Lets talk about how the DNC hack was an inside job. Hmm, I wonder if anyone remembers that part where file metadata showed the mail dump was copied from the server to a USB drive.
No? Don't remember who Seth Rich is?
Ok, lets circle jerk to the left's favorite conspiracy theory instead.
More like beta testing as a service. (BTaaS). Blame Google for popularizing that shit.... (and also blame Microsoft for copying every bad idea Google's had for the last 15 years)
The quality of testing has increased dramatically since Aperture made employee testing mandatory.
We are the Microsoft. Disabling updates is futile. Your telemetry and online identity will be added to our database. Your GUI will be adapted to service the Microsoft.
That shit doesn't hold up in court. It's the legal bluff MS uses to force used PC shops to pay up.
OEM licenses are tied to the hardware. Are transferred when hardware is sold.
Retail licenses are tied to purchaser. Can be transferred from old PC to new PC.
Anything else is FUD spread by MS to scare PC refurbishers into buying licenses they legally don't need to.
Ever seen a used PC with the orignal COA scratched off and replaced with a Microsoft Reseller Program COA? That's what this is all about. Microsoft wanted the license to only apply to first owner, but that got struck down in court. So then they strong-armed computer resellers into purchasing low-cost refurbished PC COAs with intimidation and implied threats. (pc shop i worked at didn't fall for it). Every PC this guy sold with the orginal COA was about $20 out of microsoft's pockets.
You're complaining that a WISP is throttling you? YUO. AER. REE. TARRRRR. DID.
If you're trying to stream ultra HD video over the cell network, YOU ARE ONE OF THE ABUSIVE ASSHOLES FUCKING UP MY NORMAL DATA USAGE.
You're lucky you can even connect to the website, much less stream video, with how over-sold and congested cell service is. Maybe in a better world, WISPs wouldn't promise things they can't deliver, but in an EVEN BETTER world, you'd know better.
The issue isn't number of cell towers, or the pipes going to the towers. The issue is frequency. There isn't enough bandwidth. There isn't enough bandwidth because there are too many dumbshits like you trying to use their phone like a TV at the same time. I guess you can afford a $1,000 phone, but not a $200 TV.
Your screen is 5 fucking inches, what the fuck you you need 4k for?
If they let us block crap, how would they make money off of our kids watching Elsa and Spiderman dancing in their underwear, getting drunk, injecting each other with needles, and dry humping each other?
Dude, the "NN" in place for 20 years is Title II of the 1996 telecommunications act. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING BACK TO WHEN OBAMA ERA FCC POLICY IS REVERSED. What the fuck are you even arguing about??
What you want is impossible and illogical. Whether or not you can connect to a web service properly depends mostly on whether or not that content provider has adequate upstream bandwidth. ISPs do not and can no differentiate between traffic sources, both for technical and legal reasons. Content providers like to point the finger at ISPs, but a traceroute will show where the real problem is.
I think the problem is that you, and most consumers, don't understand what it is they are buying.
Lets go over your counter arguments--
1. no, large companies would have the option of cheaper internet by forcing ISPs to accept unmetered direct connections. This only makes fincancial sense at a very large scale, as the infrastructure needed for this is expensive, giving large companies an advantage.
2. You are not getting what you pay for, and this is normal. For every customer with a 40gbit connection, your ISP has about 4gbit of upstream connection to the internet. This works because not everyone is using the internet at the same time. You do not have a 40gbit connection to the internet. You have a 40gbit connection to your ISP, and share with many other customers your ISPs uplink to the internet. This may seems shady, and it is a little bit, but it allows ISPs to provide high speed connections at cheaper prices.
What will cause your internet bill to go up is the MASSIVE increase in the amount of data all of the customers of your ISP are receiving. Video streaming sites will provide higher resolution and less compressed streams (because this is what people want) as the cost sending data drops. ISPs should upgrade their networks anyway, as demand is always increasing, but the money to build out their network needs to come from somewhere. If they can't charge Netflix for a direct connection, they will charge YOU.
3. The internet backbone is financed by data moving through it. If there are more lower level direct connections, this means less data moving through the backbone. Less data == less money. In the short term, backbone providers will increase costs, but this will drive data to flow elsewhere.
