The end of the world is here
Comments
-
I'm already gearing up.
-
-
It's all fun and games until Derek signs agreements with cell providers to monetize the traffic here.
-
Derek should be rolling in money for his service here
-
Not to worry. I've been stockpiling packets in the other corner of mom's basement. Don't come crying to me when SHTF. OBK tried warning you all.
-
Derek likes to service his clients.RaceBannon said:Derek should be rolling in money for his service here
-
This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
-
Commies gonna commie. You are free to choose any ISP you want.oregonblitzkrieg said:This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
-
God damn. Shut the fuck up.2001400ex said:
Derek likes to service his clients.RaceBannon said:Derek should be rolling in money for his service here
-
As long as it's the one or two you are able to choose from.PurpleJ said:
Commies gonna commie. You are free to choose any ISP you want.oregonblitzkrieg said:This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
-
ISPs are utilities. Hth. Now that we've allowed unelected idiots to fuck up the internet, maybe we should try the same experiment with water companies and electric companies. Better start digging in your pockets for that chump change you earned sucking off Ajit Pai. You can use it to pay the extortion fees to bring your water delivery back up to normal speed.PurpleJ said:
Commies gonna commie. You are free to choose any ISP you want.oregonblitzkrieg said:This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
-
Berkeley Free Net Cooperative just needs more tim to get their own fiber in.
-
The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie. -
So wouldn't our law makers be better off deregulating IP providers and opening up the field? Competition delivers better results than regulationUWhuskytskeet said:
As long as it's the one or two you are able to choose from.PurpleJ said:
Commies gonna commie. You are free to choose any ISP you want.oregonblitzkrieg said:This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
Iron law -
Disagree. It's become an essential part of daily life. It's the primary source of information and people rely on it for their jerbs. Please to be explaining HOW THE FUCK allowing ISP UTILITIES to speed up or slow down your access to certain sites on the net will spur innovation, help consumers and not harm free speech?PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
Don't bother answering those questions, because you can't. It's rhetorical. -
That's not what this does.RaceBannon said:
So wouldn't our law makers be better off deregulating IP providers and opening up the field? Competition delivers better results than regulationUWhuskytskeet said:
As long as it's the one or two you are able to choose from.PurpleJ said:
Commies gonna commie. You are free to choose any ISP you want.oregonblitzkrieg said:This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
Iron law
HTH -
They can do whatever they want. They paid the upfront costs to provide the service and can monetize it however they see fit. They are then free to use their profits to expand their reach and provide service to more areas and customers. Or not. The flip side is that they have to compete with other ISPs for customers, and are held in check by the market's demand for quality service at the lowest price possible. You, the paying customer, have the option of choosing whichever provider you feel is best or fucking off to the public library or McDonalds to get it for free.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. It's become an essential part of daily life. It's the primary source of information and people rely on it for their jerbs. Please to be explaining HOW THE FUCK allowing ISP UTILITIES to speed up or slow down your access to certain sites on the net will spur innovation, help consumers and not harm free speech?PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
Don't bother answering those questions, because you can't. It's rhetorical.
Fuck. WTGWT now more than ever. -
There was nothing stifling competition before today other than it's really expensive to lay fiber. What changed today that is going to all new cable companies to enter the market?RaceBannon said:
So wouldn't our law makers be better off deregulating IP providers and opening up the field? Competition delivers better results than regulationUWhuskytskeet said:
As long as it's the one or two you are able to choose from.PurpleJ said:
Commies gonna commie. You are free to choose any ISP you want.oregonblitzkrieg said:This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
Iron law -
No one said it did moron2001400ex said:
That's not what this does.RaceBannon said:
So wouldn't our law makers be better off deregulating IP providers and opening up the field? Competition delivers better results than regulationUWhuskytskeet said:
As long as it's the one or two you are able to choose from.PurpleJ said:
Commies gonna commie. You are free to choose any ISP you want.oregonblitzkrieg said:This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
Iron law
HTH
-
Learn from the idiots that came before you, or repeat their mistakes.
"Portugal's internet shows us a world without net neutrality, and it's ugly"
latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html -
How come when I moved to Riverside I was told who my wireless provider was instead of being able to choose? Serious questionUWhuskytskeet said:
There was nothing stifling competition before today other than it's really expensive to lay fiber. What changed today that is going to all new cable companies to enter the market?RaceBannon said:
So wouldn't our law makers be better off deregulating IP providers and opening up the field? Competition delivers better results than regulationUWhuskytskeet said:
As long as it's the one or two you are able to choose from.PurpleJ said:
Commies gonna commie. You are free to choose any ISP you want.oregonblitzkrieg said:This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
Iron law
If I don't like a company I LEAVE. I don't see the option to do so at this point
J said
They can do whatever they want. They paid the upfront costs to provide the service and can monetize it however they see fit. They are then free to use their profits to expand their reach and provide service to more areas and customers. Or not. The flip side is that they have to compete with other ISPs for customers, and are held in check by the market's demand for quality service at the lowest price possible. You, the paying customer, have the option of choosing whichever provider you feel is best or fucking off to the public library or McDonalds to get it for free. -
It would be different if people had a choice of more than 2 ISPs. I get 2, century Link at 12 Mbps or Comcast at 150 Mbps but $85 a month.PurpleJ said:
They can do whatever they want. They paid the upfront costs to provide the service and can monetize it however they see fit. They are then free to use their profits to expand their reach and provide service to more areas and customers. Or not. The flip side is that they have to compete with other ISPs for customers, and are held in check by the market's demand for quality service at the lowest price possible. You, the paying customer, have the option of choosing whichever provider you feel is best or fucking off to the public library or McDonalds to get it for free.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. It's become an essential part of daily life. It's the primary source of information and people rely on it for their jerbs. Please to be explaining HOW THE FUCK allowing ISP UTILITIES to speed up or slow down your access to certain sites on the net will spur innovation, help consumers and not harm free speech?PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
Don't bother answering those questions, because you can't. It's rhetorical.
