Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).

That's actually kind of funny. I mean we all know Chattanooga exists, but who ever actually thinks of anything cool happening in Chattanooga XD

A bit off topic, but we have a manufacturing plant nearby. Decent Bar-B-Que and 2 bourbon bars on the same block. They really made an effort making their downtown "entertainment friendly". Lots of parking, bars, restaurants, and hotels in the past 10 or so years. Nice little place.

 kronk wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).

That's actually kind of funny. I mean we all know Chattanooga exists, but who ever actually thinks of anything cool happening in Chattanooga XD

A bit off topic, but we have a manufacturing plant nearby. Decent Bar-B-Que and 2 bourbon bars on the same block. They really made an effort making their downtown "entertainment friendly". Lots of parking, bars, restaurants, and hotels in the past 10 or so years. Nice little place.

Plus it's a hell of a lot of fun to say, "Chattanooga"

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I pay about $95 for 100mbps, but the speed is actually around 20-30mbps. I wonder how many people regularly check their actual speeds. For me, it's sort of become a weird OCD thing.

Checked just now...

13.7 mbps download, 2.99 mbps upload.

This is one of the good days...

If you're consistently only getting 1/3rd of what you pay for, surely there's something you can do? Only pay a third, since you're only getting a third (after logging this over an extended period of time so you have proof, of course).

I mean this happened with my previous provider, and they would do jack about it, so I switched.

...

Oh wait. Sorry. Couldn't resist.

 Sasori wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I pay about $95 for 100mbps, but the speed is actually around 20-30mbps. I wonder how many people regularly check their actual speeds. For me, it's sort of become a weird OCD thing.

I read an article about a guy who had a script (Python I think) check his speed, and whenever it fell below a threshold it would automatically tweet at Comcast. I thought that was pretty funny.

I can do that in PERL.

Also write a wall post on Charter's facebook page.

 Ouze wrote:
Man, you guys are getting railed. I'm paying $70/mo and getting 270mbps down, 30mbps up and a 2TB cap. My plan plan is straight internet (no TV or cable) and it's like the 4th best plan - my ISP has gigabit ethernet now (cable, not fiber). But I feel like once you exceed around 200mbps, it sort of isn't worth it anymore - cap becomes more important than speed.

Some of us live in areas where satellite is The Only broadband solution. I can't even get DSL.

I have the highest bandwidth allocation at 50 GB a month*, and it costs a crap ton. And the service is slow.


* I also get a bonus 50 GB a month I can use between 2300-0600 or something like that...

In the UK the average usage per month is something like 150GB per household. I don't know how that is worked out. It's just something I read.

My own house uses about 30 to 40GB a month, because we are on a 17mbps (max) copper ADSL line and we don't even try to watch a lot of VOD and so on. We don't have a monthly cap, but we probably wouldn't reach it anyway.

Obviously on a faster line you are likely to use more data, but the cost of the usage is mainly in the installation cost of the line. The incremental cost is the electricity and maintenance of the various routers and data centres.

Bran Dawri wrote:
If you're consistently only getting 1/3rd of what you pay for, surely there's something you can do? Only pay a third, since you're only getting a third (after logging this over an extended period of time so you have proof, of course)..

It's likely sold as "up to" whatever mbit, so as advertised.

I'm on 38mbit and get something about 24mbit, but I don't mind because it's the same price as the 16mbit service

In the US a common issue is that the last mile lines are much faster and more modern than the lines behind them. Having a 200 mb cable is kind of pointless when three miles down the line it connects to a 100 mb cable.

That's is why you guys need actual competition on a local level. Like I said, the service I had was crap, so I switched to a different provider who actually gets me what I'm paying for. Capitalism as it should work.

One of the biggsst issues is everything is decided by short term gains. Sure you may gain x amount of loyal customers for years if you run cable down that road, but what does that get you right now?

I think in most areas in the USA there is little to no competiton on a town to town basis.

Towns/counties enter into agreements with cable companies, and then most other companies can't offer you much, if anything.

