Ace of Spades HQ

January 14, 2014

Circuit Court Strikes Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules
— Gabriel Malor

This used to be a thing we talked about. Net Neutrality -- rules compelling broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic the same regardless of source --has to go back to the drawing board.

From the decision (PDF):

Even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.

The short version explaining this decision is that the FCC exceeded its statutory mandate in issuing net neutrality rules. It did so, by the way, over the dissents of two commission members.

If you're looking to catch up on the issue of Net Neutrality in general (like I did when I heard this decision had been issued), Drew had a good post on it a few years ago.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:02 AM | Comments (155)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'll go get the others.

Posted by: Grey Fox at January 14, 2014 08:04 AM (gVtdw)

2 OK, in English is this a good thing for us or bad thing.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 08:06 AM (t3UFN)

3 Karl Rove masturbates with a cheddar wheel.

Posted by: Mandrake at January 14, 2014 08:07 AM (Cs2tJ)

4 /points HAAA HAAA!

Posted by: Brother Cavil, still chilly at January 14, 2014 08:08 AM (naUcP)

5 You know that liberals control most of the media anyways. At this point, what difference does this make? I can't get excited by any news that's positive for our side any more. The stupid Republicans keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I am overwhelmed by pessimism and defeatism as well as just tired of it all. I feel like America's best days are behind her as the moochers and looters are in the majority with no end in sight. Sorry to be such a downer.

Posted by: runningrn at January 14, 2014 08:08 AM (o6g4X)

6 I don't see smoke, much less a fire. Hands off, govt.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at January 14, 2014 08:08 AM (09o/X)

7 Besides, Obama and Democrats just flout the law. We are no longer a nation of laws.

Posted by: runningrn at January 14, 2014 08:09 AM (o6g4X)

8 OK, in English is this a good thing for us or bad thing.

That depends on if your ISP does packet inspection and blocks or slows traffic to services that compete with it's own offerings.

Posted by: Blanco Basura at January 14, 2014 08:09 AM (YEelc)

9 Hipsters at Ars Technica, Engadget, and Gizmodo hardest hit.

Posted by: @JohnTant, now boasting a Clinton Disloyalty Index of 6 at January 14, 2014 08:09 AM (eytER)

10 Imagine that...now if only the court would do something about Obama's friend "the vorpal pen of law and Constitution Slaying +5"...

The FCC doesn't get to micromanage to that degree.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 14, 2014 08:10 AM (TE35l)

11 Karl Rove is cheese neutral

http://tinyurl.com/ok8ernw

Posted by: Mandrake at January 14, 2014 08:10 AM (Cs2tJ)

So... I don't remember what this was supposed to be or do, but any time the government is trying to enforce neutrality, I gotta call b.s.

So that would mean this ruling is a good thing...

We are talking about law though, so who knows.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 14, 2014 08:11 AM (TOk1P)

13 Now we need an environmental neutrality case to slap down the EPA for regulatory overreach.

Posted by: Advo at January 14, 2014 08:11 AM (7vbG1)

14 2 OK, in English is this a good thing for us or bad thing. Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 12:06 PM (t3UFN) ____________ I second this motion. I have no clue what any of this means.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 14, 2014 08:12 AM (0LHZx)

15 Net neutrality - rent control for the Internets.

Posted by: West at January 14, 2014 08:12 AM (1Rgee)

16 2 OK, in English is this a good thing for us or bad thing.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 12:06 PM (t3UFN)

BAD; they keep bringing back this POS and Obama just decided to implement w/o congress since the Republicans managed to keep the Dems from ramming it through, The real name of this crap should FSA for large bandwidth users. Currently is you use a LOT of bandwidth you have to pay for it. The heavy users like Netflix etc wanted to get in and get the same rates as mom 'n pop.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 14, 2014 08:12 AM (T2V/1)

17 BAD; they keep bringing back this POS and Obama just decided to implement w/o congress since the Republicans managed to keep the Dems from ramming it through, The real name of this crap should FSA for large bandwidth users. Currently is you use a LOT of bandwidth you have to pay for it. The heavy users like Netflix etc wanted to get in and get the same rates as mom 'n pop. Posted by: Vic at January 14, 2014 12:12 PM (T2V/1) ____________ So why is it bad that it got struck down?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 14, 2014 08:14 AM (0LHZx)

18 Fuck off, FCC.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 14, 2014 08:14 AM (QYbdU)

19 So why is it bad that it got struck down?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 14, 2014 12:14 PM (0LHZx)

The LAW was bad, so striking it down was GOOD.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 14, 2014 08:15 AM (T2V/1)

20 The LAW was bad, so striking it down was GOOD. Posted by: Vic at January 14, 2014 12:15 PM (T2V/1) ___________ OK, that's what I thought you meant, just making sure.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 14, 2014 08:15 AM (0LHZx)

21 Net neutrality was a severely bad thing. It was government insinuating itself into the internet in order to regulate it. It would have stifled speech.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 14, 2014 08:15 AM (BZAd3)

22 So does this mean my Netflix cost is going up? Hmmm....maybe Net Neutrality isn't so bad after all.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 14, 2014 08:16 AM (0LHZx)

So why is it bad that it got struck down?

---------

It isn't bad, that is, if you're a person who believes that a company that built a network with its own capital should be able to call the shots on how traffic within that network should be handled.

Posted by: @JohnTant, now boasting a Clinton Disloyalty Index of 6 at January 14, 2014 08:16 AM (eytER)

24 How will this affect Moron pr0n viewing habits?

That's the $64,000 question.

Posted by: EC at January 14, 2014 08:17 AM (GQ8sn)

25 OK, in English is this a good thing for us or bad thing.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 12:06 PM

The fact that the gubmint is involved suggests it's a bad, bad thing.

Yeah, that's a tinfoil-hatty attitude, but it's what five-plus years of Choom Boy, Compassionate Conservative Bush and Bubba "Free Shit For China" have taught me.

We are obviously well past the swamp-draining stage, so I guess we'll sit idly by, get what D.C. wants, and like it.

We can always bitch about Chris Christie....

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 14, 2014 08:17 AM (ff7/5)

26 but I want an ObamaNet!

e'rbody got obamanet, you know!

Posted by: tangonine at January 14, 2014 08:17 AM (x3YFz)

I'm savoring the sweet, sweet outrage of the socialists at some of the tech blogs right now.

So far my favorite: "What do I pay comcast for? It sounds like a stupid question... but really... I thought I was paying them to see the content I want by piping it through their network. Seriously... wanting to charge Netflex.. or whoever seems like double dipping."

