|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 27 2015 13:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 13:08 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 12:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. + Show Spoiler +I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price. Why are you addressing this to me? I never took the position that our internet is the best / cheapest or that regulatory changes can absolutely not improve the situation or that municipalities were a pox on free market virtue. But yeah, since you brought it up there is more to pricing than 'evil corporations' and whatever other mindless ideology you feel like shitting out today. Mindless ideology is just rampant in this thread. Jonny's head remains clear: maximize shareholder value. Pricing is complicated. Crawl back under your bridge. You clearly have nothing to add beyond bullshit and baseless accusations. Pot meet kettle.
Some people can dish it out but they can't take it.
|
I like troll posts (even those thrown at me) as long as there's a sense of humor in them. Before making such a post, just ask yourself "What would sam!zdat do?"
|
I make one-liners in response to idiotic posts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/17/how-chattanooga-beat-google-fiber-by-half-a-decade/
So EPB became an ISP. Now it operates some 8,000 miles of fiber for 56,000 commercial and residential Internet customers. With today's rollout, gigabit service will cost $70 a month, down from $300 a month just last year. The system has gotten consistently strong ratings on DSLReports, the Internet's venerable hub for comparing broadband services.
"What that gives us today is the ability to put 10 gigabits per second in any home or business in our service territory," says Harold DePriest, EPB's CEO. "That could be a manufacturer or office building, or it could be a trailer in a small lot on the back side of Soddy Mountain."
The facts are jonny that we could have everyone in the United States getting gigabit service for maybe $100B. Given that the four major cable companies made more than that in one year, in addition to hundreds of millions in government subsidies for what are ostensibly infrastructure upgrades it makes you wonder why we still are paying way more than everyone else for shittier service. Perhaps that's not surprising when you run into 97% profit margins on "high-speed service."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html
You can say I'm spouting mindless ideology if you want, but the real ideological driver in this discussion is your corporate ideology in tandem with your technological ignorance.
|
Oh, I'm not dissing one-liners (so long as they are actually good and not overused) but I was saying that you don't have to respond to them as if they were serious.
That being said, my own preference is to ignore them.
I think sam was perma'd just as I really began to engage in these threads, but they still leave a mark on my memory.
|
On February 27 2015 13:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 13:08 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 12:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. + Show Spoiler +I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price. Why are you addressing this to me? I never took the position that our internet is the best / cheapest or that regulatory changes can absolutely not improve the situation or that municipalities were a pox on free market virtue. But yeah, since you brought it up there is more to pricing than 'evil corporations' and whatever other mindless ideology you feel like shitting out today. Mindless ideology is just rampant in this thread. Jonny's head remains clear: maximize shareholder value. Pricing is complicated. Crawl back under your bridge. You clearly have nothing to add beyond bullshit and baseless accusations. Pot meet kettle.
Eh? Really? I didn't steak out any ideologically driven opinions on the subject and, well, that's pretty much all you've done. Last time you tried to claim that ISP's were capitalizing routine expenses like uniform purchases (without proof) simply because the facts ran counter to your preconception. Today you came in with a big sarcastic cut against the extreme free market, pro-Comcast stance... that I never took.
Pot meet kettle? More like troll meet sunlight.
|
On February 27 2015 13:32 IgnE wrote:I make one-liners in response to idiotic posts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/17/how-chattanooga-beat-google-fiber-by-half-a-decade/Show nested quote +So EPB became an ISP. Now it operates some 8,000 miles of fiber for 56,000 commercial and residential Internet customers. With today's rollout, gigabit service will cost $70 a month, down from $300 a month just last year. The system has gotten consistently strong ratings on DSLReports, the Internet's venerable hub for comparing broadband services.
"What that gives us today is the ability to put 10 gigabits per second in any home or business in our service territory," says Harold DePriest, EPB's CEO. "That could be a manufacturer or office building, or it could be a trailer in a small lot on the back side of Soddy Mountain." The facts are jonny that we could have everyone in the United States getting gigabit service for maybe $100B. Given that the four major cable companies made more than that in one year, in addition to hundreds of millions in government subsidies for what are ostensibly infrastructure upgrades it makes you wonder why we still are paying way more than everyone else for shittier service. Perhaps that's not surprising when you run into 97% profit margins on "high-speed service." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.htmlYou can say I'm spouting mindless ideology if you want, but the real ideological driver in this discussion is your corporate ideology in tandem with your technological ignorance.