In my town, you can get Comcast or Verizon for 'everything' (TV, internet, phone) or Direct TV for TV, but no internet, etc, etc, etc

I do wonder what towns get for entering into these 'contracts'...

For $175 a month I get unlimited 175mbps internet, way too many TV channels and a landline with unlimited calling in the USA.

I only have the landline because cell service isn't the greatest in my neighborhood/in my actual house...

I am a bit concerned about what all the cable/internet providers will get up to now though.

Do we need a FDR style rural electrification project, only for broadband/fiber?

Oh wait, then we would need Internet access to be a Utility. Drat!

I 'member the internet all the way back before 2015....

*takes long drag on cigarette*

Back then, it was... well...

*waves hand holding cigarette*

...kind of mostly the way it is now...

*shudders in horror*

Am I doing this right?

If by 'right' you mean making the same dishonest argument then sure.

 whembly wrote:
I 'member the internet all the way back before 2015....

*takes long drag on cigarette*

Back then, it was... well...

*waves hand holding cigarette*

...kind of mostly the way it is now...

*shudders in horror*

Am I doing this right?

while I admire the styling, the issue wasn't "they broke the internet, fix it post facto with net neutrality!" It was "hey, we're seeing these hijinks going on, they look to be getting worse and their impact more widespread, as the internet becomes more and more entrenched this could get real bad, we see how these hijinks are abused elsewhere in the world, lets nip it in the bud before it gets bad."

I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I 'member the internet all the way back before 2015....

*takes long drag on cigarette*

Back then, it was... well...

*waves hand holding cigarette*

...kind of mostly the way it is now...

*shudders in horror*

Am I doing this right?

while I admire the styling, the issue wasn't "they broke the internet, fix it post facto with net neutrality!" It was "hey, we're seeing these hijinks going on, they look to be getting worse and their impact more widespread, as the internet becomes more and more entrenched this could get real bad, we see how these hijinks are abused elsewhere in the world, lets nip it in the bud before it gets bad."

My opposition isn't opposing any governmental rules or policy that addresses NN.

It's treating the internet as if it's a utility, hence the previous' FCC ruling to reclassify it as Title II.

 skyth wrote:
If by 'right' you mean making the same dishonest argument then sure.

Merry Christmas buddy.

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

And Merry Christmas to you too!

 Ustrello wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Wanna tango again?

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

Please do read up on the Chevron Doctrine.

The best thing forward *is* for Congress to pass NN principles into law.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I 'member the internet all the way back before 2015....

*takes long drag on cigarette*

Back then, it was... well...

*waves hand holding cigarette*

...kind of mostly the way it is now...

*shudders in horror*

Am I doing this right?

while I admire the styling, the issue wasn't "they broke the internet, fix it post facto with net neutrality!" It was "hey, we're seeing these hijinks going on, they look to be getting worse and their impact more widespread, as the internet becomes more and more entrenched this could get real bad, we see how these hijinks are abused elsewhere in the world, lets nip it in the bud before it gets bad."

My opposition isn't opposing any governmental rules or policy that addresses NN.

It's treating the internet as if it's a utility, hence the previous' FCC ruling to reclassify it as Title II.

 skyth wrote:
If by 'right' you mean making the same dishonest argument then sure.

Merry Christmas buddy.

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

And Merry Christmas to you too!

 Ustrello wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Wanna tango again?

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

Please do read up on the Chevron Doctrine.

The best thing forward *is* for Congress to pass NN principles into law.

Considering pretty much every knowledgeable person agrees with my stances and not yours nah I don't think I will try it again. But hey, its just your children's, and grandchildren's world your views are ruining.

I will read that when I got a second, but there is already some motion to do so, though it is in the form of forbidding throttling or choking of internet speed

 Ustrello wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

I have a feeling that there's already been some motion in the form of those employing the bots to counter this argument.

I noticed a few pro-NN bot posts when I was checking to see if my name was being used.

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

About a third of the time his posts provide value to the discussion, which is far more than can be said for a troll or the outright delusional. Think of it more as an opportunity to see a different perspective that has a decent chance of being based in reality, even if most of the time it largely isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

I have a feeling that there's already been some motion in the form of those employing the bots to counter this argument.

