulations, Pai just decided to blatantly ignore the public opinion and rule instead according to his interests.

—Patrick

Jun 13, 2018#306

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
I know you’re probably referring to the Presidency, but it’s not even that. In just the Net Neutrality thing, for instance, the polling and comments showed something like 80% popular support for maintaining the current regulations, Pai just decided to blatantly ignore the public opinion and rule instead according to his interests.

—Patrick

Also, Ajit Pai was an Obama appointee.

Jun 13, 2018#307

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Also, Ajit Pai was an Obama appointee.

...who was renominated by ~~Verizon Wireless~~ Trump for a second term in 2017.

--Patrick

Jun 13, 2018#308

PatrThom

Emboldened by the ATT/TW merger, Comcast makes bid to buy 21st-Century Fox.

--Patrick

Jun 13, 2018#309

Krisken

Ok, from now on, this shit is hilarious.

Jun 13, 2018#310

Gared

PatrThom said:
I know you’re probably referring to the Presidency, but it’s not even that. In just the Net Neutrality thing, for instance, the polling and comments showed something like 80% popular support for maintaining the current regulations, Pai just decided to blatantly ignore the public opinion and rule instead according to his interests.

—Patrick

No, mainly I was sniping at a certain other poster who frequently says "that's what the people voted for," as an excuse for all of the completely horrific abuses of power, decency, and anything resembling humanity that are constantly being reported in the politics threads.

Jun 13, 2018#311

strawman

And I’m using it to mock the last two presidents who used “mandate” language to expand their power and control:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...4/trump-mandate-history-presidential-politics

I seem to remember a few on here defending the ACA and other Obama regime (language is fun!) decisions simply by saying, “he was elected so it’s what the people want”.

Post automatically merged: Jun 13, 2018

Krisken said:
Ok, from now on, this shit is hilarious.

When was it ever not hilarious? I started laughing when Democrats voted in republican primaries to sway the vote towards a candidate they felt couldn’t possibly win.

Jun 13, 2018#312

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
Also, Ajit Pai was an Obama appointee.

He was required to have two republicans on the FCC. Pai isn't some outlier, he's a traditional republican. Anti net-neutrality is the standard republican policy. Republicans are universally bad. You continue to pretend both sides are the same in the face of overwhelming evidence. Stop doing that.

Jun 13, 2018#313

Krisken

And saying 'the last president did it' isn't justification for horrible policies. Each president should IMPROVE, not continue policies which aren't working of the previous administration. Instead, it's being used as a justification for stupidity and bigotry.

It's not funny, and we see through it. I know we are all better than that.

Jun 13, 2018#314

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
And saying 'the last president did it' isn't justification for horrible policies. Each president should IMPROVE, not continue policies which aren't working of the previous administration. Instead, it's being used as a justification for stupidity and bigotry.

It's not funny, and we see through it. I know we are all better than that.

"The last DEMOCRAT President did it." And if he didn't it's a statistical anomaly, and you're upset over nothing. Also HER EMAILS.

Jun 13, 2018#315

Tress

Another fine example of “whataboutism.” Hooray.

Jun 14, 2018#316

Gared

stienman said:
And I’m using it to mock the last two presidents who used “mandate” language to expand their power and control:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...4/trump-mandate-history-presidential-politics

I seem to remember a few on here defending the ACA and other Obama regime (language is fun!) decisions simply by saying, “he was elected so it’s what the people want”.

Post automatically merged: Jun 13, 2018

When was it ever not hilarious? I started laughing when Democrats voted in republican primaries to sway the vote towards a candidate they felt couldn’t possibly win.

I know you are, at this point it's all just one big, futile expression of displeasure and frustration. A more precise statement would have been that I was expressing my frustration at your expense, than that I was making a snide comment to or about you - I don't have any ill will toward either steinman or the man behind the keyboard.

Jun 14, 2018#317

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
He was required to have two republicans on the FCC. Pai isn't some outlier, he's a traditional republican. Anti net-neutrality is the standard republican policy. Republicans are universally bad. You continue to pretend both sides are the same in the face of overwhelming evidence. Stop doing that.

Surely he could have found a republican that was NOT A VERIZON EMPLOYEE? Hell, even Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens would have been a better pick, and he was found guilty of corruption.

Call it whataboutism all you want, Obama shares just as much, if not more, blame for Ajit Pai.

Jun 14, 2018#318

blotsfan

Him working for verizon means he has "experience in the field." There is no republican who wouldn't be doing this. Pai is nothing.

Jun 14, 2018#319

strawman

“Whataboutism” is a weak argument, but it’s still a useful discussion point.

The two most appropriate responses are:

1. This is a distinctly different situation

And

2. It was wrong back then too

There are other ways, of course, but shutting down the discussion by saying that the argument is invalid is equally or more weak.

If it was still bad under a different person, say so. If it wasn’t then develop the discussion further with key differences that provides contextual differences that should change the decision this time.

Or keep on whining that your favorite politicians are being picked on and refuse to engage because you can’t stomach the thought of tarnishing their legacy or justifying their terrible decisions.

That, however, is a much weaker position to advocate your policy and platform from.

Too lazy to undangle that participle.

Jun 14, 2018#320

blotsfan

Of course it's bad that obama gave a republican power. Republicans are a cancer to the US. You'd be ok with him explicitly breaking the rules to prevent such a thing?

Jun 14, 2018#321

Eriol

blotsfan said:
Of course it's bad that obama gave a republican power. Republicans are a cancer to the US. You'd be ok with him explicitly breaking the rules to prevent such a thing?

blots, you are quite clearly stating "Only X group can stop Y group (which is "cancer") and thus I will support anything X group does, no matter how bad they are, because even implying they did something wrong gives weapons to group Y." This mentality is what led to your governments supporting the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and a number of other "really bad people" over the years. If you consider the Dems and the Republicans to be THAT different, I submit to you the idea that the distinction there is much closer than you think. Also keep in mind the difference between what they DO and what they SAY. They are MUCH closer under that lens. Your political choices are very much "heads they win, tails you lose" IMO.

Jun 14, 2018#322

blotsfan

Yeah that's what Russia told the dumb people here too.

Obama named Pai to the FCC because he was literally required to name a republican. Being anti-net neutrality is a part of the republican platform. If he didn't choose Pai, he would've chosen someone else.

And yeah, there are bad democrats. The difference is that there aren't good republicans. I wouldn't want to be a single party state, but the alternatives gotta be better than the protofascism the Republican Party works hard to implement.

Jun 14, 2018#323

strawman

I have it on good authority that there are at least fifty shades of gray between black and white.

Jun 14, 2018#324

PatrThom

Let’s also not forget that these days, party affiliation is something a politician dons more for outward appearance (and votes) than actual allegiance. That little R or D is about as much an indicator of a person’s actual character as the mask on a Mexican wrestler. Now if it’s any of the ones other than R or D, then I might believe it actually represents something.

—Patrick

Jun 14, 2018#325

blotsfan

stienman said:
I have it on good authority that there are at least fifty shades of gray between black and white.

And the republicans hate all of them.

Jun 14, 2018#326

blotsfan

PatrThom said:
Let’s also not forget that these days, party affiliation is something a politician dons more for outward appearance (and votes) than actual allegiance. That little R or D is about as much an indicator of a person’s actual character as the mask on a Mexican wrestler.

Yeah that's what Russia says.

If you push racist/sexist/homophobic (or corporatist to get to the topic) policies for votes rather than a sincere belief, you're still a racist/sexist/homophobe/corrupt piece of shit.

Jun 14, 2018#327

PatrThom

blotsfan said:
Yeah that’s what Russia says.
If you push racist/sexist/homophobic (or corporatist to get to the topic) policies for votes rather than a sincere belief, you're still a racist/sexist/homophobe/corrupt piece of shit.