Without defending the telecoms, because they all suck, the article you quote is grossly simplistic. The guy is clearly focused on GM% of a service and not the net margin % of the service. Business GM% can vary depending on industry. This guy grossly distorts the true costs of providing a service by focusing soley upon the direct costs of providing the service and ignoring essentially all of the SG&A that is used in providing the service.
But given that its from HuffPo, it is to be expected that the article is simplistic, inaccurate, and misleading.
|
On February 27 2015 13:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 13:17 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 13:08 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 12:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. + Show Spoiler +I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price. Why are you addressing this to me? I never took the position that our internet is the best / cheapest or that regulatory changes can absolutely not improve the situation or that municipalities were a pox on free market virtue. But yeah, since you brought it up there is more to pricing than 'evil corporations' and whatever other mindless ideology you feel like shitting out today. Mindless ideology is just rampant in this thread. Jonny's head remains clear: maximize shareholder value. Pricing is complicated. Crawl back under your bridge. You clearly have nothing to add beyond bullshit and baseless accusations. Pot meet kettle. Eh? Really? I didn't steak out any ideologically driven opinions on the subject and, well, that's pretty much all you've done. Last time you tried to claim that ISP's were capitalizing routine expenses like uniform purchases (without proof) simply because the facts ran counter to your preconception. Today you came in with a big sarcastic cut against the extreme free market, pro-Comcast stance... that I never took. Pot meet kettle? More like troll meet sunlight.
No I took a big sarcastic cut against your idiotic opinion that it's simply too expensive to provide hundred megabit or gigabit service to everyone in the United States. Is that not your position? That you believe the cable companies when they say there is "congestion" and that it's simply very expensive to provide more piping?
If you think my argument last time hinged on uniform purchases you are fucking stupid. That was a joke. But rather than explain what exactly they invested in, you dodged the issue. Let me reiterate it: a line that reads, "investments" that is not itemized and has no further explication does not mean anything, since practically everything counts as an investment if you deem it so.
The entire business model is, and has been, built on a scarcity model, where cable companies charged different rates for different kinds of data because they could, irregardless of the fact that a bit is a bit. It does not matter what the bit is or who it is being sent to or whether it's video or internet or voice. The mere fact that cable companies have the gumption to say that they don't feel there is any demand for faster service proves the scam. They don't think there is any demand until google fiber moves in, and suddenly the speeds are doubled for free.
@ hannahbelle
So fucking what. I know that cable companies aren't actually collecting 97% profit margins on everything. Knock it down to 70% and it's still disgusting. The mere fact that you can make it look like 97% is the problem.
|
As for this current debate, not even I would venture to defend the current crop of American ISPs. They're all a bunch of monopolistic, price-gouging, assholes.The fact that backwaters like Slovakia get better internet service than we do says all you need to know.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 27 2015 12:58 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 02:11 oneofthem wrote:On February 27 2015 01:46 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 01:42 oneofthem wrote:
hannahbelle where did you go to school MBA from the Kelley School of Business in Indiana. Not that I am sure it is relevant to the discussion... read up one post from mine, see where you talked about the guy's public education reasoning skills. looks like your nonpublic education didn't get you enough skills to score a decent gmat kek. Really, you are stooping this low? I would have thought better of you, but then I realized, you're just ignorant. Probably socio-economically disadvantaged, so you really can't be held responsible for your own stupidity. When I was checking on grad schools, my GMAT was the median of those at the Harvard School of Business. I just didn't have the money or desire to uproot my family and move them 1000 miles to go to school. As well as trying to find another job to support my family in a new area while going to school. It was just as easy to go to the top-10 rated MBA program that was a half hour from my house. But I'm sure you in your infinite knowledge of business grad schools already knew how these programs stack up. kek
never seen IU ranked in t10 bro. there's a couple of t10's near you but IU isn't it, but iti s strong regionally so w/e. point is not about you really, but looking at the type of reasoning you are throwing out here you shouldnt be dissing other people's education. just saying
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 27 2015 13:11 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 03:58 hunts wrote:On February 27 2015 03:53 farvacola wrote:
The ISPs lost! That's all that counts in my opinion lol. What I read so far makes it sound like a good thing, then I read a bunch of republicans talking about how its the end of the world so was wondering if someone here could explain it better. I have to go to class now though, and then work, so I won't really get to find out until later today  Bottom line is that your internet is now going to be everything you hate about your cable service. Now that ISPs will have a monopoly in your area, your fees will go up, your customer service will go down, and innovation will plummet. All in the name of protecting ISPs ability to fund "infrastructure upgrades". Do yourself a favor and actually read some of the briefs being published by groups not funded by George Soros and you will see how atrocious this "net neutrality" regulation actually is.
