The Internet will never satisfy its lust for Net Neutrality and Bandwidth
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
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.
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).
I assumed you did that already when you "paraphrased" his post.
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)
And the EU rejects endangering our memes: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44712475
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.
--Patrick
No, really. He blames it on Obama.
...because when I think "fake news," I of course think of Obama.
--Patrick
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
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.
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
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Which is like saying that the ability to install solar panels is competition for an electric company.
GasBandit
Staff member
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
Work is changing. It's for the better.
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
figmentPez
Staff member
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
Last edited:
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 "$(maximum possible price) or less."
--Patrick
It would require that the price advertised by ISPs must include ALL those prices and fees not levied by government agencies.
So it doesn't have to include regulatory fees or taxes, but it DOES have to include things like "Internet Cost Recovery Fee" or any of the other sorts of line items that can add up to 25% more than the advertised price to the final bill.
It's a start, but it's still not what I was hoping for, which would mandate that all prices advertised by ISPs be listed as "$(maximum possible price) or less."
--Patrick
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
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
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
“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
Last edited:
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
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