4. Companies have to pay "extra" if they have "extra" data to move. The difference here is that if NN forces ISPs to accept direct connections, only business large enough to afford cross-country fiber links can benefit. Isn't this the unfair large business advantage NN is supposed to prevent...?
Your big error is in your "Yet another lie" paragraph: you assume that there was something besides Net Neutrality that would prevent Comcast from shaking down their cable business competitors for more money. You also don't understand the regulations that have been in place, and exactly what the Obama-administration change was.
What prevents ISPs from extorting money from content providers, aside from technical issues, is their status as "common carriers" under title II of the 1996 telecommunications act. This act forces telephone companies to accept calls from other companies, charge the other companies reasonable rates (arbitrated in court when necessary), and treat these calls the same as their own calls.
Under FCC policy, ISPs and other internet providers were considered the same as telephone companies, which they pretty much are. (fun fact: the PSTN has transmitted telephone calls long distance over fiber T-lines as PCM data streams since the 70's).
Under the Obama administration, this policy was changed, and ISPs were now considered "data providers", lumping them into the same category as content providers (like facebook or yahoo). This policy change was enacted a few months before Trump took office. I did read the 1996 telecommunications act, and a memo outlining the new policy...
I don't remember all of the details, but i do recall a few major points. Under the 1996 act, providers are prohibited from selling any personal info about their customers. No such provisions in the new policy... and of course there wouldn't be if it's
Is that before or after the gender confused Shillary clones sell all their uranium mines to Russia because of their over-abundance of patriotism? Oh, right, that happened during the Obama administration, so obviously after.
Obama and Hillary sucked Putin's cock pretty good with that Uranium One deal.... but now it's all pointing at Trump and "RUSSIANS RUSSIANS RUSSIANS!!!!!"
You should go punch a Nazi. Be careful, he might punch back.
1. People who just think globalization is bad because reasons.
Fuck you, you condescending prick.
Reasons: I don't think it's fair for US workers to have to compete with starving and unemployed pig farmers for manufacturing jobs.
Gobalization already happened, it's already horrible, and it's already destroyed our middle class.
TPP is about making sure Asia buys our goods..... but all our good are made in Asia. How long do you think our GDP will continue to grow with us being the middle-man everyone fucking hates anyway?
TPP will make our GPD go up in the short term (which is all anyone can think in anymore) while everyone fucking starves.
Ok, here's how it works, using Netflix and Comcast as examples (since they started all this shit).
You, for the sake of argument, have a netflix account. so, they need to send you a lot of data when you stream movies (some say netflix composes 50% of all internet traffic in the US).
Netflix has multiple ISP s(called a content distribution network, or CDN). Netflix pays metric shit tons of money for their internet. Their ISP bills are so high because they need rediculous bandwidth to handle all the concurrent video streams, and their connection is metered, meaning they pay per GB uploaded.
Why do they need to pay to upload? Because infrastructure is fucking expensive, and one asshole spammer can use up the entire internet with billions of spam emails. (before Netflix, spam email was 90% of the traffic on the internet).
The economy of the internet is pay-to-send, because this puts pressure on ISPs to police their own customers. As a result, running a website that transmits large volumes of information is FUCKING expensive.
For businesses, there is a solution to this problem. You can take a shortcut around the "public" internet, and get a direct link to your destinations. Usually you'd have to pay for this, but if you can work it out, it will usually save you money on your ISP costs. Sometimes you can get this for free via a 'peering' agreement.
So, the first LIE of the net neutrality propaganda is "internet fast lanes". Large businesses being able to pay for a faster connection, while small businesses won't be able to compete. BULLSHIT. The internet is made up of these so-called fast lanes. THAT IS HOW THE INTERNET WORKS. Level 2 providers (your ISP's ISPs) are nothing more than "internet fast lane" brokers. It's all paid fast lanes. You buy what you need (or can afford), and you get what you pay for. Very little data hits the backbone (i.e. "public" internet)... it's mostly your ISP handing off data to your destination's CDN and vice versa
Next lie, that the above is unfair to smaller businesses. BULLSHIT. Your negotiation power is based on how much bandwidth you're buying. That's called "economy of scale", and is a normal part of every business EVER.
