Adios Net Neutrality

A forum for everything else not sports related. A place for fun and everything amusing.
Post Reply
User avatar
WestWYOPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:35 am
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 8 times

Well, the FCC went and did it...voted to repeal net neutrality regulations. An interesting move considering that an overwhelming majority of US citizens opposed this move; as high as 80% in some polls.

I myself am opposed to this, and I would imagine given this forum's medium, that many others are as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few that were in support of this move.

Anyone that sees this as a good move? And if so, what are your reasons behind supporting it? Not trying to attack, just genuinely curious as to that mindset.

For everyone else, feel free to leave your :twocents: and/or vent.
Image
User avatar
ItSucksToBeACSURam
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 4683
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:53 pm

I would imagine anyone, not directly related to those entities benefiting from this, would be in staunch opposition of this. ITs obvious MONEY speaks louder than the wants of the people.
Image
User avatar
laxwyo
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 9464
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:27 am
Location: Rock Springs, WY
Has liked: 128 times
Been liked: 134 times

I’m guessing most people have no idea what happened today besides what they’ve been told. I believe they think the ISPs and all can just do what they want now. The stuff I read sounded more like the net will be regulated with antitrust laws again. I’d look around and read from some credible reporters that are in favor or today’s actions to see how it will actually affect the net. I never saw much from the opposition except yelling that the net needs to stay free.
W-Y, Until I Die!
User avatar
MrTitleist
WyoNation Overlord
Posts: 10511
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: Missoula, MT
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 31 times

Given the line of work I'm in, I've read pretty extensively on this.

Bottom line, we are f-word.
ImageImageImageImage
WYCowboy
WyoNation Moderator
Posts: 3414
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: Wyoming
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 2 times

Be careful believing what some of the media reports.
You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage him/her.
User avatar
fromolwyoming
WyoNation Lifer
Posts: 12832
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:13 pm
Location: Laramie, Home of the Cowboys
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 2 times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/tech ... -vote.html

Yeah, this is probably going to royally screw pretty much every American there is. Internet providers are most likely going to charge an arm and a leg just to get average internet speed, access, etc.
User avatar
WestWYOPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:35 am
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 8 times

My biggest concerns aren't necessarily the price gouging that could take place now that these regulations have been removed. My concern is more on equal access to content or censorship.

For example, if your internet service provider is operated by a group of liberally minded individuals, they could now decide to hinder or completely obstruct access to conservative-based websites. Or vice versa.

Furthermore, if you have a company like Verizon as an ISP, I could easily see them not allowing access to website of any competitors (Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.).

Don't get me wrong, I won't be happy to see internet access chopped up into 'package deals'...EDIT; but to me, the censorship possibilities are the most concerning.

EDIT: for accuracy
Last edited by WestWYOPoke on Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
MrTitleist
WyoNation Overlord
Posts: 10511
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: Missoula, MT
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 31 times

That image above was debunked by Snopes, BTW.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
WestWYOPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:35 am
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 8 times

Thanks for the catch, I'll edit so as not to distribute false information
Image
User avatar
MrTitleist
WyoNation Overlord
Posts: 10511
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: Missoula, MT
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 31 times

WestWYOPoke wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:35 pm Thanks for the catch, I'll edit so as not to distribute false information
I had to read into it myself because I was skull thumping someone on the head on Facebook last night. I was looking to what actually happened in Portugal and that image popped up in a Snopes search.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
WestWYOPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:35 am
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 8 times

Good call...it looks like the image is actually real, but it is a 'package deal' that a cellular company in Portugal offers for phone data (want to stream Netflix? Pay $X more and get unlimited Netflix, etc.). It is not what their normal internet service would offer. Portugal with some weird loopholes as well, they don't have net neutrality as a nation, but as a member of the EU, they abide by some regulations.
Image
User avatar
Asmodeanreborn
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 6929
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:16 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 23 times

We're definitely not hosed yet as Congress can essentially reverse this. I think if we don't restore something like Net Neutrality, it makes sense to start treating Internet like a utility. Your power provider doesn't get any say in what brand your appliances are anymore than your water provider gets to tell you whether you can use their water for maple trees rather than bath water. My ISP should have no say in whether I use my surfing for Church or for adult tv, or if I run a site for a religion that combines the two.

