Zero, I'll go elsewhere.
Zero, I'll go elsewhere.
I would be willing to pay double what I do now.
Let's see, that would be 2 times nothing, put down
nothing, carry the nothing, and that would be .... nothing.
Honestly, my insights are so valuable Letsrun should be paying me for the content I provide.
DuhMyBrain wrote:
[They might slow the bandwidth of the traffic down to LRC if they want to squeeze further.
.
With all the ads that clog this sewer up, I couldn't imagine they could make it much slower.
heyyo wrote:
Either that or they're not actually public servants but rather corporate servants.
... and they will be so long as corporations are people and money is free speech.
My science teacher says that by 2020, 5G Internet will be divvied up to millions of small providers and 'net neutrality' will no lon er be an issue.
$0!!!!!
No need to answer because that's not what repealing Net Neutrality does.
Trump 2020
"Jamming" wrote:
No need to answer because that's not what repealing Net Neutrality does.
Trump 2020
"Trump 2020" = "In hindsight, we were idiots."
Beautiful Day wrote:
I live in the most populated city in the lower-48, and I have two ISPs to choose from. But I can expect a wave of new ISPs now, right?
Is there a more populous city in Hawaii that I'm not aware of?
judge hirsch wrote:
never gets old
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-federal-judge-nominee-asked-legal-questions-not-answer-district-washington-dc-a8111826.html
Guy looks like a runner, any pr's?
You’re completely wrong. It is actually extremely cheap to start an airline. Any company can lease a couple aircraft, rent a spot at a terminal and you are in business practically overnight.
Try spending millions of dollars and years of construction time to lay fiber to a few hundred houses in the hopes that you can get some of them to switch to your new company that provides internet for $50 a month...
The idea that there will be competition in the ISP space is ridiculous.
There's a brief history. You have ISPs redirecting search queries from Google to their own sites to get referral fees. You have them blocking Google wallet because they had their own competing service. You had at&t blocking FaceTime unless they signed up for a specific plan. This isn't in any way a good thing.
Fyjyfif wrote:
DuhMyBrain wrote:
Like I said - there's 2 of them in my area (b/c our govt has effectively killed effective competition in telecoms by allowing so many M&As)
If you live in such a podunk town that you only have two ISPs to choose from, your're free to move if you don't like it.
I live in a city with over 1.5milion people and have access to only 1 ISP for broadband.
Hardloper wrote:
Here's the REAL story, which did not have anything to do with Net Neutrality. (Also shows the ridiculousness of comparing the Internet to "phone lines" and other imaginary concepts of "fairness")
If it weren't for the simple fact common carrier status has nothing to do with fairness, and yes, the basis of Net Neutrality is actually FCC's Title II: Common Carrier from 1934(?) and all the ensuing law/decisions, you'd have a point.
Monopolies can now more easily contain attempts at starting municipal networks with the repeal of net neutrality. Force them out of business at the edge.
https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast-spends-900k-fort-collins-electionI'll pay for a package that keeps me away from this damn website
Nope wrote:
You’re completely wrong. It is actually extremely cheap to start an airline. Any company can lease a couple aircraft, rent a spot at a terminal and you are in business practically overnight.
Try spending millions of dollars and years of construction time to lay fiber to a few hundred houses in the hopes that you can get some of them to switch to your new company that provides internet for $50 a month...
The idea that there will be competition in the ISP space is ridiculous.
Once again, you'd need tunnel and utility pole access, which, no one should be surprised, the telcos grind new ISPs down with legal fees related to trips to court arguing access with a municipality and the new ISP.
Nope wrote:
You’re completely wrong. It is actually extremely cheap to start an airline. Any company can lease a couple aircraft, rent a spot at a terminal and you are in business practically overnight.
Try spending millions of dollars and years of construction time to lay fiber to a few hundred houses in the hopes that you can get some of them to switch to your new company that provides internet for $50 a month...
The idea that there will be competition in the ISP space is ridiculous.
Lmao. Are you serious?
Pilots, ground operations, LEASING PLANES. Not to mention if youre a tiny airline that only serves a few routes how can you be expected to compete??
This is literally the argument you just made for starting a new ISP.
If ISPs abuse deregulation at the expense of the consumer there will definitely be space to compete. This has happened time and again. That is, unless municipality give into the ISP lobby to make things difficult. Nothing worse than crony capitalism.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Nope wrote:
You’re completely wrong. It is actually extremely cheap to start an airline. Any company can lease a couple aircraft, rent a spot at a terminal and you are in business practically overnight.
Try spending millions of dollars and years of construction time to lay fiber to a few hundred houses in the hopes that you can get some of them to switch to your new company that provides internet for $50 a month...
The idea that there will be competition in the ISP space is ridiculous.
Once again, you'd need tunnel and utility pole access, which, no one should be surprised, the telcos grind new ISPs down with legal fees related to trips to court arguing access with a municipality and the new ISP.
I made this point with you in another post.
Municipalities need to open the door to competition. They fail to do so. Government fails again.
Harambe wrote:I made this point with you in another post.
Municipalities need to open the door to competition. They fail to do so. Government fails again.
And the article linked clearly stated local government wanted to do municipal broadband and the local cable monopoly ran a candidate that would stop the project. A monopoly acts to prevent competition. What part of government fails?
Randian simplifications do not work in real life.
Meanwhile, the broadband monopolies are already taking action to limit State's ability to regulate broadband monopolies and create tiered service. Surprising no one, the opposite of innovation already in motion.
https://gizmodo.com/dont-fall-for-marsha-blackburns-open-internet-preservat-1821448934