So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Kyleran · November 2017

Vrika said:

Horusra said:

For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief. I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation. When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.

That belief isn't always true.

For example cheques: I live in Finland, with much heavier regulation on electronic money transfer than USA. I'm now 30 years old. I've only seen one cheque during my entire life. It was about 16 years ago, and at the time I was surprised that they were still in use. Back then I though cheques were something that only existed in old comics and TV shows that were made before electronic money transfer.

USA has much less regulation that Finland. It hasn't resulted innovative behavior. It has resulted in existing services being able to defend their places that much better, and much slower spread of new innovations.

My son is an assistant mgr at a local restaurant and one day his boss left him a check to pay the food service vendor in his absence.

My son (23 at the time) had to ask the delivery driver how to fill out the check as he had no idea how to do it.

(Driver probably said, "Make the check out personally to me and for $20K" is likely how the conversation went)

Sovrath · November 2017

Kyleran said:

Vrika said:

Horusra said:

For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief. I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation. When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.

That belief isn't always true.

For example cheques: I live in Finland, with much heavier regulation on electronic money transfer than USA. I'm now 30 years old. I've only seen one cheque during my entire life. It was about 16 years ago, and at the time I was surprised that they were still in use. Back then I though cheques were something that only existed in old comics and TV shows that were made before electronic money transfer.

USA has much less regulation that Finland. It hasn't resulted innovative behavior. It has resulted in existing services being able to defend their places that much better, and much slower spread of new innovations.

My son is an assistant mgr at a local restaurant and one day his boss left him a check to pay the food service vendor in his absence.

My son (23 at the time) had to ask the delivery driver how to fill out the check as he had no idea how to do it.

(Driver probably said, "Make the check out personally to me and for $20K" is likely how the conversation went)

Dude! Didn''t you get him to sign up for a checking account when he was a kid and pay a few things by check?

Hariken · November 2017

I live in a big city Yet Comcast seems the main choice to pick even though the house next door can somehow use RCN and i can't. this i don't understand.

linadragon · November 2017

RexKushman said:

linadragon said:

Net neutrality wouldn't even be a necessity in a world where we had a country full of rational, thinking, educated human beings

This is going to be off topic but too bad....You and @SedrynTyros have both used this attack in this thread and it needs to stop. This elitist, looking down your nose at those who disagree with you attitude is exactly why we got the Great Orange Buffoon as our CIC. Some people simply disagree with the role of our Government in our lives, If you cant have a discussion without resorting to petty name calling and impugning those who disagree with you as uneducated ignoramuses then maybe you should just shut the hell up.

Well maybe they wouldn't get looked down upon if they stopped the whole single issue voting rhetoric their party tends to be prone to? There are so many voters, so many politicians, and so many people living in the US that are just clueless about any subject that comes up to the point that their response is simply party rhetoric that is often so off base with reality. Democrats may not be better in every aspect at all, but at least they try and help the people in some manner.

You are the type of person that needs to realize that educated voter doesn't mean they are the "hurr durr I can't read and write and do maths and blah blah blah" in fact it is your line of thinking on the uneducated term that is the offensive bit. An educated voter is someone that actually knows what is going on in politics and isn't just voting in on their party lines.

Many voters are not rational, they do not think, and they are not educated on the matters that they vote on on a regular basis. They accept the ole razzle dazzle and snake oil salesman lines. Many republican's are simply republican or simply vote republican for issues like pro life while simply ignoring all other policies put forward by a candidate. The list of single issue voters is quite large on the republican end and they tend to vote for people that are for their religion, pro life and pro lifers that will tend to say "We'll create more jobs, while lowering taxes" without actually analyzing their own parties politics.

Voters on both sides do it, but it is more common on the republican side for it to be a detrimental thing and it has been since nixon and then regan. While you may not want to hear the term people are in fact irrational, non-thinking, and uneducated quite heavily when it comes to politics (especially celebrities). I do not have an elitist attitude, nor does @SedrynTyros . The whole concept of people feeling marginalized enough to vote for Trump in the first place kind of proves the entire point of them not being rational, thinking, educated human beings.

Trump also didn't get voted in by the majority of the US as he was voted in only by the electoral; college. There has been 4 other times in history (5 if you include John Quincy Adams win over Andrew Jackson being voted on by the house of representatives when Jackson had won both the popular vote and the electoral college) where the electoral college has voted against the wishes of the majority and almost every single time it has happened we have ended up with an ineffective president.

Maybe if people being called uneducated, irrational, or non-thinking presented you know actual arguments that weren't just party rhetoric and things their party espouses to create fear among them we could actually have a proper discussion/debate with them about the matter. There is no legitimate argument against net neutrality and the only people you actually see arguing against it are quite literally those that tow the party line, those that listen easily to rhetoric, and those that are shills/work in the telecom industry.