...no matter which letter you wear, yes.

Also don’t forget xenophobic.

—Patrick

Jun 14, 2018#328

blotsfan

PatrThom said:
...no matter which letter you wear, yes.

And there are plenty of democrats that don't (note that I did not say literally every one). There is not a single republican that can say the same. Those are the party's stated goals.

Jun 14, 2018#329

evilmike

stienman said:
I have it on good authority that there are at least fifty shades of gray between black and white.

The safe word is "blockchain".

Jun 14, 2018#330

Eriol

PatrThom said:
Let’s also not forget that these days, party affiliation is something a politician dons more for outward appearance (and votes) than actual allegiance. That little R or D is about as much an indicator of a person’s actual character as the mask on a Mexican wrestler. Now if it’s any of the ones other than R or D, then I might believe it actually represents something.

blotsfan said:
Yeah that's what Russia says.

You keep saying this to ANY statement of equivocation between the two parties, but I have a reality check for you: Gas has been saying that since BEFORE Obama came in (at least). So saying "well Russia says this, so it's false" is just Reductio ad Hitlerum under the name of "Russia" these days.

Jun 14, 2018#331

blotsfan

Well yeah they went that route in part because the US had enough useful idiots to spread the idea on their own.

Jun 14, 2018#332

Dei

The two party system sucks. But at this point I think it would take actual government intervention to get rid of it, because people naturally want to gravitate to pre-formed groups because it means less effort on their part to get mostly what they want. The amount of people in my family who don't actually pay attention to politics at all and can't figure out why Donald Trump might be corrupt infuriates me. They just believe that the libs are fucking them over because that is what they are told, and having a "non-politician" is better even if, to quote my mom "He talks like an idiot." People actually *still* believe that Trump cares about people just doesn't have good public speaking skills. :rolleyes:

They get mad at people who dare say mean things about the president because it's "so disrespectful," but spent 8 years talking shit about Obama, and I don't mean about his politics, because I can guarantee they don't know what any of them were.

I have acquaintances on the other side of the fence too. The ones who repost Occupy Democrats like it's going out of style and won't admit fault in anything. Unfortunately, between these two groups of people, we're just ending up with a government that swings erratically from one extreme to the other while more people flock to register as independents, while still more or less voting down a 1 party line regardless, because cock blocking has become the politics of today.

Jun 14, 2018#333

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
There is no republican who wouldn't be doing this. Pai is nothing.

Except, you know, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and John Kennedy - the republican senators who voted to overturn the FCC's decision.

Jun 14, 2018#334

blotsfan

It's different when you have to run for office.

Jun 15, 2018#335

@Li3n

Eriol said:
This mentality is what led to your governments supporting the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and a number of other "really bad people" over the years.

I don't know if you really want to give those examples, since, you know, not supporting them any more turned out to be worse for their respective regions... and, actually, for the west too.

Post automatically merged: Jun 15, 2018

GasBandit said:
Except, you know, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and John Kennedy - the republican senators who voted to overturn the FCC's decision.

It's funny how it's always a few voting against the party on an unpopular, but somehow never enough to actually defeat the bill...

Jun 15, 2018#336

blotsfan

@Li3n said:
It's funny how it's always a few voting against the party on an unpopular, but somehow never enough to actually defeat the bill...

Actually in this case it did pass the senate. It's just that it won't pass the house and presidency.

Jun 15, 2018#337

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
It's funny how it's always a few voting against the party on an unpopular, but somehow never enough to actually defeat the bill...

Actually, they succeeded in the senate. The problem is the House hasn't brought it up for a vote yet (and yes, even if/when they do, it's probably not gonna go well... but then at least they'll be on record, and that record can be used against them come november).

Edit: Dammit, Ninja'd by blots!

Jun 15, 2018#338

Denbrought

@Li3n said:
I don't know if you really want to give those examples, since, you know, not supporting them any more turned out to be worse for their respective regions... and, actually, for the west too.

This seems analogous to what happens when you helpfully yank the knife out of the stab wound you caused.

Jun 15, 2018#339

figmentPez

blotsfan said:
Actually in this case it did pass the senate. It's just that it won't pass the house and presidency.

Yeah, because there's no cooperation between the Republicans in the Senate and those in the House. Two completely different groups that would never collude to make it look like some of their number are progressive, while still maintaining enough control over the issue to make sure their corporate interests are satisfied....

Jun 16, 2018#340

@Li3n

blotsfan said:
Actually in this case it did pass the senate. It's just that it won't pass the house and presidency.

I'll let Morty take this:

Denbrought said:
This seems analogous to what happens when you helpfully yank the knife out of the stab wound you caused.

Maybe, but once the knife is in...

Also, here some Billy Joel:

Jun 19, 2018#341

@Li3n

In case you see anyone still making the "it wasn't a regulation before 2015" claim, here's an article about the history of NN that was published in 2014: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/the-best-writing-on-net-neutrality/361237/

Jun 29, 2018#342

Eriol

Because this ENTIRE THREAD is such a political topic, IMO it should be in the politics forum.

That said, more politics! EFF Sues to Invalidate FOSTA, an Unconstitutional Internet Censorship Law

Jun 29, 2018#343

@Li3n

Political topic my ass.

Tech work in an objective manner, you can't pretend there are more then 1 side to how the internet works.

Jun 29, 2018#344

blotsfan

@Li3n said:
Political topic my ass.

Tech work in an objective manner, you can't pretend there are more then 1 side to how the internet works.

There are lots of objectively true things that republicans pretend aren't true because they're cancer.

Jun 29, 2018#345

strawman

I sometimes bemoan my red-green colorblindness, but to see only in black and white must be truly debilitating.

Jun 30, 2018#346

@Li3n

blotsfan said:
There are lots of objectively true things that republicans pretend aren't true because they're cancer.

But we shouldn't acknowledge that as a valid reason to treat a subject as political.

stienman said:
I sometimes bemoan my red-green colorblindness, but to see only in black and white must be truly debilitating.

He said lots, not all....

You ever considered that there are some black and white things, and just assuming everything you have mixed feelings is grey is just self serving?

Then gain, you're religious, so clearly you must have some things you think are black and white, unless you don't really believe in a supreme being and it's will.

Jun 30, 2018#347

strawman

@Li3n said:
He said lots, not all....

Let me requote him without all the fluff:

blotsfan said:
...republicans ... [are] cancer.

And I’m not up to a philosophical discussion about the nature of truth here. We’ve attempted to discuss it before but this is such a limited means of communication, and it’s so easy to get caught up on details or examples before we even agree on semantics.

If you really want to make an honest attempt of it, though, I suggest you start a new thread.

Jun 30, 2018#348

@Li3n

stienman said:
Let me requote him without all the fluff:

Sure, and let me requote you:

stienman said:
Let... him... get caught...

Clearly you're implying he's cheating on his wife...

And just above you where bemoaning people seeing only in b&w...

Context matters.

He clearly think republicans are cancer because they deny too many true things. Not just because they're republicans, as you're trying to imply.

stienman said:
And I’m not up to a philosophical discussion about the nature of truth here.

There's nothing philosophical about how 1&0s make a computer work. So there's really notinhg to discuss.

Jun 30, 2018#349

strawman

blotsfan said:
There are lots of objectively true things that republicans pretend aren't true because they're cancer.

If you parse the entire thing you’ll find he’s claiming that it’s because they are cancer that they pretend these things aren’t true.

But hey, if I’m wrong, please give me an English lesson. Tell me how I should have parsed that.

Jul 1, 2018#350

@Li3n

stienman said:
If you parse the entire thing you’ll find he’s claiming that it’s because they are cancer that they pretend these things aren’t true.

No, you chose to interpret it that way.

