Curious.. Does the machine verify that your ballot is complete and tell you what votes it would register? What is the point of scanning it right after you fill it out? Does the ballot remain in your hands or do you leave it behind?
You can make it harder to track who (UUID not a serial number for example), but someone at the polling place could on the sly track the last four digits to people, and since the ballots are tracked by place, you'd likely be able to uniquely identifiy every vote.
True, but if the serialization is done by barcode, it's really hard (though not impossible) for a human to record information easily. Further, precincts should have multiple election judges who's duty is to monitor each other for such activity. Coupled with a "no electronic device within reach when handling ballots" policy for the election judges I think we can make this really hard to do.
Perhaps the serial numbers can be encoded on the top and bottom of the ballot in a known margin. In this way, the serial numbers are easily removed from the voted ballots once the unused ballots are destroyed. If you wanted to maintain the serial number information, one could simply mask it off in the scanner during the count process and only scan the serial numbers when verifying the authenticity of the ballots.
But in truth, the anonymous vote using paper ballots is subject to all sorts of ways to ID the actual voter. Finger prints, DNA testing, are all ways this can be done after the fact. The only way to avoid such things is to only allow the handling of the voted ballots by authorized people who are supervised, only for specified reasons and only to load them on the scanner to get images for counts and audits.
Optical Scan has a killer feature. And that is you can have as many people voting as you have tables. Theres no hardware to break down. If the scanner breaks, go find another one, delay of a few hours at most.
the problem I see with this is the security of the paper ballots. Unless you physically or logically secure the stack of ballots from having ballots added, removed or modified, you still do not have a secure system.
I suggest that paper ballots be serialized so they are unique when printed. Then all ballots are tracked to point of use at the precinct. Every ballot given to a precinct must be returned, used or not, and the number of used ballots must match the number of voters who voted. Then as each precinct returns their ballots for counting, all issued ballots must be accounted for and every ballot with votes must have been issued to that precinct and verified by serial number. A record of used and unused serial numbers is created at this time. Then we scan the ballots into images and secure the physical ballots. All of the above is witnessed by election judges from both parties.
Actual counting of the ballots takes place from the images, generating a database of serial numbers with the votes cast on that ballot. The initial count of ballots is electronically tabulated and reported. THEN, a random sample of ballots are manually validated by comparing the scanned images and tabulated votes with the actual ballots by election judges from both parities.
Recounts are done by retrieving the physical ballots, rescanning them, verifying their serial numbers again, and going though the counting and auditing process again.
Being open source is less horrible, but there will still be plenty of opportunity of hacking. Most of this hacking is done by (elected) election officials, not Russians. And the Republicans are far better at it than the Dems.
I stopped reading right there. You are openly partisan. At leas TRY to keep up a facade of independence when you are dissing the other party. Otherwise folks you are trying to persuade you are right will just stop listening.
I will tell you the following as plainly as I can. There is NO electronic voting system hacking going on, at least none that has changed even ONE vote in any election that I know of. Do you have an example of this? Unless you do, we can discuss future security efforts, but there is no place for accusing either party of malfeasances in dealing with the election and vote counting equipment.
Ah, I see.. You are inventing stuff to be worried about. OK.
We DO have courts to take your legal concerns to, they do have a history of dealing with the legal issues you raise. I suggest you take those concerns to them when and where you find them. So don't worry, deal with it.
Your fears about electronic voting machines are flat wrong are wholly unfounded. We have zero examples of actual vote fraud happening by tampering with electronic voting machines to date (that I know of). Not to mention that such a effort, to be effective, would have to physically access a large number of individual systems in many varying locations (My precinct uses about a dozen systems, and there are over a hundred of precincts in my county, that's a lot of stuff you have to touch, just for one county in one state). You might throw a local election by doing this, but national elections would be extremely difficult to pull off. Plus, may of these systems DO have hard copy backups that can be and are used to validate the electronic tally process to be accurate.
Again, you are worried about stupid stuff that is either already dealt with effectively, has never happened or wouldn't be easy with given systems.
Voter fraud is but a drop in the bucket. I'm more concerned with election fraud, which would be akin to taking away the bucket.
Then rest your weary head and fear not. Vote fraud IS happening, but Election fraud (where the vote counts are changed) is not happening in the USA and the chances of it happening are extremely low. Obama himself was right, because our election infrastructure is so spread out and varied there is little chance even the Russians could have any noticeable effect even if they actually tried. The vote count totals reported are very close to if not exactly the votes actually cast. (allowing for some unintended errors that might creep into such a complex system.)