These are not people educated on the particular matter beyond the republican party telling them "big government bad" without looking at what their own party is doing. In fact Ajit Pai is proposing forcing states to not make their own laws so he can push through his agenda without state interference which is even bigger government than Title II is. These are people that also don't grasp that concept that Title I still means the internet is regulated by the government in some fashion. I will gladly have a debate with someone, but I refuse to not call a pig a pig when it is in fact a pig simply to save the pigs feelings. If you want to have a real debate get educated on the subject at hand and actually have a proper disagreement or debate that doesn't just come down to saying "No" and then "I can't hear you lalalalalala, I don't want to listen" kind of bullshit. You aren't debating at all and are attempting to ignore any facts that come up because "OMIGARD GUBMENT IS BAD" even though the corporations are a huge reason the government is in the state it is in and those that support what Pai is doing are actually pushing for further government overreach because they are again not educated on the matter or actually thinking it through in a rational manner.

linadragon · November 2017

Avarix said:

I read a comment the other day for someone in favor of getting rid of net neutrality. They said it kills innovation and startup companies. Won't removing net neutrality do exactly that? When Netflix starts paying Comcast millions of dollars a year, so you can get top speeds using their service, it will kill a small site attempting to compete with Netflix because they can't pay that same fee to Comcast.

As a consumer it will be a choice of 'Do I go with the new guy? They have a decent selection at a cheaper price. However, with Netflix I never have to deal with buffering videos and being forced to watch it on 480p' I will pick no buffering every time.

Also, I have zero interest in internet packages like '$50 a month from Comcast will now get you unlimited Yahoo mail, Google search, Netflix, and Hulu! For an additional $50 you get unlimited Pandora, Spotify, and iTunes'

That is exactly what it does. It stops innovation because they no longer need to invest. It makes it harder for the startup to actually come in because they can't afford to "pay" like the incumbents would be able to. It creates an uneven playing field and the ISPs have been fighting against the concept of net neutrality since the mid 90's. Those saying it was never part of the internet until tom wheeler don't actually know the entire history of it at all, it was always sort of a defacto thing and it existed on the internet the entire time until some isps realized there was no legal reason they needed to go do it as there was no real legal ramifications for breaking the tenants of net neutrality. Tom only enforced something that had basically been in use for like 13 - 16 years at the point that he tried to enshrine net neutrality rules without Title II regulations.

These people seem to flat out ignore things that the ISPs have said or have done. They want to get rid of net neutrality because it'll mean they can then collect money from web services to give them a fast lane while slowing down other traffic. Again they are uneducated on the matter and they just tow their party line like good little puppets and we that are educated on the matter are the elitist liberals who don't give a shit about them or are marginalizing them simply because we point out that they are uneducated about matters or are towing their party line without thinking rationally or for themselves at all.

linadragon · November 2017

Quizzical said:

SedrynTyros said:
Because it's all crap designed to achieve a specific end. The ISPs want to make more money, that's the only thing they care about and Net Neutrality is in their way. Lucky for them, they have the "OMG GOVERNMENT IS THE EVILS" group on their side. If they had a country full of rational, thinking human beings, this horeshit we're dealing with wouldn't even be on the table and Net Neutrality would already be the law of the land.

Businesses wanting to make money is not unique to ISPs. The goal should be to structure things in such a way that the easiest way to make money is to provide a good service at a good price so that consumers want to buy it. Having competition so that customers who dislike one ISP can readily switch to another is a very important part of that. But that is a goal, not a policy, and the question of how to get there is something that reasonable people can and do disagree about.

The thing is given the current situation net neutrality and title II should be in place until we can create policy/regulation that pushes competition out in a meaningful way that it becomes unnecessary to have them. We can start with the simplistic policy of not allowing any telecom to merge with one another. We can also start enforcing contracts that the government has with companies when these companies ask for something. For instance if AT&T wants something and is given it under the stipulation that they will build out in areas where there is already competition to them and reach X amount of new homes in those areas they should be held to it or fined/have what they wanted revoked immediately and they should not get what they want until the work is largely finished.

The whole thing is we don't have a playing field were competition exists though. While it is a nice goal at the moment it is a pipe dream and you need to have things that protect the consumers while allowing government efficiency in actually enforcing some stuff. We can't opt to have anti-monopoly and antitrust lawsuits so regularly that they tie up the federal court system for a long time and even then antitrust suites usually carry both fines and regulations/guidelines for those that were sued to have to follow so we'd be right back here with the government telling these companies that they need to follow guidelines that do not break the public trust as they have been doing lately.