they will probably be regulated more like utilities and thus not be able to charge a lot more.
|
On February 27 2015 13:32 IgnE wrote:I make one-liners in response to idiotic posts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/17/how-chattanooga-beat-google-fiber-by-half-a-decade/Show nested quote +So EPB became an ISP. Now it operates some 8,000 miles of fiber for 56,000 commercial and residential Internet customers. With today's rollout, gigabit service will cost $70 a month, down from $300 a month just last year. The system has gotten consistently strong ratings on DSLReports, the Internet's venerable hub for comparing broadband services.
"What that gives us today is the ability to put 10 gigabits per second in any home or business in our service territory," says Harold DePriest, EPB's CEO. "That could be a manufacturer or office building, or it could be a trailer in a small lot on the back side of Soddy Mountain." The facts are jonny that we could have everyone in the United States getting gigabit service for maybe $100B. Given that the four major cable companies made more than that in one year, in addition to hundreds of millions in government subsidies for what are ostensibly infrastructure upgrades it makes you wonder why we still are paying way more than everyone else for shittier service. Perhaps that's not surprising when you run into 97% profit margins on "high-speed service." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.htmlYou can say I'm spouting mindless ideology if you want, but the real ideological driver in this discussion is your corporate ideology in tandem with your technological ignorance.
I'm calling bullshit on this.
Chattanooga spent $330 million on the project. For a population of ~173K that's ~$1904 per person. Extrapolating to the rest of the US, which may be generous, you get a total project cost of $628 billion, which is quite a bit more than your $100 billion figure.
I don't have figures for Cox (they're private), but a quick look up of Verizon, TWC, Charter and Comcast yields $14B in combined earnings last year. That's an order of magnitude less what you claimed and includes earnings from the entire companies (not just internet divisions).
Also, the 97% profit margin figure is garbage. Cost of revenue is not all the costs. He's trying to trick people like you who know nothing about accounting / finance. For one thing, one of the big costs is the capital cost of building everything. Yet that cost is not included. Not to mention that the guy seems to be doing a lot of funny math (poor assumptions) to get to that figure in the first place.
Edit: If you think my argument last time hinged on uniform purchases you are fucking stupid. That was a joke. But rather than explain what exactly they invested in, you dodged the issue. Let me reiterate it: a line that reads, "investments" that is not itemized and has no further explication does not mean anything, since practically everything counts as an investment if you deem it so.
There is such a thing as accounting standards. Cap ex is for long term equipment and property. You're welcome to look through their annual reports and find a better answer.
