Interesting graphs and charts department

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Your argument is invalid.

When speeds increase, latency also diminishes. Backbone speeds must also increase (if data transporters are not permitted to destroy net neutrality). Consumers then spend same money for hardware that is also tens times faster. More myths shattered by how innovation works.

Arguments about latency are bogus. We should remain inferior to enrich the data transporters. That is the American way. Protect some industries so they need not upgrade and innovate. It took a Federal law to force data transporters to stop obstructing and subverting innovation. Then Michael Powel, et al undermined that law to enrich the data transporters. What is Michael Powel doing today? He is a well paid lobbyist for the data transporter industry that insists 20 Mb will always be good enough.

We pay more so that Comcast can buy and build multiple and tallest skyscrapers in Philadelphia, NBC, Universal Studios, Time Warner, theme parks, major league sports teams, etc. They need not provide better service. And need not provide service to so much of the country that still does not have any broadband. Why does UT say this is good? Why is cable TV that once was so profitable at $8 per month (when equipment was so expensive) now cost $50+ (despite inexpensive equipment and 'Death of Disatance')? In a competitive, innovative, and advancing America, 100 Mb would be $20 per month. But that means no duopolies that invent myths to protect their slow internet services.

This need to protect duopolies even got UT to torture his cat.