I agree that competition would be fantastic. Sadly there are only a few ways you could handle pushing competition. First and foremost would be LLU. Now LLU could mean that the government owns/maintains the lines or an incumbent company owns/maintains the lines, but that the government or the company need to sell use of their lines to third parties at a wholesale/reasonable rate which the government mandates. LLU would allow them to tack on their own hardware for their "own style" of internet they could deliver say FTTP, DSL, fixed wireless, cable, etc. How many countries handle an LLU situation then is setting a fixed rate "fee" that the customer is always paying back the the incumbent provider or the government so that an extra amount of money is made. In the UK for instance (not from there) if you have an ISP that is using BT's lines they may offer cheaper fees than BT, but BT is making money at a wholesale/reasonable fee for what is being used and then is getting money from the customers still in terms of a fee (it can still be cheaper).

Another method/policy would be to abolish any laws that do not allow for municipal broadband in any area of the country. This sadly has been tried before and shot down under the guise of "state rights" by the republicans and a few red states sued the FCC over it because "state rights" even though Ajit Pai is basically making policy that doesn't allow the states to make their own laws in regards to Net Neutrality (so much for state rights ehh republicans? where are you screaming state rights now?). Municipal Broadband could also end up with local LLU situations where a municipal government own the lines, but are willing to rent the lines to the incumbents for a reasonable fee. I don't understand why the incumbent isps are against this particularly in areas they don't currently serve as they would be able to rent in those areas without having to worry about spending money on their own build outs. I'm guessing because it'd be a price war in those areas to try and get the closest to the "reasonable fee" while still being profitable. They'd have to offer better services at a lower price and that just isn't happening.

The only other recourse ultimately would be a "Ma Bell" situation where the government literally breaks these telecom companies up into smaller companies as if those companies wanted to get a large foothold they'd need to expand and that would mean more competition springing up as they'd have to try and woo customers that are already with someone else. Until one of those three or so situations happens though Title II and Net Neutrality need to be kept in place.

And people again need to realize that dropping from Title II to Title I doesn't magically mean the internet isn't "controlled by the government" it still is it is just different things the isps need to follow.

linadragon · November 2017

FlyByKnight said:

RexKushman said:

linadragon said:

Net neutrality wouldn't even be a necessity in a world where we had a country full of rational, thinking, educated human beings

This is going to be off topic but too bad....You and @SedrynTyros have both used this attack in this thread and it needs to stop. This elitist, looking down your nose at those who disagree with you attitude is exactly why we got the Great Orange Buffoon as our CIC. Some people simply disagree with the role of our Government in our lives, If you cant have a discussion without resorting to petty name calling and impugning those who disagree with you as uneducated ignoramuses then maybe you should just shut the hell up.

The people who claim to have a problem with the role of government in most cases ARE misguided and in most cases uneducated though. Laws & regulation =/= big government. Big government is spending tax payer dollars on unnecessary departments, pork barrels, or nepotism. Written & agreed law is not. It's the foundation of any healthy fair society.

Small government is NOT anarchy and letting people do WTF they want ESPECIALLY as it pertains to capitalism which is the proverbial horse that will eat until it explodes (except in this case the horse kills everyone around it, gets nursed to health and eats until it explodes again).

Most of these people RP'ing as rebels fighting a tyrannical government are isolated, misguided, and ignorant. They're just playing Monday Night Football with their political ideology and incapable of taking the paint off their face and being reasonable.

"Big government big government. Mah guns. My right to get bent over by big banks and corporations. Mah freedumb. Damn you Obama"

Stop.

As a gamer and a power user of the internet, how does the rollback of Net Neutrality regulation effect you? Do you want it/Don't want it? Why?

P.S. @RexKushman my rant isn't targeting you personally, just a culmination of reading through so far.

As a gamer / power user I fear when startup game companies or smaller publishers won't be able to compete because they can't afford to pay an ISP a fast lane fee to get low latency connection to the isps users or that we have a situation where they don't have a solid amount of bandwidth because again they can't pay the fees to another isp on top of their other provider. I don't want an uneven playing field to pop up simple because some people that are uneducated and irrational about government or literally corrupt morally, ethically, financially, and politically have to have their way simply because their party goes on and on about big government and they don't bother actually looking into the policies their party wants to enact.

I'm sick of the people that vote against the american people regularly simply because they feel like the left or other parties are some liberal elites because we may refer to them as uneducated when talking about specific matters simply because they are actually uneducated about the topic. If you don't want to be called uneducated about a topic don't open your mouth/type and prove it to the world. I'm all for rational debates, but it has come to the point where trying to talk to anyone that is with the GOP or even further right about anything their party rhetoric claims is bad is like bashing my head against a brick wall.