Yes, there's some ambiguity there, but to interpret it your way is to assume he just hates reps for no reason, and is just using their actions as an excuse... which is mighty b&w of you... while i'm giving him the mighty Christian benefit of the doubt and assuming he thinks they're cancer because of their actions.

Jul 1, 2018#351

@Li3n

Hey, Bubbble, maybe let me know what you disagree with exactly...

Jul 1, 2018#352

strawman

@Li3n said:
...there's some ambiguity there...

I disagree that it’s ambiguous, but I’m glad to see you arguing for shades of gray.

I really would appreciate an English lesson that shows it can be understood differently using standard English. I suggest you start with a sentence diagram.

Alternately I guess we could ask him for clarification.

Jul 1, 2018#353

@Li3n

stienman said:
I disagree that it’s ambiguous, but I’m glad to see you arguing for shades of gray.

I really would appreciate an English lesson that shows it can be understood differently using standard English. I suggest you start with a sentence diagram.

I'm not arguing for shades of grey, i'm arguing about language and clarifications. And i'm also not saying you're right, but that i understand the reasons behind why you're wrong.

He was 100% not saying that they're cancer by themselves, but his sentence structure does allow you some leeway, because it does say they're doing bad things because they're bad. But the relationship between bad people and bad actions is a two way street, and you can never separate them (well, you can, but then they're not bad any more etc).

stienman said:
Alternately I guess we could ask him for clarification.

I assumed you did that already when you "paraphrased" his post.

Jul 1, 2018#354

PatrThom

Maybe he was just saying that they reproduce uncontrollably.

--Patrick

Jul 2, 2018#355

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
Maybe he was just saying that they reproduce uncontrollably.

--Patrick

...are you calling @stienman a cancer?! :aaah:

Jul 3, 2018#356

@Li3n

Begun the Throttling War Has.

Jul 3, 2018#357

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
Begun the Throttling War Has.

Yes, many of the Internet’s tech sites have started reporting on all of the fresh, new limits being imposed on everyone’s so-called “Unlimited*” plans, and on how much everyone decided to raise their convenience/access/administrative fees immediately after going before Congress and saying how consolidation would allow them to bring lower prices to the consumer.

—Patrick
*Not really(tm)

Jul 5, 2018#358

@Li3n

And the EU rejects endangering our memes: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44712475

Jul 5, 2018#359

PatrThom

Good. Putting aside for a moment any debate about the merits of the proposal, the fact that there was no built-in oversight left it SO open for abuse that it deserved its fate.

—Patrick

Jul 6, 2018#360

@Li3n

YouTubing every website would have been such BS....

Aug 7, 2018#361

PatrThom

Ajit Pai: "Turns out there was no DDoS and it was just the crush of commenters after all. Thanks, Obama!"
No, really. He blames it on Obama.

Pai blamed the spreading of false information on employees hired by the Obama administration and said that he isn't to blame because he "inherited... a culture" from "the prior Administration" that led to the spreading of false information.

...because when I think "fake news," I of course think of Obama.

--Patrick

Aug 7, 2018#362

strawman

His propaganda was very artfully crafted, that's for sure, but I don't know that you could ever consider it 'fake news'.

Aug 7, 2018#363

PatrThom

stienman said:
His propaganda was very artfully crafted, that's for sure, but I don't know that you could ever consider it 'fake news'.

True. The cry of "Fake news!" is an attempt by the speaker to discredit/downplay an assertion the speaker does not like. It is not for when the speaker spreads his/her own invented/false information.

--Patrick

Aug 8, 2018#364

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
Ajit Pai: "Turns out there was no DDoS and it was just the crush of commenters after all. Thanks, Obama!"
No, really. He blames it on Obama.

...because when I think "fake news," I of course think of Obama.

--Patrick

Damn Obama, 1st he didn't do anything 7 years before he was in office to stop 9/11, and then he was misleading regulators a year after he left office... devious.

Aug 29, 2018#365

Eriol

Just... FCC can define markets with only one ISP as “competitive,” court rules

Aug 29, 2018#366

@Li3n

True, the clients are competing for who can take the most abuse from customer "service".

Aug 29, 2018#367

PatrThom

I don't know if it's mentioned in the article, but since satellite Internet is technically "available" everywhere, it's still "competition" because there are always at least two providers so long as that area also has some form of phone service (even if it's just competition between 768kb and 1Mb).

--Patrick

Aug 29, 2018#368

figmentPez

PatrThom said:
I don't know if it's mentioned in the article, but since satellite Internet is technically "available" everywhere, it's still "competition" because there are always at least two providers so long as that area also has some form of phone service (even if it's just competition between 768kb and 1Mb).

Which is like saying that the ability to install solar panels is competition for an electric company.

Sep 25, 2018#369

GasBandit

From imgur post, "I've been keeping track of the response times of over 200 websites since Net Neutrality was abolished. Here are the results."

This graphs shows the average response time to over 200 websites, with important milestones marked out. Notice the day of the Net Neutrality vote, average response times spiked 400%. ISPs knew that everyone would be paying attention to their internet speeds day of and the day after the vote, so they throttled before the vote and brought the speeds back to normal. The result is you think the vote made your internet faster.

This graph shows the data from the first graph with a low-pass fast fourier transform filter, which smoothes the data and allows us to see trends clearer. I've also added statistical norms so you can see what behavior is normal and what isn't. Notice that it removes outliers.

Sep 25, 2018#370

PatrThom

You know, they could just choke things a little bit, and raise prices a little bit, and people would grumble but they would still pay. But no, they’re going to try and maximize profits “to make those durned shareholders happy!” And then people will complain, the government will get involved, and then we’ll just have the “baby Bells” thing all over again, and it’s gonna suck.

Why can’t one of ‘em just start taking pride in what they do, and do such a good job of it that customers won’t be able to sign up fast enough? Whyyyyyyy?

—Patrick

Sep 25, 2018#371

Gared

PatrThom said:
You know, they could just choke things a little bit, and raise prices a little bit, and people would grumble but they would still pay. But no, they’re going to try and maximize profits “to make those durned shareholders happy!” And then people will complain, the government will get involved, and then we’ll just have the “baby Bells” thing all over again, and it’s gonna suck.

Why can’t one of ‘em just start taking pride in what they do, and do such a good job of it that customers won’t be able to sign up fast enough? Whyyyyyyy?

—Patrick

Because they honestly believe that they have a moral obligation to make as much money for the shareholders as possible?

Sep 25, 2018#372

PatrThom

Gared said:
Because they honestly believe that they have a ~~moral~~ obligation to make as much money for the shareholders as possible?

Ok, NOW it’s more accurate.
So much of companies’ shares are held by institutions now, and saying “shareholders” really should be “the 8 fund managers who hold 40% or more of our outstanding stock through various funds.”
So what you end up with is a board of directors that doesn’t get to make any of its own decisions because “the shareholders” literally own them, and any decisions the board does make are ones made with the understanding that they could be axed at any moment if they make “the shareholders” unhappy.

What I’m saying is, even if a company has several million shares outstanding, if they’re only split across 3 shareholders, then the whims of those 3 people disproportionately affect the direction that company takes, the policies they set, etc.

—Patrick

Sep 25, 2018#373

AshburnerX

There's a reason there's a big movement to get mandated employee positions on the board for members who are obligated to look after employee's best interests and not the shareholder's. It's because an entire generation of children saw their parents treated like replaceable cogs and endured a recession where employers wrung ever drop of cash they could out of workers. Now they are old enough to enter the workforce and they want fundamental changes in how companies treat their workers or they just adopt the most mercenary of attitudes and treat the company like it's disposable.

Work is changing. It's for the better.