Posted by: @JohnTant, now boasting a Clinton Disloyalty Index of 6 at January 14, 2014 08:18 AM (eytER)

28 The LAW was bad, so striking it down was GOOD. Posted by: Vic at January 14, 2014 12:15 PM (T2V/1) See that's what I wanted: Straight English, Good Bad. OK I got it. Now can we go back to penis pumps and A-Rod?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 08:18 AM (t3UFN)

Could not care less ... as stated earlier, all this legal fascination implies that the decisions are based upon some type of consistent structure.

That ain't how shit works anymore.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 14, 2014 08:18 AM (axOXH)

30 Sorry to be such a downer.

Posted by: runningrn at January 14, 2014 12:08 PM (o6g4X)

Believe me, I understand. I often feel that way, myself. The solution on a personal level is to know that these things we believe in are the right things to believe in and have the additional advantage of being true. The solution, as a group, as a movement, as conservatives and patriots as a whole, is to know that (1) we're not alone in this; and (2) our opponents are stuttering clusterfucks.

The problem is, of course, lack of principled, committed leadership. I'm not saying we should pray for the Man (or Woman) On The White Horse as the Democrats do. I'm saying too few of our leaders are representative of our beliefs. We can change that.

Posted by: troyriser at January 14, 2014 08:18 AM (2jF2B)

31 RE: #23....

"Bubba" is obviously the ever-lovin' hubby of our next president, Hitlery Clinton.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 14, 2014 08:19 AM (ff7/5)

32 Lousy activist judges Wait, this is good? How should I react?

Posted by: concerned at January 14, 2014 08:19 AM (qL3DY)

Another one:

Imagine if everyday on your way to work you take a highway that has 3 lanes to get to work. All of the sudden one day the city says we are gonna make 2 lanes express lanes, this will benefit you because it will lower traffic and you can get to work faster but you have to pay a small fee. Next thing you know that one lane thats free is now slow and backed up while the fee for those two express lanes goes up each year and whats even worse is that they used to be free and you never had a problem with traffic before!

This is exactly whats going to happen to the internet."

Because apparently hipsters never heard of HOV/Toll lanes.

Posted by: @JohnTant, now boasting a Clinton Disloyalty Index of 6 at January 14, 2014 08:20 AM (eytER)

34 This is all moot anyway. Within 20 years, free high speed internet will be a constitutional right (according to court rulings) and everyone will be on the same network at the same speed. Same with cell phones.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 14, 2014 08:20 AM (0LHZx)

35 Anytime a non-elected non-accountable government agency uses the words nonpartisan, fair, equal, or neutral ..

Rest assured it is anything but ...

Posted by: kbdabear at January 14, 2014 08:20 AM (aTXUx)

36 Net Neutrality walks into a bar and orders water. And a burbon.

Posted by: polynikes at January 14, 2014 08:21 AM (m2CN7)

37 The Dems tried to ram this through during the same end of year session that gave us Obamacare but they could not even get enough of their own people on board with it.

But OBama picked up the gauntlet and said we don't need to congress, I will implement it as a regulation. So let it be written, so let it be done. It went immediately to court.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 14, 2014 08:21 AM (T2V/1)

38 Kinda related: The left, including martyr Erin Brokovitch, are calling for more governmental regulation after the West Virginia chemical spill. More government? Isn't that like giving a drowning man more water? I mean, have you seen how congress behaves? And you want to put them in charge of drinking water?

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 14, 2014 08:21 AM (Hx5uv)

39 I expect they'll eventually just pass a law declaring them common carriers.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 08:22 AM (ZPrif)

40 36 WalrusRex at January 14, 2014 12:21 PM (Hx5uv)

Yeah uh which party runs WVa again?

Quite.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 14, 2014 08:22 AM (TE35l)

41 Railroads are common carriers even though their networks have been built with private capital.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 08:24 AM (ZPrif)

42 martyr Erin Brokovitch

I don't think Whoreyweird has ever released a bigger pack of lies than what they did to "embellish" the image of that ignorant self-centered whore.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 14, 2014 08:24 AM (QYbdU)

43 Hell, Disneyland has been ruled a common carrier, I believe.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 08:24 AM (ZPrif)

44 Any time a government commission gets its pee-pee whacked, it is a good thing.

Posted by: Roy at January 14, 2014 08:25 AM (VndSC)

45 I'm a bit more mixed on this - on the one hand, the government doing anything is asking for trouble. On the other hand, you've got the owners of MSNBC (Comcast) deciding what internet sites are visible to a lot of people. Wait'll your Internet comes curated by Rachael Maddow and you can only see Daily Kos and LGF.

Posted by: Ian S. at January 14, 2014 08:26 AM (B/VB5)

46 Hell, Disneyland has been ruled a common carrier, I believe.

Minnie was, I can tell you that. Took three rounds of antibiotics to kill what she gave me.

Posted by: Michael Mouse at January 14, 2014 08:26 AM (YEelc)

47 Net neutrality was a severely bad thing. It was government insinuating itself into the internet in order to regulate it. It would have stifled speech.

Not really.

While there's little or no evidence that carriers actually engage in the practice, the issue at hand is how ISPs handle different types of data traffic.

Video (Netflix, Youtube, etc) in particular is a major sticking point. Online video comprises a high percentage of consumer bandwidth. This results in ISPs having to spend big money upgrading their networks from the increased traffic.

Complicating matters, many ISPs are cable or IPTV providers offering competing video services. The fear is that the ISPs might throttle (slow down) traffic from Netflix (for example) not only to lessen demands on their network, but to make their own services more attractive.

From the ISP perspective, they're unhappy about having to spend boatloads of money to increase capacity on behalf of Netflix and Hulu customers.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 14, 2014 08:27 AM (SY2Kh)

48 37 I expect they'll eventually just pass a law declaring them common carriers.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 12:22 PM (ZPrif)
Obama can deem it so via executive odor.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 14, 2014 08:28 AM (rLJaJ)

49 >>Now we need an environmental neutrality case to slap down the EPA for regulatory overreach.

Yes! Use their favorite buzzwords words against them.

Also, how about "sustainable healthcare" - healthcare policy that makes the pre-Obamacare level of affordable, quality healthcare sustainable, or "energy development equality" - development all types of energy domestically, including coal and nuclear.