|
On February 27 2015 14:04 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 12:58 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 02:11 oneofthem wrote:On February 27 2015 01:46 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 01:42 oneofthem wrote:
hannahbelle where did you go to school MBA from the Kelley School of Business in Indiana. Not that I am sure it is relevant to the discussion... read up one post from mine, see where you talked about the guy's public education reasoning skills. looks like your nonpublic education didn't get you enough skills to score a decent gmat kek. Really, you are stooping this low? I would have thought better of you, but then I realized, you're just ignorant. Probably socio-economically disadvantaged, so you really can't be held responsible for your own stupidity. When I was checking on grad schools, my GMAT was the median of those at the Harvard School of Business. I just didn't have the money or desire to uproot my family and move them 1000 miles to go to school. As well as trying to find another job to support my family in a new area while going to school. It was just as easy to go to the top-10 rated MBA program that was a half hour from my house. But I'm sure you in your infinite knowledge of business grad schools already knew how these programs stack up. kek never seen IU ranked in t10 bro. there's a couple of t10's near you but IU isn't it, but iti s strong regionally so w/e. point is not about you really, but looking at the type of reasoning you are throwing out here you shouldnt be dissing other people's education. just saying
Kelley School Rankings
Research is hard I guess. My reasoning is fine. It goes beyond rehashing dishonest talking points from prominent liberal hacks, which is all you are capable of doing. bro.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
obviously misleading article but the takeaway is that when you have the proper infrastructure in place, bandwidth is actually quite cheap. so it is at least theoretically possible to operate a high speed network that also charges less, like the case in other places.
the high cost of infrastructure may not be the fault of the companies and we'll have to look at a breakdown of their building cost to see why.
|
On February 27 2015 13:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 13:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 13:17 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 13:08 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 12:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. + Show Spoiler +I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price. Why are you addressing this to me? I never took the position that our internet is the best / cheapest or that regulatory changes can absolutely not improve the situation or that municipalities were a pox on free market virtue. But yeah, since you brought it up there is more to pricing than 'evil corporations' and whatever other mindless ideology you feel like shitting out today. Mindless ideology is just rampant in this thread. Jonny's head remains clear: maximize shareholder value. Pricing is complicated. Crawl back under your bridge. You clearly have nothing to add beyond bullshit and baseless accusations. Pot meet kettle. Eh? Really? I didn't steak out any ideologically driven opinions on the subject and, well, that's pretty much all you've done. Last time you tried to claim that ISP's were capitalizing routine expenses like uniform purchases (without proof) simply because the facts ran counter to your preconception. Today you came in with a big sarcastic cut against the extreme free market, pro-Comcast stance... that I never took. Pot meet kettle? More like troll meet sunlight. No I took a big sarcastic cut against your idiotic opinion that it's simply too expensive to provide hundred megabit or gigabit service to everyone in the United States. Is that not your position? That you believe the cable companies when they say there is "congestion" and that it's simply very expensive to provide more piping? If you think my argument last time hinged on uniform purchases you are fucking stupid. That was a joke. But rather than explain what exactly they invested in, you dodged the issue. Let me reiterate it: a line that reads, "investments" that is not itemized and has no further explication does not mean anything, since practically everything counts as an investment if you deem it so. The entire business model is, and has been, built on a scarcity model, where cable companies charged different rates for different kinds of data because they could, irregardless of the fact that a bit is a bit. It does not matter what the bit is or who it is being sent to or whether it's video or internet or voice. The mere fact that cable companies have the gumption to say that they don't feel there is any demand for faster service proves the scam. They don't think there is any demand until google fiber moves in, and suddenly the speeds are doubled for free. @ hannahbelle So fucking what. I know that cable companies aren't actually collecting 97% profit margins on everything. Knock it down to 70% and it's still disgusting. The mere fact that you can make it look like 97% is the problem.
Love the high level analysis there. So you are saying that because a liberal hack blogger can't read a financial statement correctly and proceeds to disseminate his incorrect information across the web, that it is the company's responsibility to not report numbers that can be incorrectly interpreted? Wow.