Sep 25, 2018#374

Gared

PatrThom said:
Ok, NOW it’s more accurate.
So much of companies’ shares are held by institutions now, and saying “shareholders” really should be “the 8 fund managers who hold 40% or more of our outstanding stock through various funds.”
So what you end up with is a board of directors that doesn’t get to make any of its own decisions because “the shareholders” literally own them, and any decisions the board does make are ones made with the understanding that they could be axed at any moment if they make “the shareholders” unhappy.

What I’m saying is, even if a company has several million shares outstanding, if they’re only split across 3 shareholders, then the whims of those 3 people disproportionately affect the direction that company takes, the policies they set, etc.

—Patrick

I was specifically referring to the pharma CEO who said, out loud, with his mouth, that he had a moral obligation to raise the prices of his company's medications in order to reward his shareholders. I mean... I can't help it if they're dumb enough to say it out loud.

Sep 25, 2018#375

PatrThom

Gared said:
I was specifically referring to the pharma CEO who said, out loud, with his mouth, that he had a moral obligation to raise the prices of his company's medications in order to reward his shareholders. I mean... I can't help it if they're dumb enough to say it out loud.

Ah yes, that's right. I had forgotten about that.
But hey, what do you expect, since data show that when supplies of drugs run low, drug prices mysteriously rise.

--Patrick

Sep 25, 2018#376

DarkAudit

Don't let the different letters next to the names distract you from the fact that both WV senate candidates are human centipede levels up the ass of the pharmaceutical companies.

Dec 17, 2018#377

figmentPez

The FCC is now calling text messaging an information service now, as well. Seems like telcos are really pushing to not technically be telcos anymore.

Dec 17, 2018#378

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
The FCC is now calling text messaging an information service now, as well. Seems like telcos are really pushing to not technically be telcos anymore.

Well THAT’S a switch.
ISPs: “The rules for ‘Telecommunications Providers’ are too onerous, therefore we will self-identify as the less stringent ‘Information Service.’”
Telcos: “Ooo, that sounds like a great idea! We’re gonna game the system until we can claim the same thing!”

ISP that protested being ordered to block Sci-Hub by blocking Elsevier and government agencies now under threat for "Net Neutrality" violations
Elsevier/GvtAgency: “It’s only ok when we do it.”
Or:
CenturyLink blocked its customers’ Internet access in order to show an ad
CL: “We can and will arbitrarily and completely block ALL of your Internet access (on every port and protocol) until you fire up a web browser and view this ad from our preferred partner.”

—Patrick

Feb 2, 2019#379

GasBandit

Canada Bell tried to get VPNs banned during NAFTA negotiations

Feb 2, 2019#380

Frank

Bell is the fucking worst.

Feb 20, 2019#381

PatrThom

Senator Ed Markey (D, MA) and Representative Anna Eshoo (D, CA) propose TRUE Fees Act.
It would require that the price advertised by ISPs must include ALL those prices and fees not levied by government agencies.
So it doesn't have to include regulatory fees or taxes, but it DOES have to include things like "Internet Cost Recovery Fee" or any of the other sorts of line items that can add up to 25% more than the advertised price to the final bill.

It's a start, but it's still not what I was hoping for, which would mandate that all prices advertised by ISPs be listed as "$(maximum possible price) or less."

--Patrick

Mar 21, 2019#382

PatrThom

June, 2017:
To kill net neutrality rules, FCC says broadband isn’t “telecommunications”

March, 2019:
In quest for better reputation, “American Cable Association” (cable lobby) changes name to "America's Communications Association”

Ok, guys. Which is it?

—Patrick

Mar 25, 2019#383

PatrThom

Music labels sue Charter, claiming their marketing materials advertise the higher-speed Internet packages as being “better for piracy.”

“You can’t give people faster Internet! They’ll just use it to pirate even more stuff!”
I mean, they’re not wrong, buuuuut...

—Patrick

Mar 26, 2019#384

GasBandit

Tangentially related to this thread's topic... the EU has passed their "no memes" copyright law.

Mar 26, 2019#385

PatrThom

I’m confused now, since as recently as last week, it looked like the measure was headed for defeat (or at least revision before the final vote).
On a related note, it’s incredibly frustrating to watch measure after measure (both domestic and abroad) go the way of the stupids, and each time by such a slim margin. Is such a large proportion of people actually that short-sighted? Or are there really that many people who are on the take?

—Patrick

Mar 26, 2019#386

Eriol

PatrThom said:
Is such a large proportion of people actually that short-sighted? Or are there really that many people who are on the take?

Can somebody do me a solid and embed that "both" gif with the two animated guys?

Mar 26, 2019#387

GasBandit

Eriol said:
Can somebody do me a solid and embed that "both" gif with the two animated guys?

Mar 26, 2019#388

PatrThom

Eriol said:
the two animated guys?

“Miguel and Tulio.”

—Patrick

Mar 26, 2019#389

Gruebeard

Seeing Gas responding to a request to "do me a solid" is terrifying.

Mar 26, 2019#390

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
Seeing Gas responding to a request to "do me a solid" is terrifying.

Mar 26, 2019#391

Bubble181

It's a Godfather thing. He now owes The Gasbandit.

Mar 26, 2019#392

GasBandit

Mar 26, 2019#393

PatrThom

I want to see this blow up in the face of its supporters SO bad.
It wouldn’t even be that unlikely, either.

—Patrick

Mar 26, 2019#394

Ravenpoe

PatrThom said:
Is such a large proportion of people actually that short-sighted? Or are there really that many people who are on the take?

Yes

Mar 26, 2019#395

PatrThom

PatrThom said:
Is such a large proportion of people actually that short-sighted? Or are there really that many people who are on the take?

There's apparently another possibility we hadn't considered, the one where enough people are just FUCKING CLUELESS (or else lying after the fact to curry favor).

--Patrick

Apr 2, 2019#396

Dei

Apr 2, 2019#397

PatrThom

Some of the tech sites I follow have basically been running <Jackie_Chan_Meme.jpg> levels of incredulity about this, since the FTC’s attitude is basically, “The Free Market will fix itself” while knowing damn well that the capital outlay required to compete is basically beyond anyone who isn’t doing it already.

—Patrick

Apr 2, 2019#398

GasBandit

As a libertarian, let me just be on record saying that the free market doesn't fix geographic monopolies, internet access is de facto infrastructure, and ISPs should be classified as "common carriers" under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

Apr 6, 2019#399

PatrThom

I know we talked about this at least once before in October, but maybe the idea is finally getting some traction and getting across to people now that actual tech folks are saying the same thing.

Ironically, Too Many Video Streaming Choices May Drive Users Back To Piracy -- Ya think?
Also, bonus points for using "ironically" correctly. So meta!

...buuuut maybe the people involved will still ignore it because they can't see through the dollar signs blocking their vision. Maybe.

--Patrick

Apr 30, 2019#400

GasBandit

So this is big news and all -

https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/spa...less-high-speed-home-internet-from-space/amp/

But what amuses me most...

... is that they got the distracted boyfriend meme people as their picture.

May 1, 2019#401

Eriol

GasBandit said:
So this is big news and all -

https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/spa...less-high-speed-home-internet-from-space/amp/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

IMO they shouldn't approve ANY new satellites (from any country) until this is addressed. That won't happen, but it's what SHOULD happen.

I like SpaceX in general, however 4425 satellites shouldn't go up until there's a plan to deal with this.

May 1, 2019#402

Denbrought

Eriol said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

IMO they shouldn't approve ANY new satellites (from any country) until this is addressed. That won't happen, but it's what SHOULD happen.

I like SpaceX in general, however 4425 satellites shouldn't go up until there's a plan to deal with this.

How about having trash collectors in spaaaaaaaaaaceeeee (still one of my favorite shows). But really, I don't expect this to be addressed if/until it becomes a forefront issue, like with any other imperiled common resource (specially one so hard to stage sit-ins at for interested parties).