Reading comprehension is lacking on your end or you are purposely misrepresenting what I claim and what the link shows.
My claim: I said that fraud happens and some of it is illegals voting, not all of it. I also claimed that vote fraud has not yet effected any election that I know of. So you are not reading what I wrote. I said it's common, and it is.. Ineligible voters are also caught on a regular basis.
The Link: You asked for proof of that, I've provided you evidence that shows vote fraud *HAS* happened and is being prosecuted on a regular basis, and does include ineligible voters. I picked Texas, filtered the results for ineligible voting and found 12 prosecuted cases since 2009. Nation wide there where 225 cases prosecuted in the same time frame.
Now you may wish to debate the meaning of what "quite common" means or "what a fraction of the total" means, but such are not arguably false or make my statements so. You may not agree on the definition of "common" but that hardly makes my claims BS. Voter fraud has been prosecuted more than 1,000 times in the last 10 years, and it happens more often than it is prosecuted. That's unacceptably common place to me.
It happens often. Check out the list of actually proven and prosecuted cases which is a fraction of the total. Then there are the cases which haven't been found and prosecuted that likely amounts to quite a few more.
I once had a job interview where they asked me if I knew Java script. After discussing the job with them it became clear to me that they where looking for a Java programmer, not a Java Script jockey, but the interviewer didn't know the difference. I didn't figure it was my place to educate the guy. A couple of days later they wanted to discuss making me an offer, but I told them I didn't think the situation was a good fit for me.
Way to totally ignore the facts which are clear even in the NYTimes article. There was nothing the commission COULD do because the responsibility falls to the states on this and the states didn't want to provide information to the commission. Having nothing to do, no information to act on, Trump didn't want to waste their time and sent them home.
There are many ways to do vote fraud. Showing up without an ID is but one avenue.
Where I don't want to dissuade folks from voting who cannot make it to the polls, I agree that we need to tighten up the absentee balloting process somehow. I'm at a loss for ideas how to do that though.
OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote? Because requiring voters to identify themselves and verify eligibility to vote is part of securing an election. If you oppose that, then you obviously want to disenfranchise voters.
The right to vote is a constitutional right.
And I ask you, does a non-citizen have this right then? That would be no. Proving you have the right to vote, does not deny anyone their rights, getting a government issued ID does not infringe your rights at all. We require such documentation and proof of citizenship to do all sorts of things in today's world.
You cannot pick and choose when you apply the constitution and when you ignore it.
The electoral college is the only thing standing in the way of California and New York making all our choices for us.
Without it, we may as well be a one party system.
which is why the electoral college is here to stay and those who complain about it needing to change just need to get used to it.
NONE of the fly over states would consider ceding their power to the coasts and it's going to take 2/3rds of the states to change the electoral college system in the constitution. This just isn't going to happen in my lifetime.
How about UNLIMITED campaign contributions. I think we should have ZERO limits on contributions to campaigns by US citizens, give as much as you want anytime you want, but it's not tax deductible. Corporations which are based in the USA are also able to give unlimited amounts to campaigns, but they are not allowed to deduct them as expenses and they must be 100% sourced from USA portions of the business. Foreign nationals and companies are NOT allowed to participate, directly or indirectly.
BUT, every campaign or political organization is now required to disclose the source of EVERY penny they receive BEFORE they can spend it. This includes donations, loans or even barter items. The reporting must include the full name and contact information for every donation, no matter how small and must be made available for public and IRS inspection. ALSO every campaign must disclose where every penny of what they receive was spent within 1 week of the expense. So if they spent $200 on bunting for a rally, or $4,000 on catering at the phone bank, it needs to be reported within a week.
If we do this, At the end of the day and when the election is over, we can know who paid for the politician and make educated guesses as to how they would vote on things.
200 years is barely a grain of sand in the hourglass of human time
But other forms of democracy have failed in less time. Our founders where genius with this idea. Our very form of government is based on the division of powers and keeping those powers in balance. Thus we get three branches of government, We get Two house of Congress, one based on population and one based on the states, and the electoral college. It is the division of power that makes this model work so well and we owe our founders much for their wisdom and efforts to design such a unique system based on sound principles and much thought.
