Warning: Coarse language.



  1. Number33 says:

    This is why I come to this Blog!

  2. noname says:

    Welcome to Ronald Reagan it’s morning in America!

  3. Hmeyers says:

    Sarcasm used to be something rare that standup comedians like George Carlin practiced like an art form.

    This video was “not good” and reeks of the entitlement that people in the USA — or as Mexico would say “our well-fed neighbors up north” …

    Who have few real problems compared to the rest of the world.

    Or even few real problems by even recent historical standards.

    So these people without real problems invent some imaginary minor inconveniences to whine about as a “big deal” because they are bored.

    • pedro says:

      Correct! Never claim for what you’re paying or promise for, that’s only “well-fed” people’s problems

      • Guyver says:

        What I find annoying is when someone fully uses a slower speed (i.e. 5Mbps) by running their computer 24/7 and is approached by their ISP for “abusing” the network because the individual has exceeded their download quota and “bogging” the network down.

        Solution? The ISP tells you to buy their 60Mbps plan so that you’re given a higher allowance for downloading and so you’re not “bogging” things down.

        In reality, download speeds are a carrot used for misdirection. Everyone is buying a quota plan whose allowance also varies by speed. Other than making the ISP richer, how exactly is the same behavior not “abuse” at a faster speed? It isn’t. Their network is a sunk cost that they throttle each individual user via their modems. There is no actual abuse. This is why they stopped advertising “unlimited” Internet and stopped offering slower speeds (because customers are okay with slower speeds).

        • rockin61 says:

          “okay” with slower speeds? I’m not. I don’t know anyone who has high speed that would be okay slow speed/dial-up.

          • Guyver says:

            I’m okay with 5Mbps. I don’t need anything faster.

            Problem is the ISPs refuse to sell that tier to me because they want to force me into buying something of a better “value”.

    • Porky Rottenham says:

      How old are you psychologically? At least a a dozen con artists would pay real money for your address.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Well said, but wouldn’t a real con man use counterfeit money?

    • Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

      Oh, hush. As Americans it’s our *duty* to have more than everyone else.

  4. Egon Ruuda says:

    Monopolies and Oligopolies only exist because of the government rules/laws/regulations/handouts/licenses. Look at europe, they have better speeds at lower prices as freedom reign supreme in the ISP space. Poland for instance has over 1200 providers and the country is pretty small in size and only a tenth of the US population.
    Get the gov out, and let the competition reign.

    • pedro says:

      Hmm. I’ve spent fairly amount of time in the US and I’ve never had a blackout unless there some force majeure event.

      In Germany, in about the same amount of time, I’ve seen more blackouts that I could count with my two hands. Internet blackouts & throttling too.

      Your point, again?

      • Dip Stick says:

        In Germany when you were there it was called DIAL UP! And any “black out” was probably due to you getting a bit overly excited over the porn you were downloading. (Or should I say “uploading”?)

        Point is, there are too many variables why you may have had poor service – ANYWHERE! And sure, the ISP’s don’t exactly help here either.

        My guess is that you were on a crappy U.S. military provided civilian service of some kind (using AOL or something) and NOT with a real German ISP. You may have also/instead have been in a bad area where copper wire is/was still something of a new technology too.

        Since you don’t say WHERE you were in Germany or what ISP you were using (or even the actual access provider) it’s really all just bullshit. But then that’s your favorite thing isn’t it? BULLSHIT!

        • pedro says:

          Bavaria. And no, no military installation or dial-up. As a matter of fact, a city were a big German corp operated and produces goods.

          Been going there for 21 years so if my experience burst your bubble, I’m terribly sorry about it but it is what it is

    • noname says:

      Nice try, Europe has fewer regulations and laws…..which Socialist countries in Europe do you mean?

      I certainly agree we need more of their laws like, consumer protection, health care, …..

      • pedro says:

        Did you really had to say you love socialism in such an obvious way? We already got that a long time ago.

        • noname says:

          When did I say I love socialism.

          pedro being so typical of RUPUKe thinking; all is socialism without expressed FOX NEWs approval, sad!

          What I did say was:
          -a love for good laws!
          -a love for equal and fair justice!
          -a love for classless society!
          -a love for good Corporate Citizenship!
          -a love for a society that cares for it’s least!
          -a love for functional and design simplicity!

          -a hate for gladiatorial and unfair competition!
          -a hate for lazy, impatient, willfully ignorant judgements!
          -a hate for insatiable corporate greed!
          -a hate for hidden functionality and inept user design!

          • Guyver says:

            What I did say was:

            -a love for classless society!

            A “classless society” is another name for Communism. What a dope! That’s even worse than socialism.

            ROFLMAO. :)

            -a love for functional and design simplicity!

            Back when there was a USSR, you would have to wait 10 to 15 years for a POS functional and simple car.

            -a hate for insatiable corporate greed!

            You probably don’t understand this since you have a love for communism, but “insatiable corporate greed” is what motivates a company to outperform their competitors by offering consumers a better product.

            I know this hurts your communist mindset, but historically speaking capitalism is responsible for collectively improving the quality of life for the most people in the shortest amount of time.

          • tcc3 says:

            “…all men are created equal”

            Yeah, that Jefferson was such a commie bastard.

            Guyver *advocates* classism. Now whos the dope.

          • Guyver says:

            Guyver *advocates* classism. Now whos the dope.

            No I didn’t. Sounds like you have a comprehension problem and jumping to conclusions.

            I just found it funny that a communist who doesn’t like to be labeled a socialist.

          • tcc3 says:

            A “classless society” is another name for Communism.”

            Fine then, educate me. You equate “classless” to communism. Since you are clearly against communism, that statement sounds like an endorsement of class structure. Set me straight.