The Internet may be a source of lots of bad information, but it's also invaluable for startups and small businesses around the nation. It's essential if you're looking for jobs in many areas as you can no longer just walk in and drop off your résumé (not that this is practical if you're looking outside of your town anyway).

As for actual risks of ISPs starting to split up content, they've already been caught doing so before, and were punished for it. As you can imagine, phone companies weren't too happy when people started using software like Skype to call, rather than paying for minutes. CenturyLink just acquired/merged with Level 3, which means they now control a large part of the Internet backbone. As you can imagine, this puts a serious damper on local competition, as they suddenly control what gets sent to your local provider, even if you happen to have the wonderful thing known as municipal fiber (I love my $50/month 1Gbps connection). The good news is that Level 3.CenturyLink doesn't have the hardware (yet) to do this, and it'll be a major investment for them to set it all up, only for the Net Neutrality to possibly be overturned when millions of angry Americans somehow manage to get it all reversed.

This has been framed as a partisan issue, but that's not quite true. While the 2 votes against repeal were Democrat and the 3 for were Republican, on a larger scale it mostly depends on how much effort they spent looking into the issue, and how much the allowed the money given by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. to influence them. Here in Colorado, (R)epresentative Mike Coffman made a switch from being anti-NN to pro-NN, for example, after actually informing himself of potential issues with the decision.
WyoBrandX
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1785
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

I've been in this business a long time. A brief history:

1.) The Internet as we know it was standardized in (1/1/1983 - TCP/IP - IPv4).
2.) The World Wide Web was standardized in 1990. It is the most heavily used protocol on the Internet today.
3.) In the early 1990's, the Internet started to transition from education/government into the commercial sector. Dial-up ISP's started popping up. Dial-up bulletin boards were very popular around this time - and some of the early ones such as CompuServ and AOL ended up providing Internet access.
4.) Early Internet access was expensive and heavily metered. Part of this was due to no competition. . Some ISP's charged as high as $1.00 / minute.
5.) More dial-up ISP's entered the market and started offering $20/mo unlimited plans (mid 90's).
6.) Dial-up and DSL started to compete with each other as DSL became more readily available. Both used your local phone companies infrastructure heavily.
7.) Cable companies started providing always on broadband via DOCSIS. The transmission medium was better off than DSL.
8.) DSL and dial-up started to die off. The two wire copper just doesn't operate clean enough to transmit high speed data for long distances.

9.) Without much competition, the cable companies started gaining a monopoly on services.
a.) It can be very tough to get through the permitting process to get fiber and other medium down alleys and on the poles. In many cases, the cable company will sue anyone trying to do that (making expensive legal battles instead of running expensive fibers for competition).
b.) In other cases, it is so capital heavy and the rate of return is so long, investors aren't interested.

10.) Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Youtube, and all these services start taking up massive amounts of bandwidth. They are priced far cheaper than cable tv packages. The only content that is tough to find is realtime events - mainly sports and news. People decide they don't like paying $200 a month to watch a handful of channels while getting double dipped on advertisements.

11.) Cable companies start losing video subscribers. Their Internet customers start using far more streaming bandwidth. They have to come up with options:
a.) Data caps. You see these occassionally - usually with Comcast and your Cell Phone provider. They will claim that you get some arbitrary speed (say 100Mbps), but after you have downloaded an arbitrary amount of data (say 2GBps), they will throttle you down to another number - say 2Mbps). [1]
b.) Randomly throttling customers bandwidth that regulary use more than the average. Now that

With a & b, the average user began using so much data, they ended up providing a useless service. So they decided:

12.) Lets go try to get the content providers to pay us for using our network. This is a bit tough to type out, and I'm running out of time, but let me try to explain how how it has worked:
a.) you, the consumer buy internet access from your ISP. You want to access the internet.
b.) your isp buys bandwidth from a backbone (likely multiple backbone providers).
c.) Google, or say wyonation, wants to serve content, they purchase bandwidth either through an ISP or a backbone provider.
Everyone pays everyone for the service.

