Spectrum Cable Allegedly Intentionally Throttled Online Games to Extort Payments

[Exavior]

I don't think you really understand the point. If you have traffic coming from another network, to your network or through it, and it is taking up more bandwidth than you can provide to the users in your network, it is a problem. This is typically a peering problem, I mentioned that. The problem gets extended to the user and to Netflix when there is a disagreement in the peering payment and the providing of more service. The bandwidth is saturated, the users now don't have enough bandwidth to get to Netflix or other services, the network can't or won't upgrade until the other side of the peering pays up.

In this situation to guarantee they can deliver service to Netflix for their customers, or even to customers of the other network, they give Netflix some options. That money they charge is then used to fulfill one or more of those options. The things you are saying have nothing to do with what I am saying.

But not everything should have to be peered to allow traffic to an IP. That isn't how the internet works. You don't need a direct peer to every single IP network in the world. There is a thing called routing that handles that. Lets forget about a single name as you are getting hung up on a single customer. They didn't JUST do this for Netflix but did it for Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, and gaming servers.... So just look at generic company X. If generic company X pays for service with their ISP. Anything that happens with that ISP is up to that ISP to handle. If they need to upgrade trunks to other carriers that is what their customers are paying for already. I pass traffic through my network for cell towers, when my backhaul gets to 70% of its capacity I will upgrade it. It really isn't that hard. I am getting paid to provide a certain level of service. The fact that I oversubscribe my network is not the fault of the customer, that is my problem to resolve since I am getting paid by my customers for them to have a certain level of service and choice to spend less money for awhile to make more profit for as long as I can to then make better use of the money later by buying more equipment. If peering needs to happen with another ISP, that is between the ISPs not whatever customer might be paying that ISP for service. If I connect to comcast and my trunk between me and comcast is getting maxed out then I need to deal with comcast to fix that, I don't need to go find 20 random comcast customers that my customers are accessing the IPs of and turn block those IPs unless those companies pay me $1 million a month. If I connect to level 3 and that trunk is maxed out then I need to get a bigger trunk to them.

Same here, a trunk between Netflix's ISP or any other companies ISP and a local ISP is up to those two companies. IF a peering agreement exist between the larger company and the local one directly then at that time you work on the terms of that peering agreement. But when comcast makes Kyle pay $25 for every comcast customer that access hardocp because his servers are using bits on his network with no peering between them existing or possible that is not anything that you are trying to argue.

 

[Exavior]

I used to be able to get ISDN from Centurylink, but they had to stop that because the lines degraded more to the point where making a phone call was pure static. The average dialup connection I was able to get was around 14.4k or so. Before I gave up and moved I wasn't able to connect at all. Oh and to use a cellphone required that you stand on the hood of a car. I only really discovered a use for cellular phones after I moved. Where I rent there is only Verizon and US Cellular, but they do exist! If you come around here dreaming of T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, etc, you're going to be SOL with no connection.

Yeah sounds about right. It hurts me to drive through Century Link or Frontier areas around here and see how crap their plant looks. There are areas near me where pedestals have been ran over or broke for 4+ years and the fix is just a garbage bag or orange bag over them. I know that the $100 for a pedestal is enough to break the bank for most companies but we decide to face bankruptcy and have our guys carry two spares in their vans and replace any of them that are broke in our network. the hundreds that we spent a month to keep all of ours intact is crazy with how badly it hurts our bottom line.

I am in a similar area for cell coverage. T-Mobile and Sprint are crap or none existent. AT&T and Verizon is iffy in certain places as you go between one rural town to another. Not sure about US Cellular.

 

[mesyn191]

You and others have made the false equivalence to murder. This isn't murder. Not even close

LOL you can sub in any law that you like as an example and it'd still prove what you're saying to be still obviously facetious and wrong.

I, and others in thread, have use murder as an example since you're effectively arguing against laws and enforcement in general by saying that because NN is not perfect its therefore totally ineffective which is obvious BS on your part.

Basically you can't use perfection as a means to discredit NN or laws or enforcement in general because everything ever is imperfect! You are, de facto, discrediting all laws and govt with that line of thinking.

Which is why I asked if you're a Anarchist because that would be the only way such a belief would be at least internally consistent AND the only way you'd also be showing yourself to be arguing in good faith.

Based on the rest of the BS in your reply its only reasonable to assume going forward you're determined to be fundamentally dishonest and be as shill-like as possible here in favor of the super rich and powerful ISP.

 

[mesyn191]

They just don't.

LOL "they just don't". When someone can't substantiate a argument beyond what a small child would say that is a sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Particularly when it comes to residential areas which are often spread out and therefore MORE expensive to install infrastructure in than denser population areas like cities. Virtually everywhere, not only in the US but globally, natural monopolies exist for a reason. Yes even in countries where a govt. barely exists.

Most places where people live are not a natural monopoly environment. They become a natural monopoly environment due to utility regulation and politics. Most suburban and urban residential areas can easily support multiple communications utilities.

This is all false due to the cost of establishing and maintaining the infrastructure for water, power, ISP's, etc. The cost is so high it acts as a barrier of entry that few can pass + once the infrastructure is in place its not economically viable for competitors to become established since the market is then captive at that point.

Now the ISP's themselves have become local monopolies and nationally oligopolies so they now have enough money to do whatever they want infrastructure wise and have economy of scale too which are advantages any competitor that attempts to form won't have too.

Its possible to force a form of fake competition through govt. force by making the ISP's allow competitors to use their infrastructure for free, or near free, but its a totally synthetic and sham form of it that causes more problems than it fixes since that infrastructure still needs to get paid for somehow. Which means in the real world of natural monopolies the infrastructure owner charges a fee for the competitors to use their infrastructure. Which in turn drives up cost for the competitors AND allows the original infrastructure owner an advantage since they can under price the competition and drive them out of business anyways.

 

[Lenard]

LOL "they just don't". When someone can't substantiate a argument beyond what a small child would say that is a sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Particularly when it comes to residential areas which are often spread out and therefore MORE expensive to install infrastructure in than denser population areas like cities. Virtually everywhere, not only in the US but globally, natural monopolies exist for a reason. Yes even in countries where a govt. barely exists.


This is all false due to the cost of establishing and maintaining the infrastructure for water, power, ISP's, etc. The cost is so high it acts as a barrier of entry that few can pass + once the infrastructure is in place its not economically viable for competitors to become established since the market is then captive at that point.