May 1, 2019#403

PatrThom

Eriol said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

IMO they shouldn't approve ANY new satellites (from any country) until this is addressed. That won't happen, but it's what SHOULD happen. I like SpaceX in general, however 4425 satellites shouldn't go up until there's a plan to deal with this.

https://www.satellitetoday.com/laun...s-lower-orbit-for-spacex-starlink-satellites/
I assume the lower orbit is as much to combat space debris as it is about lower latency.

Denbrought said:
How about having trash collectors in spaaaaaaaaaaceeeee

https://www.space.com/space-junk-cleanup-cubesat-oscar.html

--Patrick

May 1, 2019#404

DarkAudit

Denbrought said:
trash collectors in spaaaaaaaaaaceeeee (still one of my favorite shows)

Wait, are you talking Quark?

May 1, 2019#405

PatrThom

Damn, my inner pre-teen really misses that show.

--Patrick

May 1, 2019#406

DarkAudit

PatrThom said:
Damn, my inner pre-teen really misses that show.

--Patrick

*I* was a pre-teen when that originally aired. Where did mini-you see it?

May 1, 2019#407

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
*I* was a pre-teen when that originally aired. Where did mini-you see it?

NBC Friday nights, same as you, probably.

--Patrick

May 1, 2019#408

Denbrought

DarkAudit said:
Wait, are you talking Quark?

Fascinating, but no, I'm a bit too young. I was thinking of Planetes, which introduced me to the concept of the Kessler syndrome, a central element in one of my RPG settings.

May 1, 2019#409

sixpackshaker

DarkAudit said:
Wait, are you talking Quark?

I really miss the twins.

Jul 11, 2019#410

figmentPez

And the FCC continues to try to stamp out all forms of net neutrality: “This is crazy”: FCC kills part of San Francisco’s broadband-competition law

Jul 12, 2019#411

Bubble181

Pai's proposal said the FCC doesn't need to fully understand San Francisco's law in order to preempt it.

Hallellujah.

Oct 5, 2019#412

Dei

The convolution of the legal system is why we can't have nice things, I swear.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/20898779/fcc-net-neutrality-court-of-appeals-decision-ruling

Oct 5, 2019#413

PatrThom

Dei said:
The convolution of the legal system is why we can't have nice things, I swear.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/20898779/fcc-net-neutrality-court-of-appeals-decision-ruling

Yeah I kinda feel the same way as Scalia about it. I mean, our phone systems aren't even switched any more, and yet somehow it still can't get classified as "a communication service." Our phone calls are literally routed over IP networks now, but noooo somehow my literal phone calls are still classed as mere "information."

BrandX needs revision. End of story.

--Patrick

Dec 20, 2019#414

figmentPez

Net Neutrality adjacent:

Dec 20, 2019#415

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Net Neutrality adjacent:

This sounds more related to the awful new EU copyright law (the one passed by "accident") and how EVERYTHING is going into a black box that gets sole authority to decide whether your content stays up or not, and how it is probably going to bleed into everything worldwide since nobody is going to wall off the EU's from the Internet even though the EU caused this.

--Patrick

Dec 21, 2019#416

Krisken

Yeah, I dunno. That's been a big problem on YouTube for a while now. CGPGrey and Brady from Numberphile have talked about their issues with YouTube ad nauseum.

Dec 21, 2019#417

@Li3n

Krisken said:
Yeah, I dunno. That's been a big problem on YouTube for a while now. CGPGrey and Brady from Numberphile have talked about their issues with YouTube ad nauseum.

Yeah, Art. 13 sucks because it basically asks everyone to implement youtube's horrible automated copyright bullshit.

Dec 21, 2019#418

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
Yeah, Art. 13 sucks because it basically asks everyone to implement youtube's horrible automated copyright bullshit.

For those who don’t know, the gist of Art13 is:

Make a list of everything to be considered “copyrighted.”
Compare everything posted online against this list.
Anything found matching an item on the list will be considered “infringing.”
Hosting providers/ISPs are no longer insulated from liability. They are now assumed to be willingly complicit in any infringement merely because they host/deliver the content.*
There is no language (that I could find, anyway) describing how things get put on that list. So basically, there’s no process to verify that things belong on the list, and there’s no process to challenge anything on the list to have it removed. I also could not find anything ensuring the ability for anyone to say, “show me what’s on the list.”

—Patrick
*Article 13 does away with the “mere conduit” provisions that even the USA’s DMCA has (for now, at least). In my opinion, removing this protection was done mainly to force providers to implement their own content screening/scanning solutions, thereby relieving the EU government of the responsibility of developing an effective solution...because it’s impossible.

Dec 23, 2019#419

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
Hosting providers/ISPs are no longer insulated from liability. They are now assumed to be willingly complicit in any infringement merely because they host/deliver the content.*

To be fair, they're not insulated if they don't implement a youtube-like system... which has proven to suck and be full of false positives (which, under the US laws is actually actionable in court, but for some reason no one with lawyer money cares).

But hey, i for one can't wait for corner bootlegs to come back... that totally a nostalgic period for me. FF8 on 5 CDs bought individually as i had the dough represent.

Jan 10, 2020#420

PatrThom

To continue the Art13 and YouTube diatribe:

--Patrick

Mar 20, 2020#421

PatrThom

Well this is an effect of Coronavirus I had not expected:

YouTube [and Netflix] to reduce streaming quality in Europe due to coronavirus
This pandemic is clogging the tubes, people!

--Patrick

Mar 20, 2020#422

@Li3n

That's why we over here just went and bought up a whole truck of internet instead of using the tubes.

Jun 8, 2020#423

PatrThom

Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods [just] to punish [a few] heavy users

During these unprecedented times, many people are working and schooling from home, and maintaining connectivity is important. We are working to provide a positive Internet experience for everyone, so we've adjusted our Gigablast upload speeds in your neighborhood from 35Mbps to 10Mbps, now through July 15, 2020. Your download speeds have not changed

Could have spent the last few years upgrading capacity but noooooooo, gotta line those executive nests!
Just make it a utility already!

--Patrick

Aug 12, 2020#424

PatrThom

Charter tries to convince FCC that broadband customers want data caps

Charter isn't currently allowed to impose data caps because of conditions the FCC placed on its 2016 purchase of Time Warner Cable. The data-cap condition is scheduled to expire on May 18, 2023, but Charter in June petitioned the FCC to let the condition expire two years early, in May 2021. "Contrary to Stop The Cap's assertion [in an FCC filing] that consumers 'hate' data caps, the marketplace currently shows that broadband service plans incorporating data caps or other usage-based pricing mechanisms are often popular when the limits are sufficiently high to satisfy the vast majority of users," Charter told the FCC.

Yes, but the reason we consumers prefer those plans isn't because they have data caps, it's because those are the cheapest plans. DUH. They are reaching really hard.

--Patrick

Aug 12, 2020#425

figmentPez

PatrThom said:
Charter tries to convince FCC that broadband customers want data caps

Yes, but the reason we consumers prefer those plans isn't because they have data caps, it's because those are the cheapest plans. DUH. They are reaching really hard.

--Patrick

Also, most people don't know enough to realize that cable companies are lying when they say the caps are necessary to provide good service. Customers would also report being in favor of a "blinking light surcharge" if they were told the alternative was having their Netflix be eaten by a grue. Consumer protections don't really mean much if they don't protect against companies preying on ignorance.

Aug 17, 2020#426

PatrThom

I'll pass, thanks.

--Patrick

Aug 17, 2020#427

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
View attachment 34993

I'll pass, thanks.

--Patrick

Actually, if that's wireless DSL, that's not a terrible deal. As long as you're not torrenting. But it's AT&T, so I know the service will be shitty. I got a buddy in the DFW Metroplex who has AT&T and it's abysmal.

