FCC votes to undo net neutrality protections despite public protests

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 134
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    cgWerks said:
    So people are protesting a change back to what we were using for 20 years prior to 2015. Competition in the marketplace typically gives the consumer more choice. More choice leads to lower prices. T-Mobile competes in this type of system and the consumer benefits. Basically it's going to be someone else raking in the cash with the consumer winning.
    Well, two different arguments. Net neutrality (principal) has little to do with competition, pricing, etc. It's just a principal to avoid collusion (and the impacts, which would effect pricing, I suppose, but much more dire stuff than that!) between content and distribution.

    But, in regards to competition and pricing, I'd agree except there is little to none aside from cellular in terms of Internet access.

    frank777 said:
    It's been amazing watching this debate unfold at "tech sites" like Gizmodo and Engadget. These are people who are paid to report on tech matters and none of them seems to know that in less than two years we'll have 5G mobile connections building out that are as fast as home connections, and cable ISPs will be in the fight of their lives.
    Can it really handle the quantity of data (not speed)? My impression is that cellular data is working OK right now because few are using it and for relatively minute amounts of data.

    My biggest problem with tech sites coverage, is that many of the places screaming for net neutrality aren't net neutral in their own networks.... unless we write some exceptions into the principal.

    frank777 said:
    Forbes says they're planning deployments now, and the cable guys will be at a disadvantage, since the phone guys can bundle both home and mobile over the one network infrastructure. 5G apparently widens the mobile pipes so much they can offer the 1TB caps home users are accustomed to now.
    While I admit this isn't my area of expertise, I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim.

    GeorgeBMac said:Who has a cap on home data usage over cable?  Nobody I know ...
    Well, now you do. Hi, my name is Steve, BTW. I think we currently pay between $100-115/mo for it too (just Internet access), reasonably fast in the last year or so but nothing too special (i.e.: < 100 down, 2-3 up).

    The internet is an asset of the country and just as essential to the growth and well being of this country as its roads, bridges, and electrical grid.

    To abandon it and turn total, unrestricted control of it over to crooks like Concast and Verizon who have proven that they care only about their own profits and NOTHING about the well being of the country and its citizens is somewhere between foolish and criminal.   Or, more accurately:  Those who did it are the criminals.  Those who believe it will benefit America and Americans are fools.
    Agreed. The problem is that we also have to be *very* careful not to turn it over to the crooks in government (which might actually be worse). I'm for strong enough regulation to help create a free market, but until we get some semi-honest and effective people creating that regulation, I might actually trust the companies more. They'll just bundle up stuff for economic gain, whereas government powers are more likely do nefarious things.

    rwx9901 said:
    Let the free market take care of itself and stop the armageddon nonsense.
    I agree with some of your sentiments.... except that if you know anything about economics, markets don't just magically become free. Economics is a social science... i.e.: people. And, you need regulations and laws to counteract the dark side of human nature.

    I had to laugh yesterday as I was listening to a podcast where they get on the subject of economics. One host said something like, 'socialism doesn't work because it ignores our hunter-gatherer impulses, and capitalism doesn't work because it feeds them a bit too much.' The host said something like, 'so, basically you're saying neither works because humans are involved.' Bingo!

    jbilgihan said:
    Dude.  We get it.  The tinfoil is strong with you...
    Doesn't take much tinfoil, just a bit of paying attention and a longer than year or two historical perspective.
    I might question a few points, but the general narrative is accurate.
    Sorry, the anti-government rhetoric might fly on a right wing propaganda site.  Educated people know better.
    singularity
  • Reply 82 of 134
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    jbilgihan said:
    I read everything you wrote and it is the same crap parrotted around the internet in conspiracy forums that takes everything you sourced and draws wildly conspiratorial conclusions.
    Yes, so you read none of it. Got it. US law itself is a “conspiracy theory” to you. You’re utterly worthless to this discussion.
    So - don't tell me that because I think what you wrote is absolute garbage that I don't get it.
    You objectively do not get it. You reject it offhand because it’s fact that hurts your feelings and goes against your narrative. Sit down, take the time, and PROVE that the conclusions in the statement are not true, if you claim they’re not. Prove that each point of evidence presented is inconsequential.
    Also - we don't use the term retarded in polite company anymore.
    Cry more. You have nothing to add to the actual thread discussion of “net neutrality”, so you lash out with your ad-homs and character assassinations. Run along.
    No, he rejects it because its garbage.  Reciting a laundry list of propagandist talking points doesn't make it true.
    singularity
  • Reply 83 of 134
    I am for net neutrality as a codified law in congress.  We can press our government to treat all packets equally and not prioritize based on source or destination.  