          • Guyver says:

            Fine then, educate me. You equate “classless” to communism. Since you are clearly against communism, that statement sounds like an endorsement of class structure. Set me straight.

            I don’t equate. It’s COMMONLY understood to be equivalent to communism.

            Classless Society (Part of a series of articles on Communism): http://tinyurl.com/2lp8rq

            You SOUND like equal opportunity should mean equal outcome. If so, then I disagree.

            I think people who work harder / smarter should be rewarded for their efforts (which does not happen in a classless society).

            Classism is just another liberal gripe revolving around discrimination of one’s social class.

            It SOUNDS like you believe if a country’s government isn’t based on communism (aka a “classless society”) that it is somehow discriminatory. I disagree because I believe people should be allowed to have a bigger hand in their own fate instead of government forcing everyone to have the same by redistributing the fruits of an individual’s labor.

            I don’t care what your social class is nor do I discriminate on one’s social class.

          • tcc3 says:

            From the very page you linked:

            “Classless society refers to a society in which no one is born into a social class. Such distinctions of wealth, income, education, culture, or social network might arise and would only be determined by individual experience and achievement in such a society.”

            Just because an idea is commonly associated with a dogma you disagree with doesnt make the idea itself suspect. Communism may in theory advocate a classless society but has historically been unable to achieve it. Marx also advocated for the rights of the worker – that doesnt mean we should be antiworker by being anti communist. Its the means by which they try to attain these ends thats suspect. That doesnt mean classism is good, nor laudable.

            To be in favor of classism as a reactionary response to perceived Communism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You sound in favor of class based societies like Feudalism and Hindu culture where people are assigned to their station by accident of birth and can never escape it.

            I dont think true classlessness is possible any more than perfect communism is possible. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to mitigate class membership and boundaries. We sure as hell shouldn’t *celebrate* the class structure as some sort of virtuous outcome of Capitalism.

          • Guyver says:

            “Communism may in theory advocate a classless society but has historically been unable to achieve it.”

            No other form of government promotes a classless society. The two are joined at the hip even though you are you trying unsuccessfully in trying to separate the two.

            To be in favor of classism as a reactionary response to perceived Communism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

            We have two completely different understandings of the word “classism”. As I understand it, it’s discrimination based on one’s social class.

            You sound in favor of class based societies like Feudalism and Hindu culture where people are assigned to their station by accident of birth and can never escape it.

            There’s a comprehension problem here. What I am in favor of is meritocracy. Meritocracy does not promote the idea of feudalism or a class-based society.

            Just because I’m not in favor of a communist doctrine does not mean I am in favor of a class-based society. You’re making a hasty conclusion.

            I simply do not care one way or the other. Those who do care are likely prone to p3nis envy.

            We sure as hell shouldn’t *celebrate* the class structure as some sort of virtuous outcome of Capitalism.

            Capitalism isn’t about a class system any more than a meritocracy is. What capitalistic system prohibits someone from transitioning between classes?

            Rather than being jealous about someone else’s success why not try to work harder / smarter to improve your standard of living?

            A classless society is an entitlement society in which harder / smarter workers are punished by having the fruits of their labor redistributed to those who feel entitled to it in the name of equal outcome.

            No thank you.

          • tcc3 says:

            You cant even keep inside of your circular logic. You ignore the definition of classless from your own Wiki citation. You condemn classlessness as Communism then backpedal about being classist or in favor of a class structure.

            We agree about the meritocracy. We disagree about the meaning of class and its value to a society.

            “No other form of government promotes a classless society”

            Our own government had classless principles as a rebellion of the very classist Britain – “all men created equal” and Washingtons refusal of the crown being the most obvious examples. We did not achieve it (slavery being the most obvious) but that doesnt mean it wasnt a principle to strive for.

            Democracy itself is a classless ideal – the idea that a man can have a say in society through the vote regardless of station or wealth goes against the very idea of a class structure.

            Class is no virtue and the pursuit of the elimination of class is no vice.

          • Guyver says:

            You ignore the definition of classless from your own Wiki citation.

            I’m speaking in context of governments while you’re trying to say the two are mutually exclusive. There’s a reason why “classless society” is listed as part of a series under the umbrella of Communism instead of a standalone topic.

            Perhaps you could convince the editors of Wikipedia to move that into an entirely independent article since you seem to believe you know more about the topic?

            If it helps you to understand better: “Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.”

            http://tinyurl.com/9a6at

            You condemn classlessness as Communism then backpedal about being classist or in favor of a class structure.

            I never said nor implied I was a classist or in favor of a class structure. Why the strawman fallacy? Why the dishonesty on your part?

            We disagree about the meaning of class and its value to a society.

            We disagree about the meaning of classism

            Maybe this will help with your re-inventing of commonly understood words: http://tinyurl.com/28sqk98

            Our own government had classless principles as a rebellion of the very classist Britain – “all men created equal” and Washingtons refusal of the crown being the most obvious examples. </blockquote

            You're making a logical leap. Just because our forefathers were anti-monarchy does not mean they were wanting to be classless. Nor does my pointing out this obvious oversight on your part make me pro-class / caste.

            With regard to "all men are created equal", you do realize that in context they only meant rich white landowning men?

            We did not achieve it (slavery being the most obvious) but that doesnt mean it wasnt a principle to strive for.

            Although we did not achieve it, that doesn’t mean it was something the forefathers ever planned on doing.

            Democracy itself is a classless ideal – the idea that a man can have a say in society through the vote regardless of station or wealth goes against the very idea of a class structure.

            Democracy is mob rule which is why the forefathers chose a Democratic Republic instead. And if you account for the qualifications on what it took to run for office or who had the right to vote, then this further weakens your argument that the forefathers had any intention of making a classless society.