13.) Comcast and others want to force google, wyonation, or whoever to pay them money to provide the content onto their network. They are basically changing the way billing is handled. Instead of selling Internet access, they are trying to control the internet. The scary thing is, since they are mostly a monopoly, they may be able to do this. Comcast had already nailed netflix for $20m a few years back. The FCC responded by moving from "we trust ISP's to honor net neutrality" to "here is some forced regulation that you will provide equal access to the entire internet." Netflix/google/wyonation win here as they don't have to pay for their bandwidth twice.


The problem is they are losing too many subscribers to the streaming services. They have the last mile (local loop) to your house. They are doing everything they can to get you to pay them more money.

Net neutrality is important. It has been with us since the dawn of time. We wouldn't recognize the Internet if it hadn't been honored in the early days, then the FCC came in when ISP's started trying to double charge (consumers and providers).

There are a few solutions:
1.) Let your representatives and senators know that you only support net neutrality.
2.) If the cable companies get their way, try to find another ISP (which will be tough) to get Internet through. For example, a local wireless ISP like Lariat, ACT Wireless, etc.

They are just gaming the system to keep their already large profit margins by using the law and regulations in their favor. They are doing their best to create a monopoly.
CowboyNV
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1585
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Nevada/Florida
Been liked: 7 times

WyoBrandX wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:00 pm I've been in this business a long time. A brief history:

1.) The Internet as we know it was standardized in (1/1/1983 - TCP/IP - IPv4).
2.) The World Wide Web was standardized in 1990. It is the most heavily used protocol on the Internet today.
3.) In the early 1990's, the Internet started to transition from education/government into the commercial sector. Dial-up ISP's started popping up. Dial-up bulletin boards were very popular around this time - and some of the early ones such as CompuServ and AOL ended up providing Internet access.
4.) Early Internet access was expensive and heavily metered. Part of this was due to no competition. . Some ISP's charged as high as $1.00 / minute.
5.) More dial-up ISP's entered the market and started offering $20/mo unlimited plans (mid 90's).
6.) Dial-up and DSL started to compete with each other as DSL became more readily available. Both used your local phone companies infrastructure heavily.
7.) Cable companies started providing always on broadband via DOCSIS. The transmission medium was better off than DSL.
8.) DSL and dial-up started to die off. The two wire copper just doesn't operate clean enough to transmit high speed data for long distances.

9.) Without much competition, the cable companies started gaining a monopoly on services.
a.) It can be very tough to get through the permitting process to get fiber and other medium down alleys and on the poles. In many cases, the cable company will sue anyone trying to do that (making expensive legal battles instead of running expensive fibers for competition).
b.) In other cases, it is so capital heavy and the rate of return is so long, investors aren't interested.

10.) Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Youtube, and all these services start taking up massive amounts of bandwidth. They are priced far cheaper than cable tv packages. The only content that is tough to find is realtime events - mainly sports and news. People decide they don't like paying $200 a month to watch a handful of channels while getting double dipped on advertisements.

11.) Cable companies start losing video subscribers. Their Internet customers start using far more streaming bandwidth. They have to come up with options:
a.) Data caps. You see these occassionally - usually with Comcast and your Cell Phone provider. They will claim that you get some arbitrary speed (say 100Mbps), but after you have downloaded an arbitrary amount of data (say 2GBps), they will throttle you down to another number - say 2Mbps). [1]
b.) Randomly throttling customers bandwidth that regulary use more than the average. Now that

With a & b, the average user began using so much data, they ended up providing a useless service. So they decided:

12.) Lets go try to get the content providers to pay us for using our network. This is a bit tough to type out, and I'm running out of time, but let me try to explain how how it has worked:
a.) you, the consumer buy internet access from your ISP. You want to access the internet.
b.) your isp buys bandwidth from a backbone (likely multiple backbone providers).
c.) Google, or say wyonation, wants to serve content, they purchase bandwidth either through an ISP or a backbone provider.
Everyone pays everyone for the service.