Aug 17, 2020#428

Dei

GasBandit said:
Actually, if that's wireless DSL, that's not a terrible deal. As long as you're not torrenting. But it's AT&T, so I know the service will be shitty. I got a buddy in the DFW Metroplex who has AT&T and it's abysmal.

18Mbps is hot trash.

Aug 17, 2020#429

GasBandit

Dei said:
18Mbps is hot trash.

People 3 miles to my east consider themselves lucky to get 5.

Emrys rarely gets more than 10.

Aug 17, 2020#430

Dei

GasBandit said:
People 3 miles to my east consider themselves lucky to get 5.

Emrys rarely gets more than 10.

Doesn't make it less shit. Just means that rural areas need better internet.

Aug 17, 2020#431

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Actually, if that's wireless DSL, that's not a terrible deal.

It's not. It's wired, landline DSL topping out at 18Mb/s. For $50/mo. The signal quality in my area is too poor even for DSL's normal 25Mb/s max. This is why I am currently paying Charter $70/mo for 100Mb/s. I would normally be getting 200Mb/s from Charter for that amount, but like I said, here at the end of the Earth where I live, they haven't upgraded their infrastructure enough yet to give me more than 100Mb/s.

--Patrick

Aug 17, 2020#432

Dei

It's sad to me that if I lived 5 miles west I could get gigabit for that price.

Aug 17, 2020#433

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
It's not. It's wired, landline DSL topping out at 18Mb/s. For $50/mo. The signal quality in my area is too poor even for DSL's normal 25Mb/s max. This is why I am currently paying Charter $70/mo for 100Mb/s. I would normally be getting 200Mb/s from Charter for that amount, but like I said, here at the end of the Earth where I live, they haven't upgraded their infrastructure enough yet to give me more than 100Mb/s.

--Patrick

As I said... that's about what Emrys pays for 10.

But yeah, if that's WIRED DSL, that's a shit deal.

Aug 17, 2020#434

sixpackshaker

Damn, my download is 11 my upload is .8.

Aug 17, 2020#435

PatrThom

T-Mobile is starting to offer "Wireless DSL" (i.e., data-only cellular) in our area, and I've considered it, if only as an alternate.

--Patrick

Aug 17, 2020#436

Shakey

I have an ATT wireless hotspot. Adding it on to our plan only cost an extra $15 a month. We get about 60 down and 7 up. We also average around 450 gb a month and haven’t been charged or throttled yet.

Aug 18, 2020#437

jwhouk

I think I'd go apeshit if I had to go down to 18 Mb.

Aug 18, 2020#438

Bubble181

jwhouk said:
I think I'd go apeshit if I had to go down to 18 Mb.

I have 220MB, and after opening the VPN and VDI for my work, my effective speed is around 5MB. It's a crying shame. I actually open most of the stuff I can open from outside of the network on my private PC simply because it is so much faster than my corporate PC, it's laughable and excruciating.

Aug 18, 2020#439

Tress

I just upgraded to 450mbps at home, and it feels a million times better. We’re both working from home and our daughter has school online, so the strain on our previous 45mbps internet was killing me. The best part is that the 450 from Comcast cost exactly the same as 45 from AT&T (fuck you!).

Being forced down to something like 18mbps just wouldn’t be an option.

Aug 27, 2020#440

PatrThom

5G in the USA averages ~50Mb/s, or about 2x 4G/LTE speeds. Meanwhile Canada's 5G is closer to 200Mb/s, and countries like Saudi Arabia are > 400Mb/s.

--Patrick

Oct 28, 2020#441

Shakey

SpaceX revealed their pricing for the Beta of their internet service... $500 one time fee and $100 a month.

No thanks. I wouldn’t pay that for a non-beta service, let alone one that may not even work reliably. I was really hoping this would be something that would kick the telcos in the ass and make them try to compete. Guess not.

The joys of rural internet.

Oct 28, 2020#442

GasBandit

Shakey said:
SpaceX revealed their pricing for the Beta of their internet service... $500 one time fee and $100 a month.

No thanks. I wouldn’t pay that for a non-beta service, let alone one that may not even work reliably. I was really hoping this would be something that would kick the telcos in the ass and make them try to compete. Guess not.

The joys of rural internet.

Depending on how "rural" you are, that's actually way better than most people can find, for 100 mbit and 30ms latency. I think people I know who are currently getting about 3mbit out there pay something like $90+ already.

Of course, it remains to be seen exactly how well it will actually work.

Oct 28, 2020#443

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Depending on how "rural" you are, that's actually way better than most people can find, for 100 mbit and 30ms latency. I think people I know who are currently getting about 3mbit out there pay something like $90+ already.

Of course, it remains to be seen exactly how well it will actually work.

Yeah, I gotta agree... if this eliminates the last mile problem and actually brings high speed to rural locations, I know several places that would grab this in a heartbeat, even at that price.

Oct 28, 2020#444

Shakey

Yeah, I know there are places that basically aren’t served at all, and this will be great for them. Those places were essentially not served at all before though, and I don’t think telcos will care if they leave. I’d just like some actual competition in my area, right now I’ll be paying $80 for 100 mb.
The bigger problem is still going to be the price, we’re talking places where people are mostly low income. There is no way they’ll be able to afford $500 up front. Hopefully that changes.

Oct 28, 2020#445

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
Depending on how "rural" you are, that's actually way better than most people can find, for 100 mbit and 30ms latency. I think people I know who are currently getting about 3mbit out there pay something like $90+ already.

Of course, it remains to be seen exactly how well it will actually work.

Forget the speed and latency, what's the data cap? That's a huge deal for people currently on satellite internet. I have a friend who can't watch any streaming video when she's home at her parent's house, because her mom uses their entire cap for business video conferencing, and that's with a business internet account.

Oct 28, 2020#446

Shakey

figmentPez said:
Forget the speed and latency, what's the data cap? That's a huge deal for people currently on satellite internet. I have a friend who can't watch any streaming video when she's home at her parent's house, because her mom uses their entire cap for business video conferencing, and that's with a business internet account.

If I remember correctly there weren’t any data caps.

Oct 28, 2020#447

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
Forget the speed and latency, what's the data cap? That's a huge deal for people currently on satellite internet. I have a friend who can't watch any streaming video when she's home at her parent's house, because her mom uses their entire cap for business video conferencing, and that's with a business internet account.

Cap info is still as of yet TBA.

Oct 30, 2020#448

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
Cap info is still as of yet TBA.

That means they already know they're going to have caps and that people won't like it

Nov 3, 2020#449

PatrThom

Time to Treat Broadband Like the Essential Service It Is

Let’s stop ignoring the obvious: broadband internet access service is a public utility and needs to be regulated as one. American consumers agree. A Consumer Reports survey from earlier this …

www.techdirt.com

It is inevitable. Embrace it. Stop pretending it isn't and get it over with already.

--Patrick

Nov 3, 2020#450

Ravenpoe

PatrThom said:
Time to Treat Broadband Like the Essential Service It Is

Let’s stop ignoring the obvious: broadband internet access service is a public utility and needs to be regulated as one. American consumers agree. A Consumer Reports survey from earlier this …

www.techdirt.com

It is inevitable. Embrace it. Stop pretending it isn't and get it over with already.

--Patrick

I'm sorry, but have you met capitalism? It will seek to squeeze every ounce of profit from it for as long as it can regardless of the harm done

Nov 26, 2020#451

PatrThom

Ravenpoe said:
I'm sorry, but have you met capitalism? It will seek to squeeze every ounce of profit from it for as long as it can regardless of the harm done

Speaking of which, it's been a busy week for Comcast:

Comcast Got $1 Billion in Public Subsidies. Now Its Charging the Public New Data Fees.