Yet another lie-- ISPs can/will throttle data from providers who don't pay them extra 'fast lane' fees. BULLSHIT. That is not how the internet works. Comcast's ISPs will send data to the Comcast network, regardless of where it is from. If comcast is getting more data from Netflix than it's network can handle, then can do one of three things: A. throttle connections to Netflix (which was already illegal before Obama's rules that just repealed) and get crucified by the FCC and FTC, or B. upgrade their network and/or upstream connection.
Option C would be to do nothing, and then all of your customers have connection problems and crappy service because your uplinks are saturated and you're dropping packets.
Option B is what ISPs have been doing, and will continue to do. Mostly. In markets with no real broadband competition, sometimes it's Option C. The ammount of data the internet has to carry has EXPLODED since the advent of streaming video sites like youtube, hulu, and netflix, and aside from a few hiccups, the internet has kept up.
SO.... What the fuck is net neutrality about then? It's about companies using YOU to lobby congress on their behalf, so that they can get cheaper internet. They all want to "peer" directly with the ISPs, and they want ISPs to be forced by law to accept this.
What effects would this have?
1. Companies who send large volumes of data (Netflix, Hulu, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, eBay, etc) would be able to move their data for cheaper. Tell me if you think this would result in cheaper service, or higher profit.
2. Your ISP bill will go WAY the fuck up, as content providers will no longer be restrained in how much data they can send, and your ISP will have to build out their network to handle all the extra data.
3. What's left of the actual "public" internet, the backbone, will shrivel up and die.
4. Small companies will be LESS able to compete. CDNs will still exist for them to use, but many of their customers will get their own direct-to-ISP connections, driving up CDN costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets talk about how the DNC hack was an inside job. Hmm, I wonder if anyone remembers that part where file metadata showed the mail dump was copied from the server to a USB drive.
No? Don't remember who Seth Rich is?
Ok, lets circle jerk to the left's favorite conspiracy theory instead.
More like beta testing as a service. (BTaaS). Blame Google for popularizing that shit.... (and also blame Microsoft for copying every bad idea Google's had for the last 15 years)
The quality of testing has increased dramatically since Aperture made employee testing mandatory.
.... that the problem has something to do with hardware acceleration, the endless fountain of browser glitches.
You're officially retarded.
I'm old enough to remember the last few remaining Gopher sites. CERN did not invent the 'web'.
I wish CERN would stop claiming credit for things they didn't do ('web'), and stick to claiming discovery of things that don't exist ('higgs').
I miss the good ole days when I wasn't forced to pay $400 a month for insurance I can't use.
"Pussy". The word is pussy. Grab 'em by the pussy.
Define Success.
was it 12% market share after being free for a year?
Is it 43% after almost 3 years?
We are the Microsoft. Disabling updates is futile. Your telemetry and online identity will be added to our database. Your GUI will be adapted to service the Microsoft.
That shit doesn't hold up in court. It's the legal bluff MS uses to force used PC shops to pay up.
OEM licenses are tied to the hardware. Are transferred when hardware is sold.
Retail licenses are tied to purchaser. Can be transferred from old PC to new PC.
Anything else is FUD spread by MS to scare PC refurbishers into buying licenses they legally don't need to.
Ever seen a used PC with the orignal COA scratched off and replaced with a Microsoft Reseller Program COA? That's what this is all about. Microsoft wanted the license to only apply to first owner, but that got struck down in court. So then they strong-armed computer resellers into purchasing low-cost refurbished PC COAs with intimidation and implied threats. (pc shop i worked at didn't fall for it). Every PC this guy sold with the orginal COA was about $20 out of microsoft's pockets.
What? You want me to drink TAP water??? No thanks. Instead I'll pay $2 a bottle for fluoride flavored water. Mmmmmm. Fluoride.
You're complaining that a WISP is throttling you? YUO. AER. REE. TARRRRR. DID.