13.) Comcast and others want to force google, wyonation, or whoever to pay them money to provide the content onto their network. They are basically changing the way billing is handled. Instead of selling Internet access, they are trying to control the internet. The scary thing is, since they are mostly a monopoly, they may be able to do this. Comcast had already nailed netflix for $20m a few years back. The FCC responded by moving from "we trust ISP's to honor net neutrality" to "here is some forced regulation that you will provide equal access to the entire internet." Netflix/google/wyonation win here as they don't have to pay for their bandwidth twice.


The problem is they are losing too many subscribers to the streaming services. They have the last mile (local loop) to your house. They are doing everything they can to get you to pay them more money.

Net neutrality is important. It has been with us since the dawn of time. We wouldn't recognize the Internet if it hadn't been honored in the early days, then the FCC came in when ISP's started trying to double charge (consumers and providers).

There are a few solutions:
1.) Let your representatives and senators know that you only support net neutrality.
2.) If the cable companies get their way, try to find another ISP (which will be tough) to get Internet through. For example, a local wireless ISP like Lariat, ACT Wireless, etc.

They are just gaming the system to keep their already large profit margins by using the law and regulations in their favor. They are doing their best to create a monopoly.
This is an absolutely stellar analysis. Well done, and thanks for putting it together to help educate those who don't understand.
What is the difference between politicians and stoners? Politicians don't inhale...they just suck.
User avatar
Asmodeanreborn
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 6929
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:16 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 23 times

WyoBrandX wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:00 pm I've been in this business a long time. A brief history:

1.) The Internet as we know it was standardized in (1/1/1983 - TCP/IP - IPv4).
2.) The World Wide Web was standardized in 1990. It is the most heavily used protocol on the Internet today.
3.) In the early 1990's, the Internet started to transition from education/government into the commercial sector. Dial-up ISP's started popping up. Dial-up bulletin boards were very popular around this time - and some of the early ones such as CompuServ and AOL ended up providing Internet access.
4.) Early Internet access was expensive and heavily metered. Part of this was due to no competition. . Some ISP's charged as high as $1.00 / minute.
5.) More dial-up ISP's entered the market and started offering $20/mo unlimited plans (mid 90's).
6.) Dial-up and DSL started to compete with each other as DSL became more readily available. Both used your local phone companies infrastructure heavily.
7.) Cable companies started providing always on broadband via DOCSIS. The transmission medium was better off than DSL.
8.) DSL and dial-up started to die off. The two wire copper just doesn't operate clean enough to transmit high speed data for long distances.

9.) Without much competition, the cable companies started gaining a monopoly on services.
a.) It can be very tough to get through the permitting process to get fiber and other medium down alleys and on the poles. In many cases, the cable company will sue anyone trying to do that (making expensive legal battles instead of running expensive fibers for competition).
b.) In other cases, it is so capital heavy and the rate of return is so long, investors aren't interested.

10.) Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Youtube, and all these services start taking up massive amounts of bandwidth. They are priced far cheaper than cable tv packages. The only content that is tough to find is realtime events - mainly sports and news. People decide they don't like paying $200 a month to watch a handful of channels while getting double dipped on advertisements.

11.) Cable companies start losing video subscribers. Their Internet customers start using far more streaming bandwidth. They have to come up with options:
a.) Data caps. You see these occassionally - usually with Comcast and your Cell Phone provider. They will claim that you get some arbitrary speed (say 100Mbps), but after you have downloaded an arbitrary amount of data (say 2GBps), they will throttle you down to another number - say 2Mbps). [1]
b.) Randomly throttling customers bandwidth that regulary use more than the average. Now that

With a & b, the average user began using so much data, they ended up providing a useless service. So they decided:

12.) Lets go try to get the content providers to pay us for using our network. This is a bit tough to type out, and I'm running out of time, but let me try to explain how how it has worked:
a.) you, the consumer buy internet access from your ISP. You want to access the internet.
b.) your isp buys bandwidth from a backbone (likely multiple backbone providers).
c.) Google, or say wyonation, wants to serve content, they purchase bandwidth either through an ISP or a backbone provider.
Everyone pays everyone for the service.

