[QUOTE=john_pelphre;47221661]MEANWHILE, ON FACEBOOK [img]http://i.imgur.com/ae7B3yc.png[/img][/QUOTE]
They used all their reason for the website name.
Now make data caps illegal.
Are there any plans that charge per GB in the US?
[QUOTE=john_pelphre;47221661]MEANWHILE, ON FACEBOOK [img]http://i.imgur.com/ae7B3yc.png[/img][/QUOTE]
reason.com
I bet it goes well with rational wiki.
[QUOTE=Glaber;47219649]Got a counter source? Your flag says you're from the US so it can't be your experience.[/QUOTE]
The flag only indicates the country where you made your account. Jesus, how dumb can you get?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47221340]You were singing a different song in the other thread though:[/QUOTE]
That first bit you quoted is [I]intensely[/I] sarcastic, based on the response I got in the other thread.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47221490]More like 14 cents a gigabyte, if that. In aggregate, bandwidth is cheap (but not free), and if they ran entirely metered, most peoples' bills would go down, while a reasonably large minority's would go way up -- if there weren't alternative plans for high usage scenarios, just as there are with most utilities.[/QUOTE]
Except they wouldn't charge anywhere close to the real cost of usage.
can the CRTC (Canadian FCC) get shit done too please
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47222259]can the CRTC (Canadian FCC) get shit done too please[/QUOTE]
Well, actually, the CRTC issued a net neutrality ruling against Bell for Bell favouring its own streaming TV service over competing streaming services (allegedly up to 800% slower). [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/23/bell-canada-net-neutrality-crtc_n_6736348.html"]Bell is now taking the CRTC to court over it.[/URL]
guys maybe I'll get more than .6 Mbps down and .1 up
That's actually an accurate representation my internet is that slow. Thanks AT&T
[QUOTE=highvoltage;47221264]Now I'm curious of net neutrality in Canada, has it even been a big issue? I don't recall hearing anything about it[/QUOTE]
Under current laws, fast/slow lanes are 100% prohibited. Data caps are ok (not a net neutrality issue) but selective traffic throttling and the like are not.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47221726]Are there any plans that charge per GB in the US?[/QUOTE]
Most ISPs charge for [I]overages[/I] per GiB. There are a number that give you a baseline and then you can pay $/GiB for extra bandwidth.
I'd prefer if they do it the way lots of colo and dedi facilities do it, you pay a connection fee, then you pay per GiB for what you upload in that month, down is uncapped and always free.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;47223014]Most ISPs charge for [I]overages[/I] per GiB. There are a number that give you a baseline and then you can pay $/GiB for extra bandwidth.
I'd prefer if they do it the way lots of colo and dedi facilities do it, you pay a connection fee, then you pay per GiB for what you upload in that month, down is uncapped and always free.[/QUOTE]
But then people will stop seeding Linux distros...
I find it absolutely hilarious that some people are somehow painting this in a bad light, over here we joke about how completely shit the US internet speed, caps and price are. I get 150 down 12 up no cap (there are no caps on anything other than really shit ADSL lines out in forests and stuff here in the UK)
for only £40 a month, and the UK is far from the best. Any nordic country or baltic country laughs at the UK internet. Somehow the average US connection speed is higher than the UK, but I imagine thats due to the population centers combined with the fact that ISP's here tend to bundle "internet" with TV packages thats like 2mb down, but for people who pretty much don't use the internet thats not a problem for them.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47222442]Well, actually, the CRTC issued a net neutrality ruling against Bell for Bell favouring its own streaming TV service over competing streaming services (allegedly up to 800% slower). [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/23/bell-canada-net-neutrality-crtc_n_6736348.html"]Bell is now taking the CRTC to court over it.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Shaw and Rogers would be pissed and might want in too because of shomi (their own version of Netflix).
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47219905]List of EU member countries with speeds [B]faster[/B] than US ([URL="http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/"]based on Ookla's metrics[/URL]):
- Romania (63.46 Mbps)
- Sweden (55.01 Mbps)
- Netherlands (46.34 Mbps)
- Lithuania (45.97 Mbps)
- Denmark (44.17 Mbps)
- Latvia (42.82 Mbps)
- Switzerland (42.61 Mbps)
- Iceland (candidate) (41.13 Mbps)
- Estonia (39.62 Mbps)
- France (36.41 Mbps)
- Luxembourg (36.41 Mbps)
- Finland (35.72 Mbps)
- Norway (35.62 Mbps)
- Bulgaria (34.43 Mbps)
- Hungary (33.30 Mbps)
US average speed: [B]33.26 Mbps[/B]
EU average speed (by population): [B]27.5 Mbps[/B]
List of EU member countries with speeds [B]slower[/B] than US:
- Belgium (32.89 Mbps)
- United Kingdom (29.68 Mbps)
- Portugal (29.63 Mbps)
- Germany (29.07 Mbps)
- Spain (28.12 Mbps)
- Czech Republic (27.40 Mbps)
- Ireland (27.14 Mbps)
- Austria (26.45 Mbps)
- Slovakia (25.85 Mbps)
- Malta (24.49 Mbps)
- Poland (23.06 Mbps)
- Slovenia (22.72 Mbps)
- Croatia (10.63 Mbps)
- Greece (10.06 Mbps)
- Italy (9.16 Mbps)[/QUOTE]
Damn Germany, I expected you to be faster.