            Class is no virtue and the pursuit of the elimination of class is no vice.

            And yet the ONLY form of government which OVERTLY embraces a classless society is Communism (which is why Wikipedia lists “classless society” as an article under Communism). And regardless of there never having been a true form of Communism in existence, those countries who do try to claim to be Communist are the closest ones to the ideals of your classless society.

            BTW, my pointing out the holes in your theory or reinvention of commonly understood words does not mean I am pro-class / caste. That’s just your use of a strawman fallacy. Please do try to be a little intellectually honest.

          • Guyver says:

            You ignore the definition of classless from your own Wiki citation.

            I’m speaking in context of governments while you’re trying to say the two are mutually exclusive. There’s a reason why “classless society” is listed as part of a series under the umbrella of Communism instead of a standalone topic.

            Perhaps you could convince the editors of Wikipedia to move that into an entirely independent article since you seem to believe you know more about the topic?

            If it helps you to understand better: “Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.”

            http://tinyurl.com/9a6at

            You condemn classlessness as Communism then backpedal about being classist or in favor of a class structure.

            I never said nor implied I was a classist or in favor of a class structure. Why the strawman fallacy? Why the dishonesty on your part?

            We disagree about the meaning of class and its value to a society.

            We disagree about the meaning of classism

            Maybe this will help with your re-inventing of commonly understood words: http://tinyurl.com/28sqk98

            Our own government had classless principles as a rebellion of the very classist Britain – “all men created equal” and Washingtons refusal of the crown being the most obvious examples.

            You’re making a logical leap. Just because our forefathers were anti-monarchy does not mean they were wanting to be classless. Nor does my pointing out this obvious oversight on your part make me pro-class / caste.

            With regard to “all men are created equal”, you do realize that in context they only meant rich white landowning men?

            We did not achieve it (slavery being the most obvious) but that doesnt mean it wasnt a principle to strive for.

            Although we did not achieve it, that doesn’t mean it was something the forefathers ever planned on doing.

            Democracy itself is a classless ideal – the idea that a man can have a say in society through the vote regardless of station or wealth goes against the very idea of a class structure.

            Democracy is mob rule which is why the forefathers chose a Democratic Republic instead. And if you account for the qualifications on what it took to run for office or who had the right to vote, then this further weakens your argument that the forefathers had any intention of making a classless society.

            Class is no virtue and the pursuit of the elimination of class is no vice.

            And yet the ONLY form of government which OVERTLY embraces a classless society is Communism (which is why Wikipedia lists “classless society” as an article under Communism). And regardless of there never having been a true form of Communism in existence, those countries who do try to claim to be Communist are the closest ones to the ideals of your classless society.

            BTW, my pointing out the holes in your theory or reinvention of commonly understood words does not mean I am pro-class / caste. That’s just your use of a strawman fallacy. Please do try to be a little intellectually honest.

          • tcc3 says:

            Youve got your own strawmen going on:

            I never said they were mutually exclusive. You are the one arguing repeatedly that the two ideas are mutually inclusive.

            “Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless…”

            So all revolutionary movements are Communist? All moneyless systems are communist? You cant single out one part of the definition while ignoring the rest. As I said before, Marx’s promotion of the value of the worker doesnt mean we should reject the worker when rejecting communism.

            No country that claims to have a communist system has achieved classlessness. This is actually one of the failures of Communism as a system.

            Your cognitive dissonance does not equal my use of a strawman. You both condemn classlessness as an exclusive property of Communism while denying that you are in favor of any sort of class system. You cant have it both ways.

          • Guyver says:

            I never said they were mutually exclusive. You are the one arguing repeatedly that the two ideas are mutually inclusive.

            My mistake. So it’s some sort of shade of gray? Perhaps you should suggest to Wikipedia that they should not imply that the two are joined at the hip by somehow making “classless society” a part of a series of articles on Communism? FYI, I didn’t create that article nor did I suggest to Wikipedia that it should be part of the series on Communism.

            So all revolutionary movements are Communist? All moneyless systems are communist?

            LOL. No. You have a reading comprehension problem. Why would you think that? The Wikipedia quote doesn’t even imply nor suggest that.

            How do you suppose that sounds, if I described to you what a baseball is and you respond back with whether all white balls are baseballs, or all small balls must be baseballs, etc.? Try a Venn Diagram. It may help you out.

            You cant single out one part of the definition while ignoring the rest.

            Ummm, yes you can. I just illustrated it in the previous block. They’re all adjectives describing Communism. But only one has an article under Communism. Care to take a guess which one? BTW, “revolutionary” has an article on Wikipedia and it is not a series under Communism. :)

            You’re doing a poor job of parsing words and trying to redefine things on your own terms.

            No country that claims to have a communist system has achieved classlessness. This is actually one of the failures of Communism as a system.

            I’ve addressed that point already. It doesn’t negate what Communism is about or that Classless Society is equivalent to Communism. The fact that you address no “communist” country has achieved classlessness as being a failure of communism as a system only proves my point about what communism and classless society are interchangeable.

            Thanks for playing. :)

            Your cognitive dissonance does not equal my use of a strawman. You both condemn classlessness as an exclusive property of Communism while denying that you are in favor of any sort of class system. You cant have it both ways.

            LOL. At least we’ve cleared up that you didn’t know what “classism” meant.

            If I am allegedly denying that I am in favor of a class system, then that implies you believe meritocracy MUST be a pro-class system. I disagree. You clearly are illustrating that you don’t know what a meritocracy is (surprise, surprise) or you’re being intellectually dishonest.

            Meritocracy has NOTHING to do with being either PRO or CON on the topic of social class.