Now the ISP's themselves have become local monopolies and nationally oligopolies so they now have enough money to do whatever they want infrastructure wise and have economy of scale too which are advantages any competitor that attempts to form won't have too.

Its possible to force a form of fake competition through govt. force by making the ISP's allow competitors to use their infrastructure for free, or near free, but its a totally synthetic and sham form of it that causes more problems than it fixes since that infrastructure still needs to get paid for somehow. Which means in the real world of natural monopolies the infrastructure owner charges a fee for the competitors to use their infrastructure. Which in turn drives up cost for the competitors AND allows the original infrastructure owner an advantage since they can under price the competition and drive them out of business anyways.

This is nonsense. I am the network administrator for a large company with more than a dozen interconnected facilities ranging from customer call centers, transportation hubs, sales offices, and manufacturing facilities. There are mutliple vendors capable of providing network and phone services at most of locations (including a few offices in residential). The only issues we have are with rural plants in town with less than 2000 residents and 40 miles from the nearest interstate. Many of these only have issues because the local government had locked out competitors through sleazy right of way manipulation when it was basically just cable tv. These restrictions are used to ensure telecoms can charge confiscatory rates for low service. Most of these rural sites are being bought up by companies like Northland which raise rates if they have a gov’t enforced monopoly, or do a little infrastructure update and flip the area selling it to another telecom when it shows a profit.

Note: Northland Communications is based out of Seattle Washington and provides no service there. They buy up failed rural cable providers that could not afford upgrading to HD television services and internet (lack of cash and poor planning for future).

 

[Uvaman2]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-and-new-isps-faster-access-to-utility-poles/

I will give credit where due.. Ajit Pai made movements towards opening up lines for competition... I wish we had the NN rules in place until we actually HAVE good competition (like other countries do it, i think it will take decades here... If ever..) ... But at least there is some movement into opening up this mess.

 

[jardows]

LOL you can sub in any law that you like as an example and it'd still prove what you're saying to be still obviously facetious and wrong.

I, and others in thread, have use murder as an example since you're effectively arguing against laws and enforcement in general by saying that because NN is not perfect its therefore totally ineffective which is obvious BS on your part.

Basically you can't use perfection as a means to discredit NN or laws or enforcement in general because everything ever is imperfect! You are, de facto, discrediting all laws and govt with that line of thinking.

Which is why I asked if you're a Anarchist because that would be the only way such a belief would be at least internally consistent AND the only way you'd also be showing yourself to be arguing in good faith.

Based on the rest of the BS in your reply its only reasonable to assume going forward you're determined to be fundamentally dishonest and be as shill-like as possible here in favor of the super rich and powerful ISP.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth, or intentionally disregarding what I am saying. I won't bother repeating it any more, since you seem unwilling to actually take time to consider what I am saying.

 

[mesyn191]

This is nonsense. I am the network administrator for a large company

Hahahahaha you think cuz' your a netadmin for a big company you know how infrastructure scales out on a county, city, or statewide level??! What you think network cables go into the walls the same way they go into the ground too??

That'd be like saying "since I know how to run a business I must know how to run a country or state" which also complete BS.

There are mutliple vendors capable of providing network and phone services at most of locations (including a few offices in residential).

Yeah I got "multiple vendors" where I'm at too. A whole 2-3 of them depending on the service. They all charge similar rates and all provide mediocre service and don't really care about complaints. That is a oligopoly dude.

I will give credit where due.. Ajit Pai made movements towards opening up lines for competition... I wish we had the NN rules in place until we actually HAVE good competition (like other countries do it, i think it will take decades here... If ever..) ... But at least there is some movement into opening up this mess.

"Despite today's vote, the FCC hurt the cause of faster pole attachment when it deregulated the broadband industry last year, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Legislative Counsel Ernesto Falcon. The FCC's anti-net neutrality vote removed the classification of broadband as a common carrier service—that now-repealed classification "ensure[d] that every broadband provider has the legal right to gain access to many of the poles that run along our roads," the EFF wrote last year.

"I wonder if the anti-net neutrality crowd understands that Title II's regulation of poles and conduit is now limited to telephone/cable TV thanks to [the] Restoring Internet Freedom Order," Falcon tweeted today. "The ISPs that are broadband-only will not get the benefit, thus limiting its positive impact."

As Falcon mentioned, the FCC's pole-attachment processes provide access to cable TV providers and telecommunications carriers, but Pai's FCC determined that broadband isn't a telecommunications service in order to kill the Obama-era net neutrality rules."

Its the old dance of 1 step forward 2 or 3 steps back with Pai and other Repub appointees. Basically they'll do 1 minor thing to improve things well after they already set everything else up for failure beforehand so that when it fails they'll say "see govt. doesn't work deregulate more" a few years down the road when everyone but a few have forgotten the important details.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth, or intentionally disregarding what I am saying. I won't bother repeating it any more, since you seem unwilling to actually take time to consider what I am saying.

Yeah yeah sure sure.

 

[Lenard]

Hahahahaha you think cuz' your a netadmin for a big company you know how infrastructure scales out on a county, city, or statewide level??! What you think network cables go into the walls the same way they go into the ground too??

That'd be like saying "since I know how to run a business I must know how to run a country or state" which also complete BS.


Yeah I got "multiple vendors" where I'm at too. A whole 2-3 of them depending on the service. They all charge similar rates and all provide mediocre service and don't really care about complaints. That is a oligopoly dude.


Yeah yeah sure sure.

Please allow me to clarify. I manage network communications for US operations for a large company with operations in
Portland, OR
Multiple warehouses in California,
Cuero, Brenham, Austin, TX
Highland, IL
New York, NY
Greenville, WareShoals, McCormick, Johnston, SC
Sylacauga, Opelika, AL
Ashville, NC
Lexington, KY
Burlington, Gastonia,
Alto, Trion, Atlanta, GA

I also do limited work with offices in Puebla, Mexico and an office in China.

We have services through Spectrum, ATT, Verizon, Highland Communication Services, Carolina West Tel, Northland Communications (both fiber and coax), Frontier, Century Link, Windstream, Metronet. Additionally we have had services through a dozen other providers over the last 10 years.

We have old school T1, Flex PRI, Fiber, VOIP with SIP servers, Coaxial DATA, DSL, 4G mesh environments, Point to Point MPLS, and even POTS lines.

