Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:RANT! (Score 1) 151

Only because that subset is artificially limited.

People don't "need" better internet because the ISPs strangle out the competition. Netflix v Comcast was well documented. AT&T meters all of it's traffic, while zero-rating their own individually purchasable items. The current ISPs are doing everything they can to prevent people from moving into the 21st century of connectivity.

Yes, that's why almost no one uses Netflix and Netflix is going out of business.

And that's just talking about today, right now. Give it another 5-10 years, when people are streaming 4k movies in 3D, or whatever the "next big thing" is. Should we wait till then to upgrade our infrastructure? Or just let the ISPs keep running through the same 30 year old lines?

If everyone pre-pays for their next 10 years of broadband bills, I'm sure the ISPs will install the next 10 years of equipment. Other than that, why should they setup anything they don't intend to use in the next year or two?

Comment Re:RANT! (Score 5, Insightful) 151

What did electricity compete with? Darkness and ice deliveries. What does fiber compete with? Services that are already roughly comparable to fiber.

Who needs electricity? Everyone who doesn't have it. Who needs fiber? A small percentage (10% ?) of people who want to do something a regular cable/DSL 25Mbps connection isn't good enough for -- and who can't already get better service.

Fiber is an incremental benefit for a smallish subset of people.

Comment Re:President Obama said something similar (Score 1) 235

Lots of things can be punishments without impacting rights. It's not the same kind of punishment as imprisoning them, for example, but they probably think of it as a punishment.

Treating innocent people badly because someone else is guilty of something is wrong, regardless of it technically being called "punishment" or whatever.

You can argue that it's justified based on some particular need if you want. But you can't argue that Trump's comments are evil hate speech and Obama's aren't -- they're essentially the same.

Comment President Obama said something similar (Score 1) 235

Banning Muslims is wrong because we shouldn't punish innocent people because just because someone else is guilty.

The occasion was after one of the Muslim mass shootings last year.

Let's not forget that, at the same time Trump wanted to act against innocent Muslims, President Obama wanted to take action against innocent gun owners. If it's wrong to target innocents for enforcement, when can we expect President Obama to be criticized for exactly the same thing?

Comment Re:Something's missing (Score 1) 151

Me too. They always said they would throttle it after some amount. They have lots of different plans though, maybe they forgot to put that language on some of them. Or maybe this is just government indulging whiny trolls looking for freebies. It could be either one.

Comment Re:And yet (Score 1) 412

... he has gone from someone fighting for open and honest government to someone that is using information he has access too in a manner to influence an election. timing the releases of information to the political happenings in order to influence people makes him no better than those he is supposedly against...

So the "right thing" to do is to keep the information secret until it's too late to be useful to voters? That's an interesting value system you have.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.