Also 240 years is historically a LONG time for a government to exist without major revisions or revolution. Plus the USA's form of government has been taken and adapted may times since it was introduced into the world. I don't see how any of those adaptations have improved on the original, have you?
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
Well, that's going to take a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. You will need 2/3rds of the states to agree to this and I seriously doubt you will get the low population states to ratify that idea. While you are at it, you might want to revamp how Congress works, given it's the same model.
I believe the founders made it pretty clear they where not forming a democracy, but a representative republic. They had some pretty good reasons for this, which I wouldn't call fear, but wisdom. They saw how pure democracies didn't work well and came up with the current scheme, where the majority and the states shared electoral power. It was this that gave us the Senate and House in Congress and the electoral college.
BTW, I'm not supporting the idea myself. The electoral college, like Congress has proven to be a very good idea over the USA's history. It's not broke, so I say we don't mess things up by trying to fix it.
"how many slashdoters believe..." probably the same number that believe millions of people voted illegally.
It wasn't millions of illegal votes but vote fraud does exist and is quite common, illegals vote and other forms of voter fraud happen regularly. Vote fraud has not changed the outcome of any election I know of, but it does verifiably exist.
What *doesn't* exist was the Russians hacking and changing vote or vote counts. That didn't happen.
That doesn't mean the Russians didn't try to meddle in the election though propaganda, but their efforts where designed to disrupt more than push one outcome over the other. They are after destabilizing our society and keeping up the divisions, and don't really care who's in power as long as they can disrupt the USA's effectiveness in some way.
If they're twins they're definitely not identical, and one's good and the other is evil.
They don't share common DNA, other than being programming languages from the distant ancestor known as great, great grand daddy "C". They are not even close to twins, they are not even siblings. They are more like 2nd cousins twice removed and then only by marriage.
You cannot "automate" physical security activities.
You may be able to automate checking ID's are valid, but *somebody* is going to have to look at the pictures or you are going to have to collect biometrics (again, which takes actual people to do).
Inspecting what a person has in their possession is again not something you can automate (just ask the TSA).
How you monitor test taking to catch rule breaking using automation? (Asking for a friend who runs a casino in Los Vegas.) It takes eyes in human heads.
This is a physical security issue, and that's not subject to automation.
If you don't secure the actual test taking, why does anything else matter?
FIRST you must verify that the person taking the test is the person who's supposed to be taking the test.
SECOND you must verify that the person taking the test has only the equipment and materials allowed by the test.
THIRD, you must monitor the actual test taking to verify the rules are being followed and there isn't any communication between test takers going on.
After that, mark the tests as they are and let the rest of this just be. If you want to see how effective your test day security is, sure, use such tools to get an idea if you are missing cheaters, but you won't be able to catch them this way. If you see evidence of cheating, up your security proceedures next time.
If corrosion weekend the cables by 20% of so, it seems like the original design didn't leave nearly enough margin for error!
I imagine they were not as concerned with 20% weakening thinking they had much more leeway.
But I'm inclined to believe that they thought they had enough margin in the bridge to keep using it. The question is if they didn't understand the structural design well enough to know that 20% was dangerous, or that they underestimated the loss of strength.
Likely, the issue is a mixture of both. The engineers likely missed something important in the bridge's weakened state and the structure was substandard for the conditions. Much like the bridge that fell into the Mississippi river in the USA recently, which had structural decencies which where under estimated, and was loaded more than expected.
Story that shows US internet speeds went from 12th to 6th fastest since NN repealed.
So, it appears internet traffic in the US has increased significantly, a horrible thing to happen since it undercuts all the NN supporter claims. Let the NN anti-science anti-fact people rage away at another Trump success.
I wouldn't call it a significant speed increase, but I would note that the average internet speed increase in the USA was on the rise before NN, during NN, and since NN's repeal. The obvious conclusion is that NN didn't have any effect on this. Looking at the chart, it seems that the repeal of NN may have improved the rate of increase, but I don't think we have enough data yet to say that for sure.
What IS clear from this information is NN didn't really affect internet speeds all that much either way. But, I wouldn't expect NN or lack of NN to have any effect on internet speeds anyway as it didn't directly address this in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Curious.. Does the machine verify that your ballot is complete and tell you what votes it would register? What is the point of scanning it right after you fill it out? Does the ballot remain in your hands or do you leave it behind?