Posted by: Lizzy at January 14, 2014 08:29 AM (POpqt)

50 And you want to put them in charge of drinking water? Posted by: WalrusRex at January 14, 2014 12:21 PM (Hx5uv) Mike Lee's 2013 Federal Register- http://tinyurl.com/prjjfrg 80k pages worth.

Posted by: RWC at January 14, 2014 08:29 AM (fWAjv)

51 New trick to trap hobos?

Â“Today, I took a nap in my car right after finishing up at work. I was woken up by a hobo sitting in the passenger seat, watching me sleep. Apparently, he'd managed to unlock the door with a wire hanger. FMLÂ”

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 14, 2014 08:30 AM (VjL9S)

52 7 OK, in English is this a good thing for us or bad thing. That depends on if your ISP does packet inspection and blocks or slows traffic to services that compete with it's own offerings. Posted by: Blanco Basura at January 14, 2014 12:09 PM (YEelc) That's English?

Posted by: Caliban at January 14, 2014 08:30 AM (DrC22)

53 Obama can deem it so via executive odor. Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 14, 2014 12:28 PM (rLJaJ) He got a pen and a phone, yo.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 14, 2014 08:30 AM (bCEmE)

54 The court has recently slapped the EPA down for exceeding their mandate. The last case was where they tried to call storm water run-off pollution, The courts basically told them they were FOS.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at January 14, 2014 08:31 AM (T2V/1)

OT: The article assiduously avoids identifying from whence the racism is coming from. Hint: It ain't Southern Whites.

http://tinyurl.com/m28dh6g

Posted by: McCool at January 14, 2014 08:31 AM (nCSwS)

56
   In the midst of all the glooming and dooming one should keep in mind the ideals and principles the country was founded on still shine through the layer of filth currently deposited on them.

    Look LONG term at this--even if the prog socialists succeed, they cannot LONG prevail, since their system is destined for failure. History shows that.

    We--all of us here-may not see the resurgence of our country, but it WILL happen. Once unleashed, our governmental system can never be eradicated.

    Thus all you can do is to contribute to the struggle in whatever way is open to you.

     I intend to press on, even though it may cost my life--that oath I swore so long ago has no expiration date.

     Now y'all may laugh, deride or agree with me.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 14, 2014 08:32 AM (SAMxH)

57 Speaking of...

@BigJoeBastardi

( The Weather Channel ) asking congress to force DirecTV to bow to them, vs others figuring there is a market,and filing void. says alot

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 14, 2014 08:33 AM (qK0Al)

45 -

So you're saying you want government to save you from the practices of businesses.

Good call.

Or... people could do what always works in these situations, every time it's tried: decide for themselves without the government meddling in it.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 14, 2014 08:34 AM (TOk1P)

59 A simple example of common carrier. WWE and UFC are launching "over the top" TV networks via the internet. In WWE's case they are cutting out the middlemen, like Comcast, that used to deliver their PPVs, like Wrestlemania, and want to stream the content direct to the consumer via the internet. This will cut Comcast out of the profit, right now they get 50% of the PPV price. Comcast could, if they wanted, severely fuck with these new video streaming networks. If the streams were throttled these new networks might fail and force people to go back to the old method. Right now, Comcast gets to charge, roughly, $50 for cable TV and another $50 for internet service. As streaming TV networks take off, it's easy to see a future where all you need is the $50 internet service. Comcast is not happy about the prospect of losing half it's revenue. Comcast is in a position to severely compromise internet video streaming -- especially HD streams and in the future 4K stream. So far they mostly don't seem to do that. Or at least the problems and buffering and slowness seem the result of legit technical issues, not purposeful slowdowns. Hard to tell though. In the past, America has forced companies to separate the content from the distribution network. Hollywood studios were forced to sell off their theater chain ownership, for example. Problem is Comcast owns both the pipes and some of the content. Incentive is strong to discriminate in favor of its own content. Doesn't seem a horrible idea to force a separation between the content owners and the distribution owners. That would reduce Comcast to a "dumb pipe" owner. Comcast doesn't want that, of course. Comcast's position as a local monopoly makes me not care much about what Comcast wants though.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 08:36 AM (ZPrif)

54: "Now y'all may laugh, deride or agree with me."

Up the Irons!

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at January 14, 2014 08:37 AM (f6ZLT)

61 O/T You know it is bad when you pretty much believe the IRANIAN. IranÂ’s top nuclear negotiator said in a Persian-language interview today that there are important details about the deal between Iran and the U.S. and major powers in a 30-page document that hasnÂ’t been made public.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 14, 2014 08:37 AM (RJMhd)

62 Minnie was, I can tell you that. Took three rounds of antibiotics to kill what she gave me. Posted by: Michael Mouse
That's just fuckin' Goofy.

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at January 14, 2014 08:37 AM (Rax2C)

63 Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 14, 2014 12:27 PM (SY2Kh) Of course I pay them to give me a pipe so I can get whatever content I want. Contrary to popular belief I'm actually OK with bandwidth caps that are instituted without content controls. Within reason (I'll get to that in a second) If I want to hog all the bandwidth in my area, my ISP should charge me more. But it shouldn't matter if I'm doing that with Hulu or Genomic data sets. Now I said within reason. What I don't like is companies trying to double limit me. So with AT&T I choose a speed (currently 12MB). That should be my bandwidth limit. Not that plus a limit of X GB. My limit is up front when I choose my speed. Charter doesn't have speed tiers for the most part, so if they want to limit by GB, that's fine.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 08:38 AM (GaqMa)

64 54 In the midst of all the glooming and dooming one should keep in mind the ideals and principles the country was founded on still shine through the layer of filth currently deposited on them. Look LONG term at this--even if the prog socialists succeed, they cannot LONG prevail, since their system is destined for failure. History shows that. We--all of us here-may not see the resurgence of our country, but it WILL happen. Once unleashed, our governmental system can never be eradicated. Thus all you can do is to contribute to the struggle in whatever way is open to you. I intend to press on, even though it may cost my life--that oath I swore so long ago has no expiration date. Now y'all may laugh, deride or agree with me. Posted by: irongrampa at January 14, 2014 12:32 PM (SAMxH) ******** I always read your comments. I hope you are right.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 14, 2014 08:39 AM (RJMhd)

65 54 irongrampa at January 14, 2014 12:32 PM (SAMxH)

USSR 1917-1989

I may make it to 72, I am probably NOT going to make it to 108 IronGrampa.

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 14, 2014 08:39 AM (TE35l)

66 45 -

So you're saying you want government to save you from the practices of businesses.

You must be double-jointed. I can only imagine the painful contortions you had to go through in order to reach that conclusion from what I wrote.

