said by karlmarx :

Comcast is a rip-off by any measure. Compare the 65.00 comcraptic access charges vs the 29.00 100mb full duplex charges overseas.

said by karlmarx :

Comcast rapes the customer BECAUSE THEY CAN. A corporation is not a living, breathing person. A corporation is a mindless construct of pure evil, whose sole purpose is to take from the poor, and give to the rich.

said by halfband :

Of course if the poor owned the corporation, they would become the rich through the profits of the corporation. In the US you are supposed to be able to get your slice of the pie by buying your part of the corporations in the stock market.

said by bmn :

Absolutely true. The trick of course is to borrow someone elses money to do it. That is where the investors come in.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812

said by halfband :

Absolutely true. The trick of course is to borrow someone elses money to do it. That is where the investors come in.

said by karlmarx :

A corporation is a mindless construct of pure evil, whose sole purpose is to take from the poor, and give to the rich.

said by karlmarx :

Of course the megacorps are going to lie about it. For them, the ONLY thing that matters is to provide the least amount of service, at the highest price they can charge. Look at comcast, the so called 'BMW' of internet access. Comcast is a rip-off by any measure. Compare the 65.00 comcraptic access charges vs the 29.00 100mb full duplex charges overseas. Comcast rapes the customer BECAUSE THEY CAN. A corporation is not a living, breathing person. A corporation is a mindless construct of pure evil, whose sole purpose is to take from the poor, and give to the rich. It's high time we stop listening to the lies and half-truths these bastards keep crying, and FORCE them to work for the COMMON GOOD. That's what the FCC's original mandate was, but it's been corrupted by corporate greed and malfeasance

said by xsiddalx :

Why do you believe Corporations are necessary for broadband?

said by vpoko :

Corporations exist so that lots of people can pool their resources into a business entity. Can you imagine a single person, or even a small partnership, being able to raise capital to build infrastructure? I'll be the first to say that there are lots of imperfections and abuses in our corporate system that need to be addressed, but saying we're anti-corporate while using corporations' services is like a 4-year old saying they're anti-parents.

said by xsiddalx :

Again, can you clarify what the business classification have to do with broadband deployment?

said by richardpor :

Goggle will clog the internet with videos. Instead of the internet new infrastructure will be sold to business as dedicated clutter free connection.

said by richardpor :

Any regulation the internet would crimp and investment on the internet. Goggle will clog the internet with videos.

said by richardpor :

I know what some of you all are going to say, but “Me and Goggle has all ready paid for the pipes”. This is true but only in part. You do not pay for the backbone but to move data on the pipes at a current bandwidth service, you did not pay for any improved and faster service. Like many companies you do not have a right to get a premium service for free. For example you can not expect to buy a hamburger and expect to get prime rib or buy a coach ticket and expect to get first class seat and service.

said by [user-richardpor :

]IF Net Neutrality law does pass it would open a new business opportunities for the telecoms. Any regulation the internet would crimp and investment on the internet.

Goggle will clog the internet with videos.

If anything Net Neutrality would smother the internet as Goggle will find out you can’t force private business to give you bandwidth to grow you business for free* and, private corporations will turn to faster and clutter free private dedicated connections.

said by richardpor :

I know what some of you all are going to say, but “Me and Goggle has all ready paid for the pipes”. This is true but only in part. You do not pay for the backbone but to move data on the pipes at a current bandwidth service, you did not pay for any improved and faster service. Like many companies you do not have a right to get a premium service for free. For example you can not expect to buy a hamburger and expect to get prime rib or buy a coach ticket and expect to get first class seat and service.

said by jtel :

I would think that if Google has the fiber and the traffic that they are peering not paying.

said by bmn :

Actually Google DOES pay for premium level service from backbone providers. The costs of that level of service are certainly enough for those providers to invest in infrastructure upgrades.

said by viperlmw :

Where is your evidence? Do you know exactly how Google connects to the Internet, and how much they pay who and for what? Have you seen an invoice or other itemized detail? Maybe some others here have things to learn.

BTW, your grammar isn't exactly English 101, either.

said by bmn :

Sorry, but you have examples of Google having nothing but peering agreements where ? Considering a lot of peering agreements are placed under non-disclosure agreements, how could you produce such evidence without suddenly being open to a lawsuit ? Sorry, but the assumption is that Google is paying for transport in locations where they aren't peering. Additionally, if you had an idea about the type of traffic that Google generated, mostly unidirectional, it is unlikely that they would exclusively have SFI (settlement free interconnect) or free peering agreements. They may be at some of the major exchange points and some of the smaller ISPs may have interconnected with them just to reduce their costs, but a large network that is incurring a cost from having Google peered with little return isn't going to let them enter into an SFI agreement for long. Google is paying for the bandwidth it is using.

Clearly you need to get a bit more familiar with the way the internet works.


The OP's post takes the cake for bad grammar. Perhaps you should note that you have grammar oddities of your own too. Either way, the OP's posts have always between poorly written rants.

Your tag on your Sig says "Prove it", yet you fail to do this.

You appear to be an ExMod, yet write in a very un-moderator way (I don't suppose the Ex part and your tendency towards personal attack have anything to do with each other).