Octagon7711 · November 2017

Hariken said:

I live in a big city Yet Comcast seems the main choice to pick even though the house next door can somehow use RCN and i can't. this i don't understand.

Major providers split up the city into zones. So one zone can be across the street from another so one provider can't provide a service on the other side of the street. That way providers don't have price wars with lower consumer prices.

X-employees go from government jobs back to their own public sector jobs all the time. It's used to protect the companies from the consumers instead of the other way around.

linadragon · November 2017

MadFrenchie said:

Quizzical said:

SedrynTyros said:
Medicare is constantly on the rise because healthcare is constantly on the rise. If you think private insurance does it more efficiently, you're out of your mind. If we had single payer, we'd be paying a lot less for health insurance as a nation. Private insurance is for profit, not for the welfare of its customers.

The fundamental problem in health care is too much insurance. People hardly ever ask, "What will this cost?" Rather, they ask, "Will my insurance cover this?", or at most "What will my co-pay be?" When people need health care but it isn't a "go to the nearest hospital right now" emergency, a large fraction of society should pay small expenses out of pocket rather than having them be covered by insurance. I understand that some people can't do that, but if you make $80k per year and a $200 doctor bill would be ruinous for you, you're probably doing something severely wrong in life. Get people to care about the cost of providing health care because they're paying those costs and the same market pressures that drive costs down in so many other industries would do so in health care, too.

The larger issue, I would argue (though I don't disagree with you here), is that most folks aren't worried about their health until they develop a condition that forces them to worry about it.

Many of these costly health conditions are completely preventable. It just requires people make time to keep themselves healthy.

And they are supposed to keep themselves healthy how exactly while working a 40 hour work week in some situations and a lot of the shit costing a lot for a doctors visit? They want to know if their insurance will cover it because it is costly. You don't have the time or luxury many times to make sure you are healthy and you know a heart attack and other shit sometimes just doesn't give a rats ass how healthy you keep your body. Cancer is something we can all get.

@Quizzical doesn't seem to understand that that doctor bill may not be 200 dollars if you don't have a co-pay or insurance. It can easily add up and a lot of preventative care will only take care of colds, flu, or things that you can catch that are actually preventable. What happens when a doctor isn't "sure" and you need a specialist and that ends up costing more. What if you need to be put under for a biopsy? That is all "preventive care". Things add up rather quickly in those situations.

It isn't too much insurance that is the issue realistically. It is that we have too many private insurance companies and not enough people paying into each one for them to not have to raise rates to be profitable. This is why single payer systems work a bit better as in those situations you have everyone (except those it'd be impossible to pay into it) paying in thus it keeps the overall prices down.

Another overall problem when we are talking about healthcare isn't "too much" insurance on the end of the patient, but rather the rather litigious nature of American Society. Malpractice insurance keeps things far higher than they should be, then we also get corrupt politicians that are involved with the healthcare industry in some way in and we get mandates like "medicare can't negotiate lower drug prices"

The market pressures that drive costs down in other industries don't really apply to healthcare either. What you are actually suggesting if anything would drive costs up at a higher rate than you may think. Let's take a minute to actually analyze this rationally from how health insurance really works mmmkay? (btw still for @Quizzical ) First off your suggestion pulls people largely "off" of insurance if they are paying out of pocket for preventive care. This leads to a situation where you have less people paying into the insurance pool for X insurance company and thus create a situation where insurance costs actually rise. You think simply removing preventative care situations would create a situation where insurance would come down, but that realistically isn't the case as the big items such a surgery and the like are still costly. Not to mention insurance would need to be there for the big issues still which are the driving factors in high insurance payouts.

Also you do need to realize that 80k in some parts of the US is more than 80k in other parts of the US. For instance I know people in California that have a house that cost about 3x as much as mine and is smaller than mine, but it is the only area where they can get work and if they earn 80k that stretches far less for them than it would for me. You also forget to factor into your "costs" the fact that while the doctors visit itself might be 200 dollars what if you need medication for anything that might be preventative care or taking care of an infection/viral cold etc? Suddenly 200 dollars goes up particularly if you are uninsured because you are paying out of pocket for that care.

linadragon · November 2017

Sovrath said:

Kyleran said:

Vrika said:

Horusra said:

For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief. I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation. When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.

That belief isn't always true.

For example cheques: I live in Finland, with much heavier regulation on electronic money transfer than USA. I'm now 30 years old. I've only seen one cheque during my entire life. It was about 16 years ago, and at the time I was surprised that they were still in use. Back then I though cheques were something that only existed in old comics and TV shows that were made before electronic money transfer.