Fuck. WTGWT now more than ever.
But nice work sucking big business dick at our expense. -
And I didn't say the change today has anything to do with competition I said we need competition
-
Portugal? Portugal is in the heavily regulated EU and is a socialist nation. I would be willing to bet that laying fiber is even more expensive there than it is here. Seems like you get what you pay for no matter what.
-
So you agree with me that the lack of competition is the issue2001400ex said:
It would be different if people had a choice of more than 2 ISPs. I get 2, century Link at 12 Mbps or Comcast at 150 Mbps but $85 a month.PurpleJ said:
They can do whatever they want. They paid the upfront costs to provide the service and can monetize it however they see fit. They are then free to use their profits to expand their reach and provide service to more areas and customers. Or not. The flip side is that they have to compete with other ISPs for customers, and are held in check by the market's demand for quality service at the lowest price possible. You, the paying customer, have the option of choosing whichever provider you feel is best or fucking off to the public library or McDonalds to get it for free.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. It's become an essential part of daily life. It's the primary source of information and people rely on it for their jerbs. Please to be explaining HOW THE FUCK allowing ISP UTILITIES to speed up or slow down your access to certain sites on the net will spur innovation, help consumers and not harm free speech?PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
Don't bother answering those questions, because you can't. It's rhetorical.
Fuck. WTGWT now more than ever.
But nice work sucking big business dick at our expense.
Good start for you -
Disagree. We paid for it.PurpleJ said:
They can do whatever they want. They paid the upfront costs to provide the service and can monetize it however they see fit. They are then free to use their profits to expand their reach and provide service to more areas and customers. Or not. The flip side is that they have to compete with other ISPs for customers, and are held in check by the market's demand for quality service at the lowest price possible. You, the paying customer, have the option of choosing whichever provider you feel is best or fucking off to the public library or McDonalds to get it for free.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. It's become an essential part of daily life. It's the primary source of information and people rely on it for their jerbs. Please to be explaining HOW THE FUCK allowing ISP UTILITIES to speed up or slow down your access to certain sites on the net will spur innovation, help consumers and not harm free speech?PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
Don't bother answering those questions, because you can't. It's rhetorical.
Fuck. WTGWT now more than ever. -
PurpleJ said:
Electric and water companies can do whatever they want. They paid the upfront costs to provide the service and can monetize it however they see fit. They are then free to use their profits to expand their reach and provide service to more areas and customers. Or not. The flip side is that they don't have to compete with other electric and water companies for customers because they are the only game in town, and are held in check by the necessary evil of regulation. You, the paying customer, do not have the option of choosing whichever provider you feel is best or fucking off to the public library or McDonalds to drink water and charge your ipad.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. It's become an essential part of daily life. It's the primary source of information and people rely on it for their jerbs. Please to be explaining HOW THE FUCK allowing ISP UTILITIES to speed up or slow down your access to certain sites on the net will spur innovation, help consumers and not harm free speech?PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
Don't bother answering those questions, because you can't. It's rhetorical.
Fuck. I'm a fucking idiot. now more than ever. -
Sounds like the government is your problem. Thanks for agreeing with me.UWhuskytskeet said:
Disagree. We paid for it.PurpleJ said:
They can do whatever they want. They paid the upfront costs to provide the service and can monetize it however they see fit. They are then free to use their profits to expand their reach and provide service to more areas and customers. Or not. The flip side is that they have to compete with other ISPs for customers, and are held in check by the market's demand for quality service at the lowest price possible. You, the paying customer, have the option of choosing whichever provider you feel is best or fucking off to the public library or McDonalds to get it for free.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. It's become an essential part of daily life. It's the primary source of information and people rely on it for their jerbs. Please to be explaining HOW THE FUCK allowing ISP UTILITIES to speed up or slow down your access to certain sites on the net will spur innovation, help consumers and not harm free speech?PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
Don't bother answering those questions, because you can't. It's rhetorical.
Fuck. WTGWT now more than ever.
-
What's your point? If laying fiber is more expensive there, it only reinforces my argument that ISPs should be regarded as utilities. The competition argument falls flat. The cost of entering that market, laying fiber, etc. is way too high for people to expect completion to flourish.PurpleJ said:Portugal? Portugal is in the heavily regulated EU and is a socialist nation. I would be willing to bet that laying fiber is even more expensive there than it is here. Seems like you get what you pay for no matter what.
-
Yeah that sucks, though most people are in similar situations. You still aren't going to magically get more ISPs to choose from now. Your ISP will get more revenue though, so good for them I guess.RaceBannon said:
How come when I moved to Riverside I was told who my wireless provider was instead of being able to choose? Serious questionUWhuskytskeet said:
There was nothing stifling competition before today other than it's really expensive to lay fiber. What changed today that is going to all new cable companies to enter the market?RaceBannon said:
So wouldn't our law makers be better off deregulating IP providers and opening up the field? Competition delivers better results than regulationUWhuskytskeet said:
As long as it's the one or two you are able to choose from.PurpleJ said:
Commies gonna commie. You are free to choose any ISP you want.oregonblitzkrieg said:This was easily the most retarded policy under Trump. Makes zero sense, hurts consumers, does NOTHING to spur innovation as claimed, and opens the door for abuse by ISPs.
Iron law
If I don't like a company I LEAVE. I don't see the option to do so at this point