13.) Comcast and others want to force google, wyonation, or whoever to pay them money to provide the content onto their network. They are basically changing the way billing is handled. Instead of selling Internet access, they are trying to control the internet. The scary thing is, since they are mostly a monopoly, they may be able to do this. Comcast had already nailed netflix for $20m a few years back. The FCC responded by moving from "we trust ISP's to honor net neutrality" to "here is some forced regulation that you will provide equal access to the entire internet." Netflix/google/wyonation win here as they don't have to pay for their bandwidth twice.


The problem is they are losing too many subscribers to the streaming services. They have the last mile (local loop) to your house. They are doing everything they can to get you to pay them more money.

Net neutrality is important. It has been with us since the dawn of time. We wouldn't recognize the Internet if it hadn't been honored in the early days, then the FCC came in when ISP's started trying to double charge (consumers and providers).

There are a few solutions:
1.) Let your representatives and senators know that you only support net neutrality.
2.) If the cable companies get their way, try to find another ISP (which will be tough) to get Internet through. For example, a local wireless ISP like Lariat, ACT Wireless, etc.

They are just gaming the system to keep their already large profit margins by using the law and regulations in their favor. They are doing their best to create a monopoly.
Great summary and well laid out argument. Mind if I share this elsewhere?
WyoBrandX
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1785
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

Asmodeanreborn wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:59 pm
WyoBrandX wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:00 pm I've been in this business a long time. A brief history:

1.) The Internet as we know it was standardized in (1/1/1983 - TCP/IP - IPv4).
2.) The World Wide Web was standardized in 1990. It is the most heavily used protocol on the Internet today.
3.) In the early 1990's, the Internet started to transition from education/government into the commercial sector. Dial-up ISP's started popping up. Dial-up bulletin boards were very popular around this time - and some of the early ones such as CompuServ and AOL ended up providing Internet access.
4.) Early Internet access was expensive and heavily metered. Part of this was due to no competition. . Some ISP's charged as high as $1.00 / minute.
5.) More dial-up ISP's entered the market and started offering $20/mo unlimited plans (mid 90's).
6.) Dial-up and DSL started to compete with each other as DSL became more readily available. Both used your local phone companies infrastructure heavily.
7.) Cable companies started providing always on broadband via DOCSIS. The transmission medium was better off than DSL.
8.) DSL and dial-up started to die off. The two wire copper just doesn't operate clean enough to transmit high speed data for long distances.

9.) Without much competition, the cable companies started gaining a monopoly on services.
a.) It can be very tough to get through the permitting process to get fiber and other medium down alleys and on the poles. In many cases, the cable company will sue anyone trying to do that (making expensive legal battles instead of running expensive fibers for competition).
b.) In other cases, it is so capital heavy and the rate of return is so long, investors aren't interested.

10.) Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Youtube, and all these services start taking up massive amounts of bandwidth. They are priced far cheaper than cable tv packages. The only content that is tough to find is realtime events - mainly sports and news. People decide they don't like paying $200 a month to watch a handful of channels while getting double dipped on advertisements.

11.) Cable companies start losing video subscribers. Their Internet customers start using far more streaming bandwidth. They have to come up with options:
a.) Data caps. You see these occassionally - usually with Comcast and your Cell Phone provider. They will claim that you get some arbitrary speed (say 100Mbps), but after you have downloaded an arbitrary amount of data (say 2GBps), they will throttle you down to another number - say 2Mbps). [1]
b.) Randomly throttling customers bandwidth that regulary use more than the average. Now that

With a & b, the average user began using so much data, they ended up providing a useless service. So they decided:

12.) Lets go try to get the content providers to pay us for using our network. This is a bit tough to type out, and I'm running out of time, but let me try to explain how how it has worked:
a.) you, the consumer buy internet access from your ISP. You want to access the internet.
b.) your isp buys bandwidth from a backbone (likely multiple backbone providers).
c.) Google, or say wyonation, wants to serve content, they purchase bandwidth either through an ISP or a backbone provider.
Everyone pays everyone for the service.

