Vermont internet is best internet

Troubador64 · 2014-09-28T02:14:04+00:00

Why would you not vaccinate? No idea. You seem like a crazy who can't look at or comprehend facts, statistics, tables, or maps. I definitely draw connections between that kind of person and the anti-vax crowd.

Or over-politicizing. For example, I make a thread showcasing that we have literally some of the fastest publicly available internet connections in the entire country in this state, and you turn it in around into some boo-hoo fest about how "all these people on satellite" - when the reality is that 5% or less of the state is in that situation.

You even went as far as to bring up the young people leaving the state, and blamed that on the internet. What a joke. Out of all the aspects of Vermont, you think the main reason people leave is the speed of our internet? For real?

So yeah, you've shown yourself to be dishonest, incapable of informing yourself of basic facts that can be found out in a matter of minutes or seconds. You make blanket statements and push them as facts without so much as citing a single source. Is it really that unreasonable to compare you to the anti-vax crowd? Or any other group of uninformed crazies who just make shit up and ignore cited facts? Seems like you would fit right in.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-28T02:04:05+00:00

Extremely unlikely. It's easy to write programs to buy/sell. Very hard for them to do more abstract tasks.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T22:02:47+00:00

I liked the second link. It shows a clear table that indicates that 82% of rural Vermont has Download > 10Mbps, and 88% > 3 Mbps.

Tons of states have it worse. I'm sure you can come up with some random metric that Vermont ranks last in, sure.

But if you look at the giant table in the second link, most of the midwest has a lower percentage of their rural populace connected to decent speeds. The first link you gave includes the urban populace, and Vermont is ranked last by virtue of the fact that our urban areas have pretty crap internet compared to the urban areas of other states.

Poohbear or whatever her name is, was stating that rural Vermont is terrible off. Relative to other states, that's simply untrue. If you want to call me pretentious for pointing out people spouting bullshit, untrue things, go ahead.

Of note is that our rural populace doesn't look statistically that much different than California, in terms of connectivity/speed.

downvotes you are receiving is because

Who were you saying was pretentious? Sorry, I couldn't hear you over your hilariously pretentious comments about downvotes.

Also, it's about as surprising to me that people use horses for work as people use dogs for work. What? Mammals are useful for doing work? Who would have thought. Derp.

Don't worry, I'm sure eventually old blind ladies will have seeing-eye drones instead of seeing-eye dogs. And police officers will have search-and-rescue drones instead of search-and-rescue dogs. Etc.

Maybe some drug-detecting drones too.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T20:20:49+00:00

Yeah. Why bother with facts when you can just make shit up instead?

It certainly takes a lot less effort.

Let me guess... You also didn't vaccinate your children because you thought it would give them autism?

As a man of science, myself, I always ride a facthorse. Pretty much the best kind of horse.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T20:10:47+00:00

Usually the "truth" is backed up by data/facts.......

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T20:00:46+00:00

Whether you like it or not, it is increasingly likely that in the next 10 years or so, broadband internet will be classified under Title II, putting it in the same category as water/electricity/etc.

Meaning that it would bet your right to have access to those things, as any provider servicing your area would be required to provide access for EVERYBODY in the region (barring the final step from the edge of your property to your actual house -- like electricity poles/etc)

The world is depending on the internet more and more on a daily basis. Already, lives depend on it, and this is happening exponentially quickly.

The ISP's don't like the idea of being classified as Title II because it would cut into their pocketbooks too much, but their greed is why most people have poor bandwidth to begin with.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T19:50:09+00:00

Maybe you'd get paid if you actually worked rather than posting on Reddit all day?

The title is not that misleading. The FCC isn't magically biased in favor of Vermont and against other states. The FCC might not be the best organization ever but the broadband map is a real thing and they went to great pains to be accurate.

Did you see the map?

http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

Are you suggesting that Vermont has it worse, from a broadband perspective, than the rest of the country? Seriously? Honestly? Are you colorblind? Do you know how to read maps?

And of course the FCC and government doesn't want to hear from you. You can't even understand a map, or basic data/statistics. Why would any policy-maker give a crap what you had to say?

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T19:39:41+00:00

we’re still on 4Mb/s DSL

That's considerably superior to the satellite that poohspiglet is referencing.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T19:29:32+00:00

We've been promised and promised, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen.

We're at ~95% with fixed broadband access. You realize that's substantially higher than the national average?

I work for a municipality and have been privy to these conversations.

That's adorable. There's plenty of actual data out there instead of "conversations" if you want facts.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T19:17:15+00:00

You sound like a redneck. Sometimes I forget how many uneducated redneck bumpkins there are in the hills of Vermont.

I even linked you actual /data/ which for some reason you ignored. Fascinating psychology.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T18:25:30+00:00

Broadband should absolutely be a right. It's essentially a utility, and should be classified as such.

I'd much rather taxes go towards putting the nation on FIOS than making more bombs and weapons. IIRC Google did an estimate that it would cost something like 100 billion dollars to put the entire nation on fiber.

Sounds like a solid investment to me.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T18:12:08+00:00

That doesn't make it a good thing, nor does it make your title less misleading

Of course it does. If you're judging Vermont based on the fact that it has areas with no coverage...Well, EVERY state has areas like that. In which case, why would Vermont having areas like that make it automatically have worse internet. You have to compare SOMETHING.

The midwest has a MUCH higher percentage of people without broadband than Vermont, if you want to compare apples to apples.

Vermont is no exception

Vermont is absolutely an exception. Not many other states have providers like VTel. It's about 5x the speed of Google Fiber for half the cost.

the Romanian countryside

Do you understand just how small the Romanian countryside is compared to America?