Comcast raising TV and Internet prices, including a big hike to hidden fees.

Comcast completing rollout of 1.2TB data cap over the rest of its service area that didn't already have one.

I may have some ideas as to which issues I want the new administration to tackle over the coming 4 years.

--Patrick

Jan 20, 2021#452

PatrThom

PatrThom said:
Charter tries to convince FCC that broadband customers want data caps

Ok so now everybody needs to get together and outlaw data caps before their standing agreement runs out in May of 2023, ok?

--Patrick

Jan 20, 2021#453

DarkAudit

That's right! Isn't today when they start re-instituting net neutrality rules?

Jan 20, 2021#454

PatrThom

Well, it's the day Ajit Pai stepped down, which is probably a step in the right direction.

--Patrick

Jan 21, 2021#455

Dei

3Mbps uploads still fast enough for US homes, Ajit Pai says in final report

Pai’s last report keeps 6-year-old broadband standard and gives ISPs high marks.

arstechnica.com

Jan 21, 2021#456

@Li3n

Dei said:
3Mbps uploads

EDIT:

For around 10$ a month (might be more now since the $ went down, but it's still under 10€):

Speedtest by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test

Use Speedtest on all your devices with our free desktop and mobile apps.

www.speedtest.net

Jan 21, 2021#457

Tress

Dei said:
3Mbps uploads still fast enough for US homes, Ajit Pai says in final report

Pai’s last report keeps 6-year-old broadband standard and gives ISPs high marks.

arstechnica.com

What a fucking clown. Good riddance.

Jan 21, 2021#458

PatrThom

Dei said:
3Mbps uploads still fast enough for US homes, Ajit Pai says in final report

Pai’s last report keeps 6-year-old broadband standard and gives ISPs high marks.

arstechnica.com

Yeah, I saw that.
It's bullshit.
He should be limited to the lowest speed in the nation (whatever that is) for the rest of his life.

--Patrick

Jan 21, 2021#459

Dei

@Li3n said:
EDIT:

For around 10$ a month (might be more now since the $ went down, but it's still under 10€):

Speedtest by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test

Use Speedtest on all your devices with our free desktop and mobile apps.

www.speedtest.net

I had to pay for gigabit download speeds just to get 25 up. :/

Jan 23, 2021#460

@Li3n

Dei said:
I had to pay for gigabit download speeds just to get 25 up. :/

Have you tried moving to a non-shithole country?

:troll:

Jan 23, 2021#461

sixpackshaker

@Li3n said:
EDIT:

For around 10$ a month (might be more now since the $ went down, but it's still under 10€):

Speedtest by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test

Use Speedtest on all your devices with our free desktop and mobile apps.

www.speedtest.net

$50 for 10mb down and 1 up.

Jan 23, 2021#462

@Li3n

You know you can use the site and post the results, right...

Jan 23, 2021#463

jwhouk

Yes, yes I can.

Jan 23, 2021#464

sixpackshaker

@Li3n said:
You know you can use the site and post the results, right...

Or, you know, just type out the results.

Jan 24, 2021#465

@Li3n

sixpackshaker said:
Or, you know, just type out the results.

Like some sort of animal.... :Leyla:

Feb 7, 2021#466

PatrThom

Further elaboration here.

--Patrick

Feb 7, 2021#467

GasBandit

I have a friend with AT&T internet. STaying at his house is TORTURE. It's so shitty.

Feb 7, 2021#468

AshburnerX

Yeah... I'm really hoping the Biden administration passes some legislation to get lines updated. The US is using some of the oldest high speed lines in existence, mostly because the telecoms don't want to replace them.

Feb 7, 2021#469

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
I have a friend with AT&T internet. STaying at his house is TORTURE. It's so shitty.

I still remember staying at some relatives house in a suburb of Paris in the early '00s... their internet was so horrible...

At least the german relatives lived in some small town near a city, so i assumed the shitty net was because of that.

I wonder if their net is better nowadays.

Feb 7, 2021#470

Dei

What also helps is when cable companies start getting nervous that towns will start their own internet services. Comcast upgraded our shit and prices really quick when Longmont made their own municipal internet and neighboring towns started considering doing the same.

Feb 7, 2021#471

PatrThom

AshburnerX said:
the telecoms don't want to replace them.

...and why should they? Their current DSL infrastructure easily manages to meet the 25Mbps minimum speed required to [barely] label it as "Broadband," and all for just... oh dear, it appears they no longer even offer DSL service for new subscribers. But when they did, it was at the entirely reasonable rate of ... <checks notes> ... uh, $49/mo.

--Patrick

Feb 7, 2021#472

Frank

Telus here in Canada is the same. Best I can get is 50 mbs from them, but my friends literally two blocks away get gigabit fiber. The fiber is here, they just dun wanna.

Feb 8, 2021#473

Fun Size

Dei said:
What also helps is when cable companies start getting nervous that towns will start their own internet services. Comcast upgraded our shit and prices really quick when Longmont made their own municipal internet and neighboring towns started considering doing the same.

I actually watched a story of a guy who lives around here just starting up his own. He got funding by pre-selling to all his neighbors, ran his own lines and everything. Just amazing.

Feb 8, 2021#474

@Li3n

Fun Size said:
I actually watched a story of a guy who lives around here just starting up his own. He got funding by pre-selling to all his neighbors, ran his own lines and everything. Just amazing.

Welcome to here around the mid '00s.

Feb 8, 2021#475

PatrThom

Fun Size said:
I actually watched a story of a guy who lives around here just starting up his own. He got funding by pre-selling to all his neighbors, ran his own lines and everything. Just amazing.

Jared Mauch didn’t have good broadband—so he built his own fiber ISP

--Patrick

Feb 9, 2021#476

Fun Size

PatrThom said:
Jared Mauch didn’t have good broadband—so he built his own fiber ISP

--Patrick

That's him.

Feb 9, 2021#477

PatrThom

Fun Size said:
That's him.

I messaged @strawman about it since I know he is also not that far away and was looking for better Internet options. Turns out the two of them went to high school or college together, or something like that.

--Patrick

Feb 12, 2021#478

PatrThom

PatrThom said:

source

Now, barely a week later, Epstein's home in North Hollywood, California, has AT&T fiber service with unlimited data and advertised speeds of 300Mbps in both directions. In a speed test yesterday, download speeds were 363Mbps and upload speeds were 376Mbps. It's a gigantic upgrade over the "up to" 3Mbps DSL he and his wife, Anne, struggled with before.

--Patrick

Feb 12, 2021#479

GasBandit

Maybe I should take out an ad in the WSJ, I've never gotten my full advertised download speed, much less more than.

Feb 12, 2021#480

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Maybe I should take out an ad in the WSJ

I hear it's only $10k to do so.

--Patrick

Apr 1, 2021#481

PatrThom

NCTA–The Internet & Television Association, which represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies, argued that Biden's plan is "a serious wrong turn." NCTA is particularly mad that Biden wants to expand municipal broadband networks that could fill gaps where there's no high-speed broadband from private ISPs and lower prices by providing competition to cable companies that usually dominate their regional territories. "The White House has elected to go big on broadband infrastructure, but it risks taking a serious wrong turn in discarding decades of successful policy by suggesting that the government is better suited than private-sector technologists to build and operate the Internet"

source

Well, considering how the Internet ORIGINATED IN THE FIRST PLACE...
You'd think a group of people calling themselves "The Internet & Television Association" would know the history of the Internet.

--Patrick

Apr 12, 2021#482

PatrThom

The app, called "FCC Speed Test," will show users their network performance test results, which they can directly compare against what their ISP says they should get. In addition to the test results, the app also sends the results to the FCC as part of its Measuring Broadband America Program.

You know what to do.

--Patrick

Apr 12, 2021#483

DarkAudit

PatrThom said:
You know what to do.

