![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
As I said there are a very few exceptions. I'll point that it get's worse before it gets better, essentially what you're saying, is also often used and generally untrue. I honestly prefer a government that is deadlocked and can accomplish little to nothing outside the necessary and net neutrality is not even on the radar of necessary. Once they can do the work well that they've already assigned themselves we can discuss taking on more work.
Who cares? You paid for the bandwidth, and if you use it then that's your right. If your ISP can't handle it then it's up to them to upgrade their infrastructure. Just a reminder, the US is far behind countries like South Korea.
STFU and upgrade your infrastructure. If you don't, then I'll go to your competitor. Assuming I have that option in America. Probably not.
As someone who has a degree in networking I feel dumber reading this. If your service can't handle the data that it was advertised to do, then you need to upgrade your infrastructure. The only reason this would be a problem is because you expect your customers to hardly use the advertised speeds for as long as you'd expect them to. Bandwidth isn't a limited resource. You can in fact get more of it. The only reason they won't is because they're an oligopoly.
Peering agreements and stuff like that can also make it kind of difficult to enter. The largest companies might own many routes, though not sure is it's as big of an issue today. They can probably come up with all kinds of BS reasons, too, like "you haven't taken these or these precautions, so we can't allow you to connect to us", or some other long list.
If only we gave them money to do upgrade their infrastructure, and then they go and use it for Stock buy backs. This is a common problem with ISPs in that they get paid with tax payer dollars to improve their infrastructure and then don't. I don't feel bad that it costs money. There's no sympathy here. The internet isn't a series of tubes.
You just described all of the governments in the entire world lol
So much for neutral ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That amount of difference people make from a company making a stop buyback vs a divident was always quite strange.
I think an issue is that, while dividends for the benefit of shareholders to the exclusion of worker, customer and other stakeholders are frustrating in their own right and deserve to be critiqued, stock buybacks have to do with adjusting the perceived books and value of the company in a way that dividends do not. In general, if your company pays dividends to shareholders, that's money going "out", as opposed to say... refusing to or cutting down dividends to reinvest for the company itself which is seen as value coming "in". Likewise, stock buybacks, while they do take an investment, the way they and the resulting holding of assets are handled, increases the value of the company and look to be percived as money coming "in". A way this becomes frustrating is when say... a company claims they can't provide raises, that union(izing) demand are exorbitant, that they HAVE to raise prices, lower support, outsource, do some other worker or customer unfriendly thing.... but it was found out that money they could have easily used to provide that, was instead sequestered in a recent stock buyback , allowing the company to shrug and pull out its pockets "Oh I'm cash poor!" while ALSO being able to increase their capital and/or appraisal of the stock and overall company books, which they can spin into future position for loans as now the company looks like its books have less debts and the value of the stock it now holds goes up as well.
I think its good to read what was placed here. First, its important to note that mobile ISPs, 5G etc....have never been defined under "broadband", and have always been able to get away with prioritization, zero rating, and other bad behavior going back ages because of this. I grant this is absolutely a situation that needs to be resolved, but lots of concern over 5G, mobile and the like isn't related to this at all , ever since it was determined that "broadband ISP" are basically those using cables in the ground, not those with broadcasting towers which operate under other rules. Don't get me wrong, I think its worth placing them both under sthe same category especially because we're now seeing with increasing demand for mobile ISPs (ie TMobile 5G home internet) and just the technical thoroughput of modern wireless getting faster and with less latency issues, but I am absolutely sure that any claim to demand that mobile companies also adhere to net neutrality regulations will have three times the whining and misinformation that we see now with this, as they claim that neutrality would mean the end of all cell phone service or whatever other wrist-to-forehead nonsense.
Stock buy back, money goes out and to the same people, no ?
How any of it would be different if they had spent the same money going to the same people has a dividend instead of a buyback ?
Money goes out, but who it benefits both individually and in terms of the corporations a whole and how, can differ depending on many things. There's also differences between common and preferred shares, voting rights, if its public vs private etc.
Even if you assume that the shares are all equal in type (ie just owning common stock you bought on your robinhood account doesn't mean that you're entitled to dividends the way that preferred stock held by the board/C-levels are, for exampe) and were qualified for hypothetical dividends, the difference is how it affects the company and how they, and their books look afterward. If the company puts out dividends, its shown on their books as money going "out", they're spending money. Compare this to if they instead of issuing those dividends to shareholders, used that money for a number of other things. Many of those things, such as paying off debts basicaly "look good" from an investment standpoing that the company is strong - it doesn't have a lot of debt, it has the cash it can spend to do the buyback etc... al of theses things both lead to increasing the value of the stock itself in many cases (not counting how one of the options is to essentially "write off" stock that used to be held by others and now the company owns again, so the value of all existing stock increases proportionally) because the company appears more desirable. Now with big shiny ledgers that show that the company has made a lot of decisions that appear to strengthen the company, they can go to a big bank somewhere and say "Look how strong we are, clearly we're in a position that you can extend to us, in a very public way, exemplary terms of credit in light of all this" and their books look strong, they get the banking and investment community to see them as a good bet etc..that they can spin into greater valuation of capital and growth, which keeps it going. Buying back that stock puts the company (or at least is appeared to signal) in a stronger position, though some may be more of a recursive "because you did this you are showing off you had the money and judgement to do it, so we value you higher as worth/can access more money" sort of thing.
But the question was about that point that was made:
This is more of a problem for other gamers, not so much the one with high latency. Anyone who's played Dark Souls would understand.
Oh I grant that people who are upset about only one and not the other for some reason, all other things being equal, doesn't seem rational. However, in the framing about how it makes people angry in the situation I postulated (choice to do something like a stock buyback or dividends, at the expense of worker, customer, product quality etc..), they'd absolutely be angry if it was dividends as well. However, its not as easily defensible and fewer "acceptable" excuses about that. If you decide to make a big dividend right when you tell your employees that you have to fire half of them and cut benefits for the rest, its pretty obvious that you're betting hard on the shareholder well being damn the rest, and its easy and often accurate to levy al the accusations one expects from that behavior at management if they're doing so. Stock buybacks have as I said, plausible deniability - they give the appearance (accurate or otherwise) of long term thinking about something besides immediate quarterly projections and shareholder profits. It offers a theoretical longer term good for "the company" as an institution - you're buying back all those shares, which puts the company in a better position on its books etc. Its not just "I'm sorry, we can't really afford a health plan that covers illness, we needed to give our shareholders a big payday" but presented as "I'm sorry,we all* (subjective meaning to all) have to tighten our belts in order to put the company in a better position for the upcoming year Hey, if we do this right we'lll get a higher valuation so why don't we circle back to this next fiscal year and see what's possible then".
With the way things are going I see Trump winning. Enjoy it while it lasts.
I don't want to be permabanned, so I really can't comment on the substance of what you said. I've learned the house rules after being warned a few times. I'll just say I'm uncomfortable right now.