Now we risk losing anonymity.
You can make it harder to track who (UUID not a serial number for example), but someone at the polling place could on the sly track the last four digits to people, and since the ballots are tracked by place, you'd likely be able to uniquely identifiy every vote.
True, but if the serialization is done by barcode, it's really hard (though not impossible) for a human to record information easily. Further, precincts should have multiple election judges who's duty is to monitor each other for such activity. Coupled with a "no electronic device within reach when handling ballots" policy for the election judges I think we can make this really hard to do.
Perhaps the serial numbers can be encoded on the top and bottom of the ballot in a known margin. In this way, the serial numbers are easily removed from the voted ballots once the unused ballots are destroyed. If you wanted to maintain the serial number information, one could simply mask it off in the scanner during the count process and only scan the serial numbers when verifying the authenticity of the ballots.
But in truth, the anonymous vote using paper ballots is subject to all sorts of ways to ID the actual voter. Finger prints, DNA testing, are all ways this can be done after the fact. The only way to avoid such things is to only allow the handling of the voted ballots by authorized people who are supervised, only for specified reasons and only to load them on the scanner to get images for counts and audits.
Optical Scan has a killer feature. And that is you can have as many people voting as you have tables. Theres no hardware to break down. If the scanner breaks, go find another one, delay of a few hours at most.
the problem I see with this is the security of the paper ballots. Unless you physically or logically secure the stack of ballots from having ballots added, removed or modified, you still do not have a secure system.
I suggest that paper ballots be serialized so they are unique when printed. Then all ballots are tracked to point of use at the precinct. Every ballot given to a precinct must be returned, used or not, and the number of used ballots must match the number of voters who voted. Then as each precinct returns their ballots for counting, all issued ballots must be accounted for and every ballot with votes must have been issued to that precinct and verified by serial number. A record of used and unused serial numbers is created at this time. Then we scan the ballots into images and secure the physical ballots. All of the above is witnessed by election judges from both parties.
Actual counting of the ballots takes place from the images, generating a database of serial numbers with the votes cast on that ballot. The initial count of ballots is electronically tabulated and reported. THEN, a random sample of ballots are manually validated by comparing the scanned images and tabulated votes with the actual ballots by election judges from both parities.
Recounts are done by retrieving the physical ballots, rescanning them, verifying their serial numbers again, and going though the counting and auditing process again.
Being open source is less horrible, but there will still be plenty of opportunity of hacking. Most of this hacking is done by (elected) election officials, not Russians. And the Republicans are far better at it than the Dems.
I stopped reading right there. You are openly partisan. At leas TRY to keep up a facade of independence when you are dissing the other party. Otherwise folks you are trying to persuade you are right will just stop listening.
I will tell you the following as plainly as I can. There is NO electronic voting system hacking going on, at least none that has changed even ONE vote in any election that I know of. Do you have an example of this? Unless you do, we can discuss future security efforts, but there is no place for accusing either party of malfeasances in dealing with the election and vote counting equipment.
Ah, I see.. You are inventing stuff to be worried about. OK.
We DO have courts to take your legal concerns to, they do have a history of dealing with the legal issues you raise. I suggest you take those concerns to them when and where you find them. So don't worry, deal with it.
Your fears about electronic voting machines are flat wrong are wholly unfounded. We have zero examples of actual vote fraud happening by tampering with electronic voting machines to date (that I know of). Not to mention that such a effort, to be effective, would have to physically access a large number of individual systems in many varying locations (My precinct uses about a dozen systems, and there are over a hundred of precincts in my county, that's a lot of stuff you have to touch, just for one county in one state). You might throw a local election by doing this, but national elections would be extremely difficult to pull off. Plus, may of these systems DO have hard copy backups that can be and are used to validate the electronic tally process to be accurate.
Again, you are worried about stupid stuff that is either already dealt with effectively, has never happened or wouldn't be easy with given systems.
Voter fraud is but a drop in the bucket. I'm more concerned with election fraud, which would be akin to taking away the bucket.
Then rest your weary head and fear not. Vote fraud IS happening, but Election fraud (where the vote counts are changed) is not happening in the USA and the chances of it happening are extremely low. Obama himself was right, because our election infrastructure is so spread out and varied there is little chance even the Russians could have any noticeable effect even if they actually tried. The vote count totals reported are very close to if not exactly the votes actually cast. (allowing for some unintended errors that might creep into such a complex system.)