USA has much less regulation that Finland. It hasn't resulted innovative behavior. It has resulted in existing services being able to defend their places that much better, and much slower spread of new innovations.

My son is an assistant mgr at a local restaurant and one day his boss left him a check to pay the food service vendor in his absence.

My son (23 at the time) had to ask the delivery driver how to fill out the check as he had no idea how to do it.

(Driver probably said, "Make the check out personally to me and for $20K" is likely how the conversation went)

Dude! Didn''t you get him to sign up for a checking account when he was a kid and pay a few things by check?

When I went to high school there was actually two varying classes that actually had you do different things. One class had you open a bank account and understand how that all worked for a savings account and all that and the other was a business math class. It counted as a math credit and they sadly got rid of it after I graduated because it was "too easy, though they should of made it an elective that was worth like half a math credit or some shit. The business math class taught you about APR, loans (home, car, business), how to write a cheque/balance a chequebook, and how to find the better deals with things like loans and the like based on APR and all the like. I wish these two classes were actually mandatory things at all high schools.

linadragon · November 2017

Octagon7711 said:

Hariken said:

I live in a big city Yet Comcast seems the main choice to pick even though the house next door can somehow use RCN and i can't. this i don't understand.

Major providers split up the city into zones. So one zone can be across the street from another so one provider can't provide a service on the other side of the street. That way providers don't have price wars with lower consumer prices.

X-employees go from government jobs back to their own public sector jobs all the time. It's used to protect the companies from the consumers instead of the other way around.

RCN isn't really a major provider, they operate in a few areas in the US and it's funny because they have been a PC Magazine readers choice for best ISP in the US a few times. I would be curious what big city you potentially live in @Hariken perhaps the choice is like that so they don't flat out compete or the city/state itself might of had something to do with it halting RCN where it did.

RCN isn't really shy about being in areas where they need to compete with others, but they are also not the size of comcast, verizon, AT&T, Spectrum, etc. I would write them if they have any plans to expand potentially to your end of things. I live in an area with them (Lehigh Valley) and they are quite nice to deal with. They don't go off and do any of the bs the major isps do largely and google has a minority stake in the company that owns them and another ISP. I think google's strategy might be investing in smaller ISPs like RCN and stuff until they build out further. For instance if RCN were to adopt full duplex DOCSIS 3.1 they'd have a network capable of synchronous gigabit/s that could further be expanded up to 10 gigabit/s. I think the idea though as stated is google to invest in them. It would be interesting if google did that to poke the incumbent isps a bit to spur innovation and competition in some areas and then buy those isps out and start operating them themselves otherwise I'm kind of curious why they are investing in smaller ISPs.

grimal · November 2017

Aori said:

I don't get how any reasonable person can argue against it. No idea how this reached 9 pages, scared to even go through it all.

It isn't a partisan issue, or at least shouldn't be. But the right loves to politicize everything..its the only way they can convince their voters to vote against their best interests.

MadFrenchie · November 2017

@linadragon don't disagree with most of your posts, but I work 40 hours a week and afford an hour+ each day for exercise. It is possible, but it requires we place the necessary emphasis on the activity.

However, for most insurance companies, annual checkups are free, and if you're in an HSA like I am, there can be wellness incentives that pay money into your HSA if you take certain actions to help maintain your health. That needs to be taken further, but that would put a dent in the cash being raked in by pharmaceuticals.. Pills make money, cardio doesn't. So there's a lot of apathy among not only citizens but the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry itself because such preventative focus doesn't incur the kind of charges treating someone for self-inflicted diabetes does.

YashaX · November 2017

Aori said:

I don't get how any reasonable person can argue against it. No idea how this reached 9 pages, scared to even go through it all.

They don't want it because Hillary's emails.

Kyleran · November 2017

Sovrath said:

Kyleran said:

Vrika said:

Horusra said:

For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief. I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation. When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.

That belief isn't always true.

For example cheques: I live in Finland, with much heavier regulation on electronic money transfer than USA. I'm now 30 years old. I've only seen one cheque during my entire life. It was about 16 years ago, and at the time I was surprised that they were still in use. Back then I though cheques were something that only existed in old comics and TV shows that were made before electronic money transfer.

USA has much less regulation that Finland. It hasn't resulted innovative behavior. It has resulted in existing services being able to defend their places that much better, and much slower spread of new innovations.

My son is an assistant mgr at a local restaurant and one day his boss left him a check to pay the food service vendor in his absence.

My son (23 at the time) had to ask the delivery driver how to fill out the check as he had no idea how to do it.