Also, not everything can count as an investment. GAAP has very strict rules on what can be classified as an investment on financial statements.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 27 2015 14:24 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 14:04 oneofthem wrote:On February 27 2015 12:58 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 02:11 oneofthem wrote:On February 27 2015 01:46 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 01:42 oneofthem wrote:
hannahbelle where did you go to school MBA from the Kelley School of Business in Indiana. Not that I am sure it is relevant to the discussion... read up one post from mine, see where you talked about the guy's public education reasoning skills. looks like your nonpublic education didn't get you enough skills to score a decent gmat kek. Really, you are stooping this low? I would have thought better of you, but then I realized, you're just ignorant. Probably socio-economically disadvantaged, so you really can't be held responsible for your own stupidity. When I was checking on grad schools, my GMAT was the median of those at the Harvard School of Business. I just didn't have the money or desire to uproot my family and move them 1000 miles to go to school. As well as trying to find another job to support my family in a new area while going to school. It was just as easy to go to the top-10 rated MBA program that was a half hour from my house. But I'm sure you in your infinite knowledge of business grad schools already knew how these programs stack up. kek never seen IU ranked in t10 bro. there's a couple of t10's near you but IU isn't it, but iti s strong regionally so w/e. point is not about you really, but looking at the type of reasoning you are throwing out here you shouldnt be dissing other people's education. just saying Kelley School RankingsResearch is hard I guess. My reasoning is fine. It goes beyond rehashing dishonest talking points from prominent liberal hacks, which is all you are capable of doing. bro.
kelley is t15-20, let's not argue about this. your reasoning is pretty terrible all around though on various issues, and so is yoru base of knowledge.
|
On February 27 2015 14:27 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 14:24 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 14:04 oneofthem wrote:On February 27 2015 12:58 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 02:11 oneofthem wrote:On February 27 2015 01:46 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 01:42 oneofthem wrote:
hannahbelle where did you go to school MBA from the Kelley School of Business in Indiana. Not that I am sure it is relevant to the discussion... read up one post from mine, see where you talked about the guy's public education reasoning skills. looks like your nonpublic education didn't get you enough skills to score a decent gmat kek. Really, you are stooping this low? I would have thought better of you, but then I realized, you're just ignorant. Probably socio-economically disadvantaged, so you really can't be held responsible for your own stupidity. When I was checking on grad schools, my GMAT was the median of those at the Harvard School of Business. I just didn't have the money or desire to uproot my family and move them 1000 miles to go to school. As well as trying to find another job to support my family in a new area while going to school. It was just as easy to go to the top-10 rated MBA program that was a half hour from my house. But I'm sure you in your infinite knowledge of business grad schools already knew how these programs stack up. kek never seen IU ranked in t10 bro. there's a couple of t10's near you but IU isn't it, but iti s strong regionally so w/e. point is not about you really, but looking at the type of reasoning you are throwing out here you shouldnt be dissing other people's education. just saying Kelley School RankingsResearch is hard I guess. My reasoning is fine. It goes beyond rehashing dishonest talking points from prominent liberal hacks, which is all you are capable of doing. bro. kelley is t15-20, let's not argue about this. your reasoning is pretty terrible all around though on various issues, and so is yoru base of knowledge.
Try looking beyond the first flashy box, bro. Better yet, just stop posting. Your ignorance comes through more and more on every post.
Your knowledge doesn't extend much beyond what you were spoon fed in school, so its no surprise you can't rationalize complex thoughts.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i dont need to read that to know where IU is ranked, and it's not t10. you seem pretty agitated though. try arguing your position instead of talking about other people's education because a lot of people go to better schools than you around here.
also, if your complex real world reasoning skills lead you to be an anti-vaxxer and a variety of other comical positions, then it's not very good reasoning.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 27 2015 14:35 oneofthem wrote:
i dont need to read that to know where IU is ranked, and it's not t10. you seem pretty agitated though. try arguing your position instead of talking about other people's education because a lot of people go to better schools than you around here.
also, if your complex real world reasoning skills lead you to be an anti-vaxxer and a variety of other comical positions, then it's not very good reasoning.
Not agitated yet. I'm just getting warmed up, bro. And you obviously need to read, because you are woefully ill-informed. About a large variety of topics.
So start there, and then come back later and play in the big boy pool.
Besides, at the end of the day, it's not where you go to school, it's what you make of it.
User was warned for this post
|
http://www.netindex.com/value/
RELATIVE COST OF BROADBAND - RELATIVE COST PER MBPS - COST PER MBPS
Better comparisons, except for some reason Japan & Korea aren't in there.
|
Anyone else feel like personal squabbles detract a lot from topics being discussed? I think they have no place in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1200/1*vjBgjUy9VGEW2jfUuRDHkA.png)