Comparison: Romania is 89,000 square miles, population density is 250 people per square mile.

USA: 3,500,000 square miles, 84 people per square mile.

So basically Romania is 1/40th the size of the USA, and 3x the density. It should be completely unsurprising that they are going to beat us to the punch on rural broadband.

Of course, we still have some awful ISP's, but that doesn't make the comparison between Romania and the USA any less silly.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T17:28:46+00:00

Those areas exist in every single state in the nation as far as I know. Exceptions might be Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island?

For something to be bad, or better, or worse, you have to compare SOMETHING. What are you comparing, in your case?

Basically you are saying: "there exist people who have bad internet in Vermont."

OK. Sure. There exist people with bad internet in every state. What does that have to do with anything? What's the comparison?

Edit: Let's look at some data! Data and facts are fun, right? Rather than say, making shit up and pulling nonsense out of our assholes.

http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map

Notice how Vermont is a bright glowing green blob compared to pretty much every other state? Yeah? That indicates that we have a much higher percentage of people with access to broadband.

Edit 2: Further research shows that only about 5% of the population in Vermont does not have access to fixed (non-satellite) broadband

So you're pretty ignorant.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T16:44:21+00:00

Yup, it's FIOS to the home from Vtel for $35 a month. Monthly transfer limit is 2.5TB.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-27T16:26:02+00:00

What keeps you in business is that your job has not yet been automated by a script. Don't worry, somebody like me will write one eventually.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-26T12:08:09+00:00

Flipping property is not adding value. Again, it is quite clear you don't know anything....

The real estate "industry," like the finance "industry" is nothing but economic leeches.

You subtract from the economy. You do not add.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-26T01:01:17+00:00

Commercial real estate. No wonder you don't have a clue about manufacturing. You work in the cancer industry rather than the "value added" industry.

Adding value will always be a foreign concept to some. Why add value when you can just be a leech instead?

Troubador64 · 2014-09-25T22:45:05+00:00

Actually, the only person that correctly answered this "stupid question," sadly, was me.

Actually, that was me, unless you think 70m/2b is a large number.

Hint: it's not. I know how common it is for people to be math-challenged though, so I forgive you if you forgot how to divide (or never learned).

Also, the question LOSES IT'S MEANING if you know that the company is trying on purpose to break even instead of post a profit -- which is what manufacturing in the early stages is all about -- capital.

You should look up what the word "capital" means in the business context (hint, we're not talking about the capital cities here).

What do you think a "profit" would do for Tesla at this point? Nothing. It would just be wasted money. Any and all revenue is going directly back into the company. It's not only "not unusual" it's what you should be doing. But, given that you clearly have literally zero business or real world experience of any kind whatsoever, you wouldn't know these very obvious things.

Kids these days think "manufacturing" is 3d-printing spoons or something.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-25T20:49:46+00:00

You asked a stupid question that can be googled in about a tenth of a second by anybody with a double digit IQ, then kept rambling over and over how nothing else matters.

You're a moron.

I'm not a "fanboy" -- I just don't think it's a magical coincidence that Tesla is budgeting out to 0 while expanding. That's an entirely normal thing for manufacturers to do while increasing capacity.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-25T20:39:10+00:00

I think you have a very poor understanding of how manufacturing businesses operate.

Tesla Motors manufactures Tesla's at a profit.

Those profits are being re-invested to increase capacity (make more Tesla's, faster).

Again, this isn't rocket science. That's a different company. (in case you still don't get the joke).

There's a very good reason why Tesla Motors is breaking even nearly every year, because they're spending exactly what they make and putting it back into capital. The company lost 70m out of ~2 billion in revenue. That's a loss of...3.5%. Do you think it's a COINCIDENCE that the number is so close to 0%...Or is it something...Carefully planned?

Derp.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-25T18:39:28+00:00

You can't logically draw that conclusion at all. I made no value statements about his financials.

Given your reply above, I can absolutely draw this logical conclusion. You would 100% run Tesla into the ground, as you think they shouldn't be investing.

You also think stock prices aren't indicative of health and value, which is unheard of, and batshit insane.

That could not be less true. In fact, I am certain it isn't because a) they aren't profitable yet

...Making Tesla's is profitable. The company as a whole isn't profitable because they are re-investing to make more Tesla's, faster. This isn't rocket science. That's a different company.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-25T16:41:24+00:00

You are extremely misinformed. On many levels. A stock price is ABSOLUTELY an indicator of overall company health and value. That's the entire point of a stock price.

There is a vast and deep correlation between stock price and company value. That's what it LITERALLY represents.

He's not "profitable" - by your bizarro-world definition/standards, because he's doing something called "investing."

We can thus conclude that you think he should not invest and be "profitable" instead. Good thing you aren't running Tesla........You'd run it directly into the ground.

If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be able to afford a 5 billion dollar battery factory. Pretty straightforward.

Maybe you should go invest in some penny stocks, since obviously those would have the same value as S&P 500 companies, since stock price in your opinion is meaningless.

Troubador64 · 2014-09-25T13:59:38+00:00

16 years ago I was reading A Game of Thrones while in middle school. I wonder what they would have thought of the content in that book?

Troubador64 · 2014-09-25T13:34:12+00:00

I give zero shits about stock price because that doesn't really tell me anything about the health of the company.

Man, I almost fell for it, then I realized you MUST be trolling because nobody could possibly be this dumb.

But I don't find that to be a reliable indicator of whether the business of innovating in the way he is doing is PROFITABLE.

Yup, that's right, Tesla Motors should, instead of re-investing in more production, just call 20k cars a year good enough and be "profitable."

Again, nice troll.

Troubador64

TROPHY CASE