(Driver probably said, "Make the check out personally to me and for $20K" is likely how the conversation went)

Dude! Didn''t you get him to sign up for a checking account when he was a kid and pay a few things by check?

Funny thing that, we got him an account at 14 but they issued him a card and he declined getting any checks..

If he needed a check he just had his mother or I pay.

Another funny story, the son of a long time friend came to live with me for about a year as he was strugging with some bad decisions.

So time came for him to mail in his application to restore his drivers license so he rides his bike to the post office, with no idea how to mail a letter.

So he has his forms, but no envelope to put it in. Post office did not sell single envelopes so he goes across street to convenience store who "sells" him one envelope for a dollar, a pen to fill out the envelope for another dollar, and best of all, a postage stamp for.. wait for it, yep a dollar.

I asked him why he didn't know the post office sold single stamps and even have swell pens on a chain to fill out envelopes but he didn't know.

Yeah, I agree, they shouldn't have given him back his license ....

Octagon7711 · November 2017

This is a good video about the subject.

The Internet Is Being KILLED by the Government Soon!

linadragon · November 2017

MadFrenchie said:

@linadragon don't disagree with most of your posts, but I work 40 hours a week and afford an hour+ each day for exercise. It is possible, but it requires we place the necessary emphasis on the activity.

However, for most insurance companies, annual checkups are free, and if you're in an HSA like I am, there can be wellness incentives that pay money into your HSA if you take certain actions to help maintain your health. That needs to be taken further, but that would put a dent in the cash being raked in by pharmaceuticals.. Pills make money, cardio doesn't. So there's a lot of apathy among not only citizens but the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry itself because such preventative focus doesn't incur the kind of charges treating someone for self-inflicted diabetes does.

Eating healthier, exercising and stuff needs to be worked on For some people it is too much and a lot of the healthier foods sadly end up costing more or take time to prepare. i know a lot of working people that just don't want to cook so eat out nightly. That said not everyone's 40 hours are equal some might be more stressful and downtime could be far more important to them.

Also you never know what might pop up health wise in your life. My mother doesn't eat a lot of sweets or the like and yet she is pre-diabetic so.... Life is full of random potentials.

Renoaku · November 2017

Yeah I am against censorship and the Internet being taken over by our Government and ISP, if something bad happens to expect "ANARCHY" & New World Order it's coming, and the rise of crime will be very bad.

Image: http://cdn2.alphr.com/sites/alphr/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/2017/07/net_neutrality_reddit.png?itok=2sYv7l-W

Hariken · November 2017

linadragon said:

Octagon7711 said:

Hariken said:

I live in a big city Yet Comcast seems the main choice to pick even though the house next door can somehow use RCN and i can't. this i don't understand.

Major providers split up the city into zones. So one zone can be across the street from another so one provider can't provide a service on the other side of the street. That way providers don't have price wars with lower consumer prices.

X-employees go from government jobs back to their own public sector jobs all the time. It's used to protect the companies from the consumers instead of the other way around.

RCN isn't really a major provider, they operate in a few areas in the US and it's funny because they have been a PC Magazine readers choice for best ISP in the US a few times. I would be curious what big city you potentially live in @Hariken perhaps the choice is like that so they don't flat out compete or the city/state itself might of had something to do with it halting RCN where it did.

RCN isn't really shy about being in areas where they need to compete with others, but they are also not the size of comcast, verizon, AT&T, Spectrum, etc. I would write them if they have any plans to expand potentially to your end of things. I live in an area with them (Lehigh Valley) and they are quite nice to deal with. They don't go off and do any of the bs the major isps do largely and google has a minority stake in the company that owns them and another ISP. I think google's strategy might be investing in smaller ISPs like RCN and stuff until they build out further. For instance if RCN were to adopt full duplex DOCSIS 3.1 they'd have a network capable of synchronous gigabit/s that could further be expanded up to 10 gigabit/s. I think the idea though as stated is google to invest in them. It would be interesting if google did that to poke the incumbent isps a bit to spur innovation and competition in some areas and then buy those isps out and start operating them themselves otherwise I'm kind of curious why they are investing in smaller ISPs.

The city i live in is Boston. And i used to have RCN internet and basic cable. It was 40 bucks cheaper then what i get from Comcast for the same thing. And from what i hear now they offer better deals too. The crazy part is i moved to less than 2 miles away and only can get Comcast.

Asm0deus · November 2017

Hariken said:

linadragon said:

Octagon7711 said:

Hariken said:

I live in a big city Yet Comcast seems the main choice to pick even though the house next door can somehow use RCN and i can't. this i don't understand.

