Forum

(sorry to interupt this topic, just want someone to tell me if this is good or bad cauz i have no clue actually)


http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/2907165139

could really be better ganja
it works I guess, but really not so good.

open taskManager, look if ts3 is using too much CPU;

I'm in South Florida. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/2907671719 

Yea, I think it's good as-is except for the large companies charging people out the ass to provide shit service while the infrastructure fails. Nobody really needs 100mbps connection. I do plenty fine on 4 down 1 up, even for business stuff. It would be nice to have something more. There needs to be more rural options and to do that it might be worthwhile to focus less on running fiber to the homes in large cities but rather even out the average connection speed by focusing on areas that need it most rather than where you can get the most profit.

I see your issue. I don't think government should have anything to do with the internet, they've got their own communications. Let good companies do the work but when it becomes a monopoly driven by pure profits and not by distributing widespread communications, there's a problem and maybe the government should mandate the minimum network growth rate or something. USA is falling to shit in the charts and that's depressing. But, that's what happens when you rush to build neighborhoods and don't think about future infrastructure routing. Africa and other countries like that are doing things right because this is the first time they've laid cable so they learned from our mistakes and have the advantage of using more sustainable and futureproof setups.

In Europe we spend an awful lot of public taxpayer money on fibre broadband roll out.
Not sure its a good idea myself, its not like anyone actually needs it to live. Socialised broadband LOL.

.....very social, people living under a bridge but they need fibre for Facebook.

I guess I fixed it