I hope you didn't throw your back out.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 14, 2014 08:40 AM (SY2Kh)

67 @ChadPergram Another moderate Dem retiring. Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY).

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 14, 2014 08:41 AM (bCEmE)

68 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 08:41 AM (PYAXX)

69 Huckabee Calls For Banning Term Â“RINOÂ”Â… John McCain seen furiously nodding in approval. Weasel Zippers: Yeah that will matter?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 08:42 AM (t3UFN)

70 67 Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 12:42 PM (t3UFN)

Well imagine that Mike "Pardons b//c God" Huckadoodle and Juan McCain want unity now...

Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 14, 2014 08:43 AM (TE35l)

71 Guys, last I heard, Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, Google, and MSNBC were all for "Net Neutrality." That's really all the reason I need to be against it. This is the same bogeyman the Left always trots out about Monopolies. "Oh, if you let someone grow into a monopoly, they'll raise prices!!!" Yeah, and then someone will undercut their prices and make a killing. The market tends to be self-correcting. Bureaucracy and Regulation tend to be anything but.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 08:44 AM (PYAXX)

72 Wonder what has motivated Fienstein to break ranks on the Walter Duranty Level Whitewash from the NYT?

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 14, 2014 08:44 AM (VjL9S)

64 -

I interpolated, because you STARTED by saying this net neutrality isn't necessarily a bad thing. Then you IMPLIED that companies COULD do certain things to limit traffic. Private companies.

How else would anyone be expected to interpret your actual words, given that you were not explicit in your support of government regulation over private companies?

And since you are ALWAYS an ass, no matter what the topic is around here, my only pain is kicking myself for not ignoring you like the useless troll you are.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 14, 2014 08:44 AM (TOk1P)

74 I would note though, that while I want bandwidth to be treated equally, I'm don't think government is the way to handle that. If Netflix is such a big traffic hog (because people use it) and ISPs start throttling it, consumers will dump those ISPs. If said ISPs try to bully Netflix into paying more, I see Netflix just saying "nope, we'll pass and not deliver our content to your servers" which again will cause consumers to flee those ISPs. The companies like Netflix are the consumer darlings, not the ISPs, so I don't see them having as much control as they think they do.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 08:44 AM (GaqMa)

75 Huckabee Calls For Banning Term Â“RINOÂ”Â…
=========
The only difference between Huckabee and a Democrat is that Huckabee really believes God wants the government running every aspect of your life.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 14, 2014 08:45 AM (VjL9S)

76 US Vice President Joe Biden when he met Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Monday night, Jan. 13, refused to level with him on the detailed agreements which the Americans claimed were reached by the six powers and Iran in their talks earlier this week on the implementation of their first-stage Geneva accord. This is reported by DEBKAfileÂ’s Washington and Jerusalem sources. It was the first time US President Barack Obama personally vetoed a briefing to Israel on the content of the international nuclear negotiations he instigated - notwithstanding his private and public pledges to Netanyahu of Â“full transparency.Â” This secretiveness has stirred concern and mistrust in Jerusalem on two grounds: 1. It denotes a sharp decline in the strategic relations between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government and leaves Israel in the dark on an issue of vital concern to its security. To all my Jewish Family and "friends" who voted for obama: fuck you

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 08:46 AM (t3UFN)

77 Long term, the best solution is more competition for high speed internet. And the best prospect for that is high speed wireless data. I don't worry about Verizon wireless screwing with my data cause they have competition from AT&T, Sprint, etc. I do worry about Comcast and Time Warner Cable since they don't. But hopefully wireless data will get fast enough to be real competition. Right now, for video streaming, it really isn't.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 08:46 AM (ZPrif)

78 As fiber builds out, will people 10 years from now wonder why anyone ever worried about "bandwidth"?

Posted by: jwest at January 14, 2014 08:47 AM (u2a4R)

72 -

We're really not that far from the concpet of the ISP disappearing like the dinosaurs. Especially once virtually all this stuff goes wireless, which it will. Soon.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 14, 2014 08:48 AM (TOk1P)

80 Lately it looks like Huckabee could give Krispy Kreme a run for his money in the girth department.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 14, 2014 08:48 AM (32Ze2)

81 Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 12:46 PM (ZPrif) Meh, after watching the Obama Administration try to grant tons and tons of political favors to LightSquared, I don't have much hope for competition in the wifi market. Government apparently controls that shit with an iron fist. It's all cronyism all the way down.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 08:48 AM (GaqMa)

82 martyr Erin Brokovitch

I don't think Whoreyweird has ever released a bigger pack of lies than what they did to "embellish" the image of that ignorant self-centered whore.
-
I've never seen Brokovitch but I'll bet Hurricane would give it a run for its money.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 14, 2014 08:49 AM (Hx5uv)

83 To all my Jewish Family and "friends" who voted for obama: fuck you

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 12:46 PM (t3UFN)

This Israeli general is obviously thrilled with Obama/Kerry's desperate push for a win at the expense of Israel's integrity.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 14, 2014 08:49 AM (BZAd3)

84 Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 12:44 PM (GaqMa) They're not seriously afraid (not the ones who've actually thought this through) of throttling. They're not really concerned that Netflix is going to have to pay 10 cents/megabit (or whatever) where everyone else has to pay 5. No, what they want is a way to raise the rates on everyone (under the guise of "neutrality") so that preferred big-businesses can continue (Netflix can afford the increase) to operate, while smaller competitors can never get their foot in the door. If I have to be "neutral" to all traffic coming across my network, well, then, gosh darn, don't you know that Netflix and Amazon and Google and Woot all use so much bandwidth, I've got to raise my rates! Oh, sorry small video-streaming site, suddenly you can't afford my hosting. Oh, sorry scrappy little Search Engine, you can't afford my hosting either...

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 08:49 AM (PYAXX)

85 Just so you know, Debkafile is basically just a blog. It's reported tons of things wrong in the past and seems to not really care about accuracy. Some of what it posts is no doubt true, but much is not.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 08:50 AM (ZPrif)

86 Now I said within reason. What I don't like is companies trying to double limit me. So with AT&T I choose a speed (currently 12MB). That should be my bandwidth limit. Not that plus a limit of X GB. My limit is up front when I choose my speed.

That wouldn't work unless you don't mind your bill increasing by a factor of five. There's a reason a 1.5M T1 costs far more than a 20M DSL line. And that reason is oversubscription.