            Not caring one way or the other by definition MEANS I am neither pro nor con. You have a reading comprehension issue. Sorry, I can’t help you there.

            Unless you mean indifference proves that I am somehow in favor of a class system…. Maybe…. in your mind. :)

            Thanks for making my day go by faster. Have a great weekend.

        • Dip Stick says:

          You really have no idea what REAL Socialism even is. Otherwise, you’d have a different tune – assuming you were even allowed to SPEAK!

          • pedro says:

            Another idiot that believes what liberuls say. Europe is socialist, whether you like it or not.

            Places that call themselves as socialist, like cuba, are just avoiding being called what they are: flaming commies.

            Just like NK, or you also think that because they have the “Democratic” pun in their name that makes it so”

    • msbpodcast says:

      For many, many things competition is great. Telecom is one of those.

    • Guyver says:

      Look at europe, they have better speeds at lower prices as freedom reign supreme in the ISP space.

      And smaller land mass with much smaller investment into infrastructure never crossed your mind because?…

      • ReadyKilowatt says:

        Don’t forget subsidies from the government, in many cases actual infrastructure initially built by government (IE: British Telecom being spun off from the Postal service). Always cheaper to upgrade what’s there than to start from scratch.

      • noname says:

        Wow, what amazing deductive logic?

        Is that why Rhode Island and Delaware has “better speeds at lower prices as freedom reign supreme in the ISP space.” and Texas and California the worst?

        • Guyver says:

          Is that why Rhode Island and Delaware has “better speeds at lower prices as freedom reign supreme in the ISP space.” and Texas and California the worst?

          Great demonstration of intellectual dishonesty or ideological ignorance.

          If you’re going to dissect things down to individual states, then you need to apply the same logic and apply it towards another country’s states.

          Most U.S. ISPs span across several states in this country. Who’s paying to upgrade those infrastructures to speeds equal to or better than that of a small country like South Korea that has some of the best speeds?

          Are you suggesting we need bigger government and higher taxes so that you can stop whining that your Internet connection isn’t as fast as a socialist country’s?

          • noname says:

            You mean do I want the economic growth of the Scandinavian Miracle, along with fast affordable internet….then yes.

            Do I want socialism no.

            I’ll let that sink in a bit. Let me help; only the most ignorant REPUKs (Rush & Friends) think Scandinavia is socialist.

            In regards to your self-exhibited intellectual dishonesty or ideological ignorance; you’re a REPUK, what can be expected, live with it.

          • Guyver says:

            do I want the economic growth of the Scandinavian Miracle, along with fast affordable internet….then yes.

            Of course you do. You like spending other people’s money.

            Do I want socialism no.

            But you want a classless society? Ha! You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

            I’ll let that sink in a bit. Let me help; only the most ignorant REPUKs (Rush & Friends) think Scandinavia is socialist.

            Scandinavian income tax rates are substantially higher than that of the United States. Finland is the only one that comes close to U.S. Income Tax rates.

            You should really use a mirror before using a telescope when you’re trying to prove ignorance.

            you’re a REPUK, what can be expected, live with it.

            LOL. Or you have a very limited understanding of political philosophies (as demonstrated by your ignorance on “classless society”).

    • pedro says:

      On second thought, after reading your poor attempt at an opinion, you couldn’t be in a deeper state of cognitive dissonance.

      In Europe the state gets into everything. They are, for all intent and purposes, all socialist countries and you ask for the government in the US the step out for things to get better? Hilarious!

      The problem in the US is that the government is no longer doing it’s job of looking after the people but rather getting money from corps whilst at the same time complaining there’s not enough money thus raising taxes.

      Does this mean the European governments do better than the US? Hell to the no! Move to Cyprus or Greece and enjoy the perks of the government taking your money whenever they see fit.

      Idiot!

      • noname says:

        another pedro priceless moment, responds to self:

        “On second thought, after reading your poor attempt at an opinion, you couldn’t be in a deeper state of cognitive dissonance.”

        excuse me while I enjoy this moment of cosmic karma, as pedro self-diagnoses and tries hard to sound intelligent with multiple thoughts. :)

        • Guyver says:

          excuse me while I enjoy this moment of cosmic karma, as pedro self-diagnoses and tries hard to sound intelligent with multiple thoughts.

          Ironic since you didn’t like the label of socialist but unknowingly embraced an alternative label for communist.

          Ignorance is bliss. :)

          • noname says:

            You can call me what ever you like, REPUK!

          • pedro says:

            You forgot to finish your reply with “neener neener!”

          • Guyver says:

            You can call me what ever you like, REPUK!

            You’ve already said enough when you stated you wanted a “classless society”. I don’t need to call you anything. LOL. :)

  5. ReadyKilowatt says:

    If you can get cable, you can get DSL and satellite:

    http://fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule

    Or just forget DSL and go all satellite:

    http://wildblue.com

    • George says:

      My ATT U-verse DSL rates just went up without notice from $38 to $41/mo. No increase in the quality of service. Just a higher cost.

      I used to have Charter, but their service was abysmal. I believe I had a signal problem which caused me to lose sync on the modem several times a day, and lose internet. When their tech came over, they said that my home was not qualified for internet due to the length of the cable run and I should not have had internet to begin with. (In other words they told me to go screw myself). My only option was DSL.

      To combat the ridiculous price, I have subscribed to the lowest cost internet speed I can stand. I terminated my ATT land-line in favor of a Google Voice on an Obihai box. I terminated my cable TV. I switched my iPhones to a Tmobile unlimited plan at a lower cost as soon as my contract was up with ATT.

      Congratulations ATT! I’ve gone from giving you over $200 a month to $41. Charter, I now give you nothing!

      • noname says:

        And you will have a richer life for it.