--Patrick

For mobile only, it appears? Nothing for you to check your desktop or laptop.

Apr 12, 2021#484

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
For mobile only, it appears? Nothing for you to check your desktop or laptop.

I know, not as complete as they probably hoped.

The mobile app appears to have been around for a few years (it's just the data aggregation that's new). Here's hoping they add some kind of desktop option.

--Patrick

May 10, 2021#485

GasBandit

The map of America's broadband problem

This is a map of America’s broadband problem

The worst connections in the country.

www.theverge.com

Jun 26, 2021#486

PatrThom

Altice is reducing cable-Internet upload speeds by up to 86% next month

Why are they doing this, you ask?

Altice claimed that its cable network isn't having any trouble offering its current advertised speeds. "Our network continues to perform very well despite the significant data usage increases during the pandemic and the speed tiers we offer," the company said. The upload-speed change is apparently being implemented not to solve any network problem but to match the slower upload speeds offered by other cable ISPs. Altice [said] that it is changing its cable upload speeds to bring them "in line with other ISPs and aligned with the industry."

In other words: "We decided to lower our speeds once we realized we accidentally hadn't made our service as shitty as everyone else's."

--Patrick

Jun 26, 2021#487

GasBandit

Yeah, my ISP (Suddenlink) got bought by Altice. I'm grumpy about this, though supposedly my plan will be grandfathered so it won't go down, and even if it was, the gigabit plan is only going from 50 to 35 up. But most of the reason I got gigabit was for that 50 up, because I know you never fucking get a gig down (it's rare I get better than 500 down).

Jun 26, 2021#488

MindDetective

The free market in action!

Jun 26, 2021#489

Tinwhistler

GasBandit said:
Yeah, my ISP (Suddenlink) got bought by Altice. I'm grumpy about this, though supposedly my plan will be grandfathered so it won't go down, and even if it was, the gigabit plan is only going from 50 to 35 up. But most of the reason I got gigabit was for that 50 up, because I know you never fucking get a gig down (it's rare I get better than 500 down).

When i get to texas in Aug, I'll be on suddenlink. But I'm part of the problem, because I 'm not a prolific uploader. 35 up will suit me fine, and I'm not going to make a stink about it. heh

Jun 27, 2021#490

GasBandit

Tinwhistler said:
When i get to texas in Aug, I'll be on suddenlink. But I'm part of the problem, because I 'm not a prolific uploader. 35 up will suit me fine, and I'm not going to make a stink about it. heh

Just be aware that suddenlink LIES about everything.

I have the "gigabit" package, which promises "up to" 980 mbit down, 50 up.

Speedtest.net to Navasota (which every ISP now knows it needs to fake):

fast.com test (to netflix, to check for throttling, but ISPs are getting wise now)

Speedof.me (which most ISPs haven't figured out they need to fake out yet)

Testmy.net results, which are similarly not yet in their fakery sights

DSLreports.com/speedtest , which used to be a go-to, but looks like it's as unreliable as speedtest.net now.

And just for giggles, here's the google Stadia speed test to see if your connection is good enough to play on Stadia -

Downloads from steam seem to vary from moment to moment and are probably more steam's fault than anything, but I usually get 100-200mbit and only very occasionally 400ish mbit

Jun 27, 2021#491

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Just be aware that suddenlink LIES about everything.

I have the "gigabit" package, which promises "up to" 980 mbit down, 50 up.

What does bandwidthplace.com say?
(I mainly ask because I want to know if bwp is on your ISP's fakery list)

--Patrick

Jun 27, 2021#492

Dave

Very interesting. I ran mine 10 times through a few of these and here are the averages:

Ookla - 775.25 down, 489.97 up.
Bandwidth Test - 571.95 down, 119.28 up.
Fast - 610 down, 565 up.
TestMy - 45.6 down, 36.55 up.

One of these things is not like the others...

Jun 27, 2021#493

jwhouk

You are not POSSIBLY suggesting that ISP's have PAID OFF certain bandwith test sites to LIE about their speeds?

/sarcasm_mode

Jun 27, 2021#494

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
You are not POSSIBLY suggesting that ISP's have PAID OFF certain bandwith test sites to LIE about their speeds?

/sarcasm_mode

It's more like the ISPs have triggers in place that go off whenever someone tries to connect to known bandwidth testing sites to open the floodgates for the test, then go back to restrictive throttling everywhere else.

That's why fast.com is so useful, it's literally hosted on Netflix's media servers, so if they throttle netflix, Fast.com tattles on them.

Jun 27, 2021#495

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
What does bandwidthplace.com say?
(I mainly ask because I want to know if bwp is on your ISP's fakery list)

--Patrick

Well, on the upside, it doesn't look like the ISP is opening aforementioned floodgates for it, but the fact that it seems to cap out at 100 for me makes me think there might be some other issue going on.

I tried Dallas and got 120 down. Chicago only got me 50.

Aug 30, 2021#496

PatrThom

Debated putting this in one of the gaming threads, but felt like it fit better here:

The modern challenge of gaming without a strong Internet connection

Massive patch downloads, online-focused game designs hinder millions of players.

arstechnica.com

I love this article. Mainly for the writing. Things such as [emphasis mine]:

In other parts of the world, even more people are unable to play video games because of increasing Internet requirements and are at risk of being pushed out of the hobby because of it. I write from personal experience. I live in the Falkland Islands, a British territory off the coast of South America, where I pay 120 pounds (roughly $165) per month for 57.2GB of capped data. That data comes in at maximum connection speeds of 5.25Mbps download & 768kbps upload. It often has a ping time between 500 and 800 ms.

And this:

Despite my Internet troubles, I realize that I am lucky to live in a place where society is relatively safe and stable. Many of the places around the world with the most limited Internet access also have other socioeconomic issues with infrastructure, poverty, or disease that would make playing games seem like an amazing luxury. I’ll leave those topics to a writer with a greater specific understanding and experience.

Typical English understatement.

Anyway, with Ida ravaging the South right now, there are more people this applies to than there were a week ago, and they're people who probably weren't expecting to have to deal with it, to boot.

--Patrick

Oct 12, 2021#497

figmentPez

Spectrum Threatens Former Customers In Renewal Shakedown

"Spectrum has been sending former customers strange letters threatening to report them to the credit agencies unless they renew services, in attempt to win back their business. The letters say that 'as a one-time courtesy,' the company will cancel debt it claims they owe and stop reporting them to credit agencies -- if they agree to resume cable service. The threat continues by stating that 'You have worked hard to build a great future for yourself and your family' 'We look forward to welcoming you back.' "

Oct 12, 2021#498

jwhouk

That's all nice and good, but I kinda moved out of their coverage area.

Jan 20, 2022#499

PatrThom

So you're still bumping along on your decrepit old Wifi 5 (802.11ac) wireless system with its paltry theoretical maximum of ~3 Gbps and you've been thinking about upgrading to WiFi 6 (802.11ax) or 6E (802.11ax Extended) to bump that up to ~10Gbps but you've been putting off upgrading because decent 6/6E routers can go for US$500? Well that's okay, because Wifi 7 (802.11be) is coming, possibly as early as 2023, bringing with it a max speed of ~30Gbps as well as other enhancements that will make it easier to use multiple devices simultaneously. Cost of WiFi 7 routers/APs is as yet unknown, though.

...of course this is all fairly academic and useless since the average Internet download speed in the US is only about 8Mbps, but I'm sure it will be of use to somebody, someday.

--Patrick

Oct 5, 2022#500

GasBandit

Welp, bump- because the Supreme Court might be about to basically destroy the internet, and both Democrats and Republicans are on board.

The Supreme Court and the future of the internet

Why a case involving Section 230 could change everything

theweek.com

Forums