Reading comprehension is lacking on your end or you are purposely misrepresenting what I claim and what the link shows.
My claim: I said that fraud happens and some of it is illegals voting, not all of it. I also claimed that vote fraud has not yet effected any election that I know of. So you are not reading what I wrote. I said it's common, and it is.. Ineligible voters are also caught on a regular basis.
The Link: You asked for proof of that, I've provided you evidence that shows vote fraud *HAS* happened and is being prosecuted on a regular basis, and does include ineligible voters. I picked Texas, filtered the results for ineligible voting and found 12 prosecuted cases since 2009. Nation wide there where 225 cases prosecuted in the same time frame.
Now you may wish to debate the meaning of what "quite common" means or "what a fraction of the total" means, but such are not arguably false or make my statements so. You may not agree on the definition of "common" but that hardly makes my claims BS. Voter fraud has been prosecuted more than 1,000 times in the last 10 years, and it happens more often than it is prosecuted. That's unacceptably common place to me.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
It happens often. Check out the list of actually proven and prosecuted cases which is a fraction of the total. Then there are the cases which haven't been found and prosecuted that likely amounts to quite a few more.
I once had a job interview where they asked me if I knew Java script. After discussing the job with them it became clear to me that they where looking for a Java programmer, not a Java Script jockey, but the interviewer didn't know the difference. I didn't figure it was my place to educate the guy. A couple of days later they wanted to discuss making me an offer, but I told them I didn't think the situation was a good fit for me.
Way to totally ignore the facts which are clear even in the NYTimes article. There was nothing the commission COULD do because the responsibility falls to the states on this and the states didn't want to provide information to the commission. Having nothing to do, no information to act on, Trump didn't want to waste their time and sent them home.
There are many ways to do vote fraud. Showing up without an ID is but one avenue.
Where I don't want to dissuade folks from voting who cannot make it to the polls, I agree that we need to tighten up the absentee balloting process somehow. I'm at a loss for ideas how to do that though.
What do you think we can reasonably do?
OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote? Because requiring voters to identify themselves and verify eligibility to vote is part of securing an election. If you oppose that, then you obviously want to disenfranchise voters.
The right to vote is a constitutional right.
And I ask you, does a non-citizen have this right then? That would be no. Proving you have the right to vote, does not deny anyone their rights, getting a government issued ID does not infringe your rights at all. We require such documentation and proof of citizenship to do all sorts of things in today's world.
You cannot pick and choose when you apply the constitution and when you ignore it.
Pfff
The electoral college is the only thing standing in the way of California and New York making all our choices for us.
Without it, we may as well be a one party system.
which is why the electoral college is here to stay and those who complain about it needing to change just need to get used to it.
NONE of the fly over states would consider ceding their power to the coasts and it's going to take 2/3rds of the states to change the electoral college system in the constitution. This just isn't going to happen in my lifetime.
How about UNLIMITED campaign contributions. I think we should have ZERO limits on contributions to campaigns by US citizens, give as much as you want anytime you want, but it's not tax deductible. Corporations which are based in the USA are also able to give unlimited amounts to campaigns, but they are not allowed to deduct them as expenses and they must be 100% sourced from USA portions of the business. Foreign nationals and companies are NOT allowed to participate, directly or indirectly.
BUT, every campaign or political organization is now required to disclose the source of EVERY penny they receive BEFORE they can spend it. This includes donations, loans or even barter items. The reporting must include the full name and contact information for every donation, no matter how small and must be made available for public and IRS inspection. ALSO every campaign must disclose where every penny of what they receive was spent within 1 week of the expense. So if they spent $200 on bunting for a rally, or $4,000 on catering at the phone bank, it needs to be reported within a week.
If we do this, At the end of the day and when the election is over, we can know who paid for the politician and make educated guesses as to how they would vote on things.
200 years is barely a grain of sand in the hourglass of human time
But other forms of democracy have failed in less time. Our founders where genius with this idea. Our very form of government is based on the division of powers and keeping those powers in balance. Thus we get three branches of government, We get Two house of Congress, one based on population and one based on the states, and the electoral college. It is the division of power that makes this model work so well and we owe our founders much for their wisdom and efforts to design such a unique system based on sound principles and much thought.