        Most of the crap on TV is just that.

      • Guyver says:

        I used to have Charter, but their service was abysmal. I believe I had a signal problem which caused me to lose sync on the modem several times a day, and lose internet.

        I had a similar problem. And in my case the problem was surprisingly simple. Whoever the electrician was that installed cable in my house when it was being built did not fully screw the end of the cable to the coupling adapter onto the wall plate.

        Another thing that can compound the problem is the use of splitters. Use a 2-to-1 if you must.

    • Mextli says:

      Wildblue looks high to me. $130 per month for 25gb data @ 12mbps download.

  6. MikeN says:

    High speed internet just enables outsourcing. People are taking jobs away from local phone company workers to spend their money on a foreign VOIP company, though it’s possible it is now at least somewhat American after being bought and sold a few times.

  7. Sea Lawyer says:

    I love all these smug dipshits comparing the average broadband speed of a country with 48 mil people and 99,720 sq km of land area to one with 326 mil people and 9,826,675 sq km area; as if the technical and resource challenges are remotely similar.

    • noname says:

      Wow, what amazing deductive logic?

      Is that why Rhode Island and Delaware has “better speeds at lower prices as freedom reign supreme in the ISP space.” and Texas and California the worst?

      • Guyver says:

        Is that why Rhode Island and Delaware has “better speeds at lower prices as freedom reign supreme in the ISP space.” and Texas and California the worst?

        Apples to Oranges.

        If you’re going to compare states of the U.S. to another country, then you should be using that country’s state.

        • noname says:

          Hum, let’s really see this works:

          California’s economy is the eighth largest economy in the world (2011) when compared with other countries. Within the U.S.A, California ranks 12th among the 50 states in terms of GDP per capita.

          Which other country’s state has a comparable kind of Economic Impact? Academically, economically, …more accurate to describe California as a microcosm of the nation, then as a state!

          Why are REPUK so damn dumb, birth defects! REPUKs must have grew up in a low TAX state where education was privatized and medical access was limited.

          • Guyver says:

            California’s economy is the eighth largest economy in the world (2011) when compared with other countries. Within the U.S.A, California ranks 12th among the 50 states in terms of GDP per capita.

            Hmmmm,

            So you’re trying to sound intelligent by trying to make the case of government spending of other people’s money is the same as spending in the private sector?

            Why are REPUK so damn dumb, birth defects! REPUKs must have grew up in a low TAX state where education was privatized and medical access was limited.

            My condolences. You sound like a victim of government-run public education. :)

    • Dip Stick says:

      Funny how places like Kansas City can have those GIGABIT “European” speeds and at lower costs when someone other than the usual ISP thieves are serving them.

      If you’re in the U.S.A. you really have no idea how good it COULD be since you’ve NEVER HAD IT!

      It might also be interesting to see JCD chime in here (since it is his blog and all) to maybe re-post his rant about “dark fiber”.

  8. tcc3 says:

    I’m really enjoying all the apologist corporate bootlickers on this post.

    “Shut up plebes! Who cares if youre being overcharged for poor service? Thats how it is. Complaining is communism!”

    • Guyver says:

      “Who cares if youre being overcharged for poor service? Thats how it is. Complaining is communism!”

      No one forces you to pay for substandard service. You have alternatives. If none of them are to your liking because you don’t live in a small socialist country, then perhaps you should re-evaluate where you call home.

      Vote with your wallet instead of whining. No one says your complaining makes you a communist… but you certainly come across as a cry baby.

      • tcc3 says:

        There is not enough market competition in this industry for people to “vote with their wallet”

        Some people only have access to one ISP (if that), based on their geographic location.

        Few people have more than one, but strangely they all cost the same, and have wildly different levels of service. “Competition” in this case is not providing better service at cheaper prices.

        • Guyver says:

          There is not enough market competition in this industry for people to “vote with their wallet”

          U-Verse
          FiOS
          Cable
          DSL
          Satellite

          Sounds enough to me.

          Some people only have access to one ISP (if that), based on their geographic location.

          And those people live out where exactly? Are they worth the time or trouble for a private company to put in an infrastructure for a handful of people living out in the boonies figuratively speaking?

          Should government tax the heck out of everyone so those few people who choose to live / stay out in the boonies to build an internet infrastructure out there?

          Few people have more than one, but strangely they all cost the same, and have wildly different levels of service.

          Sounds like they did their homework and know what some people will be willing to pay for to have Internet access.

          “Competition” in this case is not providing better service at cheaper prices.

          Probably because so many people have gotten fat and lazy off of being entertained off the Internet that they can’t “go outside and play” these days.

          • tcc3 says:

            Im glad you are happy with your selection. Clearly others are not. Because the problem doesnt affect you doesnt mean there isnt one.

            Those providers are not avaliable in all areas. Many areas have one, if that.

            Your ad hominem attack on people with a gripe against internet/tv providers does nothing to address the issue: “Competition” in this case is not providing better service at cheaper prices.

            Even accepting the idea of a “going rate” youd expect there to be some price competition. The mysteriously similar pricing is what leads people to accuse them of collusion.

          • Guyver says:

            Im glad you are happy with your selection. Clearly others are not. Because the problem doesnt affect you doesnt mean there isnt one.

            We’re talking about a luxury, not a necessity of life.

            Your ad hominem attack on people with a gripe against internet/tv providers does nothing to address the issue: “Competition” in this case is not providing better service at cheaper prices.

            My point is there are other things in life other than griping about why your ISP sucks. No one is forcing you to subscribe through them. Go out and smell the roses or something.

  9. spsffan says:

    I still can’t abide how so large a portion of the population continues to pay big dollars to cable companies. They are renound for their bad service and high prices.

