In another life we had an ISP that had IPv6 working for years. We bought Internet transit service from [unnamed national cable company] and asked for IPv6 transit. They said they could provide us a tunnel but not native IPv6 but one day they'd get it.
We offered to consult for them [at their rates] and they declined. The problem wasn't that they COULDN'T or DIDN'T KNOW HOW... the problem was that they had no DESIRE to provide IPv6 and their resources were all being spent to a)fix up the copper plant, and b)build up the fiber plant, and c)pay executives more.
Nobody with spending power wanted to setup, provide, or fix IPv6.
If cable companies had really gained 2.7M subs and telcos really lost 600K subs then we'd have to scratch our collective heads as to where the United States, with 124M households all of a sudden found 2.1M of them to hook up to cable.
Data analysis suggests several things, but I'll save you my own analysis and suggest that the sources are lying.
No, three million people did not leave telcos and go sign up with cable last year. That's 3% of US households and that kind of a monumental shift absent aliens landing is so beyond likely it's not funny.
What, cable companies gaming the system and lying about stats to pretend there's no cord-cutting?
Congratulations on making Let Col[sic] in whatever video game you were playing.
If you were a real Lieutenant Colonel ("Lt. Col") you'd have known this is a discussion about Walter O'Brien being a fraud, and not the TV show. Nothing on the TV show is discussed in this thread. Feel free to read the first post or the last post or anything in between. They are in English and pretty clear.
When a federal regulatory agency says they'll review something "on a case by case basis" that means they will never do that. The FCC failed the US by failing to regulate (or ask for legislation) against zero-rating.
Net neutrality is a concept... and it's either a good one or a bad one depending on who is lining your pockets. The FCC is ENTRUSTED with not having its pocket lined and in finding the greater good for the greater number.
Ajit Pai is a demagogue pandering to his lobbying masters. He does not represent anything good for the United States. Just like his orange master.
Welcome to my northern neighbor. As you point out, the House more accurately represents the voters. The Senate (as I pointed out) is *always* two Republicans. The governor (with the minor exception of the Lt Gov being promoted, good job, Janet Napolitano) is also a Republican.
About 1/3 of Arizona is Republicans, and mostly in Maricopa County. The 1/3 that is independent has its votes diminished due to the districting. That is exactly gerrymandering.
In principle, perhaps. In reality gerrymandering is so prevasive that redistricting somewhere is always on the agenda. If it's actually fair (representative of the people) then one party or another tries to change it. If it's not fair, the other party tries to change it, usually with a court's aegis.
Anecdotal example: In Arizona the Republicans have less than 1/3 of the vote but the senators are always republican, chosen by the voters of Maricopa County (Phoenix).
The United States was never meant nor designed to be a true democracy. The House and Senate and "The Grand Compromise" of the electoral college were thought out as a method to prevent hysteresis. Clearly this election has shown us that some loud mouths are too hysterical to dampen.
I'm sorry you're lacking in comprehension and wish to paint words you don't like as "buzzword bingo".
Regulation: That's when the government passes laws or regulations (see that word!) which mandate things. For example, the requirement to have health insurance is regulation. It requires the purchasing of a product without regulating its price.
De-regulation: That's when the government removes its rules. For example, the time when the FCC said not to worry about zero rating content let alone VZW's and AT&T's own content.
"If there was only some way to deal with this problem."
Perhaps if you understood the problem instead of being rude and condescending, and THEN even offered a solution, someone would listen.
But... then... you don't even have the gumption to sign your own name. The right to speak anonymously IS guaranteed, but that doesn't mean anyone has to take a coward's word to mean anything.
The esteemed congressman doesn't get it, which means the aide whose job it is to brief him didn't, and the congressman whose job it is to be informed isn't. That's not very unusual, but it is highly disenheartening and disappointing. Still, in today's pile of Republican-party senators it's not far outside the curve.
Worse yet, these are the same people who want to regulate what they don't control, de-regulate what they do-control, and have no common thematic presence as to how regulation (and de-regulation) play into closing or opening markets (or Internet provider behavior).
Net Neutrality is a good thing because it allows equal access without extra pay.
This senator is a joke... but my saying so won't get him less votes by his p.o.s. constituents (whom he doesn't "represent") voting him into office again.
I asked a TSA guy feeling me up if I could have his phone number. He called over his TSA supervisor to tell me that what I said constituted "Sexual Harassment" and I could be arrested right there for it.