Britain is understandable, since old people whine about fiber terminal boxes in public space ruining the looks of their Victorian neighborhood.
And that's AFTER they've been designed to match the old electrical and telephone cable boxes.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;47218993]So does this mean we no longer get classics like:
[video=youtube;KeCj4y36UKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeCj4y36UKM[/video][/QUOTE]
This bitch is lying through her teeth
[QUOTE=Fourier;47224702]This bitch is lying through her teeth[/QUOTE]
The best part is, somehow, people actually believed this. How fucking stupid would you have to be?
[QUOTE=Van-man;47224510]Damn Germany, I expected you to be faster.[/QUOTE]
We all did. We got promises on a yearly basis by Merkel too. "Until 201X every household will have access to a broadband internet connection!" And then nothing happens since neither the government or the companies want to actually invest.
[QUOTE=The Pretender;47218501]Good thing I refreshed before submitting.
Note this part[/QUOTE]
This is why I was not the biggest fan. Why couldn't the FCC be transparent, you know instead of passing it then making it open. Shady shit like that never sits right with me, and it should never sit right with anyone.
[QUOTE=Meladath;47224730]The best part is, somehow, people actually believed this. How fucking stupid would you have to be?[/QUOTE]
I don't think so, just look at all the downvotes on youtube :D
[QUOTE=Fourier;47225263]I don't think so, just look at all the downvotes on youtube :D[/QUOTE]
The ones the believe it dont know how to even turn on a computer, let allow click a like button.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;47224890]This is why I was not the biggest fan. Why couldn't the FCC be transparent, you know instead of passing it then making it open. Shady shit like that never sits right with me, and it should never sit right with anyone.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47219818]The FCC always does this; they vote on regulations and [I]then[/I] release the documents to the public. It keeps the FCC votes from becoming a political shitshow -- which paid-for Republicans are attempting to turn it into here to turn public opinion against the FCC. It is FCC convention to do this, and to do otherwise now would be a break from the norm.
Where were all of you when the FCC didn't reveal its original net neutrality rules (that the court later threw out because the FCC skipped the step of classifying ISPs as subject to its net neutrality regulations) before the vote? Or almost any other thing that the FCC has done in the last 20 years?
Do I know for sure that the regulations are nothing to worry about? No, and I suspect it's going to be a compromise between the public good and the big ISPs. I doubt either side is about to receive an ass-ramming, as much as each side would like to see the other get it.[/QUOTE]
B-but [url]dontbreakthe.net/[/url] !!!!
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;47225642][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the read, clears things up pretty well.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;47225925]B-but [url]dontbreakthe.net/[/url] !!!![/QUOTE]
I like how one of the sponsors is literally called "Less Government"
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;47225925]B-but [url]dontbreakthe.net/[/url] !!!![/QUOTE]
Sorry if I'm late to the party here but I never saw that site before and some of its points seem to actually be valid. Am I missing something or is it genuinely factual information?
I mean besides the fact that it's all meme cat graphics and all that kind of stuff.
[QUOTE=Alexak75;47226795]Sorry if I'm late to the party here but I never saw that site before and some of its points seem to actually be valid. Am I missing something or is it genuinely factual information?[/QUOTE]
It's industry-written FUD and quote mining.
I mean, fuck, they quote Lessig saying "We should get rid of the FCC." What they leave out is that Lessig advocates replacing the FCC with essentially a 21st-century equivalent with goals that are appropriately retargeted and updated but are in-spirit with the ideals of the FCC. The industry would rather [del]their lobbyists[/del]Congress decide. That's a detail that they leave out. There are a lot of things unsaid to go with all of the things said on that site, conveniently enough.
They're right in that the FCC regulating things is not the ideal solution. However, the reason the FCC is stepping in is because the industry as a whole has been fucking everything up for the last ten years. Verizon basically froze FiOS rollout four years ago. AT&T whined and moaned about laying fiber anywhere, and then Google Fiber starts announcing service in cities in its markets and boy fuck all of a sudden it's not so impossible to deploy fiber in Austin, how curious. Comcast, well, continues to be Comcast, and is trying to merge with TWC to become a giant blob covering almost 50% of Americans.
[URL="http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/26/7878239/comcast-twc-fcc-merger-letters-politicians-ghostwritten"]Comcast has been recently exposed to have ghostwritten letters from Mayors gushingly supporting the Comcast-TWC merger for rubberstamping and then submitting to the FCC as genuine.[/URL]
A few things to keep in context when you read what the industry has to say about an attempt to bring it under control.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;47225925]B-but [url]dontbreakthe.net/[/url] !!!![/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/OQmCNuZ.png[/img]
I think this is enough of a fair reason to totally discard them.
[QUOTE=Levelog;47226755]I like how one of the sponsors is literally called "Less Government"[/QUOTE]
gubmint don't do nothin fer dis god-fersakin country
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