Major providers split up the city into zones. So one zone can be across the street from another so one provider can't provide a service on the other side of the street. That way providers don't have price wars with lower consumer prices.

X-employees go from government jobs back to their own public sector jobs all the time. It's used to protect the companies from the consumers instead of the other way around.

RCN isn't really a major provider, they operate in a few areas in the US and it's funny because they have been a PC Magazine readers choice for best ISP in the US a few times. I would be curious what big city you potentially live in @Hariken perhaps the choice is like that so they don't flat out compete or the city/state itself might of had something to do with it halting RCN where it did.

RCN isn't really shy about being in areas where they need to compete with others, but they are also not the size of comcast, verizon, AT&T, Spectrum, etc. I would write them if they have any plans to expand potentially to your end of things. I live in an area with them (Lehigh Valley) and they are quite nice to deal with. They don't go off and do any of the bs the major isps do largely and google has a minority stake in the company that owns them and another ISP. I think google's strategy might be investing in smaller ISPs like RCN and stuff until they build out further. For instance if RCN were to adopt full duplex DOCSIS 3.1 they'd have a network capable of synchronous gigabit/s that could further be expanded up to 10 gigabit/s. I think the idea though as stated is google to invest in them. It would be interesting if google did that to poke the incumbent isps a bit to spur innovation and competition in some areas and then buy those isps out and start operating them themselves otherwise I'm kind of curious why they are investing in smaller ISPs.

The city i live in is Boston. And i used to have RCN internet and basic cable. It was 40 bucks cheaper then what i get from Comcast for the same thing. And from what i hear now they offer better deals too. The crazy part is i moved to less than 2 miles away and only can get Comcast.

As long as this kind of thing is why it is so very very wrong to remove NN.

I will say it again this is how it USED to be in Canada and it was pretty awful how we were getting gouged with no recourse to vote with our wallets till the CRTC forced what I am told is LLU in your neck of the woods.

Octagon7711 · November 2017

Hariken said:

linadragon said:

Octagon7711 said:

Hariken said:

I live in a big city Yet Comcast seems the main choice to pick even though the house next door can somehow use RCN and i can't. this i don't understand.

Major providers split up the city into zones. So one zone can be across the street from another so one provider can't provide a service on the other side of the street. That way providers don't have price wars with lower consumer prices.

X-employees go from government jobs back to their own public sector jobs all the time. It's used to protect the companies from the consumers instead of the other way around.

RCN isn't really a major provider, they operate in a few areas in the US and it's funny because they have been a PC Magazine readers choice for best ISP in the US a few times. I would be curious what big city you potentially live in @Hariken perhaps the choice is like that so they don't flat out compete or the city/state itself might of had something to do with it halting RCN where it did.

RCN isn't really shy about being in areas where they need to compete with others, but they are also not the size of comcast, verizon, AT&T, Spectrum, etc. I would write them if they have any plans to expand potentially to your end of things. I live in an area with them (Lehigh Valley) and they are quite nice to deal with. They don't go off and do any of the bs the major isps do largely and google has a minority stake in the company that owns them and another ISP. I think google's strategy might be investing in smaller ISPs like RCN and stuff until they build out further. For instance if RCN were to adopt full duplex DOCSIS 3.1 they'd have a network capable of synchronous gigabit/s that could further be expanded up to 10 gigabit/s. I think the idea though as stated is google to invest in them. It would be interesting if google did that to poke the incumbent isps a bit to spur innovation and competition in some areas and then buy those isps out and start operating them themselves otherwise I'm kind of curious why they are investing in smaller ISPs.

The city i live in is Boston. And i used to have RCN internet and basic cable. It was 40 bucks cheaper then what i get from Comcast for the same thing. And from what i hear now they offer better deals too. The crazy part is i moved to less than 2 miles away and only can get Comcast.

I have a friend who only has Comcast and her neighbors across the street only get RCN. My next move will have to be to a location that has Google Fiber.

Internet companies see one thing, profits and they will take down anything that interferes with making more money. The guy leading the way worked for Verizon? When he's done at the FCC he will probably go right back to Verizon with a nice promotion for a job well done. Conflict of interest anyone?

MadFrenchie · November 2017

linadragon said:

MadFrenchie said:

@linadragon don't disagree with most of your posts, but I work 40 hours a week and afford an hour+ each day for exercise. It is possible, but it requires we place the necessary emphasis on the activity.

However, for most insurance companies, annual checkups are free, and if you're in an HSA like I am, there can be wellness incentives that pay money into your HSA if you take certain actions to help maintain your health. That needs to be taken further, but that would put a dent in the cash being raked in by pharmaceuticals.. Pills make money, cardio doesn't. So there's a lot of apathy among not only citizens but the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry itself because such preventative focus doesn't incur the kind of charges treating someone for self-inflicted diabetes does.