    Heck, back in the 1970s, my cousin made a good living installing roof antennas for rich people with cable, just so they could get decent pictures on local television stations.

    These days, with digital broadcast TV, I get far better programming than I see on regular cable. Of course, I’m not into sports 24/7 nor do I need to see naked bodies and explicit murder scenes all day long either. Television is NOT something I’m willing to pay for.

    I refuse to loose my land line phone, as it is the only thing in my world that has continued to work flawlessly for 50 years. So, since I’m stuck with the telephone company, I use Verizon’s DSL. I think I’ve had 2 or 3 outages of less than an hour over the last 10 years.

    • Guyver says:

      I still can’t abide how so large a portion of the population continues to pay big dollars to cable companies. They are renound for their bad service and high prices.

      It’s quite possible a part of those high prices are users pre-paying for upgrades that others are whining about that they don’t have now.

      These days, with digital broadcast TV, I get far better programming than I see on regular cable.

      I get about 19 digital channels OTA… all the local affiliate broadcasters in HD. That said, I will say that standard def is atrociously bad both on cable and satellite.

      If you’ve ever watched a DVD on a very good DVD player through to your HDTV, the picture quality is actually pretty impressive… enough so that I don’t feel a real need to pay for HD. That said, it also angers me how the cable and satellite providers multiplex and over-compress SD signals in order to get people to buy into HD.

      That all said, this may be of some interest to the readers of DU:

      Intel Said to Be Nearing Media Deals for Pay-TV Service: http://tinyurl.com/d7tm8ua

  10. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Say Pedro—you caught my attention in my fast skim when you used the concept of cognitive dissonance. Then you demonstrated it by laughably saying: “The problem in the US is that the government is no longer doing it’s job of looking after the people but rather getting money from corps whilst at the same time complaining there’s not enough money thus raising taxes.” //// Maybe the cruel mistress of CONTEXT is the opposing factor here but what government/time frame/imaginary world are you hiding in that thinks:

    1. The government is getting money from corps –or–
    2. thus raising taxes?

    The truth is very much just exactly the opposite.

    Hard to be any more stupid but the LIEberTARDS haven’t shown up on this thread yet. Ha, ha.

    Yep, dogmatic chanting: “Anything I don’t like, I call Socialism.” ((No matter how conflicting the results.))

    Smooth move. Look!!!—there is some more Pedro, mixed in with the Santorum.

  11. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    I see McGuyver is taking a day off from work to favor us?

    Kinda making the Pedro Error there McGuyver. Just way to loose and conflicting and “Anything I don’t like I call communism.”

    EVERY economic system has pros and cons about it. EVERY economic system fails in its pure application.

    IN THE REAL WORLD, every country has a mix of all the economic systems. The closer to one perfection or another they get, the quicker they fail. Look at the USA today===RIGHT NOW===as we have moved closer to DARWINIAN CAPITALISM (if not Corporate Feudalism) the more rapidly we are digging our own grave.

    Amusing….. if you care more about some ideology rather than WHAT ACTUALLY WORKS.

    Pragmatism. A killer of faith.

    Try it. You might like it.

    • msbpodcast says:

      IN THE REAL WORLD, every country has a mix of all the economic systems.

      Damn, Bobbo, that’s what I’ve been claiming all along.

      The closer to one perfection or another they get, the quicker they fail. Look at the USA today===RIGHT NOW===as we have moved closer to DARWINIAN CAPITALISM (if not Corporate Feudalism) the more rapidly we are digging our own grave.

      I whole-heartedly agree.

      Cable companies have been taking advantage (and ripping you off in the process,) of the geographic monopoly they granted themselves by colluding with the FTC, the FCC, the governments of the day, and some back-room negotiating to prevent competition.

      The TelCos aren’t any better since, if it wasn’t for the cable companies offering telephone service, you sucked syphilitic cock for twenty years before you ever saw FiOS, despite the fact that you were paying for it since the 60′s.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        I know you do Mpod. As the richest person with the highest IQ on this forum, I have always admired your postings.

        I know early one I made some quibble that upset you. Rich High IQ people often don’t like being quibbled with. I love the quibble—as long as elephants are not loose.

        Wifey’s IQ is higher than yours. I am but a moron compared to you two. Pisses her off she can’t out argue me.

        There is a point in fact where money or IQ or physical dominance has a diminishing return where those farther down the scale can perform just as well at some larger task.

        Should make us all a bit more humble.

        Yea, verily.

  12. Guyver says:

    “Anything I don’t like I call communism.”

    Pretty big jump to call “classless society” as anything.

    EVERY economic system has pros and cons about it. EVERY economic system fails in its pure application.

    I never said Capitalism was perfect. However, we live in a quasi-Capitalistic state.

    Look at the USA today===RIGHT NOW===as we have moved closer to DARWINIAN CAPITALISM (if not Corporate Feudalism) the more rapidly we are digging our own grave.

    IMHO, we’re moving towards Corporatocracy due to SOME but not most corporations. Capitalism would fix this but since we’re using a quasi form, it won’t happen.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Hey McGuyver==you must really be bored?

      Pretty big jump to call “classless society” as anything. /// Ha, ha. I can only guess you think you have scored a point? Yes BY DEFINITION: every “thing” is a thing. Like communism or classless society. And its YOU who call “any” (meaning every thing that is a thing) thing YOU DON’T LIKE—communism. You missed the garbage scow out of town down the slow lazy river on that one. I’ll bet that kind of talk does confuse them at the bingo game.

      I never said Capitalism was perfect. However, we live in a quasi-Capitalistic state. /// Revealing you still start by putting Capitalism on the “perfect” scale? Yes, yes–you never said that. What a weak quibble. IN CONTEXT–you were claiming the regulation of Capitalism was Communism. I never said you rode a donkey.