    That should be what we all want.  Those that don't want that - I question their true motivations.

    james
    GeorgeBMacjSnively
  • Reply 84 of 134
    jbilgihan said:
    I am for net neutrality as a codified law in congress.  We can press our government to treat all packets equally and not prioritize based on source or destination.  

    That should be what we all want.  Those that don't want that - I question their true motivations.

    james
    The Internet itself may be free, but access is not. Packets are served up by companies that must make a profit. They are not charities and access is not a right. The Federal government cannot "make something free", they would be unfairly and unethically shifting the costs to the greater population by raising taxes. Forcing other to provide a service or product against their will via the force of government is not how to do things. That's completely unacceptable. 
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 85 of 134
    Sorry, the anti-government rhetoric might fly on a right wing propaganda site.  Educated people know better.
    You continue to be one of my few sources of joy in the world. Did I say joy? I meant humor. They’re similar.


    No, he rejects it because its garbage.
    Prove your claim or don’t make it.
    propagandist talking points
    1. Didn’t happen.
    2. Reply with something other than buzzwords.
    3. Prove your claim or don’t make it.
    edited December 2017 cgWerksmagman1979
  • Reply 86 of 134
    jbilgihan said:
    I am for net neutrality as a codified law in congress.  We can press our government to treat all packets equally and not prioritize based on source or destination.  

    That should be what we all want.  Those that don't want that - I question their true motivations.

    james
    The Internet itself may be free, but access is not. Packets are served up by companies that must make a profit. They are not charities and access is not a right. The Federal government cannot "make something free", they would be unfairly and unethically shifting the costs to the greater population by raising taxes. Forcing other to provide a service or product against their will via the force of government is not how to do things. That's completely unacceptable. 
    LOL...   First, why are you so concerned about Comcast's profit?   Second, your concern is completely misplaced -- they are doing just fine.  In fact, they're doing so well, they're buying up extra businesses with their excess profit.  

    And anyway, why are you suggesting that  Net Neutrality means free as in 'no cost'?   Oh!  That's your strawman.
  • Reply 87 of 134



    No, he rejects it because its garbage.
    Prove your claim or don’t make it.
    propagandist talking points
    1. Didn’t happen.
    2. Reply with something other than buzzwords.
    3. Prove your claim or don’t make it.
    So you recite a laundry list of cherry picked, distorted right wing propaganda masquerading as "Facts" --  \and you want somebody to go through it and prove to you that it is nonsense.   Really?   
    ... If you want to believe that nonsense, feel free...
  • Reply 88 of 134
    a laundry list
    Only insofar as the topic of discussion is concerned. If you’re trying to claim “gish gallop” or some such, you’ll have to do better than that.
    cherry picked
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is missing from this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    distorted
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is incorrect in this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    right wing
    Truth is neither left nor right. Truth is, and it is outside human experience, emotion, or feelings. No matter how much your programming tells you otherwise, truth is objective–not subjective.
    propaganda
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. This one is particularly onerous and ironic, as the topic of discussion is the classification–by the left–of all non-leftist thought as “propaganda,” and here you are proving me right.
    …and you want somebody to go through it and prove to you that it is nonsense. Really?
    It’s… your claim. It’s up to you to prove… your claim. I quoted portions of US law. This is objective fact. I cited these statements with the actual laws in question. You claim these laws are conspiracy theories. You claim these laws are cherry picked (despite the laws relating directly to the topic of discussion). You claim the laws are distorted, despite being quoted verbatim. You claim the conclusion drawn from the laws is right-wing, despite the US Constitution being the metric against which the conclusion was drawn. I realize you marxists think that the Constitution is inherently “right-wing” these days, but relativism does not a factual ideology make.

