Tom Wheeler FCC Chairman to step down on Trump's Inauguration Day - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Monkah;51537525]It's not? I pay $60/mo for a 90mbps download speed and some basic cable channels. And no, contrary to popular belief, 90mbps/down is far more than you'll need to shitpost on the internet. So unless you're running an entire server station, I don't see how you can be paying $200 for 'shit internet'.[/QUOTE] Where do you live? This is the same type of shit I literally just pointed out in my post. I'm blessed enough to have a job that can afford decent connection speeds, but even a grade schooler understands that most areas don't have a service like that available. Come on, even I don't try to be that stupid. My parents pay 150$ for Comcast in their area because it's the only thing available barring satellite internet with a crippling 512kb/s, and you know their top real-world download speed? 1Mb/s. Like really dude, next, are you going to blame my parents for living in a bad network area? Your anecdotal data serving as the main basis of your argument is worthless.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51537525]It's not? I pay $60/mo for a 90mbps download speed and some basic cable channels. And no, contrary to popular belief, 90mbps/down is far more than you'll need to shitpost on the internet. So unless you're running an entire server station, I don't see how you can be paying $200 for 'shit internet'.[/QUOTE] The quality of service varies widely depending on the area you live in so your anecdote is pretty much worthless.

[QUOTE=Kagu;51537546]Like really dude, next, are you going to blame my parents for living in a bad network area?[/QUOTE] Most people who argue from Monkah's particular perspective do. They're often the same people who, in response to arguments about living in an area with no entry-level job prospectives, give the solution of "just move", ignoring the fact that moving is expensive and seeing as the person in question can't find a job, probably don't have the disposable income to spend for said move. Or, in response to working a low-paying job and struggling to make ends meet, the solution is "get a better job", ignoring all the obvious baggage that comes with such a solution. In general, people who argue from this particular perspective have very little to no notion of what it's actually like to be in the receiving end of these discussions, and argues from atop their perch of privilege and entitlement, assuming blindly that the rest of the world is up on their lofty hill alongside them. So, I suspect that his answer is, "yes - it [B]is[/B] your parents' fault for living in a bad network area."

[QUOTE=Monkah;51537525]It's not? I pay $60/mo for a 90mbps download speed and some basic cable channels. And no, contrary to popular belief, 90mbps/down is far more than you'll need to shitpost on the internet. So unless you're running an entire server station, I don't see how you can be paying $200 for 'shit internet'.[/QUOTE] The OECD consistently ranked the US at some of the lowest possible levels, across 10 download speeds and capacities. For example, at 45MBPs+, the US ranks [I]30th[/I] out of 33 OECD countries. Internet is [I]objectively[/I] more expensive in the US than in countries with significantly worse infrastructure and significantly weaker economies. And this isn't at all about America being a huge country spread out over rural areas - if you compare [I]cities alone[/I], including very densely-populated ones like NYC, the US [I]still[/I] sits at the very bottom of OECD measurements of internet cost-speed ratios. Take Zurich, with a population density of about 1,075/km2. Compare that to NYC, with a population density of 10,756/km2. More than [I]ten times[/I] the population density. Average cost of an internet/TV/phone package in NYC is around $70 a month. Zurich? About $30 for more or less the same speeds. [t]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/70699000/gif/_70699733_cost_broadband_around_the_world_v2.gif[/t] The only reason internet is so fucking ridiculously expensive is because of local monopolies and non-compete agreements between ISPs. I really want to know where you're paying $60 a month for 90mbps down, because at one point my family was paying $50 a month for "40/5" internet that was monopolized by a piece-of-absolute-shit company that consistently delivered speeds well under half of what was promised. But nobody had any other option, and they didn't give a shit if you called to complain because they damn well knew you had no other option for internet.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51536872]Theoretically, Obama's birth certificate could be faked. Theoretically, Donald Trump could be a Russian android and the US could be annexed by March. No, making up what-if's does not support your case[/QUOTE] You can't treat all predictions as equal for the sake of nullifying them. The image is meant to display the potential worst-case scenario, which, while not guaranteed, is at least plausible enough to factor into the discussion. If I'm threatening to pull the trigger on a gun, and someone warns me not to do that because I might kill the person I'm aiming at, you don't turn around and say "or the bullet might bounce off his head, or the gun might shoot rainbows and pixie dust instead. Stop fearmongering."

[QUOTE=Monkah;51537525]It's not? I pay $60/mo for a 90mbps download speed and some basic cable channels. And no, contrary to popular belief, 90mbps/down is far more than you'll need to shitpost on the internet. So unless you're running an entire server station, I don't see how you can be paying $200 for 'shit internet'.[/QUOTE] I live just beyond the area for some providers and I really do get robbed. Paying $100 a month for a 150 GB monthly cap with 2 MB/s satellite connection.

I wish I could move to get better bloody internet (I'm on 500 KB/s down on satellite) but that's not really possible right now. I'd hope my government will get its act together and support rural internet.

Can someone calm down and actually explain what this means in an objective manner???

[QUOTE=Claxx;51538283]Can someone calm down and actually explain what this means in an objective manner???[/QUOTE] [B][U][I]NO !!!!!![/I][/U][/B] All you need to know is that if you don't buy completely into a Blade Runner future controlled at every level by ultracorporations coming to pass by the end of this January, then lol I just lol I can't believe how wildly ignorant, gullible, and naive you are, guy - not like me, [I]I'm[/I] an informed skeptic.