I noticed a few pro-NN bot posts when I was checking to see if my name was being used.

It does look like there's some bots in support of NN, but the percentage of 'supporters' on the anti side which are bots still much much higher. Personally I'd rather supporters refrain from bots since sinking to that level does more harm from de-legitimizing than it does good. Of course I imagine people who didn't vote are somewhat desperate to show some action in support of NN since they opted to do nothing when it mattered most.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

About a third of the time his posts provide value to the discussion, which is far more than can be said for a troll or the outright delusional. Think of it more as an opportunity to see a different perspective that has a decent chance of being based in reality, even if most of the time it largely isn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

I have a feeling that there's already been some motion in the form of those employing the bots to counter this argument.

I noticed a few pro-NN bot posts when I was checking to see if my name was being used.

It does look like there's some bots in support of NN, but the percentage of 'supporters' on the anti side which are bots still much much higher. Personally I'd rather supporters refrain from bots since sinking to that level does more harm from de-legitimizing than it does good. Of course I imagine people who didn't vote are somewhat desperate to show some action in support of NN since they opted to do nothing when it mattered most.

The bots are flat-out fraud... in fact, if they catch the perps who deployed this, they could theoretically be charged with making false statements:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

I have a feeling that there's already been some motion in the form of those employing the bots to counter this argument.

I noticed a few pro-NN bot posts when I was checking to see if my name was being used.

It does look like there's some bots in support of NN, but the percentage of 'supporters' on the anti side which are bots still much much higher. Personally I'd rather supporters refrain from bots since sinking to that level does more harm from de-legitimizing than it does good. Of course I imagine people who didn't vote are somewhat desperate to show some action in support of NN since they opted to do nothing when it mattered most.

I'm less concerned about the number of bots than I am about the timing of the posts. When I saw the pro-NN bots, the post approval dates trended towards being post-NYAG's announcement of an investigation.

I made sure I noted it and passed it along.

Despite all the stuff we may or may not disagree with in Whembly's post, his conclusion is spot-on.

The only way forward is by Congressional Action. If that is the direction, then NN supporters will have to organize, make it a campaign issue, and vote at the polls.

There is no other way forward.

 Easy E wrote:
Despite all the stuff we may or may not disagree with in Whembly's post, his conclusion is spot-on.

The only way forward is by Congressional Action. If that is the direction, then NN supporters will have to organize, make it a campaign issue, and vote at the polls.

There is no other way forward.

But there's the rub. Whembly can make that conclusion because his "side" has gerrymandered their way to being able to basically be uncontested.

It's easy for one side to say "If you want to fix it, you have to play by the rules!" when they edited the rules to the point of "Play our way or don't play at all".

In most cases that would be true. However, this is not a 'sides' issue. There is support for net neutrality from Whembly's side as well.

Is there a Whembly Party in the USA now too?

 skyth wrote:
In most cases that would be true. However, this is not a 'sides' issue. There is support for net neutrality from Whembly's side as well.

There's token support, at best. It's one thing for that side to say they support something; their voting record on the issues is clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
Is there a Whembly Party in the USA now too?

It's the politest thing I can think of to describe a specific party in the US without delving into politics. By putting it as 'side', I'm hoping to make it clear that this specific party has no interest in actually representing their constituents' best interests(whether the constituents realize it is in their best interests or not) or anything beyond the lobbyists that line their campaign chests.

Yeah it's nearly undeniable that the GOP isn't very interested in serving their constituents anymore. It would take a massive demand from their side for them to act on NN. The only reason they even rolled it back is because Obama did it.

 Easy E wrote:
Despite all the stuff we may or may not disagree with in Whembly's post, his conclusion is spot-on.

The only way forward is by Congressional Action. If that is the direction, then NN supporters will have to organize, make it a campaign issue, and vote at the polls.

There is no other way forward.

I quoted myself for clarity. So stop whining about Gerrymandering and go out and do something about it.

NN is dead unless there is congressional action. Elections have consequences.