    You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statement. That’s how discourse works. Your thought-terminating clichés don’t work on me or on anyone else sane. Saying, “Conspiracy theory!” doesn’t mean you “win”; it means you admit you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the operation of the US government or even of what a ‘conspiracy’ is. I’d tell you to look up the modern source of the phrase “conspiracy theory” (Hint: it was the CIA’s invention to discredit anyone who went against their narrative or even directly exposed it… not so much a hint as the straight up source itself), but you’re quite plainly what Yuri Bezemov would call a “useful idiot”–so far demoralized by your own propaganda that you literally, physically cannot–and will not–accept objective truth until the proverbial (literal) boot kicks down your door.

    I will repeat: You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statements and my citations. That’s how discourse works.
    cgWerksmagman1979
  • Reply 89 of 134
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    jbilgihan said:
    I am for net neutrality as a codified law in congress.  We can press our government to treat all packets equally and not prioritize based on source or destination.  
    Press our government? Have you looked at our government lately? We can't even get people to vote, let alone press anything.

    SpamSandwich said:
    The Internet itself may be free, but access is not. Packets are served up by companies that must make a profit. They are not charities and access is not a right. The Federal government cannot "make something free", they would be unfairly and unethically shifting the costs to the greater population by raising taxes. Forcing other to provide a service or product against their will via the force of government is not how to do things. That's completely unacceptable. 
    This is off-topic from net neutrality though. I hate how the idea of keeping content creation and distribution out of collaboration somehow turns into 'free internet for all' type stuff. :(

    tallest skil said:
    I realize you marxists think that the Constitution is inherently “right-wing” these days, but relativism does not a factual ideology make.

    You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statement. That’s how discourse works.
    That first statement made my evening. :)
    But, I'm not sure that's how discourse works in that dimension. I've also found that reason and logic don't operate quit the same there either (at least as far as I can tell through observation from this dimension).
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 90 of 134
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    a laundry list
    Only insofar as the topic of discussion is concerned. If you’re trying to claim “gish gallop” or some such, you’ll have to do better than that.
    cherry picked
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is missing from this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    distorted
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is incorrect in this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    right wing
    Truth is neither left nor right. Truth is, and it is outside human experience, emotion, or feelings. No matter how much your programming tells you otherwise, truth is objective–not subjective.
    propaganda
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. This one is particularly onerous and ironic, as the topic of discussion is the classification–by the left–of all non-leftist thought as “propaganda,” and here you are proving me right.
    …and you want somebody to go through it and prove to you that it is nonsense. Really?
    It’s… your claim. It’s up to you to prove… your claim. I quoted portions of US law. This is objective fact. I cited these statements with the actual laws in question. You claim these laws are conspiracy theories. You claim these laws are cherry picked (despite the laws relating directly to the topic of discussion). You claim the laws are distorted, despite being quoted verbatim. You claim the conclusion drawn from the laws is right-wing, despite the US Constitution being the metric against which the conclusion was drawn. I realize you marxists think that the Constitution is inherently “right-wing” these days, but relativism does not a factual ideology make.

    You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statement. That’s how discourse works. Your thought-terminating clichés don’t work on me or on anyone else sane. Saying, “Conspiracy theory!” doesn’t mean you “win”; it means you admit you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the operation of the US government or even of what a ‘conspiracy’ is. I’d tell you to look up the modern source of the phrase “conspiracy theory” (Hint: it was the CIA’s invention to discredit anyone who went against their narrative or even directly exposed it… not so much a hint as the straight up source itself), but you’re quite plainly what Yuri Bezemov would call a “useful idiot”–so far demoralized by your own propaganda that you literally, physically cannot–and will not–accept objective truth until the proverbial (literal) boot kicks down your door.

    I will repeat: You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statements and my citations. That’s how discourse works.
    You are living in an Alternative Right Wing Universe and spewing right wing propaganda consisting of cherry picked and distorted so called facts.   Rather than relying on others to correct your delusions, you should do some research on your own....  You might even enjoy reality.
    singularity
  • Reply 91 of 134
    a laundry list
    Only insofar as the topic of discussion is concerned. If you’re trying to claim “gish gallop” or some such, you’ll have to do better than that.
    cherry picked
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is missing from this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    distorted
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is incorrect in this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    right wing
    Truth is neither left nor right. Truth is, and it is outside human experience, emotion, or feelings. No matter how much your programming tells you otherwise, truth is objective–not subjective.
    propaganda
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. This one is particularly onerous and ironic, as the topic of discussion is the classification–by the left–of all non-leftist thought as “propaganda,” and here you are proving me right.
    …and you want somebody to go through it and prove to you that it is nonsense. Really?
    It’s… your claim. It’s up to you to prove… your claim. I quoted portions of US law. This is objective fact. I cited these statements with the actual laws in question. You claim these laws are conspiracy theories. You claim these laws are cherry picked (despite the laws relating directly to the topic of discussion). You claim the laws are distorted, despite being quoted verbatim. You claim the conclusion drawn from the laws is right-wing, despite the US Constitution being the metric against which the conclusion was drawn. I realize you marxists think that the Constitution is inherently “right-wing” these days, but relativism does not a factual ideology make.