It sounds like a dirty word, but it's what makes your 12M connection- and the Internet as a whole- affordable.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 14, 2014 08:51 AM (SY2Kh)

87 It was the first time US President Barack Obama personally vetoed a briefing to Israel on the content of the international nuclear negotiations he instigated - notwithstanding his private and public pledges to Netanyahu of Â“full transparency.Â” **** Wow. So our best ally in that part of the world for decades--and that's how he treats them.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 14, 2014 08:51 AM (RJMhd)

88 OT from NRO:

A former Pennsylvania mayor who was a member of Michael BloombergÂ’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been sentenced to up to 20 months in jail for a gun-related crime. Last February, James Schiliro, the mayor of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, fired a gun in an attempt to intimidate a man to whom he said he was attracted.
Schiliro had had police bring 20-year-old Nicholas Dorsam to his home to drink wine, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. When Dorman attempted to leave, Schiliro prevented him from doing so, shooting the gun into a stack of papers and threatened to kill himself. Schiliro later credited Dorsam with helping save his life.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 14, 2014 08:52 AM (Hx5uv)

89 76 As fiber builds out, will people 10 years from now wonder why anyone ever worried about "bandwidth"? Posted by: jwest at January 14, 2014 12:47 PM (u2a4R) Verizon FioS baby. I run servers for hundreds of GB a month.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at January 14, 2014 08:52 AM (09o/X)

90 Fiber build out, at least to the home, has stalled. Verizon FIOS has stopped. Google fiber is spreading ultra-slow. There is no race at all to run fiber to the home. Costs are too high.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 08:53 AM (ZPrif)

91 FIOS has stopped expanding.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 08:53 AM (ZPrif)

92 So our best ally in that part of the world for decades--and that's how he treats them.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 14, 2014 12:51 PM (RJMhd)

Yes, but Carney will come out and vomit bs all over the place about how Israel has never had a better friend that the muzzie murder loving occupant of the WH.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 14, 2014 08:54 AM (BZAd3)

93 83 Just so you know, Debkafile is basically just a blog. It's reported tons of things wrong in the past and seems to not really care about accuracy. Some of what it posts is no doubt true, but much is not. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 12:50 PM (ZPrif) ******* True but comport that with the report from NRO which I put up thread. I'll go check to see what their original source is. Almost certain it's another source before I go check.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 14, 2014 08:54 AM (RJMhd)

94 From the ISP perspective, they're unhappy about having to spend boatloads of money to increase capacity on behalf of Netflix and Hulu customers. They've already figured out a solution to that. They charge Netfilx and Hulu to host servers on Comcast network equipment. They got them to do that to "resolve latency and availability" issues. What pisses me off is the torrent users who use rss feeds to grab the top downloaded files and crank their up and down speeds to 11. So they're using the full pipe they have access to. Well, the problem with that is Comcast and everyone else can't afford to sell everyone 100% full-strength network speed all the time. So they hope for the customer to have some restraint and use their network bandwidth in a bursty way. A big file download here and there, some streaming, net browsing etc. So what do the networks do? They "traffic shape" by slowing down certain protocols, because some people have to have external constraints put on them. But then the superusers freak out because "YOU'RE NOT GIVING ME WHAT I PAID FOR." But Comcast is over a barrel because they can't promise a good user experience if a lot of people act like entitled douches. So then these complainy-pants get on their high horse and scream "NET NEUTRALITY" when what they really mean is "LET ME DO WHAT I WANT EVEN IF IT SCREWS THINGS UP FOR OTHER PEOPLE."

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 14, 2014 08:54 AM (44jNh)

95 Schiliro had had police bring 20-year-old Nicholas Dorsam to his home to drink wine, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. When Dorman attempted to leave, Schiliro prevented him from doing so, shooting the gun into a stack of papers and threatened to kill himself. Schiliro later credited Dorsam with helping save his life. Posted by: WalrusRex at January 14, 2014 12:52 PM (Hx5uv) Um....what?! FFS! The police brought him to the home?!

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 14, 2014 08:55 AM (bCEmE)

96 The same can be said of the Times, both Coasts, the Washington Post, et al

Posted by: Jeffrey Pelt at January 14, 2014 08:56 AM (Jsiw/)

97 There is no race at all to run fiber to the home. Costs are too high. Fiber is high-cost itself, and it's very fragile- line damage that won't cause cable or dsl to bat an eye will shut down a whole Fiber trunk. Also, it requires new lines everywhere- which is very expensive (made more so by, get this, Government Regulation), and more and more people are moving off the "bundle" model- I don't pay for TV at all, and my Cell Phone is a month-by-month from T-Mobile. So the only thing I buy is my cable internet service. Given that, why would I pay the substantially higher price for FiOS or ATT U-Verse?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 08:56 AM (PYAXX)

98 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 12:49 PM (PYAXX) Obviously, and what I'm saying is I think spontaneous order will do a good job at handling this. Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 14, 2014 12:51 PM (SY2Kh) Huh? I think you've confused what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't mind limits, but IMHO, companies should choose them as either max speed based or total usage based. Telling me "You have to pay more to get faster speed AND more to actually use that bandwidth" seems redundant. But again, I don't want the government sorting this out, if I think a company's pricing is screwing me over, I'll simply get a new company. (There are actually at least 2 different ISPs here, I haven't looked much farther than that.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 08:56 AM (GaqMa)

99 @72 "If Netflix is such a big traffic hog (because people use it) and ISPs start throttling it, consumers will dump those ISPs."

That option only works if there's a competing ISP to provide service. In the big cities it's not a big deal to switch. That is not necessarily the case in rural areas, where a citizen might only have the one ISP who provides service in their community. If that ISP decides to play the "Hey Netflix.. if you want to reach your subscribers out here you better pony up!" card, then neither Netflix nor the consumer have a choice beyond quitting.

Posted by: I.M. at January 14, 2014 08:57 AM (1HVeO)

100 Another moderate Dem retiring. Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY).

Posted by: Tami at January 14, 2014 12:41 PM (bCEmE)

Moderate Democrats are a dying breed. I grew up in a strongly Democratic, union-supporting household. My grandfather was a 35-year UAW man and an old-school New Dealer. It dates me, but I can still remember a time when Democrats actively opposed communism and socialism. My first vote was for a Democrat.

Yeah, what Reagan said: 'I didn't leave my party. My party left me.'