I have literally dealt with government created monopolies and co-operatives, residential ISP's, completely free markets, rural locations that
NO ONE wants to put up infrastructure in. It is my assessment that where competition is fostered ISP's provide better service at a lower cost. In a few instances where municipality co-operatives have gone in and laid fiber infrastructure the service/price is excellent for the first decade, then it degrades and (generally) the contractor hired to maintain the service cannot keep up. The best solution in those cases is to have the municipality lease the lines to a major player (ATT/Spectrum) and raise revenue while having the player maintain the equipment. Prices then climb and quality of service is typical/standard.

I do not appreciate your dismissive insulting tone. I was just putting in my perspective and letting everyone know where I was viewing the situation from; not as a residential consumer, but as a larger customer with multiple experiences dealing with multiple vendors in multiple environments. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I do know what I know.


Also, Pull your head out of your ideological/political lense and offer constructive analysis of the situation. You lose all credibility when you start bitching about political appointees and parties with an underlying explanation of why they are wrong about a particular position. You should argue positions instead of politics and you might make some headway. My guess is 90% of the forum users immediately dismiss you when you start bitching about parties or politicians instead of addressing actual issues. Make your case on the issues.


Also, Donald J Trump is the greatest President in history. <<<See what I did there?

 

[Nobu]

Hahahahaha you think cuz' your a netadmin for a big company you know how infrastructure scales out on a county, city, or statewide level??! What you think network cables go into the walls the same way they go into the ground too??

That'd be like saying "since I know how to run a business I must know how to run a country or state" which also complete BS.


Yeah I got "multiple vendors" where I'm at too. A whole 2-3 of them depending on the service. They all charge similar rates and all provide mediocre service and don't really care about complaints. That is a oligopoly dude.



"Despite today's vote, the FCC hurt the cause of faster pole attachment when it deregulated the broadband industry last year, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Legislative Counsel Ernesto Falcon. The FCC's anti-net neutrality vote removed the classification of broadband as a common carrier service—that now-repealed classification "ensure[d] that every broadband provider has the legal right to gain access to many of the poles that run along our roads," the EFF wrote last year.

"I wonder if the anti-net neutrality crowd understands that Title II's regulation of poles and conduit is now limited to telephone/cable TV thanks to [the] Restoring Internet Freedom Order," Falcon tweeted today. "The ISPs that are broadband-only will not get the benefit, thus limiting its positive impact."

As Falcon mentioned, the FCC's pole-attachment processes provide access to cable TV providers and telecommunications carriers, but Pai's FCC determined that broadband isn't a telecommunications service in order to kill the Obama-era net neutrality rules."

Its the old dance of 1 step forward 2 or 3 steps back with Pai and other Repub appointees. Basically they'll do 1 minor thing to improve things well after they already set everything else up for failure beforehand so that when it fails they'll say "see govt. doesn't work deregulate more" a few years down the road when everyone but a few have forgotten the important details.


Yeah yeah sure sure.

I haven't heard the pole attachment argument before. Is this not relevant, or has it been superseded already?

 

[mesyn191]

Please allow me to clarify. I manage network communications for US operations for a large company with operations in

None of which matters. I've managed networks across 2 states before but that doesn't make me an expert on infrastructure either. Nor does it actually address what I was saying about natural monopolies either. You're just spewing garbage to try and build yourself up at this point as something you're not.

It also isn't the big deal you're making it out to be either nor is it on topic since admin'ing a network has nothing to do with actually installing and paying for infractructure.

It is my assessment that where competition is fostered ISP's provide better service at a lower cost.

Again you're assessment is easily shown to be garbage by the existence of oligopolies which are "competing" in today's ISP markets both on a national and local level and have for decades. Meanwhile elsewhere in the rest of the world you won't run into the issues that people in the US are facing because their ISP's are actually regulated properly.

offer constructive analysis of the situation.

I did. You're not actually addressing it. You just keep trying to puff yourself up and dodge out of disproving natural monopolies.

This is your task: disprove natural monopolies are a thing. Until you do so stop trying to give BS bona fides based on being a network admin when we're talking about infrastructure. They're not the same thing at all no matter how big of a private network you administered.

You lose all credibility when you start bitching about political appointees and parties with an underlying explanation of why they are wrong about a particular position.

Actually since those appointees are hyper political and are often highly vocal about being so as a justification for their polices then its totally legit and even necessary to critique them in a manner that addresses their politics too.

Also, Donald J Trump is the greatest President in history. <<<See what I did there?

Yeah you blatantly shitposted for no good reason as a comparison to me actually quoting a relevant section of text from the earlier linked article showing Pai to be full of it. Those 2 things aren't comparable at all and if you think they are your brain is broken.

 

[ManofGod]

None of which matters. I've managed networks across 2 states before but that doesn't make me an expert on infrastructure either. Nor does it actually address what I was saying about natural monopolies either. You're just spewing garbage to try and build yourself up at this point as something you're not.

It also isn't the big deal you're making it out to be either nor is it on topic since admin'ing a network has nothing to do with actually installing and paying for instractructure.


Again you're assessment is easily shown to be garbage by the existence of oligopolies which are "competing" in today's ISP markets both on a national and local level and have for decades. Meanwhile elsewhere in the rest of the world you won't run into the issues that people in the US are facing because their ISP's are actually regulated properly.


I did. You're not actually addressing it. You just keep trying to puff yourself up and dodge out of disproving natural monopolies.

This is your task: disprove natural monopolies are a thing. Until you do so stop trying to give BS bona fides based on being a network admin when we're talking about infrastructure. They're not the same thing at all no matter how big of a private network you administered.


Actually since those appointees are hyper political and are often highly vocal about being so as a justification for their polices then its totally legit and even necessary to critique them in a manner that addresses their politics too.


Yeah you blatantly shitposted for no good reason as a comparison to me actually quoting a relevant section of text from the earlier linked article showing Pai to be full of it. Those 2 things aren't comparable at all and if you think they are your brain is broken.

So, all of this has to do what with Spectrum? Yeah, I thought so, nothing. The other person's experience says quite a bit about knowing how things work and why they do. I will take experience of conjecture and finger pointing any day of the week.

Besides, I do not recall Verizon getting all this heat when they stopped their roll out and gave those who could not get it the middle finger, well laughing all the way to the bank with government funded stuff.

 

[mesyn191]

I haven't heard the pole attachment argument before. Is this not relevant, or has it been superseded already?

