At first I thought you were suggesting there be a fast lane as long as there is not a slow lane but, of course, that makes no sense. Then I figured out you are fine with a fast line paid by the sender as long as the slow lane meets some minimum bandwidth requirements. How can the customer complain since they are getting the extra fast line bandwidth "for free"?
That is correct. Except the slow lane would be the lane with the speeds the customer purchased. For instance, suppose someone is poor or on a fixed income and decides to get the slowest broadband offering in their area because they just check email and facebook and occasionally look up a recipe. So this person gets a 1.5 meg line for $15 a month or something and other speeds are offered for $30 and up. Now suppose I want to stream video to them but I cannot reliably or with quality at those speeds, but I could if I had a fast lane to them. So I up my fees by 10 cents a customer and pay the ISP a small fee to speed up access between that person and my servers and now they can subscribe to my 24/7 streaming cat cam and pink ponies extravaganza. Now this person who could not previously use my service without doubling their internet costs can become my customer.
That's sort of a silly argument, one that relies on a reality which you think might happen rather than one that was proscribed. IMHO- It would be a fraudulent and deceptive act of business for an ISP to purposely limit the speeds of any connection to levels below what they are selling the customers. We are not entitled to anything more than what we are sold but we are entitled to what we are sold without the seller purposely limiting it for any reason.
I admit that in a static situation where my bandwidth to and from certain corporations suddenly increases is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. This seems to be the situation you envision. The problems start when the original static situation evolves over time. You can easily get into a situation where bandwidth to and from certain corporation is basically free while all other bandwidth is exorbitantly expensive. In the US, at least, the last mile is already a big corporate, unregulated rip-off. Why open the door to make it much much worse? The only way it could possibly be feasible would be for massive regulation of the minimum bandwidth and maximum fees of the slow lane.
NAh.. The slow lane would simply be the speeds the ISP sold you. I get people chiming in often who think they found the trump card with the "up to" qualifier on advertised speeds but that also fails. You see, if they sell you 10 meg service and purposely and intentionally limit that service to 2 megs, then the most you would have is up to 2 meg service. So deceptive bait and switch and outright fraud would be happening if they tried to pass 2 meg service off as 10 meg. The "up to" has to apply to limits in speeds outside their direct control like unusual congestion or equipment failure or something.
If you are a poor person on a sinking ship would you like a policy where the rich people get the fancy lifeboats and the poor people get lifeboats that were deemed adequate many years ago? Or would you prefer a policy where the poor and the rich are all put into the same lifeboats?
Seriously, if I was on a sinking ship, I do not think it would matter one bit whether I was rich or poor or whether the guy next to me was. Just get me on the life boat that isn't sinking. I do not need a crystal chandelier or champagne bar on it, just something that isn't sinking and somewhat protects me from the elements. If you think it matter, please by all means stay on the ship and discuss this with others who think it matters.
If you purchase 3 apples from me and I only give you 2, is that not fraud? If I constantly short you is that not deceptive business practices (check you state laws)? So if I sell you a contract to mow your yard all summer long when it needs mowed and mow it only once right before fall, did I not enter into both deceptive and fraudulent business practices? How about if I include the magic words, "up to" the end of summer?
So if anyone is selling you internet access and purposely failing to deliver it, how is that a free market? If you think that is happening right now, you probably should complain to the regulatory agencies that you are being cheated (again, check with your state plus the feds for those).
Talk to your city council FFS. Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority over the issues of parking you just mentioned outside of Washington D.C and it has abdicated most of that to a "city government". Its all a local issues with your local politicians.
Do they not teach government and civics in school any more?
The republicans seems to think that you are getting what you paid for, that you are getting the speed and services you pay for so the fast lanes or prioritized access would have to be in addition to that.
There is the problem. Many people are saying this sucks, but not saying the right words. Of course it's hard to get proof your ISP is limiting your speeds to below the package plan they sold you, but start making accusations of fraud and deceptive business practices against them.
Tom Wheeler said when talking about fast lanes, that he didn't have a problem with them as long as the consumer doesn't get cheated. I agree with him, there should be no problem with prioritized packets as long as you are not slowed down or interfered with in order to deliver them. But as soon as you mention that, you get bombarded by idiots who cannot finish reading the comment trying to tell you how wrong you are because they refuse to read the as long as you are not slowed down in the process part.
Of course I think it's already taken care of and existing consumer protection laws would likely cover it. If an ISP slows your connection down to below what you purchase in order to favor someone else', they have committed fraud. and no, the "up to speed" qualifier does not exempt them from anything because the speed will never be faster than what they limit it to. A 2 meg connection will never be the 10 meg sold when they purposely limit it to 2 megs. IT can only be up to 2 meg.
I'm sorry I missed that. Maybe it was because no one said one religion was better than another, just that "The resulting legacy of Islam is that for 1600 years, it has destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated."
You do understand that if I hate apples or say something discouraging about them, it doesn't mean I automatically like bananas or any other fruit you are thinking of right? Just like religion, you can have some or one or a lot that cause you to say something bad about it but that doesn't mean you think any other one is good. It just means you said something about one of them.
That would have a lot to do with being within arms reach of each other and not needing years of skill to be effective more than anything else. Firearms allow more strategy rather than limits due to attrition. But they are not particularly more deadly.
BTW, two of the bloodiest battles in history, The battle of Leipzig and The Battle of Cannae, where fought primarily with blade weapons. Firearms were present and used in Leipzig but the type and nature of them caused a lot of reliance on blade weapons. The second and third most deadly wars in history measured by total death toll was also fought with blade weapons.
I am not aware of any mainstream or even fringe christian religion within the last 100 years holding the killing of others within yheir doctrine. So please tell us.
Your insight to this is that because one group did something a long time ago that they do not currently still do, that we should accept another group currently doing it today. Simply amazing..
I wouldn't call it terrorism just as i would not call you a terrorist if you killed someone who was killing your family. I might call it murder or vigilante justice but terrorism seems compleately misplaced.
Not realy but that doesn't matter. They are not activy doing it today or even advocating murder. Their curent stand on abortion actually seems to indicate they advocate the opposite now.
I know its hip to bash Christians and all. But are you suggesting the moral equivilance of deeds of the past which ceased and current deeds still in practice? Or are you trying to justify the killings as a phase they have to grow out of lkke the church has?
I say the same thingd about those Scotrsman all the time.
BTW. You might be interested in what happened at Kunming railroad station in march or Osaka school in japan. I'm sure there is more. Knives or blade weapons are not innefective. Especially in close quarters. In fact, withing about 20 feet of distance, you can be killed by a knife faster than you could draw a gun and defend yourself.
Katz v. United states says as much when the court in a 7-1 decision determined that wiretapping a public pay phone needed a warrant.
However, i would also argue that there are certain things someone might not even say if they did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Suppose you wanted to tell your best friend you got a STD or that you forgot to repott some income on your taxes, or you have considered leaving your wife for her sister or anything. These things might never be said if you did not have an expectatilon of privacy. Reasonable should be denied because cops government use technology to make you falsely think you have established that privacy.
It's his hardware, time and effort, it is his choice, why should you care? You can either help him do what he wants or just ignore him altogether if you don't have some underlying reason to care.
Personally, I just avoid anything with windows 8.X preloaded on it altogether. But that's my choice. You should get into this free and open source software sometime and you will find that you have choices too. Of course staying with windows is a valid choice you can make also.
The vast majority of connections are tiered and already controlled by the modem or a router along the path. Comcast for instance does not run separate lines for it's 6Mbps, 25Mbps, 105Mbps. or 150Mbps. They just cap the connections through settings in the routers or modems. Other providers have a budget or basic internet package that is just their high speed package limited by settings in the modem or router.
Now as far as screwing everyone else on the block sharing infrastructure, it would be no more so than if the customer decided to just purchase the next highest tier on their own. Actually it would be less because the increased speeds would be significantly less for the surfing.
As far as a barrier to entry, not really. I can see this only happening when Netflix or whoever wants to reach a customer base they are technically limited from reaching as it is. Otherwise there would be no benefit in it for them as the speeds wouldn't need to be increased to use their services. Imagine it more like this. Suppose you take the bus everywhere. When you come to visit me, I send a private helicopter and fly you everywhere because otherwise you wouldn't have time to visit me. But if you had access to a corvette already, you could come visit all you wanted because you didn't have to wait for the scheduled arrival and departures of the bus or deal with all the time of the stops in between and could get on the freeway and just drive over. So I wouldn't need to send a helicopter for you.
The real problem is not necessarily what you others of your equal think of you but more precisely what bosses and company owners think of you. If you cannot get a job because someone outed you as a racist when all you were doing was trolling or because you had a different opinion or said something that came out wrong and they declared it homophobic or racist or whatever the hate word of the day is, you loose your job.
In fact, there are groups out right now working with the sole purpose of identifying people and flooding their employers until people get reprimanded or fired from their jobs. You may not care about what the guy next to you at the grocery thinks, but when you are unemployable, you might change your mind.
He said his line was a DSL line, guess what dumass, DSL lines are ABSOLUTELY limited by varying criteria, like cross-talk and line-distance to the CO.
So his specific situation completely locks out anyone else who BTW matches the specific criteria I laid out in my comment despite you and the GP not matching it? Obviously if you are at your limits of available speed, you couldn't even upgrade to the next tier and use my services.
Is English not your first language or does the ability to think just fail in your family? I do suspect you and the GP AC to be the same person and I'm pretty sure why you are posting AC too.
Because Netflix can do it on a scale so small that it would be pennies per view and access a larger pool of potential customers in the process.
Netflix wouldn't have to make Aunt Marry's entire internet faster, just the connections to their servers for the period of times it is connected. The costs can easily be folded into the costs of the products or services being offered by anyone without much notice.
Oh, how predictable; your attempt to equate blind faith and the reasoned acceptance of the findings of a biblical scholar as well as an overwhelming number of "preachers". Religion is knowable, just read the bible.
See what I did there? To each is their own authoritative. But you say you can verify it- yet you have not to date which is obvious from your next sentence.
If I were of a mind to, I could acquire the expertise and do so.
Yes, and if I had a mind to, my faith alone would allow me to walk on water. I just have not done it and likely will never do it but mark my words, the fact that I say i could lends all the validity needed to what the preachers are saying.
There is, to understate it just a bit, a big fucking difference between that and blind faith.
Sure there is, but only to a select few who have already reviewed and authenticated the materials presented. Otherwise, they are in the same boat as anyone else taking someone else word for it. We have seen this backfire several dozen times recently too. From Open Source software which have critical security flaws in them for decades despite the ability for anyone to grab the source code and review it themselves. We have seen scientific papers accepted and determined to be valid only to later be found made up and fake. Hell, we even have cases of congressional aids inserting text into bills that none of the politicians seem to know about. But even then, we have the famous you have to pass the bill in order to know what is in the bill quote and an appropriate it would take 3 lawyers 3 days to figure out what is in the bill so we won't read it quotes.
There is likely a significant portion of people now who have never seen a glass coke bottle and do not realize how thing the bases of them were. Likely from the time they were born, coke has been served to them from a cup or plastic bottle.
Then by all means, explain it to me so that I can understand why I should be bared from paying to elevate someone's connection to the next highest speeds available so their connection is fast enough to use my services? I mean it is no different than that customer deciding to purchase the next higher speed themselves other than I would be paying instead of them.
So please, explain what the issue exactly is here in the scenario I laid out? Is it that I or Netflix or someone else might be able to reach customers you cannot because you would not be willing to adopt the same business strategy?
The only thing different between a 1.5 meg cable internet connection at one house and a 15 meg cable internet connection at the next door neighbor's house is limits placed in the modems. They use the same damn pipes so there is nothing stopping me or anyone else paying to have that 1.5 meg connection become 4 megs when they communicate with my servers.
So where ever someone has the option of different speeds with the same service for different prices, there is an opportunity to increase those speeds.
On the other hand, if I'm paying for a 20Mb pipe, and Netflix (or whoever) has their own fast enough connection that they can keep that pipe filled, I damn sure don't want some cable company slowing that down (or charging me or Netflix more) because they'd rather I buy streaming movies from them rather than Netflix.
Lets stop making shit up. Any idiot can tell that is nothing close to what I was talking about.
First, if we read the Iraq war resolution the claims seem to be "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations"
Troops were told to keep quiet about finds because those finds were part of a monumental fuck up by the coalition forces in that they were originally UN sealed sites which had been left unattended for months after the invasion
This specifically needs a cite. As far as I'm aware of, all of the known stockpile sites which did not have the WMDs destroyed were actively targeted for bombing during the initial invasion. It's not like the UN seal sites were secret or anything.
I know you need to keep the narrative alive in order to prevent discovery of your world view being fabricated but you should be able to find some authoritative sources you can share.
And no matter how you look at it, "up to" will only be up to the speeds they purposely limit it to. If you have "up to" 10 meg service sold to you and your ISP limits it purposely to 2meg, you now have "up to" 2 meg service instead of the "up to" 10 no matter how you look at it.
Now is network congestion and other factors outside the direction of your ISP ends up limiting your connection, it's within the "up to" limits because if whatever outside their control did not exist, you would have those speeds.
Saying something is up to is not a get out of jail free card for purposely changing the product sold. Suppose I sold you tickets for up to 5 steak dinners each time you visit my restaurant but only keep one steak on hand at a time. When you bring your family to visit, were you ripped off because I purposely and intentionally failed to deliver the promised goods, or is everything cool and fine because 1 steak dinner is up to 5 if I ever get that many steaks at one time so you have to purchase different dinners for the 4 other family members should they chose to eat something else?
Slashdot Mirror
That is correct. Except the slow lane would be the lane with the speeds the customer purchased. For instance, suppose someone is poor or on a fixed income and decides to get the slowest broadband offering in their area because they just check email and facebook and occasionally look up a recipe. So this person gets a 1.5 meg line for $15 a month or something and other speeds are offered for $30 and up. Now suppose I want to stream video to them but I cannot reliably or with quality at those speeds, but I could if I had a fast lane to them. So I up my fees by 10 cents a customer and pay the ISP a small fee to speed up access between that person and my servers and now they can subscribe to my 24/7 streaming cat cam and pink ponies extravaganza. Now this person who could not previously use my service without doubling their internet costs can become my customer.
That's sort of a silly argument, one that relies on a reality which you think might happen rather than one that was proscribed. IMHO- It would be a fraudulent and deceptive act of business for an ISP to purposely limit the speeds of any connection to levels below what they are selling the customers. We are not entitled to anything more than what we are sold but we are entitled to what we are sold without the seller purposely limiting it for any reason.
NAh.. The slow lane would simply be the speeds the ISP sold you. I get people chiming in often who think they found the trump card with the "up to" qualifier on advertised speeds but that also fails. You see, if they sell you 10 meg service and purposely and intentionally limit that service to 2 megs, then the most you would have is up to 2 meg service. So deceptive bait and switch and outright fraud would be happening if they tried to pass 2 meg service off as 10 meg. The "up to" has to apply to limits in speeds outside their direct control like unusual congestion or equipment failure or something.
Seriously, if I was on a sinking ship, I do not think it would matter one bit whether I was rich or poor or whether the guy next to me was. Just get me on the life boat that isn't sinking. I do not need a crystal chandelier or champagne bar on it, just something that isn't sinking and somewhat protects me from the elements. If you think it matter, please by all means stay on the ship and discuss this with others who think it matters.
Who is allowing a cartel to stand in your way?
If you purchase 3 apples from me and I only give you 2, is that not fraud? If I constantly short you is that not deceptive business practices (check you state laws)? So if I sell you a contract to mow your yard all summer long when it needs mowed and mow it only once right before fall, did I not enter into both deceptive and fraudulent business practices? How about if I include the magic words, "up to" the end of summer?
So if anyone is selling you internet access and purposely failing to deliver it, how is that a free market? If you think that is happening right now, you probably should complain to the regulatory agencies that you are being cheated (again, check with your state plus the feds for those).
Talk to your city council FFS. Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority over the issues of parking you just mentioned outside of Washington D.C and it has abdicated most of that to a "city government". Its all a local issues with your local politicians.
Do they not teach government and civics in school any more?
The republicans seems to think that you are getting what you paid for, that you are getting the speed and services you pay for so the fast lanes or prioritized access would have to be in addition to that.
There is the problem. Many people are saying this sucks, but not saying the right words. Of course it's hard to get proof your ISP is limiting your speeds to below the package plan they sold you, but start making accusations of fraud and deceptive business practices against them.
Tom Wheeler said when talking about fast lanes, that he didn't have a problem with them as long as the consumer doesn't get cheated. I agree with him, there should be no problem with prioritized packets as long as you are not slowed down or interfered with in order to deliver them. But as soon as you mention that, you get bombarded by idiots who cannot finish reading the comment trying to tell you how wrong you are because they refuse to read the as long as you are not slowed down in the process part.
Of course I think it's already taken care of and existing consumer protection laws would likely cover it. If an ISP slows your connection down to below what you purchase in order to favor someone else', they have committed fraud. and no, the "up to speed" qualifier does not exempt them from anything because the speed will never be faster than what they limit it to. A 2 meg connection will never be the 10 meg sold when they purposely limit it to 2 megs. IT can only be up to 2 meg.
lol.. you are so funny.
I'm sorry I missed that. Maybe it was because no one said one religion was better than another, just that "The resulting legacy of Islam is that for 1600 years, it has destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated."
You do understand that if I hate apples or say something discouraging about them, it doesn't mean I automatically like bananas or any other fruit you are thinking of right? Just like religion, you can have some or one or a lot that cause you to say something bad about it but that doesn't mean you think any other one is good. It just means you said something about one of them.
lol..
That would have a lot to do with being within arms reach of each other and not needing years of skill to be effective more than anything else. Firearms allow more strategy rather than limits due to attrition. But they are not particularly more deadly.
BTW, two of the bloodiest battles in history, The battle of Leipzig and The Battle of Cannae, where fought primarily with blade weapons. Firearms were present and used in Leipzig but the type and nature of them caused a lot of reliance on blade weapons. The second and third most deadly wars in history measured by total death toll was also fought with blade weapons.
You need yo cite that then.
I am not aware of any mainstream or even fringe christian religion within the last 100 years holding the killing of others within yheir doctrine. So please tell us.
Wow..
Your insight to this is that because one group did something a long time ago that they do not currently still do, that we should accept another group currently doing it today. Simply amazing..
I wouldn't call it terrorism just as i would not call you a terrorist if you killed someone who was killing your family. I might call it murder or vigilante justice but terrorism seems compleately misplaced.
Not realy but that doesn't matter. They are not activy doing it today or even advocating murder. Their curent stand on abortion actually seems to indicate they advocate the opposite now.
I know its hip to bash Christians and all. But are you suggesting the moral equivilance of deeds of the past which ceased and current deeds still in practice? Or are you trying to justify the killings as a phase they have to grow out of lkke the church has?
I say the same thingd about those Scotrsman all the time.
BTW. You might be interested in what happened at Kunming railroad station in march or Osaka school in japan. I'm sure there is more. Knives or blade weapons are not innefective. Especially in close quarters. In fact, withing about 20 feet of distance, you can be killed by a knife faster than you could draw a gun and defend yourself.
Most definately.
Katz v. United states says as much when the court in a 7-1 decision determined that wiretapping a public pay phone needed a warrant.
However, i would also argue that there are certain things someone might not even say if they did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Suppose you wanted to tell your best friend you got a STD or that you forgot to repott some income on your taxes, or you have considered leaving your wife for her sister or anything. These things might never be said if you did not have an expectatilon of privacy. Reasonable should be denied because cops government use technology to make you falsely think you have established that privacy.
It's his hardware, time and effort, it is his choice, why should you care? You can either help him do what he wants or just ignore him altogether if you don't have some underlying reason to care.
Personally, I just avoid anything with windows 8.X preloaded on it altogether. But that's my choice. You should get into this free and open source software sometime and you will find that you have choices too. Of course staying with windows is a valid choice you can make also.
The vast majority of connections are tiered and already controlled by the modem or a router along the path. Comcast for instance does not run separate lines for it's 6Mbps, 25Mbps, 105Mbps. or 150Mbps. They just cap the connections through settings in the routers or modems. Other providers have a budget or basic internet package that is just their high speed package limited by settings in the modem or router.
Now as far as screwing everyone else on the block sharing infrastructure, it would be no more so than if the customer decided to just purchase the next highest tier on their own. Actually it would be less because the increased speeds would be significantly less for the surfing.
As far as a barrier to entry, not really. I can see this only happening when Netflix or whoever wants to reach a customer base they are technically limited from reaching as it is. Otherwise there would be no benefit in it for them as the speeds wouldn't need to be increased to use their services. Imagine it more like this. Suppose you take the bus everywhere. When you come to visit me, I send a private helicopter and fly you everywhere because otherwise you wouldn't have time to visit me. But if you had access to a corvette already, you could come visit all you wanted because you didn't have to wait for the scheduled arrival and departures of the bus or deal with all the time of the stops in between and could get on the freeway and just drive over. So I wouldn't need to send a helicopter for you.
The real problem is not necessarily what you others of your equal think of you but more precisely what bosses and company owners think of you. If you cannot get a job because someone outed you as a racist when all you were doing was trolling or because you had a different opinion or said something that came out wrong and they declared it homophobic or racist or whatever the hate word of the day is, you loose your job.
In fact, there are groups out right now working with the sole purpose of identifying people and flooding their employers until people get reprimanded or fired from their jobs. You may not care about what the guy next to you at the grocery thinks, but when you are unemployable, you might change your mind.
Identify?
I mean that is essentially what you are doing- identifying people by their real world "identities".
OR does the intent to "attack or retaliate" change things so drastically that it doesn't fit?
So his specific situation completely locks out anyone else who BTW matches the specific criteria I laid out in my comment despite you and the GP not matching it? Obviously if you are at your limits of available speed, you couldn't even upgrade to the next tier and use my services.
Is English not your first language or does the ability to think just fail in your family? I do suspect you and the GP AC to be the same person and I'm pretty sure why you are posting AC too.
Because Netflix can do it on a scale so small that it would be pennies per view and access a larger pool of potential customers in the process.
Netflix wouldn't have to make Aunt Marry's entire internet faster, just the connections to their servers for the period of times it is connected. The costs can easily be folded into the costs of the products or services being offered by anyone without much notice.
See what I did there? To each is their own authoritative. But you say you can verify it- yet you have not to date which is obvious from your next sentence.
Yes, and if I had a mind to, my faith alone would allow me to walk on water. I just have not done it and likely will never do it but mark my words, the fact that I say i could lends all the validity needed to what the preachers are saying.
Sure there is, but only to a select few who have already reviewed and authenticated the materials presented. Otherwise, they are in the same boat as anyone else taking someone else word for it. We have seen this backfire several dozen times recently too. From Open Source software which have critical security flaws in them for decades despite the ability for anyone to grab the source code and review it themselves. We have seen scientific papers accepted and determined to be valid only to later be found made up and fake. Hell, we even have cases of congressional aids inserting text into bills that none of the politicians seem to know about. But even then, we have the famous you have to pass the bill in order to know what is in the bill quote and an appropriate it would take 3 lawyers 3 days to figure out what is in the bill so we won't read it quotes.
There is likely a significant portion of people now who have never seen a glass coke bottle and do not realize how thing the bases of them were. Likely from the time they were born, coke has been served to them from a cup or plastic bottle.
I dunno if this will give an idea or not about the thickness of them.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/...
Perhaps this one helps.
http://www.antiquebottles.com/...
Of course they can simply do a google image search for those as well as for coke bottle glasses to see the resemblances.
Then by all means, explain it to me so that I can understand why I should be bared from paying to elevate someone's connection to the next highest speeds available so their connection is fast enough to use my services? I mean it is no different than that customer deciding to purchase the next higher speed themselves other than I would be paying instead of them.
So please, explain what the issue exactly is here in the scenario I laid out? Is it that I or Netflix or someone else might be able to reach customers you cannot because you would not be willing to adopt the same business strategy?
Oh my. And on a geek site to boot.
The only thing different between a 1.5 meg cable internet connection at one house and a 15 meg cable internet connection at the next door neighbor's house is limits placed in the modems. They use the same damn pipes so there is nothing stopping me or anyone else paying to have that 1.5 meg connection become 4 megs when they communicate with my servers.
So where ever someone has the option of different speeds with the same service for different prices, there is an opportunity to increase those speeds.
Lets stop making shit up. Any idiot can tell that is nothing close to what I was talking about.
You need some cites for that.
First, if we read the Iraq war resolution the claims seem to be "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations"
This specifically needs a cite. As far as I'm aware of, all of the known stockpile sites which did not have the WMDs destroyed were actively targeted for bombing during the initial invasion. It's not like the UN seal sites were secret or anything.
I know you need to keep the narrative alive in order to prevent discovery of your world view being fabricated but you should be able to find some authoritative sources you can share.
And no matter how you look at it, "up to" will only be up to the speeds they purposely limit it to. If you have "up to" 10 meg service sold to you and your ISP limits it purposely to 2meg, you now have "up to" 2 meg service instead of the "up to" 10 no matter how you look at it.
Now is network congestion and other factors outside the direction of your ISP ends up limiting your connection, it's within the "up to" limits because if whatever outside their control did not exist, you would have those speeds.
Saying something is up to is not a get out of jail free card for purposely changing the product sold. Suppose I sold you tickets for up to 5 steak dinners each time you visit my restaurant but only keep one steak on hand at a time. When you bring your family to visit, were you ripped off because I purposely and intentionally failed to deliver the promised goods, or is everything cool and fine because 1 steak dinner is up to 5 if I ever get that many steaks at one time so you have to purchase different dinners for the 4 other family members should they chose to eat something else?