    You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statement. That’s how discourse works. Your thought-terminating clichés don’t work on me or on anyone else sane. Saying, “Conspiracy theory!” doesn’t mean you “win”; it means you admit you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the operation of the US government or even of what a ‘conspiracy’ is. I’d tell you to look up the modern source of the phrase “conspiracy theory” (Hint: it was the CIA’s invention to discredit anyone who went against their narrative or even directly exposed it… not so much a hint as the straight up source itself), but you’re quite plainly what Yuri Bezemov would call a “useful idiot”–so far demoralized by your own propaganda that you literally, physically cannot–and will not–accept objective truth until the proverbial (literal) boot kicks down your door.

    I will repeat: You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statements and my citations. That’s how discourse works.
    You are living in an Alternative Right Wing Universe and spewing right wing propaganda consisting of cherry picked and distorted so called facts.   Rather than relying on others to correct your delusions, you should do some research on your own....  You might even enjoy reality.
    OMFG, TS made legitimate, factual points in support of his statement, and all you have is to associate it with political left/right wing views and disregard all the facts he posted based on that false assumption?

    Trump voter?
  • Reply 92 of 134
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    a laundry list
    Only insofar as the topic of discussion is concerned. If you’re trying to claim “gish gallop” or some such, you’ll have to do better than that.
    cherry picked
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is missing from this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    distorted
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is incorrect in this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    right wing
    Truth is neither left nor right. Truth is, and it is outside human experience, emotion, or feelings. No matter how much your programming tells you otherwise, truth is objective–not subjective.
    propaganda
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. This one is particularly onerous and ironic, as the topic of discussion is the classification–by the left–of all non-leftist thought as “propaganda,” and here you are proving me right.
    …and you want somebody to go through it and prove to you that it is nonsense. Really?
    It’s… your claim. It’s up to you to prove… your claim. I quoted portions of US law. This is objective fact. I cited these statements with the actual laws in question. You claim these laws are conspiracy theories. You claim these laws are cherry picked (despite the laws relating directly to the topic of discussion). You claim the laws are distorted, despite being quoted verbatim. You claim the conclusion drawn from the laws is right-wing, despite the US Constitution being the metric against which the conclusion was drawn. I realize you marxists think that the Constitution is inherently “right-wing” these days, but relativism does not a factual ideology make.

    You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statement. That’s how discourse works. Your thought-terminating clichés don’t work on me or on anyone else sane. Saying, “Conspiracy theory!” doesn’t mean you “win”; it means you admit you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the operation of the US government or even of what a ‘conspiracy’ is. I’d tell you to look up the modern source of the phrase “conspiracy theory” (Hint: it was the CIA’s invention to discredit anyone who went against their narrative or even directly exposed it… not so much a hint as the straight up source itself), but you’re quite plainly what Yuri Bezemov would call a “useful idiot”–so far demoralized by your own propaganda that you literally, physically cannot–and will not–accept objective truth until the proverbial (literal) boot kicks down your door.

    I will repeat: You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statements and my citations. That’s how discourse works.
    You are living in an Alternative Right Wing Universe and spewing right wing propaganda consisting of cherry picked and distorted so called facts.   Rather than relying on others to correct your delusions, you should do some research on your own....  You might even enjoy reality.
    OMFG, TS made legitimate, factual points in support of his statement, and all you have is to associate it with political left/right wing views and disregard all the facts he posted based on that false assumption?

