What, nobody has brought up power to wight ratios yet?

Also, if there’s some part of having a re-animated corpse power your washing machine that’s stupid, I’d love to hear it.

That’s my bad...I cross-read Jezebel and Jalopnik when I eat lunch and I occasionally use my wrong response-voice in the wrong column....

See, this is why nobody wants to hang out with you anymore.

This is the stupidest thing I’ve read all day.

Because the article said it was $70-104 of savings, but for most people it will be half that (or less).

With taxes and fees that $100 is more like $200.

This is very true up north as well...

Humm, the cost of cable in this article is extremely misleading.

Not sure how it’s across the pond, but in my country not all shows can be watched on-demand. Moreover, up until just recently, the free on-demand service of the public broadcasters will stream in glorious 360p at best with a pretty crappy bitrate, whereas recording live tv would give me an HD version that I can watch…

Looking forward to that public feedback part.

Free Market doesn’t work when cable companies have local monopolies.

As a very strongly free market person, this is a mockery of actual free market principles. The ISP business is not a free market. In many regions of the country (including my own), it is a monopoly, or at best a duopoly.

Pai also argued that by rolling back the government oversight, the competition would encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks and increase high-speed internet access across the United States.