re: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality

quote:

---

Technology is already here, Flinstone

---

The basic technology is there.


Physics, not so much.


The main things holding it back are latency, and bandwith limitation/congestion in urban areas.

There is simply no way to cram that much data in the airwaves in high density populations.

quote:

---

We cut the cord

Easily avg around a TB.

We don't do anything extreme.

Since I have a data cap I cant run my own server like I used too when living in England.

---

MY ISP is also my cable TV provider. (Cox by the way whom I love and would never willingly give up they are wonderful around here) anyway, we have a 1TB cap limit, but we've gone over it a few times when the older boys were home and were doing their online gaming , or what have you and we didn't even receive so much as an email. Nothing was said.

Our package is 250 HD channels and 300 MbPs internet speeds which is normally $190 a month , but I have a friend who is a Cox installer and I get a friends and family discount through him which cuts it to half of that.

quote:

---

No. I cannot buy a service that is the equivalent of my local ISP.

---

You have no other way to access the internet except your landline ISP?

Your premise is that unless the competitor has the exact same level of service, they're not a competitor.

Your premise is wrong. Period.

quote:

---

The reality is that title 2 is necessary for net neutrality under the current law.

---

No. Just no. Title 2 is not necessary regardless. The current law just used title 2 as their method of regulation. I'm starting to think you just don't understand what the word necessary means.

quote:

---

Your fantasy is new law that allows net neutrality without title 2 classification.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy. What's life like as a schizophrenic?

---

Yea, operating in that fantasy world of actual congressional proposals. You just lack the ability to see a solution to anything outside of what the current law says. It is really quote side. If you would step back for a moment and realize that there are better ways at achieving the same goal, then you might realize that the steps of repealing a poorly written law and replacing it with a better one isn't fantasy. It is actually how the government should work.

Can anyone confirm, is this a BamaATL alter? Seems similar in the inability to understand anything outside the "law of the land"

(no message)

quote:

---

don't hold a monopoly of high quality internet options.

---

What in the actual frick is that shite

quote:

---

MY ISP is also my cable TV provider. (Cox by the way whom I love and would never willingly give up they are wonderful around here) anyway, we have a 1TB cap limit, but we've gone over it a few times when the older boys were home and were doing their online gaming , or what have you and we didn't even receive so much as an email. Nothing was said. Our package is 250 HD channels and 300 MbPs internet speeds which is normally $190 a month , but I have a friend who is a Cox installer and I get a friends and family discount through him which cuts it to half of that.

---

If cut the cord and kept up our viewing habits you would probably double that 400GB you use with ease. You kids online gaming actually doesn't use that much data and require an insane amount of speed. Unless they are downloading games when at home.

quote:

---

Based on what?


The chairmen explicitly saying we don't need it?

Or is it one of those "we have to pass it to see whats in it " kind of things?

---

We've had three attempts prior to the current law to try and enact similar rules. There is nothing to show that the end goals of NN are not something that everyone wants to be able to achieve. However, if the Republicans want to enact their own version, they have to get rid of the one we have first.

quote:

---

You have no other way to access the internet except your landline ISP?

---

I do. I acknowledged that.

You have no other way to power home except your local power grid? Generators and solar panels just don’t exist?

quote:

---

Your premise is that unless the competitor has the exact same level of service, they're not a competitor.

---

Yet you continue to acknowledge that there are competitors to the local grid tat off power for your home. They don’t offer the exact same level of service, but they are competitors to the grid? Right.

quote:

---

Your premise is wrong. Period.

---

My premise is that if you support regulating your local power grid as a natural monopoly (which you seem to), then you should support regulating ISPS the same way. They two are functionally identical for this purpose.