You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DanielLC comments on Update: A failed attempt at rationality testing - Less Wrong Discussion

-9 Post author: SilentCal 30 January 2015 10:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (21)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: DanielLC 30 January 2015 11:33:18PM *  0 points [-]

I noticed immediately. Still, definitions do things. It doesn't seem fair for ISPs to have to stop calling internet broadband even though it's just as good as it was last year. I feel like what they should have done is made up a new word for even faster internet. That way, the ISPs can keep calling their old speed broadband, they have a nice way of advertizing faster speeds for people who don't know about what the numbers mean, and if the politicians want to talk about faster internet, they have a word for it. I suspect there's a downside I'm missing, since they didn't do that.

The entire thing wasn't about definitions though. They were also talking about a sort of standard speed that they want to bring everyone up to. My opinion on this is that it's more expensive to bring fast internet to people that don't live in cities. You can't just call all of the benefits of living in cities rights and then expect to be able to live in the middle of nowhere and get the best of both worlds. If you really want fast internet without living in a city, pay for it yourself.

I guess I had an unfair advantage. I don't hate the ISPs. I can't get mindkilled if I don't care.

Comment author: SilentCal 30 January 2015 11:48:27PM 0 points [-]

I had the same unfair advantage, but I think to a lesser degree. I noticed quickly but not immediately, which is to say not quickly enough.

On the object level, I think there are possible legislative purposes that would justify the change (as instrumental to those purposes), but my strong suspicion is that the FCC is wrong. I fear that 'broadband' effectively means 'above baseline speed', which actually would make it reasonable to tell the ISPs to change what speed they advertise as 'broadband', but would turn the mandate to give everyone broadband into a Lake Wobegon/Kafka crossover.

Comment author: DanielLC 31 January 2015 01:40:23AM 0 points [-]

If by broadband they mean "above baseline speed", then clearly giving everyone broadband is impossible.