AFAIK Pai's recent decisions that were mentioned in the article would supersede it. Note that is a implementation of a section from a 2010 act from 2011.

So, all of this has to do what with Spectrum? Yeah, I thought so, nothing.

It has plenty to do with Spectrum. You gotta read the thread itself to see why. Since all the posts are out there in the open for you I'm not gonna spoon feed it for you. And if you're not gonna read the thread than don't bother posting.

The other person's experience says quite a bit about knowing how things work and why they do.

Since when is running a private network the same as installing and paying for state, county, or nationwide infrastructure?

I'd like you to explain exactly in your own words how they're the same please.

Besides, I do not recall Verizon getting all this heat ...

Then you weren't paying attention.

 

[ManofGod]

Then you weren't paying attention.

What proof?

 

[Lenard]

None of which matters. I've managed networks across 2 states before but that doesn't make me an expert on infrastructure either. Nor does it actually address what I was saying about natural monopolies either. You're just spewing garbage to try and build yourself up at this point as something you're not.


Again you're assessment is easily shown to be garbage by the existence of oligopolies which are "competing" in today's ISP markets both on a national and local level and have for decades.

Yeah you blatantly shitposted for no good reason as a comparison to me actually quoting a relevant section of text from the earlier linked article showing Pai to be full of it. Those 2 things aren't comparable at all and if you think they are your brain is broken.

I specifically was not trying to build myself up undeservedly. I was clarifying that I do have experience dealing with purchasing internet multiple markets.

An oligopoly is not "fostering competition" it is literally the exact opposite. So I stand my point that where competition is fostered service is better and usually less expensive.

Yes I shit-posted but it was for a very good reason. It was to illustrate that the constant harping on politics instead of policy leads people to dismiss what you say. I even pointed it out.


If you want better service at a lower price you do everything in your power to allow ISP's access to poles, conduit, service tunnels etc. You should be generous in providing right of way access on all public access. Allow ISP's to provide whatever level of service that people are willing to pay for. Allow ISP's to manage the data on their network in any way they want. AOL used to have a portal that everyone used. People rejected AOL when they were able to purchase faster broadband that did not "Gate" their internet experience. Every ISP had bandwidth caps, and then Speakeasy came out with no-caps. The market stopped supporting caps. Over time Fostering competition will improve service and keep prices low. Municipality and Federal regulation should be geared towards increasing competition. That is all I am saying.

 

[NoOther]

But not everything should have to be peered to allow traffic to an IP. That isn't how the internet works. You don't need a direct peer to every single IP network in the world. There is a thing called routing that handles that. Lets forget about a single name as you are getting hung up on a single customer. They didn't JUST do this for Netflix but did it for Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, and gaming servers.... So just look at generic company X. If generic company X pays for service with their ISP. Anything that happens with that ISP is up to that ISP to handle. If they need to upgrade trunks to other carriers that is what their customers are paying for already. I pass traffic through my network for cell towers, when my backhaul gets to 70% of its capacity I will upgrade it. It really isn't that hard. I am getting paid to provide a certain level of service. The fact that I oversubscribe my network is not the fault of the customer, that is my problem to resolve since I am getting paid by my customers for them to have a certain level of service and choice to spend less money for awhile to make more profit for as long as I can to then make better use of the money later by buying more equipment. If peering needs to happen with another ISP, that is between the ISPs not whatever customer might be paying that ISP for service. If I connect to comcast and my trunk between me and comcast is getting maxed out then I need to deal with comcast to fix that, I don't need to go find 20 random comcast customers that my customers are accessing the IPs of and turn block those IPs unless those companies pay me $1 million a month. If I connect to level 3 and that trunk is maxed out then I need to get a bigger trunk to them.

Same here, a trunk between Netflix's ISP or any other companies ISP and a local ISP is up to those two companies. IF a peering agreement exist between the larger company and the local one directly then at that time you work on the terms of that peering agreement. But when comcast makes Kyle pay $25 for every comcast customer that access hardocp because his servers are using bits on his network with no peering between them existing or possible that is not anything that you are trying to argue.

Wow, dude, wtf are you talking about? Have you even read anything I have said? None of your replies have the slightest to do with any of the things I have said. I never mentioned it being a single customer. I never mentioned it being a single service. I never mentioned peering to every IP. I never once made any of those statements. I gave a simple example of a simple situation to elaborate on how things work. I have no idea where you think you are going with any of this, but I really am wondering what you actually know about how the internet works...

 

[mesyn191]

What proof?

You have the same google I have if you want to find examples of govt officials trying to shame Verizon into doing what they said they would to no avail. There were tons of people pissed at Verizon and other ISP's for their shenanigans for years now though! Are you seriously shocked at the possibility of someone being mad at Verizon for screwing over their customers??

Also please address this too, you seem to have ignored it: "Since when is running a private network the same as installing and paying for state, county, or nationwide infrastructure? I'd like you to explain exactly in your own words how they're the same please."

I specifically was not trying to build myself up undeservedly.

LOL you posted a wall of garbage about your qualifications as a network admin when we're talking about infrastructure but somehow you're not trying to build yourself up undeservedly?

An oligopoly is not "fostering competition" it is literally the exact opposite.

Of course, but you keep posting as if a small handful of "competitors" in a given area as if its meaningful competition here in the US. Its not and hasn't been for decades. If you knew what you were talking about you would never say such things.

Yes I shit-posted but it was for a very good reason.

No it was obviously not. And I told you why too: their politics IS their policy and they're highly and clearly vocal about it.

You literally can't honestly deal with them at this point or address what they're saying without also addressing their politics too because they've made everything political. There is a reason why Pai never shuts up about "free markets" you know. Hell it was his reason du jure for killing NN. He straight up thinks "free markets" are gonna magically fix everything.

If you want better service at a lower price...

That is a nice sentiment n' all but you were also talking about fostering competition while also denying that natural monopolies are a thing which is what I've been addressing.

Municipality and Federal regulation should be geared towards increasing competition. That is all I am saying.

Competition only provides economic and quality benefits in "new" (new in scare quotes because its meant in a relative fashion here) markets. In mature markets where growth is largely stagnant, costs of entry are high, pricing is largely locked in, and new developments are limited by fundamentals (ie. physics) all competition does is create business churn, and seemingly paradoxically, can actually increase costs.