[QUOTE=FZE;51538315][B][U][I]NO !!!!!![/I][/U][/B] All you need to know is that if you don't buy completely into a Blade Runner future controlled at every level by ultracorporations coming to pass by the end of this January, then lol I just lol I can't believe how wildly ignorant, gullible, and naive you are, guy - not like me, [I]I'm[/I] an informed skeptic.[/QUOTE] Who's saying this? [editline]16th December 2016[/editline] Everyone's worried and frustrated but nobody seems to actually believe it's going to be fucking blade runner.

[QUOTE=Claxx;51538283]Can someone calm down and actually explain what this means in an objective manner???[/QUOTE] My understanding is, Net Neutrality classifies the internet as a public utility, like water or electricity. It ensures that ISPs cannot discriminate between what info is being sent along its lines- everything has to be treated equally. Opponents argue that this is the government meddling in the affairs of private companies and strangling competition. Proponents argue that the internet is a necessity at this point, given how its often needed to obtain and keep jobs and livelihoods. The fear is that with net neutrality repealed, ISPs will favor certain websites. Say Comcast told companies, pay us $10,000 for high priority traffic. This means that big pizza companies that can afford it, like Dominos or Pizza Hut, will have their websites load instantly, while smaller, local pizza places will take five, ten, twenty minutes. There are also concerns that ISPs, allowed to discriminate in traffic, will simply shut certain sites behind a paywall entirely... Or lock them out, period. Imagine having to pay five dollars a month to access your Steam account, or having 4chan blocked because it conflicts with Comcasts code of ethics. Opponents argue that the market will simply punish restrictive ISPs over nonrestrictive ISPs, but proponents argue back that many markets only have one potential ISP, and that current regulations stifle new competitors, like Google Fiber, from laying cable.

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51538316]Who's saying this? [editline]16th December 2016[/editline] Everyone's worried and frustrated but nobody seems to actually believe it's going to be fucking blade runner.[/QUOTE] If you've looked through the topic trying to find a quote regarding Blade Runner and not found anything then I've either overlooked something or hyperbole is a figurative literary device that might be used to illustrate things like the puerility of writing out laughter in one's post to deride someone who identifies flaws in your terrible argument instead of addressing their points.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51537525]It's not? I pay $60/mo for a 90mbps download speed and some basic cable channels. And no, contrary to popular belief, 90mbps/down is far more than you'll need to shitpost on the internet. So unless you're running an entire server station, I don't see how you can be paying $200 for 'shit internet'.[/QUOTE] While you're lucky to be in such a service area, that isn't the case in many places. Just earlier this year my only option was $120 for 6mbps DSL that went out at least once a week. Our infrastructure is in a laughable state, and the government gave money to the ISP's to upgrade it, and that money just disappeared. It was not upgraded, the most they did was lay some fiber and [I]not even lay the last mile[/I] so it sits there as unused dark fiber. All your major players actively get legislature pushed through so no new companies can come in, such as Municipal fiber initiatives which IMO would be the future if not for them. They also purposefully lay out their coverage areas so they compete as little as possible, or make deals that if one comes in they have to leave certain high profit neighborhoods out.

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;51534868]Gonna restate what I have said in other threads about the subject ISPs will be shooting themselves in the foot if this happens. Despite what they may think customers want, people are going to constantly bitch about how their social media takes 10 minutes to load or that they can't download a document for work in time to actually accomplish a task that day. People will be inclined to switch to ISPs that refuse to throttle, like Google, though since many people won't, the economic impacts will be severe. The smaller impacts this will have will add up to be too big for people to bend over and accept. What will kill throttling more than anything is the negative inpact it will have on business, especially with small businesses. People won't wait 3 minutes for their favorite local shop's site to load when they can go to Amazon and buy stuff there. A new resident to an area won't order a pizza from the family owned place down the street when Domino's website loads at twenty times the speed. A small antique store that has thrived for years is going to die off because people can't browse their selection in any reasonable amount of time when they can just browse and order a cheap balsa wood table from IKEA in ten minutes or less. Republicans will champion for the internet to stay open once they see the impact that it has on their prime demographics. It may take a few months for the impacts to be felt, and by then it will be too late for many businesses. Basically this will ruin the economy and hopefully infuriate politicians into finally remembering that antitrust laws exist.[/QUOTE] their demographic doesnt understand that a MEG is not a metric of internet speed or even has the slightest understanding of the regulatory structure and ownership structure of the internet. remember trump's campaign believed that the government pulling out of the ICANN was selling the internet to russia and china, they have succeeded in convincing people that the government always is bad and should never regulate anything even when its already hurting consumers such as ISPs who are imposing data caps on residential internet for no fucking reason

And here I thought my home internet couldn't possibly get any worse jfc... I pay 130$/month for an unlimited cell plan and use that instead of my home net. Technically 7 GB tethering but I get around that by USB tethering and a paid VPN on the phone to encrypt all traffic, making it impossible for my carrier to figure out the origins of the data, and thus counts it as cell data. It is approximately 10 - 20 times faster than my home net while being a little less reliable. If they ever somehow figure out I'll probably just stop paying for unlimited since that's the only reason I have it.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51537525]It's not? I pay $60/mo for a 90mbps download speed and some basic cable channels. And no, contrary to popular belief, 90mbps/down is far more than you'll need to shitpost on the internet. So unless you're running an entire server station, I don't see how you can be paying $200 for 'shit internet'.[/QUOTE] He said specifically that some areas of the US are under monopoly, hence the shoddy overpriced service, and you counter with anecdotal evidence? And you dont see how people are paying 200 bucks for lousy Internet in some areas? Why dont you use your 90 mbps connection to Google these things before making such statements?