Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's simply impossible for you to leave your cartoon partisan politics out of a discussion, isn't it?
Is it because you're incapable of holding your own in an intellectual debate?
That's my vote.
I'm saying that too few entities have too much control over a medium that, for all intents and purposes, was built with taxpayer money.
Actually, what is now, for the first time, under review are the 'innovative' ways ISPs screw us while charging outrageous prices for shitty service.
3It's simply impossible for you to leave your cartoon partisan politics out of a discussion, isn't it?
Is it because you're incapable of holding your own in an intellectual debate?
That's my vote.
So far, I've not run into a single leftist here who has even an inkling of how networks operate. You spew idiocy for purely partisan purpose. I suspect Blindfool does have some knowledge, but he ran away once the conversation became technical.
What about you, Verizon fios offers you a 35 meg synchronous connection, how fast is your upload speed expected to be?
- As fast as Walmart cuz that's the law
- 35 megabytes per second
- 4.375 megabytes per second
I did an Google search on the term "internet subframe" and it produced nothing relevant to this discussion. You're obviously just making these terms up.
[
Seeing as you've outed yourself as not knowing what you're taking about in the first place, despite your bullshit attempts to make yourself out to be some kind of expert, nothing you say has any relevance anymore. Especially if you have to go run to wikipedia to fill you in.
I outed myself did I?
ROFL
You are a shrill and stupid little troll. Satellite Internet is joke, and a bad one.
There's only one joke here. You.
How Kansas City taxpayers support Google Fiber Ars Technica
Taxpayers subsidizing Google Fiber project Computerworld
As depressing as it is to contemplate, we should acknowledge the possibility that it simply doesn't make economic sense for private firms to build new fiber networks without taxpayer subsidies. This is especially likely for new entrants, like Google, who would be building networks from scratch in towns that already have a couple of incumbent players.
3It's simply impossible for you to leave your cartoon partisan politics out of a discussion, isn't it?
Is it because you're incapable of holding your own in an intellectual debate?
That's my vote.
So far, I've not run into a single leftist here who has even an inkling of how networks operate. You spew idiocy for purely partisan purpose. I suspect Blindfool does have some knowledge, but he ran away once the conversation became technical.
What about you, Verizon fios offers you a 35 meg synchronous connection, how fast is your upload speed expected to be?
- As fast as Walmart cuz that's the law
- 35 megabytes per second
- 4.375 megabytes per second
A couple hours ago you didn't even know satellite internet exists.
I was going to ask him that myself. These morons simply don't care what has actually been posted. Their posts are entirely fact free.A couple hours ago you didn't even know satellite internet exists.
Lying again?
Show where I said it didn't exist?
Fucking leftists - stupid and desperate.
Now that the FCC is ruler of the Internet...
A couple hours ago you didn't even know satellite internet exists.
Lying again?
Show where I said it didn't exist?
Fucking leftists - stupid and desperate.
And how does this relate to "censorship" then? When has FCC censored anything?
I've never yet received the theoretical maximum upload speed that I signed up for.It's simply impossible for you to leave your cartoon partisan politics out of a discussion, isn't it?
Is it because you're incapable of holding your own in an intellectual debate?
That's my vote.
So far, I've not run into a single leftist here who has even an inkling of how networks operate. You spew idiocy for purely partisan purpose. I suspect Blindfool does have some knowledge, but he ran away once the conversation became technical.
What about you, Verizon fios offers you a 35 meg synchronous connection, how fast is your upload speed expected to be?
- As fast as Walmart cuz that's the law
- 35 megabytes per second
- 4.375 megabytes per second
Gandalf will arrive any day now. Right?
And how does this relate to "censorship" then? When has FCC censored anything?
I've never yet received the theoretical maximum upload speed that I signed up for.
That's the nature of things.
Have you thought maybe that BlindBoo has other things to do...like sleep?
I've seen the quality of your debating skills.
Your default position is always to drive a discussion in a cartoon politically ideological direction.
You're completely predictable.
I have very little technical knowledge on how the internet works so I won't be drawn into a debate but your left vs right position weakens your credibility, and means that anything you say....no matter how technically well-informed...is read in the knowledge that it has first been run through your political filter so that it will never contradict your ideological ground.
The trouble with this, of course, is that you can get yourself tied up in knots trying to match the real world with your ideological fantasy one.
Oh well.
And how does this relate to "censorship" then? When has FCC censored anything?
Dunno, why don't you send a letter to Janet Jackson over nipple exposure. Make sure to send it priority overnight for faster service - brite boi...
Wasn't censored, was it?
Tsk tsk ----- your own screen name.
So the internet wasn't under this ruling until the other day and now it is being treated just like the following:
"Until the 1980s in the United States, the term "telephone company" was synonymous with American Telephone & Telegraph. AT&T controlled nearly all aspects of the telephone business. Its regional subsidiaries, known as "Baby Bells," were regulated monopolies, holding exclusive rights to operate in specific areas. The Federal Communications Commission regulated rates on long-distance calls between states, while state regulators had to approve rates for local and in-state long-distance calls.
Government regulation was justified on the theory that telephone companies, like electric utilities, were natural monopolies. Competition, which was assumed to require stringing multiple wires across the countryside, was seen as wasteful and inefficient. That thinking changed beginning around the 1970s, as sweeping technological developments promised rapid advances in telecommunications. Independent companies asserted that they could, indeed, compete with AT&T. But they said the telephone monopoly effectively shut them out by refusing to allow them to interconnect with its massive network."
Deregulating Telecommunications
(more at link)
If this rule is so good, why did the FCC deregulate AT&T?
ATT wasn't dregulated. It was broken up. And that occurred partially because the technology had advanced that made it possible to allow other industries to compete over the same medium, and partially because of anti-trust lawsuits that ultimately ended in the Supreme Court. But what does that have to do with the net neutrality regulations?
It was deregulated.
The internet has now been placed under the original set of terms that AT&T was way back when.
If it was so great, why didn't they just leave AT&T under those terms?
What do you think will happen with the internet now that it's placed under those 1934 rules?
I rather suspect it has everything to do with elitism.
People making their own purchasing decisions is elitism?
Now you are putting words in my mouth. You seem to think, based on what you've said here, that if people aren't happy with their internet service, that that is just tough shit, and they can just opt out instead of complaining about it. So yes, that is an elitist position if ever there was one.
So....are you saying they can't stop buying? That makes not sense.
Are you in the third grade, or is English a second (or third) language for you? I'm saying that too few entities have too much control over a medium that, for all intents and purposes, was built with taxpayer money. I'm saying that over the course of the time since the internet first came to be, there was an expectation by, well, pretty much everybody, that there would be MORE competition, MORE choices of providers, not LESS. Without the net neutrality regulations, that trend of more control by fewer and fewer providers would likely not only continue, it would accelerate.
The internet was not built with taxpayer money. Government toadies like you always claim that if government contributed 0.0001 % of the cost of something, then government built it. It's total bullshit. Darpa spent a few million developing a prototype network based on packet routing. That's about the limit of government involvement.
