Posts by Comments are attributed to your handle

Re: Kaggle

It needs to become a household name first, then it's ripe for termination.

Re: Why vote to prevent something you know isn't happening?

Both can be true

If Bob had any self awareness he'd just leave El Reg forever after this post. But unfortunately I doubt it.

Re: Please explain: why do we NEED this so-called "net neutrality" again?

Respectfully, I think online forums are a terrible place to try and have a debate.

Re: Here, have a cheese burger...

* cheeseberder

Re: Comparison

Trump had two years of Republican controlled Senate and House to get the wall done. He failed. Why oh why would he now suddenly succeed, given a flipped House? Get your head out of your ass. He has only himself to blame for not getting it done. Perhaps he should have played less golf.

Giuliani was very surprised to hear about the hack. He thought he'd taken enough precautions by always only browsing in Incognito mode.

Ah, BUTTERY MALES

Re: Government failing the populace

Bob, read your own link. Average download speeds did not double.

"RUSH: A minor correction. Internet speeds have not doubled. The numbers are these. “U.S. Internet Speed Has Gone from 12th to 6th Fastest Since the End of Net Neutrality — Since the repeal of ‘net neutrality’ took effect on June 11, the U.S. internet speed has gone from 12th to 6th fastest in the world.” In other words, average download speeds for everybody improving rapidly since we got rid of net neutrality, which is the government controlling the internet."

The jump from 12th to 6th is evidently true. But I'd like to see evidence that this was actually the product of NN being repealed. I'd also like to see evidence that speeds weren't already increasing in months/years prior. So far all this article demonstrates is Rush's (and your own) tenuous grasp on basic statistics.

But this all meaningless anyway. NN is not about raw bandwidth, it's about treating traffic differently based on content. Surely as a "tech professional" you're aware that ISPs fudge the results of speed tests anyway whereas actual traffic is not always so lucky.

On a side note, I love how he calls it a "minor correction". Jesus Christ. But this is the kind of reporting one would expect from someone who begins article titles with "Liberal ignoramuses".

Re: Pai is still damaging society

I've lost count of how many times Bob has made these fallacious arguments (which as you say ultimately rest upon the fairytale of ISP competition). Everytime someone calls him on it he cowers back into his hidey-hole, but not before collecting his 2 upvotes (one undoubtedly from Big John). And of course all the while screaming SOCIALISM. Just ignore him. It's a waste of (precious) bytes to try and engage him.

Re: The elections are supposed to be hacked

"I blame Obama."

There's a fresh point of view.

Re: Shooting the messengers much?

"messengers" - is that what you call them?

Yes, just like this "deep state" we've heard so much screeching about.

And the daily letters are: FUD

"...actual effect will be more government control"

Yes, the government will exert some control to ensure ISPs don't bend us over a barrel (in this instance at least). What's the problem? Or were you just repeating a GOP talking point without providing proof, in the hopes we wouldn't notice? Hush hush, the GUBBERMINT is not going to take away your Fox News.

"Is it now safe to allow them to take over? When did that happen?" - A defining example of "FUD"

Re: Math

'FUD. WRONG. CLUELESS. prices/costs already _DID_ that because of OBAKA-"Care".'

Last I checked, just because something already happened doesn't mean it can't happen again. Want to try your comment again with an actual explanation for why ckm5 is wrong? I am genuinely interested to hear it.

By all means then, uninstall your seat belt, air bags, roll cage, etc. and get back to us.

Re: the so-called "partisan bickering"

"...which is KNOWN to have been bought and paid for by the Democrat National Committee..."

You do realize that it was originally funded by The Washington Free Beacon, although yes the DNC did pick up the tab after WFB lost interest.

Re: Whaaat?

Just go away Big John - you're the only one here "frontloading" by dragging in good vs. evil and "PC" in an attempt to derail the conversation. All you do is attack how the viewpoints are presented, not the viewpoints themselves. You still haven't managed to give a substantive argument against NN since the last time I called out your bullshit: https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/11/21/fcc_net_neutrality/#c_3354515.

Re: Why is this a surprise?

"But I've never heard of it being done to individual users..."

You've never seen it because you choose not to look. Here you go: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

Re: outrageous

You've all got it wrong. We need to jail the people that printed the money!

Re: Xjail?

I wonder why they haven't upgraded to Waylandjail or Mirjail yet?

Re: 'Thrives on the income of ignorance'

Considering the content is prefaced with "Extracts:" I'd hardly jump to "stealing".

Big John, did you come by to add anything useful to the conversation? Or just the usual diversions? I'm betting on the second, given that you have repeatably demonstrated a tenuous grasp of net neutrality. Exhibit A: https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/3254920

Re: Belief has nothing to do with it: The fundamental difference between religion and science

"climate marketing organisations"

This is the part that kills me. People actually believe that companies that manufacture solar panels and windmills are bigger and have more influence than, say, oil companies. Are you fucking kidding me?

Re: @cirby: So much for that Russian collusion story...

Give it a few hours. Fabricating nonsense rebuttals takes time, you know!

Re: Huzzah

"why not let the providers build those extra 'lanes" with some of that profit? In other words, leave the market alone and it will accommodate all levels of custom."

In theory, this is correct reasoning. But in practice it's a complete fantasy. The obvious answer to "why not" is because there is no market. <= just one of a thousand other articles explaining the same thing. And by the way, this data comes from the FCC itself. For example: https://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers

Every NN opponent, particularly Pai, conveniently forgets about this. Look at what happened to Google Fiber. ISPs fought new deployments tooth and nail, dragging their feet over every single utility pole and lobbying to block it a hundred different ways. And what happened? Fiber, as of 2016, is no longer planning any more expansions. ISPs don't compete, they litigate. I don't know what's so hard to get about this, unless you're Pai, of course, who has a vested interest in making sure he doesn't understand.