Eating healthier, exercising and stuff needs to be worked on For some people it is too much and a lot of the healthier foods sadly end up costing more or take time to prepare. i know a lot of working people that just don't want to cook so eat out nightly. That said not everyone's 40 hours are equal some might be more stressful and downtime could be far more important to them.

Also you never know what might pop up health wise in your life. My mother doesn't eat a lot of sweets or the like and yet she is pre-diabetic so.... Life is full of random potentials.

I don't disagree there- health foods are extra pricey. And yes, things can happen anyways, but insurance is a game of averages, so bringing down the average helps everyone.

And again, this kind of shift in focus would have to be supported by the healthcare industry at large... While most individual doctors I've met truly want you to be healthy, pharma and company would rather you not worry about anything until you have an illness and then need to purchase treatments and medicine from them.

YashaX · November 2017

SedrynTyros said:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

You guys in the US are fucked, my heart goes out to you.

Renoaku · November 2017

I strongly believe internet should remain free, I was just talking IRL to random people and we were discussing news, politics, and war, or better said taxes and the average people paying over 3,000 USD a year just in taxes paying 3 different taxes, including School Taxes even if you don't have children, or make any modifications to your property how the tax is insane such as putting in a new DriveWay as an American you have to pay for all this.

Sure here in America generally speaking it's better more civilized, but we are still slaves to the system Net Neutrality is just another step to total anarchy, new world order as right now Americans where they realise it or not at least IMO we're all slaves to the system, and you either pay your Tax, spend Extra Money for entertainment assuming you can afford it, you end up on the streets, and if lucky you get to apply for housing, and food stamp while you are Forced into going to a work force trying to find a job assuming the worst of worst happens to someone.

The internet needs to remain a free place the way it is today free information, freedom to watch Netflix, or other services without having to pay ISP's or Government additional fees, imagine trying to login to World OF Warcraft, or your favorite game one day and it tells you that you have to pay your ISP $5 to access World OF Warcraft, in addition to your subscription fee, sure a lot of people would likely just do it again giving into the so called American Dream which I believe is all a big joke, but $5 a month while this isn't a lot whhen its just one person imagine if every World OF Warcraft player here in the U.S had to pay $5 a month to access the game.

Totally Insane, and it's just such a disgrace in my eyes to see things like Net Neutrality...

And this isn't the worst of it, over 8 Million Americans could be out of jobs by 2030 due to Robotics, and Computer Advancement it's already been happening for quite some time now, and I love technology, but then where 8 million people have a hard time finding work it's a big issue.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42170100

MrMelGibson · November 2017

Renoaku said:

I strongly believe internet should remain free, I was just talking IRL to random people and we were discussing news, politics, and war, or better said taxes and the average people paying over 3,000 USD a year just in taxes paying 3 different taxes, including School Taxes even if you don't have children, or make any modifications to your property how the tax is insane such as putting in a new DriveWay as an American you have to pay for all this.

Sure here in America generally speaking it's better more civilized, but we are still slaves to the system Net Neutrality is just another step to total anarchy, new world order as right now Americans where they realise it or not at least IMO we're all slaves to the system, and you either pay your Tax, spend Extra Money for entertainment assuming you can afford it, you end up on the streets, and if lucky you get to apply for housing, and food stamp while you are Forced into going to a work force trying to find a job assuming the worst of worst happens to someone.

The internet needs to remain a free place the way it is today free information, freedom to watch Netflix, or other services without having to pay ISP's or Government additional fees, imagine trying to login to World OF Warcraft, or your favorite game one day and it tells you that you have to pay your ISP $5 to access World OF Warcraft, in addition to your subscription fee, sure a lot of people would likely just do it again giving into the so called American Dream which I believe is all a big joke, but $5 a month while this isn't a lot whhen its just one person imagine if every World OF Warcraft player here in the U.S had to pay $5 a month to access the game.

Totally Insane, and it's just such a disgrace in my eyes to see things like Net Neutrality...

And this isn't the worst of it, over 8 Million Americans could be out of jobs by 2030 due to Robotics, and Computer Advancement it's already been happening for quite some time now, and I love technology, but then where 8 million people have a hard time finding work it's a big issue.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42170100

I'm pretty sure you don't understand what net neutrality is. That's obvious by your posts. You're all over the place. Maybe you need to go read up on what it actually is. Because you've proved to us you're clueless.

Howdy, Stranger!

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Stop.

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

The Internet Is Being KILLED by the Government Soon!

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Stop.

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

The Internet Is Being KILLED by the Government Soon!

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey