3 ms·

Average internet speeds are up substantially since repeal. It is up over 300% in fact, and is now 12th globally according to Ookla. Even higher if you remove ti

by 0xy 6y ago

Average internet speeds are up substantially since repeal. It is up over 300% in fact, and is now 12th globally according to Ookla. Even higher if you remove tiny dense countries like Liechtenstein. That's innovation.

wtallis 6y ago
You should at least attempt to make some kind of argument that there's real causation here and not merely correlation. Also, aren't most of Ookla's speed test results biased by testing against servers the ISP has given preferential placement to inside their network, rather than using a diverse set of servers on the public internet? (I'll admit, it's been years since I last cared to look at an Ookla speed test, so I'm not sure if their default server selection strategy has changed.)
- 0xy 6y ago
  Is your argument that substantial speed increases are not innovation, or that the original arguments for Net Neutrality were totally incorrect? Because NN campaigners said speeds would go down or stagnate. In fact, this is the EFF's prime argument for Net Neutrality. [1] It has been proven absolutely false. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-attack-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-...
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    It’s also really good to have monopolies that can sue to ban municipal broadband. Like you, I fucking love Comcast and want them to have as much power as possible
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > In fact, this is the EFF's prime argument for Net Neutrality. [1] As far as I can see, your link does not support your assertion. I think you're completely mischaracterizing the primary argument for Net Neutrality. I have never seen anyone assert that without Net Neutrality, speeds would go down or stagnate in general. I have only seen proponents claim that without Net Neutrality, speeds would be selectively reduced or left stagnant. And the burden of proof is very much on you to demonstrate that lifting Net Neutrality regulations is responsible for speeds increasing, and not other factors such as pressure from Google Fiber and declining costs for DOCSIS 3.0 equipment and advances in WiFi that made it possible for most consumers to actually use download speeds in excess of 100Mbps. (Also, we should assess the health of the ISP market a bit more carefully. Increasing download speeds don't tell the whole story. How have the major incumbent ISPs done at increasing upload speeds in recent years. How prevalent are data caps, and are they increasing from year to year?)

by 0xy 6y ago

wtallis 6y ago

You should at least attempt to make some kind of argument that there's real causation here and not merely correlation. Also, aren't most of Ookla's speed test results biased by testing against servers the ISP has given preferential placement to inside their network, rather than using a diverse set of servers on the public internet? (I'll admit, it's been years since I last cared to look at an Ookla speed test, so I'm not sure if their default server selection strategy has changed.)

0xy 6y ago
Is your argument that substantial speed increases are not innovation, or that the original arguments for Net Neutrality were totally incorrect? Because NN campaigners said speeds would go down or stagnate. In fact, this is the EFF's prime argument for Net Neutrality. [1] It has been proven absolutely false. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-attack-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-...
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  It’s also really good to have monopolies that can sue to ban municipal broadband. Like you, I fucking love Comcast and want them to have as much power as possible
- wtallis 6y ago
  > In fact, this is the EFF's prime argument for Net Neutrality. [1] As far as I can see, your link does not support your assertion. I think you're completely mischaracterizing the primary argument for Net Neutrality. I have never seen anyone assert that without Net Neutrality, speeds would go down or stagnate in general. I have only seen proponents claim that without Net Neutrality, speeds would be selectively reduced or left stagnant. And the burden of proof is very much on you to demonstrate that lifting Net Neutrality regulations is responsible for speeds increasing, and not other factors such as pressure from Google Fiber and declining costs for DOCSIS 3.0 equipment and advances in WiFi that made it possible for most consumers to actually use download speeds in excess of 100Mbps. (Also, we should assess the health of the ISP market a bit more carefully. Increasing download speeds don't tell the whole story. How have the major incumbent ISPs done at increasing upload speeds in recent years. How prevalent are data caps, and are they increasing from year to year?)