Posted by: troyriser at January 14, 2014 08:57 AM (2jF2B)

101 I find that the Enquirer is more accurate than more of the MFM, and by Enquirer I mean the National Enquirer.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 14, 2014 08:57 AM (32Ze2)

102 Um....what?! FFS! The police brought him to the home?! It's good to be the king.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 14, 2014 08:57 AM (t+DWU)

103 Um....what?! FFS! The police brought him to the home?!
-
It's good to be mayor.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 14, 2014 08:58 AM (Hx5uv)

104 NRO's source is L.A. TImes. WASHINGTON Â– Key elements of a new nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers are contained in an informal, 30-page text not yet publicly acknowledged by Western officials, IranÂ’s chief negotiator said Monday. Abbas Araqchi disclosed the existence of the document in a Persian-language interview with the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency. The new agreement, announced over the weekend, sets out a timetable for how Iran and the six nations, led by the United States, will implement a deal reached in November that is aimed at restraining IranÂ’s nuclear ambitions. http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn- iran-nuclear-side-deal-20140113,0,4116168.story#ixzz2qOfDP1L4

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 14, 2014 08:58 AM (RJMhd)

105 "The LAW was bad, so striking it down was GOOD."

Small point of order, part of the problem is that it isn't a LAW, but an Agency ORDER. An ORDER done in the express violation of Congress.

Posted by: Jean at January 14, 2014 08:59 AM (4JkHl)

106 If that ISP decides to play the "Hey Netflix.. if you want to reach your subscribers out here you better pony up!" card, then neither Netflix nor the consumer have a choice beyond quitting. And life sucks everywhere. But that's really what Hughes Net is for- it's got pretty high (well- not terrible) download speeds (what you need for Netflix) but crappy upload ('cause it uses your phone line). So, yes, people have an opt out. Also, there is no "Right to Netflix." If it costs Netflix more to provide you the service than you'll generate for them, they're not going to offer you the service. This is true whether it's movie prices that go up, or bandwidth prices.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 09:00 AM (PYAXX)

107 Saw Wolf of Wall St. Really long. Pretty dumb. Tries to be shocking, but hits the same note for 2 and 1/2 hours. Just imagine Leo Di Caprio doing tons of cocaine, humping everything in sight, and constantly shouting at everyone that he's "fucking rich, you stupid, motherfucking poor fucking faggots". It's that. For the first hour. Then the second hour. Then the third hour.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 09:00 AM (ZPrif)

108 Small point of order, part of the problem is that it isn't a LAW, but an Agency ORDER. An ORDER done in the express violation of Congress.

----

I really dont see a problem here.....

Posted by: Ruth Bader Ginsberg at January 14, 2014 09:00 AM (nELVU)

109 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 12:56 PM (PYAXX) The model, I think is shifting though. Take Uverse: Uverse isn't Fiber per se (I know I have it). It's fiber to the trunks, then copper for the "last mile." In fact, it's the phone lines. But what's important about it is the trunks (and the distance and number of trunks.) Ditto for Charter around here. Fiber to the hubs, then copper for the last mile. ISPs are starting to have upgrade to fiber to power their trunks just due to market saturation. 10 or years ago, maybe 50% (or less) of middle class homes had high speed internet. That number is rapidly approaching 100%. But I don't think we'll see expansion of FIOS for quite some time. Maybe as a slow transition as the already in place last mile infrastructure degrades.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 09:01 AM (GaqMa)

110 Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 01:00 PM (ZPrif) Glad I'm going to have to miss it, then. Anyone seen Loan Survivor, yet? Will I be angry if I go see it?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 09:01 AM (PYAXX)

111 Bandwidth is always limited. It's a commodity, just like anything else.

Net Neutrality is price controls for bandwidth.

Posted by: West at January 14, 2014 09:02 AM (1Rgee)

112 >>Just imagine Leo Di Caprio doing tons of cocaine, humping everything in sight, and constantly shouting at everyone that he's "fucking rich, you stupid, motherfucking poor fucking faggots". Oh, so its a documentary.

Posted by: Aviator at January 14, 2014 09:02 AM (jSUU1)

113 Well the LA Times has an update--not sure if NRO caught it--still really isn't all that reassuring. [Updated 8:45 p.m. Jan. 13: A State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, denied later Monday that there was any secret agreement. "Any documentation associated with implementation tracks completely with what we've described," she said. "These are technical plans submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency," the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency. "We will make information available to Congress and the public as it becomes available," Harf said.] Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Iran and the other six countries may have written the nonpaper to record understandings that they didnÂ’t want to release publicly. The governments may plan to release Â“just a short text, with broad principles and broad strokes,Â” Takeyh said. http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 14, 2014 09:02 AM (RJMhd)

114 #98 what kills me is, I grew up in the same kind of old-school Dem family, surrounded by old-school Dem families. Yet they all still vote Democrat, even though the Commie party it has become doesn't represent any of their values. They'd rather vote for Commies than anyone with a (gasp! shudder!) "R" after their names. I just don't get it. When my party (Dems) stopped representing me, I switched to Republican. (hold the tomatoes, I was very young and very stupid when I was Dem.) Then when the Repubs stopped representing me, I switched to Independent. But thse old-school Dems, they'd rather vote Commie than switch.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 14, 2014 09:02 AM (7ObY1)

115 Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 01:01 PM (GaqMa) That's true. But that's all market driven. There's also the possibility that Material Science will give us an answer for cheaper, more durable Fiber. At which point usage of Fiber will go up again.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 09:02 AM (PYAXX)

116 NetFlix has an enormous amount of bandwidth available - the US Mail drops off two DVDs a week at my house for $8 a month.

Posted by: Jean at January 14, 2014 09:03 AM (4JkHl)

117 Posted by: I.M. at January 14, 2014 12:57 PM (1HVeO) Cheap Netflix may become a benefit to living in an urban/suburban area. Just like having a grocery store within 1/2 mile. I'm confused as to why we need to make all the amenities of these areas available everywhere?

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 09:03 AM (GaqMa)

118

92: "they can't promise a good user experience if a lot of people act like entitled douches."

I'm sorry, but I just can't see how someone who pays X amount of money for Y amount of pipe and then goes out and actually uses the Y amount of pipe they paid for is an "entitled douche".

Does this mean that if you buy a 16oz soda, and you actually have the temerity to drink more than 8 ounces of that soda, you are now an entitled douche?

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at January 14, 2014 09:03 AM (LJpVo)

119 Good news, everybody! Obama says 2014 is the year he will save the economy!

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 14, 2014 09:04 AM (Hx5uv)

120 Fiber is the key for the future. In the Comcast model, it's essential that questions of bandwidth become a thing of the past. This is because 95% of businesses can't advertise on television. Only by having the ability to insert ads into slots at a neighborhood and individual home basis will the vast pool of advertising revenue be tapped.

Posted by: jwest at January 14, 2014 09:04 AM (u2a4R)

121 Saw Wolf of Wall St. Really long. Pretty dumb. Tries to be shocking, but hits the same note for 2 and 1/2 hours. Just imagine Leo Di Caprio doing tons of cocaine, humping everything in sight, and constantly shouting at everyone that he's "fucking rich, you stupid, motherfucking poor fucking faggots". It's that. For the first hour. Then the second hour. Then the third hour. Can you imagine Hollywood using Beria as an indictment against Communism? Kidnapping teenagers off the street and humping them. Even the top Party Members were terrified of him and warned their daughters never to accept a ride from him. The man killed people pretty much on a whim, and sent at a minimum tens of thousands of people to firing squads.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 14, 2014 09:05 AM (44jNh)

122 Are we talking about boobs yet?

Cats?

Posted by: eleven at January 14, 2014 09:05 AM (KXm42)

123 That's true. But that's all market driven. There's also the possibility that Material Science will give us an answer for cheaper, more durable Fiber. At which point usage of Fiber will go up again. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 01:02 PM (PYAXX) For now I'm setting aside advances in science. Obviously cheap/durable fiber changes...well everything. I think AT&T is experimenting with varying copper line designs as well. The current system has it's hilarities though. My Parents-in-law are over 3/4 from the trunk, so AT&T won't sell them Uverse. But their neighbor a few houses down gets it (because he's closer to the trunk) AT&T is trying to solve the problem with more trunks (but land is actually their biggest hurdle right now.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 09:06 AM (GaqMa)

124 >>Are we talking about boobs yet? Leo DiCaprio's name came up. Does that count?

Posted by: Aviator at January 14, 2014 09:06 AM (jSUU1)

125 If said ISPs try to bully Netflix into paying more, I see Netflix just saying "nope, we'll pass and not deliver our content to your servers" which again will cause consumers to flee those ISPs.

The other side of the argument is- flee to where?

Not including re-sellers, most people have two main choices- service from their local cable provider, or their local telco. Yes, there's also satellite and mobile networks, but they typically have very low bandwidth caps.

That's not to say we need FCC to micromanage, but there are legitimate concerns on both sides of the argument.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 14, 2014 09:07 AM (SY2Kh)

126 "Anyone seen Loan Survivor, yet? Will I be angry if I go see it?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 01:01 PM (PYAXX)

heh... "loan survivor"

Now that has potential!

Lone survivor, though, and I haven't seen it (can't, just yet). Marcus said they nailed it and that's good enough for me, since he was the lone survivor of SDVT1-A.

Posted by: tangonine at January 14, 2014 09:07 AM (x3YFz)

127 Anyone seen Loan Survivor, yet? Will I be angry if I go see it? /raises eyebrow and riffs... >klik< "...tonight on Loan Survivor, Callie's rates may literally cost an arm and a leg, but will her alliance with Ted stop the bleeding...before it's too late?" >klik< "This Saturday on SyFy...LoanSharknado!" /sound of remote being smashed with a sledgehammer

Posted by: Brother Cavil, still chilly at January 14, 2014 09:07 AM (naUcP)

128 Anyone seen Loan Survivor, yet? Attack of the TBTF Banks?

Posted by: rickb223 at January 14, 2014 09:07 AM (t+DWU)

129 Are we talking about boobs yet?

There's a comment about Biden at #74.

Posted by: HR at January 14, 2014 09:07 AM (ZKzrr)

130 #116 Does this mean that if you buy a 16oz soda, and you actually have the temerity to drink more than 8 ounces of that soda, you are now an entitled douche? Did you happen to catch that picture of Bill DeStalino eating the pizza with a knife and fork? The real story in that picture is that Our Betters are clearly enjoying very large sodas that certainly appear to be greater than 16 oz. All animals are created equal, but some animals are created more equal than others.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 14, 2014 09:08 AM (7ObY1)

131 This country is so f--ked up right now. I even think the dems know it, it's just that they're like gambling addicts. They think that just one more speech, one more edict by their messiah and everything will fall into place.

And the Repubs are too caught up in feathering their own nests that they're willing to let it continue to crater.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 14, 2014 09:08 AM (BZAd3)

132 Nood

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 14, 2014 09:08 AM (bCEmE)

133 My Parents-in-law are over 3/4 from the trunk, so AT&T won't sell them Uverse. Tell them they're not missing anything. We fell on the "neighbor a few houses down" side of that equation, and Uverse sucked. It was actually slower than cable, and the TV coverage was more spotty than my satellite. Now, that's been a couple years ago, so it may have changed, but back then the signal degradation was enough that you wanted to be well-and-safely inside the service area to be sure you'd get good service.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 09:08 AM (PYAXX)

134 I suspect the solution will be in better CODECs for HD video, long before advances in materials change the last mile equation. Matter of fact, I've seen CODECs that are substantially better then the current NetFlix.

Posted by: Jean at January 14, 2014 09:09 AM (4JkHl)

135 Anyone seen Loan Survivor, yet? --- Are there any? D----- F------ too big to fail banks!

Posted by: RioBravo at January 14, 2014 09:09 AM (eEfYn)

136 D*mn homophones. Lone Survivor, then. Anyone seen that?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 09:09 AM (PYAXX)

137 If you've seen the trailers for Wolf of Wall Street it's just more of that. Kinda funny as a dark comedy at first, but then it just goes on and on. It's supposed to be a satire of how they imagine dumbass, testosterone-fueled, working class dipshits would act if they got uber fucking rich. If some asshole dropout dipshit local weed-dealers ran Wall Street and just screamed all day while doing shots and coke and headbutting each other and screaming "fuck, yeah" and screwing some hookers, then more drugs then more headbutts with your bros. The joke is the contrast of Wall Street with the dumbest possible Frat Bro coked-out stupidity. Which would be funny in a short skit, but goes on for almost 3 hours.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 14, 2014 09:09 AM (ZPrif)

138 Especially once virtually all this stuff goes wireless, which it will. Soon.

I'm not so sure about that. There's an upcoming wireless spectrum crunch that could end up being far more dire than the problems with wired barndwith...

http://tinyurl.com/lrc2rbg

Posted by: GMan at January 14, 2014 09:10 AM (sxq57)

139 Gah....speaking of "Aviator"....I popped that sucker out after 15 minutes.

Awful.

Posted by: eleven at January 14, 2014 09:10 AM (KXm42)

140 Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 14, 2014 01:07 PM (SY2Kh) True, I'd prefer competition to be a bit more rigorous. But as I noted, the new market is rapidly drying up, meaning even two competitors are trying to steal each others customers. Any self inflicted wound would be horrific in this scenario. It's not entirely sufficient, but it's not "woe is me!" either.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 09:10 AM (GaqMa)

141 correction, lone survivor of SDVT1-A Plt 5. 4 man team, Operation Red Wings.

Posted by: tangonine at January 14, 2014 09:10 AM (x3YFz)

142 Now that has potential!Lone survivor, though, and I haven't seen it (can't, just yet). Marcus said they nailed it and that's good enough for me, since he was the lone survivor of SDVT1-A. Posted by: tangonine at January 14, 2014 01:07 PM (x3YFz) I started reading the book on the way back from Portsmouth. I intend to see it and it will be the first movie I have paid to see in over 20 years

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 09:10 AM (t3UFN)

143 "Anyone seen Loan Survivor, yet? Will I be angry if I go see it?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 01:01 PM (PYAXX)

Great movie. You need to see it. You will, however be angry after the movie. How corrupted this country has become comes into stark relief.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 14, 2014 09:10 AM (BZAd3)

144 My Parents-in-law are over 3/4 from the trunk, so AT&T won't sell them Uverse. But their neighbor a few houses down gets it (because he's closer to the trunk) Semi-related. My cell phone is on Sprint. According to the map, 4G stops on the opposite side of my street. In my front facing driveway, I can get 4G. Inside the house? 3G. Bump the output 1/4 watt. Please!

Posted by: rickb223 at January 14, 2014 09:12 AM (t+DWU)

145 You will, however be angry after the movie. How corrupted this country has become comes into stark relief. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 14, 2014 01:10 PM (BZAd3) I'm already pissed off

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 09:13 AM (t3UFN)

146 I'm sorry, but I just can't see how someone who pays X amount of money for Y amount of pipe and then goes out and actuallyuses the Y amount of pipe they paidfor is an "entitleddouche". Does this mean that if you buy a 16oz soda, and you actually have the temerity to drink more than 8 ounces of that soda, you are now an entitled douche? Here's the problem: If everyone used the Y amount of pipe they paid for the lines would be oversaturated by multiple hundreds of percent. It's called over-subscription. If you actually paid for the 10-30Mbps Y amount of pipe for your private use, your bill would be several times higher. The reason you get so much bandwidth is because not everyone uses Y amount of pipe 100% of the time. Your soda example isn't correct. When you pay for 16oz of soda, that's for your sole use.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 14, 2014 09:13 AM (44jNh)

147 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 14, 2014 01:08 PM (PYAXX) The infrastructure varies wildly. So at the townhome (which had brand new teleco lines installed recently.) Things were stellar. At the house, with the old 1960s system, things get hiccuppy. But they're quickly developing work arounds (dropping 2 DSL lines into a house for example) They've fixed a lot of signal degradation (granted, there's still some compression artifacts, but I see worse from your average DVD encoding.) Speeds are slower than cable, but in my case more constant (charter suffers from "traffic jam syndrome). But I'd note that I could pay more to get my speed near (or equal) to cable, but it's not worth it. So I traded some speed for greater services (a DVR) and a slightly lower price. Costs and benefits.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 14, 2014 09:13 AM (GaqMa)

148 Are we talking about boobs yet?

-
It's not boobs but this is pretty cool for wing nuts. There's something wrong with these airplanes!

http://tinyurl.com/mrgjlpz

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 14, 2014 09:14 AM (Hx5uv)

149 143 You will, however be angry after the movie. How corrupted this country has become comes into stark relief.
Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 14, 2014 01:10 PM (BZAd3)

I'm already pissed off

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 01:13 PM (t3UFN)

I barely made it through the book (thank God for 24 packs of tissue). Can't see it right now.

Maybe in a few years.

Posted by: tangonine at January 14, 2014 09:14 AM (x3YFz)

150 I'm already pissed off

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 14, 2014 01:13 PM (t3UFN)

The book was good too. Much more political than the movie. Berg kept politics out of it, but Marcus Luttrell made it painfully clear of how he viewed liberal thought in general.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 14, 2014 09:17 AM (BZAd3)

151 Cops raid Justin BieberÂ’s house over egging incident Cops raid Bieber's house over egging incident He is the neighbor from hell: loud music, racing on the street, 911 at least once a week because some girl passed out and they can't wake her up, etc. Now, he egged a neighbor's house and caused a lot of damage. I'm mot sure what is worse: living next to him or the Kardashians.

Posted by: Judge Pug at January 14, 2014 09:18 AM (Qev5V)

152

144: "When you pay for 16oz of soda, that's for your sole use."

What I use it for, or how I use it, is no one's business but my own.

If the infrastructure can't support the traffic, you can...

1: Increase infrastructure. (Increasing supply)

2: Charge more. (Decrease demand)

3: Sell less in the form of smaller bandwidth bundles. (Control behavior)

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at January 14, 2014 09:20 AM (LJpVo)

153 1. The problem is that distribution providers are also content providers. Distribution providers could easily slow down competing services within their networks to the end users. As an example, both AT&T and Comcast offer 'Netflix' like services to their customers. Also, AT&T has data (not bandwidth) caps on their networks. If you use AT&T content services it does not count towards your data count. So AT&T is prompting you in a subtle way to use their services and if you don't, you'll pay a fee if you exceed the data caps using a competing service. If you don't see the problem with this I don't know what to tell you. 2. If a company offers a particular bandwidth and can't deliver, it isn't my fault the company oversubscribed the network. They need to advertise the true bandwidth available. You know, truth in advertising?

Posted by: WinLinBSDAdmin at January 14, 2014 09:40 AM (aylzO)

154

@ 26 - "penis pumps and A-Rod?"

ISWYDT

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 14, 2014 09:47 AM (YYJjz)

155 "That depends on if your ISP does packet inspection and blocks or slows traffic to services that compete with it's own offerings." --- That's what they started to do, as well slow traffic they didn't prefer (torrents\p2p traffic) - before the fcc put the rule in. The ruling may be about authority, but the rules that were in place going bye bye is not going to be good for the average mega-isp customer.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at January 14, 2014 10:02 AM (7mQyC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

163kb generated in CPU 0.0751, elapsed 0.3055 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2454 seconds, 283 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.