 

[Lenard]

You have the same google I have if you want to find examples of govt officials trying to shame Verizon into doing what they said they would to no avail. There were tons of people pissed at Verizon and other ISP's for their shenanigans for years now though! Are you seriously shocked at the possibility of someone being mad at Verizon for screwing over their customers??

Also please address this too, you seem to have ignored it: "Since when is running a private network the same as installing and paying for state, county, or nationwide infrastructure? I'd like you to explain exactly in your own words how they're the same please."


LOL you posted a wall of garbage about your qualifications as a network admin when we're talking about infrastructure but somehow you're not trying to build yourself up undeservedly?


Of course, but you keep posting as if a small handful of "competitors" in a given area as if its meaningful competition here in the US. Its not and hasn't been for decades. If you knew what you were talking about you would never say such things.


No it was obviously not. And I told you why too: their politics IS their policy and they're highly and clearly vocal about it.

You literally can't honestly deal with them at this point or address what they're saying without also addressing their politics too because they've made everything political. There is a reason why Pai never shuts up about "free markets" you know. Hell it was his reason du jure for killing NN. He straight up thinks "free markets" are gonna magically fix everything.


That is a nice sentiment n' all but you were also talking about fostering competition while also denying that natural monopolies are a thing which is what I've been addressing.


Competition only provides economic and quality benefits in "new" (new in scare quotes because its meant in a relative fashion here) markets. In mature markets where growth is largely stagnant, costs of entry are high, pricing is largely locked in, and new developments are limited by fundamentals (ie. physics) all competition does is create business churn, and seemingly paradoxically, can actually increase costs.

You are wrong.
But that is OK. I don't need you to ever be right.



That is all.

 

[NoOther]

You literally can't honestly deal with them at this point or address what they're saying without also addressing their politics too because they've made everything political. There is a reason why Pai never shuts up about "free markets" you know. Hell it was his reason du jure for killing NN. He straight up thinks "free markets" are gonna magically fix everything.

Just curious as to when there was actually NN?

 

[Lenard]

Wow, dude, wtf are you talking about? Have you even read anything I have said? None of your replies have the slightest to do with any of the things I have said. I never mentioned it being a single customer. I never mentioned it being a single service. I never mentioned peering to every IP. I never once made any of those statements. I gave a simple example of a simple situation to elaborate on how things work. I have no idea where you think you are going with any of this, but I really am wondering what you actually know about how the internet works...

What he said isn't complicated. It's just wordy. He thinks that the ISP customers should pay for the peering, and off network service providers should pay their ISP. The ISP's should naturally come to an equilibrium on how to peer together.

The problem is the ISP's don't agree on who will pay. Does the server side pay, or the receiver side?

 

[NoOther]

What he said isn't complicated. It's just wordy. He thinks that the ISP customers should pay for the peering, and off network service providers should pay their ISP. The ISP's should naturally come to an equilibrium on how to peer together.

The problem is the ISP's don't agree on who will pay. Does the server side pay, or the receiver side?

What he said isn't complicated but it had absolutely nothing to do with what I said or have been saying. This is the third time he has quoted me and proceeded to completely say something different. It makes no sense compared to the situation I have been referring to.

 

[Lenard]

What he said isn't complicated but it had absolutely nothing to do with what I said or have been saying. This is the third time he has quoted me and proceeded to completely say something different. It makes no sense compared to the situation I have been referring to.

It was perfectly sensible. It was related to what you posted. I get the feeling this is a situation where he can explain it to you, but he can't understand it for you.

 

[Lenard]

Just curious as to when there was actually NN?

Probably right before the internet was a thing.

 

[mesyn191]

You are wrong.

You're posting like a small child while claiming to know what you're talking about again. Not a good habit man.

Just curious as to when there was actually NN?

2015.

More info here if you want to read up on the repeal of NN and Pai's actions here. Not comprehensive though.

 

[NoOther]

It was perfectly sensible. It was related to what you posted. I get the feeling this is a situation where he can explain it to you, but he can't understand it for you.

No, no it wasn't. Re-read my posts and his posts and you will see. If you think they are alike, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[mesyn191]

No, no it wasn't. Re-read my posts and his posts and you will see. If you think they are alike, I don't know what to tell you.

He is trying to gaslight you dude.

"No you just don't get it, you're wrong he's right see? See now?? I just explained it to you!" etc etc etc

 

[NoOther]

2015.

More info here if you want to read up on the repeal of NN and Pai's actions here. Not comprehensive though.

For reference that wasn't NN, it wasn't even close. That is part of my point. We do not, nor have we had NN here. The rules put into place barely did much. Those rules didn't even stop companies from throttling traffic or force them to upgrade to keep up with their peers. There were a lot of loopholes in them that still allowed companies to do what they wanted.

 

[mesyn191]

For reference that wasn't NN, it wasn't even close.

It was close enough to NN that it was generally referred to as such by most people, even its detractors, for a reason. If you want to quibble about the various issues it had, or argue that it was imperfect, I don't see that as substantive since everything always has tons of issues these days.

 

[NoOther]

It was close enough to NN that it was generally referred to as such by most people, even its detractors, for a reason. If you want to quibble about the various issues it had, or argue that it was imperfect, I don't see that as substantive since everything always has tons of issues these days.

No, it actually wasn't close to NN, those changes were only meant as a stop gap for additional bills to be passed later. The other bills were voted down. To get any real NN, you have to put too many restrictions and regulations on the current setup, or you need to reorganize the entire infrastructure of the US.

 

[Lenard]

It was close enough to NN that it was generally referred to as such by most people, even its detractors, for a reason. If you want to quibble about the various issues it had, or argue that it was imperfect, I don't see that as substantive since everything always has tons of issues these days.

It was referred to as NN because everyone referred to it as NN. There wasn't a catchy reference made up in time for detractors to call it anything else.
The Affordable Care Act was called Obamacare because the detractors had time to make up a name before it was passed.
NN was just declared. It happened almost overnight.

 

[mesyn191]

*shrugs* We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this. I'd point out again though that this isn't a matter of opinion but a matter of legal record at this point.

It was referred to as NN because everyone referred to it as NN. There wasn't a catchy reference made up in time for detractors to call it anything else.

That is false. They debated for months on it. (edit) Actually nearly a year apparently, debates started in early 2014 and NN was passed in early 2015. There was even plenty of outcry among Repubs to "keep govt hands off the internet" at the time and they even invented some conspiracy theories at around that time too in order to whip up their base.

 

[NoOther]

*shrugs* We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this. I'd point out again though that this isn't a matter of opinion but a matter of legal record at this point.

What legal record? Title II never even mentioned net neutrality, so where is the legal record for NN? NN is just a buzz word that people used which was given to them by content companies as scare tactics so they could get what they wanted. I am all for actual net neutrality, but it just hasn't existed and needs a serious overhaul of our system to actually happen.

For instance, what in this particular claim would Title II have affected? The answer? Nothing.

 

[mesyn191]

What legal record? Title II never even mentioned net neutrality, so where is the legal record for NN?

Semantics. Just because Title II classification doesn't use the words doesn't mean it didn't de facto do what NN was supposed to do exactly.

Again this is the sort of quibbling I was talking about earlier.

For instance, what in this particular claim would Title II have affected? The answer? Nothing.

You got some reading to do.

Here is the money quote:
"Essentially, without broadband providers being classified as common carriers under Title II, the FCC would lack the legal authority to enforce net neutrality rules against block, throttling, and paid prioritization."

 

[NoOther]

Semantics. Just because Title II classification doesn't use the words doesn't mean it didn't de facto do what NN was supposed to do exactly.

Again this is the sort of quibbling I was talking about earlier.

Except the only thing Title II did was reclassify certain ISPs as broadband carriers. In addition, before it was even passed the FCC said it would selectively enforce rules. In addition, if you actually read the verbage it still allowed a lot of anti-NN activities to take place. The problem was still that the entire verbage in many of the governing restrictions is ancient and outdated. Also the way the infrastructure works, there is not way to provide both NN and better service overall. It requires all the different ISPs to upgrade and maintain their equipment equally.

You got some reading to do.

Here is the money quote:
"Essentially, without broadband providers being classified as common carriers under Title II, the FCC would lack the legal authority to enforce net neutrality rules against block, throttling, and paid prioritization."

No, I do not. There was no actual blocking and there was no actual throttling. The "paid prioritization" may have applied, but not likely. The issue at the heart of the matter was that Spectrum just wasn't upgrading their service. They literally didn't have the bandwidth to handle the requests they were getting. In addition they also didn't have their network properly setup, which was causing the issue with Riot in particular. Also, the particular issue with Riot took place during Title II. As it stipulates in the claim it was in August 2015 (page 69 of the complaint) that Riot paid Spectrum to fix their access issue.

 

[mesyn191]

Except the only thing Title II did was reclassify certain ISPs as broadband carriers.

LOL that "only thing" is what gave them the authority to regulate the ISP's, amongst other things. That is a pretty goddamn big "only thing" for you to try and hand wave away as nothing.

Do you also by chance think the govt. having the ability to regulate the roads, or drugs, or guns or pretty much anything at all is also nothing?

In addition....

The FCC was being hamstrung by its Repub members at every turn so there were issues with it but was very very vary far from being ineffective or some sort of sham attempt at regulation. It had serious teeth and the ISP's wanted it killed for a reason. Just because the actual Title II regs themselves were originally written in the 30's doesn't mean they can't be interpreted and enforced effectively today too you know.

(edit) That was the whole point of the 2015 rules that I linked earlier in thread too BTW, the actual NN policy itself in question.

Also the way the infrastructure works, there is not way to provide both NN and better service overall. It requires all the different ISPs to upgrade and maintain their equipment equally.

Nope. All they have to do is not artificially restrict data streams for pay like they were doing to Netflix and others. You don't need a perfectly configured and upgraded infrastructure to do that.

There was no actual blocking and there was no actual throttling. The "paid prioritization" may have applied, but not likely.

Semantics again. And quite weasely ones too at that.

The issue at the heart of the matter was that Spectrum just wasn't upgrading their service.

Apparently they were doing more than that given their efforts to extort Netflix and others for cash. Hardware issues have nothing to do with that and its bizzare for you to seem to think they do.

Also, the particular issue with Riot took place during Title II. As it stipulates in the claim it was in August 2015 (page 69 of the complaint) that Riot paid Spectrum to fix their access issue.

So what? I mean criminals break the laws all the time when those laws are in effect. I mean that claim is showing them clearly in the wrong here and I have no clue how you'd think that would do anything to back up Spectrum's claims or innocence or show some sort of issue with NN.

 

[NoOther]

LOL that "only thing" is what gave them the authority to regulate the ISP's, amongst other things. That is a pretty goddamn big "only thing" for you to try and hand wave away as nothing.

Do you also by chance think the govt. having the ability to regulate the roads, or drugs, or guns or pretty much anything at all is also nothing?

They already had the ability to regulate ISPs, they still have the ability to regulate ISPs. They don't have the same power to enforce certain regulations, but that also wasn't the original intent of the FCC. It is Congress's job to pass laws that affect these things, which they haven't. In addition, again, the rules that were passed actually help this particular issue, not regulate it.

The FCC was being hamstrung by its Repub members at every turn so there were issues with it but was very very vary far from being ineffective or some sort of sham attempt at regulation. It had serious teeth and the ISP's wanted it killed for a reason. Just because the actual Title II regs themselves were originally written in the 30's doesn't mean they can't be interpreted and enforced effectively today too you know.

No, it didn't. The FCC themselves said they weren't going to enforce much. Secondly, there was only so much they could do even with the changes. It didn't actually give any real teeth, that is the problem. Again, I am for NN, the reclassification of ISPs under Title II was a stopgap and didn't do enough.

Nope. All they have to do is not artificially restrict data streams for pay like they were doing to Netflix and others. You don't need a perfectly configured and upgraded infrastructure to do that.

Wrong. In Title II they would have to be actively blocking traffic, actively throttling, actively providing faster service for content providers. They didn't do any of that, they were not restricting data streams. They didn't have the bandwidth or configuration to support it. That is a different thing altogether.

Semantics again. And quite weasely ones too at that.

No, it is not semantics, it is a very important distinction. This is completely different from FIOS or Comcast actively throttling traffic to Netflix. In those cases the ISPs had the capacity to allow the traffic, but put actual rules in place to limit the traffic from certain sources.

Apparently they were doing more than that given their efforts to extort Netflix and others for cash. Hardware issues have nothing to do with that and its bizzare for you to seem to think they do.

No, they weren't. Users still had access but they both didn't have access ports close to those services, and didn't have proper routing setup. This is the only issue where I could see perhaps them being subject to penalties under the previous Title II. If you read the complaint, again page 69, it clearly had to do with both hardware and the setup of the hardware. They provided access ports to the exchanges Riot was using, they didn't have them before. It also clearly states many many times in that complaint that Spectrum was not upgrading their equipment and they did not have the capacity to provide the bandwidth they were selling. So it very definitely was a hardware and configuration issue.

So what? I mean criminals break the laws all the time when those laws are in effect. I mean that claim is showing them clearly in the wrong here and I have no clue how you'd think that would do anything to back up Spectrum's claims or innocence or show some sort of issue with NN.

I never said Spectrum was not in the wrong. That is why they got booted from NY and also why they are getting sued. I never stipulated that anything they were doing was right. I stipulated that Title II didn't have the teeth or wording to do much about this situation. This is the exact situation Ajit was talking about as a result of Title II. Providers could simply refuse to upgrade their equipment and there isn't much Title II could do about that.

Again this has always been my issue with the current rules and regulations, they don't really do much to enable real net neutrality. For that you have to have more stringent regulations or control over the backbone and how the last mile connects/maintains its connection to it.

 

[mesyn191]

They already had the ability to regulate ISPs, they still have the ability to regulate ISPs.

Not to enforce the NN regs.

You know that, and you know that is a critical point on this topic and it was also known as a critical point for the NN regs to take effect too at the time. Don't be obtuse here.

More and more you're coming off as dishonest to me.

but that also wasn't the original intent of the FCC.

The FCC was "built" to essentially regulate anything and everything regarding telecommunication and it did so for decades for a reason. The argument that suddenly no its not really supposed to be doing that, because somehow the internet isn't a form of telecommunications or something, is fundamentally dishonest political BS bought and paid for by the ISP's.

No, it didn't.

I've linked the regs multiple times now and its pretty clear about what it did. You're going to have to come up with something better than "nuh uh" here.

It didn't actually give any real teeth, that is the problem.

This is false. The FCC could punish the ISP's if it found them violating the rules. You have any evidence at all they were guaranteed to only dole out ineffective slaps on the wrist here?

Again, I am for NN, the reclassification of ISPs under Title II was a stopgap and didn't do enough.

You can say you're for NN all you want but when your arguments are often founded on weasel word semantics, you keep trying to white knight for notoriously scummy ISP's caught red handed in extortion schemes, and you keep trying to play cute or be obtuse about key points....well lets just say I don't believe you at this point in time.

They didn't do any of that, they were not restricting data streams. They didn't have the bandwidth or configuration to support it. That is a different thing altogether.

The legal claims, and clear cut evidence that you seem to be ignoring or downplaying QUITE favorably for Spectrum, being made say otherwise. In Spectrum's own words:

"We really want content networks paying us for access and right now we force those through transit that do not want to pay."

286. Absent a payment, Spectrum-TWC could effectively “throttle” or limit the ability of backbone and content providers to deliver online content by either decommissioning ports or failing to maintain sufficient ports at interconnection points to handle the ever-increasing traffic load

288. The specific tactic Spectrum-TWC used most frequently to limit port capacity was to refuse to add additional ports, thereby leaving its backbone and content providers to drop data packets or find a more circuitous route to transmit the traffic, which increases latency

So yeah they were clearly restricting data streams here by forcing traffic over parts of their network that had insufficient hardware as a cover for their activities if they didn't get their payments. Its all there in black and white.

This is completely different from FIOS or Comcast actively throttling traffic to Netflix.

In principal its not at all different. In both cases the ISP is trying to force others to pay extra for service they're supposed to be providing or else those parties' services get degraded arbitrarily. The actual means the throttling is being achieved by don't actually matter. What matters is the pay for play that is going on, and the punishment they'd receive if they didn't pay up. Its the punishment for lack of pay that makes it extortion BTW.

No, they weren't.

LOL Spectrum was forcing their internet traffic over known insufficient hardware if they didn't get their pay off!! That is a clear cut case of extortion and you, a random internet poster who once thought the power to regulate something is really nothing at all, saying "nuh uh" isn't going to rebut that.

I never said Spectrum was not in the wrong...... I never stipulated that anything they were doing was right.

But you are going waaaaaaaay out of your way to give them benefit of the doubt anyways here though right with your claims that they have a incredibly convenient hardware problem that only seems to effect those who don't pay up?

Especially when the legal doc, that you've clearly at least looked at quickly, gives good reason that you shouldn't even when talking about the specific point you're trying to address here too? Like I said earlier, you're not coming off as honest here at all man. I just can't see how anyone reasonable or honest will try to play white knight for people they know are scumbags.

I stipulated that Title II didn't have the teeth or wording to do much about this situation. This is the exact situation Ajit was talking about as a result of Title II. Providers could simply refuse to upgrade their equipment and there isn't much Title II could do about that.

You saying it doesn't make it so though. Again you're going to have to prove the FCC has either no means of punishing those who broke the rules or that they'd only dole out wrist slaps for violations to prove your point here.

Pai's point is stupid and dishonest because any ISP that didn't upgrade its service would eventually get the boot that Spectrum is getting now. Now someone else will end up taking over their market and they'll upgrade it as necessary to keep from getting the same treatment. Pai, and the other ISP's know, that if they push things too hard they'll get punished by the states at some point since if you piss off enough people they start voting accordingly.

 

[NoOther]

Not to enforce the NN regs.

You know that, and you know that is a critical point on this topic and it was also known as a critical point for the NN regs to take effect too at the time. Don't be obtuse here.

More and more you're coming off as dishonest to me.

Umm, yes they did. The problem was they didn't go far enough. Remember Title II was mostly just a reclassification of how ISPs were labeled because of some legalize. They still had other verbage in there regarding certain rules of NN. the only one being dishonest here is you, seeming to claim that Title II was some giant leap for NN that gave the FCC real teeth. That is not true at all, it wasn't even the intent of the reclassification. It was a stepping stone only.

The FCC was "built" to essentially regulate anything and everything regarding telecommunication and it did so for decades for a reason. The argument that suddenly no its not really supposed to be doing that, because somehow the internet isn't a form of telecommunications or something, is fundamentally dishonest political BS bought and paid for by the ISP's.