If you're trying to stream ultra HD video over the cell network, YOU ARE ONE OF THE ABUSIVE ASSHOLES FUCKING UP MY NORMAL DATA USAGE.
You're lucky you can even connect to the website, much less stream video, with how over-sold and congested cell service is. Maybe in a better world, WISPs wouldn't promise things they can't deliver, but in an EVEN BETTER world, you'd know better.
The issue isn't number of cell towers, or the pipes going to the towers. The issue is frequency. There isn't enough bandwidth. There isn't enough bandwidth because there are too many dumbshits like you trying to use their phone like a TV at the same time. I guess you can afford a $1,000 phone, but not a $200 TV.
Your screen is 5 fucking inches, what the fuck you you need 4k for?
People who have jobs know that internet outages are just as crippling as power outages. Minor disasters.
You however are not.
Traitor? Was he the one that sold all our uranium mines to Russia?
The petro-dollar is just a means to an end. When the time is right, the'll support the petro-yuan.
If they let us block crap, how would they make money off of our kids watching Elsa and Spiderman dancing in their underwear, getting drunk, injecting each other with needles, and dry humping each other?
Dude, the "NN" in place for 20 years is Title II of the 1996 telecommunications act. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING BACK TO WHEN OBAMA ERA FCC POLICY IS REVERSED. What the fuck are you even arguing about??
I think the problem is that you, and most consumers, don't understand what it is they are buying.
Lets go over your counter arguments--
1. no, large companies would have the option of cheaper internet by forcing ISPs to accept unmetered direct connections. This only makes fincancial sense at a very large scale, as the infrastructure needed for this is expensive, giving large companies an advantage.
2. You are not getting what you pay for, and this is normal. For every customer with a 40gbit connection, your ISP has about 4gbit of upstream connection to the internet. This works because not everyone is using the internet at the same time. You do not have a 40gbit connection to the internet. You have a 40gbit connection to your ISP, and share with many other customers your ISPs uplink to the internet. This may seems shady, and it is a little bit, but it allows ISPs to provide high speed connections at cheaper prices.
What will cause your internet bill to go up is the MASSIVE increase in the amount of data all of the customers of your ISP are receiving. Video streaming sites will provide higher resolution and less compressed streams (because this is what people want) as the cost sending data drops. ISPs should upgrade their networks anyway, as demand is always increasing, but the money to build out their network needs to come from somewhere. If they can't charge Netflix for a direct connection, they will charge YOU.
3. The internet backbone is financed by data moving through it. If there are more lower level direct connections, this means less data moving through the backbone. Less data == less money. In the short term, backbone providers will increase costs, but this will drive data to flow elsewhere.
4. Companies have to pay "extra" if they have "extra" data to move. The difference here is that if NN forces ISPs to accept direct connections, only business large enough to afford cross-country fiber links can benefit. Isn't this the unfair large business advantage NN is supposed to prevent...?
What prevents ISPs from extorting money from content providers, aside from technical issues, is their status as "common carriers" under title II of the 1996 telecommunications act. This act forces telephone companies to accept calls from other companies, charge the other companies reasonable rates (arbitrated in court when necessary), and treat these calls the same as their own calls.
Under FCC policy, ISPs and other internet providers were considered the same as telephone companies, which they pretty much are. (fun fact: the PSTN has transmitted telephone calls long distance over fiber T-lines as PCM data streams since the 70's).
Under the Obama administration, this policy was changed, and ISPs were now considered "data providers", lumping them into the same category as content providers (like facebook or yahoo). This policy change was enacted a few months before Trump took office. I did read the 1996 telecommunications act, and a memo outlining the new policy... I don't remember all of the details, but i do recall a few major points. Under the 1996 act, providers are prohibited from selling any personal info about their customers. No such provisions in the new policy... and of course there wouldn't be if it's
Is that before or after the gender confused Shillary clones sell all their uranium mines to Russia because of their over-abundance of patriotism? Oh, right, that happened during the Obama administration, so obviously after.
Obama and Hillary sucked Putin's cock pretty good with that Uranium One deal.... but now it's all pointing at Trump and "RUSSIANS RUSSIANS RUSSIANS!!!!!"