Also 240 years is historically a LONG time for a government to exist without major revisions or revolution. Plus the USA's form of government has been taken and adapted may times since it was introduced into the world. I don't see how any of those adaptations have improved on the original, have you?
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
Well, that's going to take a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. You will need 2/3rds of the states to agree to this and I seriously doubt you will get the low population states to ratify that idea. While you are at it, you might want to revamp how Congress works, given it's the same model.
I believe the founders made it pretty clear they where not forming a democracy, but a representative republic. They had some pretty good reasons for this, which I wouldn't call fear, but wisdom. They saw how pure democracies didn't work well and came up with the current scheme, where the majority and the states shared electoral power. It was this that gave us the Senate and House in Congress and the electoral college.
BTW, I'm not supporting the idea myself. The electoral college, like Congress has proven to be a very good idea over the USA's history. It's not broke, so I say we don't mess things up by trying to fix it.
"how many slashdoters believe..." probably the same number that believe millions of people voted illegally.
It wasn't millions of illegal votes but vote fraud does exist and is quite common, illegals vote and other forms of voter fraud happen regularly. Vote fraud has not changed the outcome of any election I know of, but it does verifiably exist.
What *doesn't* exist was the Russians hacking and changing vote or vote counts. That didn't happen.
That doesn't mean the Russians didn't try to meddle in the election though propaganda, but their efforts where designed to disrupt more than push one outcome over the other. They are after destabilizing our society and keeping up the divisions, and don't really care who's in power as long as they can disrupt the USA's effectiveness in some way.
I think it was already accelerated at about 9.8 m/s^2
Given the gravity of the situation, I believe you are right.
If they're twins they're definitely not identical, and one's good and the other is evil.
They don't share common DNA, other than being programming languages from the distant ancestor known as great, great grand daddy "C". They are not even close to twins, they are not even siblings. They are more like 2nd cousins twice removed and then only by marriage.
I wonder how many people polled didn't know that Java and Java Script are totally different things and if that skewed the results?
You cannot "automate" physical security activities.
You may be able to automate checking ID's are valid, but *somebody* is going to have to look at the pictures or you are going to have to collect biometrics (again, which takes actual people to do).
Inspecting what a person has in their possession is again not something you can automate (just ask the TSA).
How you monitor test taking to catch rule breaking using automation? (Asking for a friend who runs a casino in Los Vegas.) It takes eyes in human heads.
This is a physical security issue, and that's not subject to automation.
If you don't secure the actual test taking, why does anything else matter?
FIRST you must verify that the person taking the test is the person who's supposed to be taking the test.
SECOND you must verify that the person taking the test has only the equipment and materials allowed by the test.
THIRD, you must monitor the actual test taking to verify the rules are being followed and there isn't any communication between test takers going on.
After that, mark the tests as they are and let the rest of this just be. If you want to see how effective your test day security is, sure, use such tools to get an idea if you are missing cheaters, but you won't be able to catch them this way. If you see evidence of cheating, up your security proceedures next time.
If corrosion weekend the cables by 20% of so, it seems like the original design didn't leave nearly enough margin for error!
I imagine they were not as concerned with 20% weakening thinking they had much more leeway.
But I'm inclined to believe that they thought they had enough margin in the bridge to keep using it. The question is if they didn't understand the structural design well enough to know that 20% was dangerous, or that they underestimated the loss of strength.
Likely, the issue is a mixture of both. The engineers likely missed something important in the bridge's weakened state and the structure was substandard for the conditions. Much like the bridge that fell into the Mississippi river in the USA recently, which had structural decencies which where under estimated, and was loaded more than expected.
Time to accelerate those replacement plans I guess.
Story that shows US internet speeds went from 12th to 6th fastest since NN repealed.
So, it appears internet traffic in the US has increased significantly, a horrible thing to happen since it undercuts all the NN supporter claims. Let the NN anti-science anti-fact people rage away at another Trump success.
I wouldn't call it a significant speed increase, but I would note that the average internet speed increase in the USA was on the rise before NN, during NN, and since NN's repeal. The obvious conclusion is that NN didn't have any effect on this. Looking at the chart, it seems that the repeal of NN may have improved the rate of increase, but I don't think we have enough data yet to say that for sure.
What IS clear from this information is NN didn't really affect internet speeds all that much either way. But, I wouldn't expect NN or lack of NN to have any effect on internet speeds anyway as it didn't directly address this in the first place.