Now you are the one being completely dishonest. The FCC was originally founded only to issue and regulate communication frequencies. The scope and focus changed over the years. You can go read about their history on wikipedia. In addition prior to the reclassification of Title II, the FCC itself stipulated that enforcing NN rules wasn't really within its jurisdiction and that it belonged to congress... They also refused to change a lot of the rules and made them pair it down. There are something like 700 rules that were excluded from the final reclassification. You can go read all about it, I provided a link to the wiki reference to NN later in this posting.

I've linked the regs multiple times now and its pretty clear about what it did. You're going to have to come up with something better than "nuh uh" here.

And I have refuted your claims with actual examples over and over. Not to mention the fact that part of this very lawsuit happened during Title II regulations, and what was done? Did the FCC step in? Did they fine them?

This is false. The FCC could punish the ISP's if it found them violating the rules. You have any evidence at all they were guaranteed to only dole out ineffective slaps on the wrist here?

Here. Also they didn't fine Spectrum over this issue that happened in 2015 during Title II. In order to prove the claim it gave them teeth you have to show me where they actually used those teeth. The only "teeth" they had were fines, some of those fines weren't even backed with any other authority.

You can say you're for NN all you want but when your arguments are often founded on weasel word semantics, you keep trying to white knight for notoriously scummy ISP's caught red handed in extortion schemes, and you keep trying to play cute or be obtuse about key points....well lets just say I don't believe you at this point in time.

It is precisely because I am using specific language that I am for actual NN instead of vague fines and threats.

The legal claims, and clear cut evidence that you seem to be ignoring or downplaying QUITE favorably for Spectrum, being made say otherwise. In Spectrum's own words:

What evidence? What is "effective" throttling? As for the access, and? Please tell me what keeps them from doing that besides this lawsuit that has nothing to do with Title II? Again, this is the very problem with current and even past regulations. This kind of situation is what falls through the cracks.

So yeah they were clearly restricting data streams here by forcing traffic over parts of their network that had insufficient hardware as a cover for their activities if they didn't get their payments. Its all there in black and white.

No, they weren't, that is an old quote that predates all of this. Also, the reality of that statement is they weren't building access points, so the traffic was going through the regular transit routes. So essentially they were being forced through those routes because they had no other means to get there unless tey build more hardware and access points. They weren't going to build any extra infrastructure unless someone paid them to do it. It is not the same. But yes, it is black and white, there was no actual paid prioritization, throttling, or blocking.

In principal its not at all different. In both cases the ISP is trying to force others to pay extra for service they're supposed to be providing or else those parties' services get degraded arbitrarily. The actual means the throttling is being achieved by don't actually matter. What matters is the pay for play that is going on, and the punishment they'd receive if they didn't pay up. Its the punishment for lack of pay that makes it extortion BTW.

In principle it is absolutely different. If I do not feed you because I literally have no food, that is different from me having a cupboard full of food and refusing to feed you. Or in having the capacity to feed you, agreeing to feed you 4 hot dogs a day, but only giving you 2. If I don't have any hot dogs, I am completely unable to feed you. One is a company not able to provide service because they are incapable of it. The other is a company capable of providing service, but actively denying it. What puts Spectrum in trouble here (as they should be) is them claiming they could provide it and selling people that claim.

LOL Spectrum was forcing their internet traffic over known insufficient hardware if they didn't get their pay off!! That is a clear cut case of extortion and you, a random internet poster who once thought the power to regulate something is really nothing at all, saying "nuh uh" isn't going to rebut that.

Again, they weren't forcing it over known insufficient hardware, they didn't have sufficient hardware. They had to build the hardware and connections to provide sufficient service. They charged the companies the fee so they could build the hardware. Plus yet again you are using a quote from a TWC exec in 2011 that wasn't even in reference to this particular situation.

But you are going waaaaaaaay out of your way to give them benefit of the doubt anyways here though right with your claims that they have a incredibly convenient hardware problem that only seems to effect those who don't pay up?

Huh? Benefit of the doubt to who? I am clearly saying what they are doing is shitty and there isn't a better means of keeping them from doing such a shitty thing. Title II certainly didn't stop them. Being kicked out of NY and being sued hopefully will and will serve as an example.

Especially when the legal doc, that you've clearly at least looked at quickly, gives good reason that you shouldn't even when talking about the specific point you're trying to address here too? Like I said earlier, you're not coming off as honest here at all man. I just can't see how anyone reasonable or honest will try to play white knight for people they know are scumbags.

Name one place where I am not honest. I am being honest to a fault here. You are the one assuming things. I am going off of what is actually said in the complaint.

You saying it doesn't make it so though. Again you're going to have to prove the FCC has either no means of punishing those who broke the rules or that they'd only dole out wrist slaps for violations to prove your point here.

Okay, prove me wrong. Show me proof that Title II provided teeth and actually did something. Show me examples of how it corrected ISPs behavior or where they stepped in and curtailed it due to Title II. Show me this huge impact it made with all its new strong teeth.

Pai's point is stupid and dishonest because any ISP that didn't upgrade its service would eventually get the boot that Spectrum is getting now. Now someone else will end up taking over their market and they'll upgrade it as necessary to keep from getting the same treatment. Pai, and the other ISP's know, that if they push things too hard they'll get punished by the states at some point since if you piss off enough people they start voting accordingly.

But it wasn't, he even provided data for it. This exact situation even shows it. That doesn't necessarily make his actions right, but the logic was backed up by evidence. The truth is that we don't have any true NN, nor have we had it. We need to actually invest in it if we really want something better.

Truly the only one being dishonest here is you. Claiming we had actual NN, claiming that it affects this situation (when the NN you thought we had did nothing). This is my problem with the current climate, people aren't actually advocating for NN, they are advocating for crappy stop gaps and regulations that aren't addressing the root of the problems.

 

[next-Jin]

If the rest of the government's internet works anything like the Internet does on Fort Huachuca, the US Army's Military Intelligence Training Center, home of Network Command and an entire Signal Brigade .......... then I would never characterize it as high speed lol
I can't watch any streaming anything without boo-quo buffering going on. My home internet through Cox cable, not even their best tier, is far better then what I have access to at work.

Fort Gordon, home of the Cyber Center of Excellence.

Internet is garbage here too. I get better internet on the Sprint network.

 

[Elf_Boy]

I know there are political and significant geographic differences, between the US and smaller countries with better Internet.

Imo, we the tax payers should have the infastructure put in by the government and allow private companies to sell the service. The model seems to work very well.