You should go punch a Nazi. Be careful, he might punch back.
In a death-like sleep.
Fuck you, you condescending prick.
Reasons: I don't think it's fair for US workers to have to compete with starving and unemployed pig farmers for manufacturing jobs.
Gobalization already happened, it's already horrible, and it's already destroyed our middle class.
TPP is about making sure Asia buys our goods..... but all our good are made in Asia. How long do you think our GDP will continue to grow with us being the middle-man everyone fucking hates anyway?
TPP will make our GPD go up in the short term (which is all anyone can think in anymore) while everyone fucking starves.
Eat a chinese dick.
Ok, here's how it works, using Netflix and Comcast as examples (since they started all this shit).
You, for the sake of argument, have a netflix account. so, they need to send you a lot of data when you stream movies (some say netflix composes 50% of all internet traffic in the US).
Netflix has multiple ISP s(called a content distribution network, or CDN). Netflix pays metric shit tons of money for their internet. Their ISP bills are so high because they need rediculous bandwidth to handle all the concurrent video streams, and their connection is metered, meaning they pay per GB uploaded.
Why do they need to pay to upload? Because infrastructure is fucking expensive, and one asshole spammer can use up the entire internet with billions of spam emails. (before Netflix, spam email was 90% of the traffic on the internet).
The economy of the internet is pay-to-send, because this puts pressure on ISPs to police their own customers. As a result, running a website that transmits large volumes of information is FUCKING expensive.
For businesses, there is a solution to this problem. You can take a shortcut around the "public" internet, and get a direct link to your destinations. Usually you'd have to pay for this, but if you can work it out, it will usually save you money on your ISP costs. Sometimes you can get this for free via a 'peering' agreement.
So, the first LIE of the net neutrality propaganda is "internet fast lanes". Large businesses being able to pay for a faster connection, while small businesses won't be able to compete. BULLSHIT. The internet is made up of these so-called fast lanes. THAT IS HOW THE INTERNET WORKS. Level 2 providers (your ISP's ISPs) are nothing more than "internet fast lane" brokers. It's all paid fast lanes. You buy what you need (or can afford), and you get what you pay for. Very little data hits the backbone (i.e. "public" internet)... it's mostly your ISP handing off data to your destination's CDN and vice versa
Next lie, that the above is unfair to smaller businesses. BULLSHIT. Your negotiation power is based on how much bandwidth you're buying. That's called "economy of scale", and is a normal part of every business EVER.
Yet another lie-- ISPs can/will throttle data from providers who don't pay them extra 'fast lane' fees. BULLSHIT. That is not how the internet works. Comcast's ISPs will send data to the Comcast network, regardless of where it is from. If comcast is getting more data from Netflix than it's network can handle, then can do one of three things: A. throttle connections to Netflix (which was already illegal before Obama's rules that just repealed) and get crucified by the FCC and FTC, or B. upgrade their network and/or upstream connection.
Option C would be to do nothing, and then all of your customers have connection problems and crappy service because your uplinks are saturated and you're dropping packets.
Option B is what ISPs have been doing, and will continue to do. Mostly. In markets with no real broadband competition, sometimes it's Option C. The ammount of data the internet has to carry has EXPLODED since the advent of streaming video sites like youtube, hulu, and netflix, and aside from a few hiccups, the internet has kept up.
SO.... What the fuck is net neutrality about then? It's about companies using YOU to lobby congress on their behalf, so that they can get cheaper internet. They all want to "peer" directly with the ISPs, and they want ISPs to be forced by law to accept this.
What effects would this have?
1. Companies who send large volumes of data (Netflix, Hulu, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, eBay, etc) would be able to move their data for cheaper. Tell me if you think this would result in cheaper service, or higher profit.
2. Your ISP bill will go WAY the fuck up, as content providers will no longer be restrained in how much data they can send, and your ISP will have to build out their network to handle all the extra data.
3. What's left of the actual "public" internet, the backbone, will shrivel up and die.
4. Small companies will be LESS able to compete. CDNs will still exist for them to use, but many of their customers will get their own direct-to-ISP connections, driving up CDN costs.