net pootrality prevails

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > net pootrality prevails

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

cremnob posted:

stymie is right

enjoy subsidizing tech companies. ur now gonna pay more every month or there will be bandwidth caps

sorry cremnob it actually forbids bandwidth caps

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 20:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:24

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

also the verizon thing is dumb they're just mad that their hissyfit at the old rules forced the fcc to do this lol

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 20:45

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

theadder posted:

this seems 2 be wrong

oh i guess not i only skimmed this article

quote:

Pai claimed that an Internet provider could "find itself in the FCC's crosshairs" if it doesn't want to offer unlimited data plans. The FCC's order does not actually ban data caps; instead, the FCC is claiming authority to intervene when companies use data caps to harm competitors or customers.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 20:48

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

also lmao @ the pure unbridled level of OOOOOBBBBAAAAMMMMAAAAA :argh:

here

quote:

Let me start by issuing apologies. First, I am just sick about what Chairman Wheeler was forced to go through during this process. It was disgraceful to have the Administration overtake the commission�s rulemaking process and dictate an outcome for pure political purposes. It is so disturbing to know that those efforts were about illegitimately pushing a larger political cause mostly unrelated to technology. This administration went so far beyond what has ever been attempted, and its inappropriate interference in the commission�s activities will forever change this institution.

Additionally, I am sorry to the staff members that were forced to prepare a half-baked, illogical, internally inconsistent, and indefensible document. For an institution that prides itself on quality of work and legal and technical expertise, this document is anything but. I guess that an artificial deadline to meet the radical protestors� demands means that it is more likely that this item gets overturned by the courts because the work and thoughtful analysis needed to actually defend this completely flawed agenda is not included in the text.

Today, a majority of the commission attempts to usurp the authority of Congress by re-writing the Communications Act to suit its own �values� and political ends.

thats a statement from one of the republicans who voted against this

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 20:50

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Busta Chimes.wav posted:

it specifically does not include unbundling

thats really the only thing i'm disappointed with. that and the knowledge that i'll never get a municipal network around here but even if i do it will be implemented in the absolute worst way possible and have a bunch of retarded restrictions because of rick scott

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 23:50

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

cremnob posted:

ISPs spend billions of dollars every year

lmao no they dont

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 23:52

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Elder Postsman posted:

well sure they do, they just spend it on advertising and lobbying.

maybe collectively

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 23:55

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

cremnob posted:

AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel said the company invested $11.8 billion into its wireless and wireline network in the first six months of 2014. He said the carrier confirmed in July that it expects to spend a total of around $21 billion this year on its network.

how much of that was actually invested into real internet infrastructure, not wireless bullshit

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 00:39

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Nintendo Kid posted:

the wireless poo poo is why the countryside has coverage with cell phones at all

so? idgaf if the countryside has cell coverage, their wireline service is subsidized and i would bet that money is factored into their "infrastructure investment" costs even though they didnt pay a goddamn penny of it

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 00:47

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

remember when we were supposed to get broadband over power lines :smith:

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 01:47

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Nintendo Kid posted:

if it had been built exactly as intended then the countryside woulda had a whole bunch of slowass internet infrastructure and even worse cell coverage

so really not any different than today

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 01:48

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Sniep posted:

yeah turns out that doesnt work really well

fiber optics work a lot better

apparently it works ok. its probably better than vdsl over ancient pots lines

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 01:49

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Nintendo Kid posted:

precisely

glad the free market delivers

20 years late

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 01:51

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

cremnob posted:

this is a good way to ensure that no ISP ever invests in fiber

nevermind that they were literally paid more money than lots of companies earn in 5 years to do this by the government and just never did it

Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Feb 27, 2015

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 03:31

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Nintendo Kid posted:

they ran the fiber to cell towers, fiber that's still being used ti handle 3g and even 4g to this day

thats not what it was meant for

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 03:35

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Nintendo Kid posted:

it was meant for providing 200 kilobit data service to outlying areas.

cell phones do that.

it doesnt matter, it specifically was not meant for that. you can say that they're equivalent but if you paid billions of dollars for a blue 900 ft tall samsung galaxy s8 (that is the standard size, do not ask about the plus model) and got a curved 850 ft red one you would probably be mad and ask for an exchange, then alao get mad when they ask for more money because they already built the thing you didnt ask for

i tried so hard to avoid a car analogy that this post probably doesnt make any sense. oh well :justpost:

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 03:45

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

computer parts posted:

in this analogy you didn't actually specify the color or shape, and other people filled in that either of those would be sufficient

im not even really paying attention to my own posts i decided to rewatch :twentyfour:

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 03:54

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Nintendo Kid posted:

the thing you're not getting is that the fiber was in fact built, and the money given out was frankly given out with extremely loose terms and a very low level of service expected.

the thing actually provided met the requirements, and the thing they were "supposed" to provide would still have already been unacceptably slow as wireline service very soon. (because do you seriously think they were required to provide fiver from the town nodes to the homes? no. it woulda been plain copper)

incidentally thats their plan now with adsl2 or whatever its called. fiber to the node and then dsl the rest of the way

its not like they would have kept everything at 200 kbit or whatever. when i got cable internet in 2002 or whatever it was only 5 mbit. at the address i lived at you can now get 150 mbit service over the same line

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 03:56

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Nintendo Kid posted:

*10 megabit may be provided over high latency satellite

you don't think the rural companies they'd have sold it off too wouldn't have raised speeds? hell there's places you can go now that did this exact stuff back then and they're still offering like 11.5 mbit at best

and speaking of adsl2 it doesn't handle distance very well at all. and rural nodes are quite far away...

maybe, maybe not. where i live now i have a 50 mbit cable connection but when i looked at u-verse dsl as an alternative the best they could offer was 15 mbit for like $75/mo

tbh title ii price controls would have been the tits because pricing is severely hosed in places with only one effective option (and here it seems like at&t doesnt even want to compete but judging by the number of 2WIRE aps i see around here they do just fine)

also agreed with adsl2. i'm kinda glad because i dont know who i want to give money to less, comcast or at&t

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 04:56

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

maniacdevnull posted:

net brutality more like, it's just sharia law for the internet

obamas set up death.cpl for the innernet

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 19:39

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Nintendo Kid posted:

nothing is 56k dude, due to fcc regs the maximum downlink is 53.3k down and of course 33.6 k up if you don't start taking away from downlink.

just have them give it a try (again only if they have unlimited long distance) and see how it works for them. no sense paying $20 a month for dialup if it'll work.

i mean i've only ever used the service in nj and va, and in both cases it was on phone lines that performed terribly (like the line here can't sync dsl above 384 kilobit down and struggles to stay stable with that, hence why we got cable to replace it)

fishmech did you go to high school in nj and if so did you do forensics

# ¿ Feb 28, 2015 23:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:24

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Nintendo Kid posted:

of course i went to high school there. don't know of any high school that did forensics tho

oh bleh i thought i might have had a fishmech sighting in freehold like 10 years ago. there was a goony looking dude wearing a city name sports team shirt

# ¿ Feb 28, 2015 23:09

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > net pootrality prevails