      IMHO, we’re moving towards Corporatocracy due to SOME but not most corporations. Capitalism would fix this but since we’re using a quasi form, it won’t happen. /// I agree. But that is the Capitalism we have and those who call trying to remove its worst drawbacks as Communism are a big part of the reason we have precious close to the Corporatocracy you think you want to avoid. IT DOGMA Guyver. Capitalism must be regulated, well regulated, to gain its rewards. Perhaps regulations aimed at a classless information society ((who was that guy that was born and raised on an isolated sheep ranch in New Zealand–some big science/physics guy of 150 years ago)) can go too far, or not far enough————–but its not Communism.

      Go for a little more balance? A little more christian charity for your bothers who can’t afford to live in the city? You know, stop being so covetous.

      You can do it.

      • Guyver says:

        And its YOU who call “any” (meaning every thing that is a thing) thing YOU DON’T LIKE—communism.

        LOL. I’m afraid not. But you’re more than free to tell Wikipedia (a source I’ve not been fond of in the past due to bias issues) to completely remove any references of “classless society” being part of a series on communism.

        IN CONTEXT–you were claiming the regulation of Capitalism was Communism.

        From your perception. But I’m not the one who calls anything communist as you seem to believe.

        Perhaps regulations aimed at a classless information society ((who was that guy that was born and raised on an isolated sheep ranch in New Zealand–some big science/physics guy of 150 years ago)) can go too far, or not far enough————–but its not Communism.

        There’s your definition of “classless society” that you and others want to try and rationalize as being distinct from the common / academic sense. That’s your prerogative.

        Go for a little more balance? A little more christian charity for your bothers who can’t afford to live in the city? You know, stop being so covetous.

        I had no idea Agnosticism is Christian. That explains why you you’re rationalizing that classless society isn’t communism.

    • pedro says:

      I would say that the US is sailing a very dangerous path between Corporatism & Populist Socialism. I was tempted to say that the latter was just posture to conceal the former but sadly it isn’t so

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Pedro, getting all serious and stuff, but a pleasure to read has it half right and just can’t stand the truth on the other half says:
        3/30/2013 at 9:34 am

        I would say that the US is sailing a very dangerous path /// I agree. We have driven the truck off the road and rather than get back on it, we are travelling the weeds. Sadly mostly because of what you say next.

        between Corporatism /// true

        & Populist Socialism. I was tempted to say that the latter was just posture to conceal the former but sadly it isn’t so /// tickle down economics with the poor fighting for table scraps that have fallen to the floor is NOT Populist Socialism.

        Pedro–put that military/industrial mindset of yours to work and tell us this: what program in America has gone too far socialist into programs that should not exist. CONTEXT: Europe has much better programs providing much better services at a fraction of the cost. Europe pays higher taxes but gets far higher services.

        My own favorite example of Populist Socialism being a shit screen for the Pukes is the complaint of how many people are living off the government and refusing to work by the increase of those of food stamps. Ever know anyone getting by on food stamps??? Ha, ha.

        I chided the McGuyver for being covetous. In my haste, for these posting aren’t even first drafts, just rough shots as I multitask thru my day, I wanted to have said that which applies to you and most Pukes: “COVETOUS of those who have so much less than you.”

        “I’ve got mine—screw you.” What a paucity of empathy. Something threaded on here recently that such lack of humanity only exists in the bubble you build and constantly feed with your buss shit. When you have a family member that is gay, usually the bubble shrinks just a little. Then you have your Rubio’s who thank the government for providing their own Mothers with social services===WHILE THEY YANK THE COVERAGE FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

        World travel tends to shrink/pop these bubbles of isolated nonsense (kudo to the Venn). How do you maintain yours?

  13. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    The Guyver, unresponsive ever since I crossed his line says:
    3/29/2013 at 1:32 pm

    There is not enough market competition in this industry for people to “vote with their wallet”

    U-Verse // Nope
    FiOS /// Nope
    Cable /// Only Comcast
    DSL /// Not in my Zip
    Satellite /// Big Eucalytus in my way. Neighbors all around me can get a signal, but not me.
    OVER THE AIR–I get 4 of the 30 channels claimed. I do live in a “dip” beside a creek. Pros and Cons to all we do—until the water rises.

    Sounds enough to me. /// One choice in a Capitol City? But the point is even with 5-6-7 choices, in an oligopoly, no real choice exists. Aren’t all the services you list basically the same? All the same channels, different tiers to force you to pay for channels you don’t want to get those you do? WHERE IS A REAL ALTERNATIVE????–like pure on demand or ala carte selection.

    Some people only have access to one ISP (if that), based on their geographic location.

    And those people live out where exactly? Are they worth the time or trouble for a private company to put in an infrastructure for a handful of people living out in the boonies figuratively speaking? /// 20 Miles from Capitol City. The suburbs. I think most people here do have 5 major choices==but all the same.

    Should government tax the heck out of everyone so those few people who choose to live / stay out in the boonies to build an internet infrastructure out there? /// I basically agree. Lets not build a classless society where densities below OUTRAGEOUS PROFIT cannot be extracted. I didn’t complain when they cut Broadband….then mail service…then emt….and so forth down the line. But yes–with DSL and satelite I could see giving Cable a break===if they weren’t raping bastards otherwise.

    Few people have more than one, but strangely they all cost the same, and have wildly different levels of service.

    Sounds like they did their homework and know what some people will be willing to pay for to have Internet access. //// Ha, ha. Complaining about the vagaries of the Communist Economic System and you congratulate the workings of an oligopoly? TELL ME IT AIN’T SO!!!!!!!

    “Competition” in this case is not providing better service at cheaper prices.

    Probably because so many people have gotten fat and lazy off of being entertained off the Internet that they can’t “go outside and play” these days. /// Complete non-sequiter.

    Gee McGuyver. I’d stick with religion too.

    • Guyver says:

      There is not enough market competition in this industry for people to “vote with their wallet”

      This isn’t a life and death matter. Quit whining or suck it up. This isn’t a necessity.

      But the point is even with 5-6-7 choices, in an oligopoly, no real choice exists. Aren’t all the services you list basically the same? All the same channels, different tiers to force you to pay for channels you don’t want to get those you do? WHERE IS A REAL ALTERNATIVE????–like pure on demand or ala carte selection.

      Then don’t get anything. I personally am on OTA because I did not like being coerced into channel bundling or how I had to get an “ultra” tier package just for a single channel I preferred.

      I basically agree. Lets not build a classless society where densities below OUTRAGEOUS PROFIT cannot be extracted.

      Then don’t be a willing participant. If less people kept buying their services at their “ridiculous” prices, then they would be forced to have less “outrageous” profits to stay profitable.

      Ha, ha. Complaining about the vagaries of the Communist Economic System and you congratulate the workings of an oligopoly? TELL ME IT AIN’T SO!!!!!!!

      I’m merely pointing out they get away with it because people somehow “can’t live without it”.

      You can vote with your wallet (unless you put these service on such a high pedestal that by not having it will kill you).

  14. The0ne says:

    funny and true.

    I can already see tons of you dipshts going at it and crossing to religion and stupid, moronic, useless subjects to justify your inadequacies (yea, mine’s bigger than yours hehe).

  15. deegee says:

    If you ‘Mercans think you have it bad, come on up to Canada.

    Our government (in other words: the taxpayers) gives $millions to the telecom companies so that they can build the infrastructure to “provide better service to the large rural population”, which never comes even years later (I still have some family members on 33.6k dialup).
    Why aren’t the telecom companies paying for the infrastructure and hardware themselves?

    And on top of the people paying for the infrastructure and hardware, then each subscriber gets to pay $60+/month (including taxes and fees) for 6mbps ADSL and 100GB data cap.

    • msbpodcast says:

      I know. The ex-wife lives near Wakefield, PQ, a half hour commute from Ottawa.

      She loves her work, for the Federal gummint, because she gets multiple T1 switches to deliver up her web searches.

      At home, she’s on dial-up and that sucks.

  16. MikeN says:

    Better to live in the UK, where you have to pay money to the BBC every year, just for owning a TV. Doesn’t matter if you have cable, just the privilege of owning the TV means you must pay up. They have roving vans to find you.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      and yet you can download all their shows to your computer legally because you already paid for them.

      Pros and Cons.

      • pedro says:

        Parsing a liberul’s intellectual dishonesty:

        Everybody with a “Tele” has to pay.
        Not everyone with a “Tele” wants to download BBC

        Typical liberul hypocrisy: pro for some, con for all.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

          Pedro, I get your point but Pros for some makes cons for all impossible. So it is ALWAYS balancing and decided who benefits. Nice when it can be rationally decided and not on mathematical absurdities.

          You should do better.

  17. CrankyGeeksFan says:

    Will cellular data plans ever be competitive?

    What about Broadband Over Powerline (BPL) as a way to get internet? There were some trials a few years ago, but I haven’t heard anything lately.

    DSL is disappearing in my neighborhood and throughout the U.S.A. The local phone companies aren’t required to share their customer lines so that independent ISPs can use DSL. It’s been that way since cable companies won the Brand X decision in 2005 in the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that the cable companies didn’t have to share.

    I am in a major Verizon FiOS area, and will probably get that in the future. Verizon wants to pull out all of its copper phone lines.

    Verizon also stated that it will not expand its FiOS areas beyond the regions that FiOS is currently in. That plus the fact that DSL won’t work over 18,000 feet of wire – and then at barely 1Mbps – hurts rural consumers even more.

    There are supposed to be changes in the next few years to the Universal Service Fund which was always supposed to help poor and rural areas.

  18. Glenn E. says:

    These guys are a new contender for replacing the ones who use to do the political JibJab videos (but quit when Obama got elected). And remind me a bit of the guys who did the Microsoft Surface promo parody video. “A Big Ass Table”. But I seriously doubt you’ll ever see this clip being shown on any Tv network. Not even very late at night, with the rude language bleeped out.

  19. McCoy Pauley says:

    Have ANY of you people EVER gotten laid?

  20. Glenn E. says:

    They should teach the meaning of words like “Oligopoly” in the primary schools. But I seriously doubt that they do. I don’t ever remember learning it, until my adult years. And “Monopoly” wasn’t anything the schools dwelt on either. They just don’t want to arm the kids with to much significant knowledge, before college. So they won’t be prepared, to avoid being screwed. And unless they’ve radically updated the schools’ curriculum in the last few decades. They also don’t teach them out to avoid many of the pitfalls of common financial transactions, like loans, mortgages, rentals, job contracts, etc. Heaven for bit they should get one up on military recruiters. eh?

    Yeah, keep the kiddies ignorant, and healthy with plenty of sports. And fill their heads with world history of wars. But don’t teach them how to balance a check book, or manage a credit card account. And by the time they can vote. They won’t understand WTF they’re even voting for. Because politics is just a popularity game in high school.

    • CrankyGeeksFan says:

      “Oligopoly” and another word “duopoly” describe many business practices from the last quarter of the 20th century to the present.

      In junior high history, I was taught monopoly, trust and holding company around the time the course covered the presidency of Theodor Roosevelt. I was never taught oligopoly and duopoly in school.