13.) Comcast and others want to force google, wyonation, or whoever to pay them money to provide the content onto their network. They are basically changing the way billing is handled. Instead of selling Internet access, they are trying to control the internet. The scary thing is, since they are mostly a monopoly, they may be able to do this. Comcast had already nailed netflix for $20m a few years back. The FCC responded by moving from "we trust ISP's to honor net neutrality" to "here is some forced regulation that you will provide equal access to the entire internet." Netflix/google/wyonation win here as they don't have to pay for their bandwidth twice.


The problem is they are losing too many subscribers to the streaming services. They have the last mile (local loop) to your house. They are doing everything they can to get you to pay them more money.

Net neutrality is important. It has been with us since the dawn of time. We wouldn't recognize the Internet if it hadn't been honored in the early days, then the FCC came in when ISP's started trying to double charge (consumers and providers).

There are a few solutions:
1.) Let your representatives and senators know that you only support net neutrality.
2.) If the cable companies get their way, try to find another ISP (which will be tough) to get Internet through. For example, a local wireless ISP like Lariat, ACT Wireless, etc.

They are just gaming the system to keep their already large profit margins by using the law and regulations in their favor. They are doing their best to create a monopoly.
Great summary and well laid out argument. Mind if I share this elsewhere?
Feel free to do whatever you wish with it.
WyoBrandX
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1785
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

I should make two more points. 1.) This is a battle of freedom to use the Internet how it was intended, vs freedom from ISP's to censor, rate limit, throttle, limit choices, and charge however they want.

2.) It takes much more work to go through and manage a bunch of rate limits, filtering, and all that sort of thing. Net Neutrality doesn't require that and is much cheaper to supply by default.
WyoBrandX
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1785
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

Here is an interesting article. I think Wyoming should look at doing more like this. Powell has a similar setup.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... eutrality/
The city council in Fort Collins, Colorado, last night voted to move ahead with a municipal fiber broadband network providing gigabit speeds, two months after the cable industry failed to stop the project.

Last night's city council vote came after residents of Fort Collins approved a ballot question that authorized the city to build a broadband network. The ballot question, passed in November, didn't guarantee that the network would be built because city council approval was still required, but that hurdle is now cleared. Residents approved the ballot question despite an anti-municipal broadband lobbying campaign backed by groups funded by Comcast and CenturyLink.
snip
The telecom industry-led campaign against the project spent more than $900,000, most of which was supplied by the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association. Comcast is a member of that lobby group.
What will likely happen is multiple ISP's will be allowed to connect to the fiber backbone that Fort Collins will provide. You will be able to chose which ISP you want to use - but you will be using the cities fiber.

Think of being able to have multiple makes/models of vehicles drive down the road, vs only one make/model.
WyoBrandX
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1785
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

User avatar
Asmodeanreborn
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 6929
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:16 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 23 times

It's funny how Comcast bragged about how thanks to Net Neutrality being repealed, they'll spend $10 Billion on infrastructure this year. Which incidentally is what they spent last year and roughly what they spent the year before.

They upgraded to 1 Gbps here in Longmont finally, and are going door-to-door to convince people to stop using NextLight because they can offer better package deals - the variety that expires nicely and that you have to play the "I'll leave if you don't extend the discount" game with every year. Meanwhile, my $50/month Gbps is contract-less and for however long I want it. They also lowered the "late-comer" price from $99/month to $69 (which drops to $59 after a year) because more than expected signed up, so they could afford to do it. That's something you'd never see CenturyLink or Comcast do - it'd all go to shareholders or buying out a competitor.

Also, the FCC is about to change the definition of broadband from 10Mbps+ to 1Mbps+, probably so certain companies can start advertising that they're now offering broadband in whatever rural community, without having to upgrade their 3 Mbps service.
Post Reply