    Trump voter?
    "Factual Points"?   That's hilarious!
    No, he provided a laundry list of cherry picked, distorted and unrelated "facts" compiled in order to support his right wing ideology.   But, if you choose to believe his right wing nonsense, then I guess those so called "factual points" of his will make you feel better...  For myself, I'll stick to reality...
    singularity
  • Reply 93 of 134
    You are living in an Alternative Right Wing Universe and spewing right wing propaganda consisting of cherry picked and distorted so called facts. Rather than relying on others to correct your delusions, you should do some research on your own....  You might even enjoy reality.
    Thank you for admitting that everything I said about “net neutrality” and the state of the Internet prior to its enforcement is correct and that you have absolutely no refutation to the comments made thereon.*

    What else do you expect to be told in response to that? You provided nothing. You refuted nothing. You added nothing. You did nothing. Are you nothing? Nothing except what John Oliver and Jon Leibowitz tell you to be, that is? You’re objectively wrong, as shown by the citations made. No one cares about your feelings. No one cares about your opinions. You can say “I think it was like this,” but it doesn’t make that true because you said it. You can say, “If we did such-and-such, things would become like this,” but it doesn’t make that true because you said it. You are incapable–neurologically (not physically)–of learning or presenting information that is decontextualized from your subjectivist worldview. Truth exists outside of human experiences. This data exists outside of human experiences. You apparently don’t comprehend those concepts, as you have nothing but personal attacks to levy. You attack your opponent because you are incapable of refuting his content. Because it’s true.

    *A little footnote for the literate: notice that I even left out something–something important–from that statement, simply for the sake of civil discourse. The missing point will fly right over the heads of its intendeds; let’s see if anyone else catches it.
    cgWerksmagman1979
  • Reply 94 of 134
    You are living in an Alternative Right Wing Universe and spewing right wing propaganda consisting of cherry picked and distorted so called facts. Rather than relying on others to correct your delusions, you should do some research on your own....  You might even enjoy reality.
    Thank you for admitting that everything I said about “net neutrality” and the state of the Internet prior to its enforcement is correct and that you have absolutely no refutation to the comments made thereon.*

    What else do you expect to be told in response to that? You provided nothing. You refuted nothing. You added nothing. You did nothing. Are you nothing? Nothing except what John Oliver and Jon Leibowitz tell you to be, that is? You’re objectively wrong, as shown by the citations made. No one cares about your feelings. No one cares about your opinions. You can say “I think it was like this,” but it doesn’t make that true because you said it. You can say, “If we did such-and-such, things would become like this,” but it doesn’t make that true because you said it. You are incapable–neurologically (not physically)–of learning or presenting information that is decontextualized from your subjectivist worldview. Truth exists outside of human experiences. This data exists outside of human experiences. You apparently don’t comprehend those concepts, as you have nothing but personal attacks to levy. You attack your opponent because you are incapable of refuting his content. Because it’s true.

    *A little footnote for the literate: notice that I even left out something–something important–from that statement, simply for the sake of civil discourse. The missing point will fly right over the heads of its intendeds; let’s see if anyone else catches it.
    Why would I bother to refute nonsense?  That would be silly.
    Sorry, but this isn't one of your right wing propaganda sites where the fools believe whatever they are told -- especially if its repeated over and over and backed with a laundry list of so called "Facts" that have been distorted and cherry picked in order to prove an ideological point...
    singularity
  • Reply 95 of 134
    Why would I bother to refute nonsense?  That would be silly.
    Thank you for admitting that everything I said about “net neutrality” and the state of the Internet prior to its enforcement is correct and that you have absolutely no refutation to the comments made thereon. When you have something other than buzzwords to add, please feel free.
    edited December 2017 magman1979
  • Reply 96 of 134
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    GeorgeBMac said:
    Why would I bother to refute nonsense?  That would be silly.
    Why would it be silly?

    I understand that it was a big chunk-o-text with lots of claims, and most people don't have time to respond in full. But, pick a point or two and back up your position.  (In my other career, I'm a Christian apologist, so I'm quite familiar with the tactic of just dumping a half-zillion objections and expecting me to refute them all... but that's not what is going on here. You're not even refuting a single point. You're just committing ad-hominem and genetic fallacies.)
    tallest skilmagman1979
  • Reply 97 of 134
    cgWerks said:
    GeorgeBMac said:
    Why would I bother to refute nonsense?  That would be silly.
    Why would it be silly?

    I understand that it was a big chunk-o-text with lots of claims, and most people don't have time to respond in full. But, pick a point or two and back up your position.  (In my other career, I'm a Christian apologist, so I'm quite familiar with the tactic of just dumping a half-zillion objections and expecting me to refute them all... but that's not what is going on here. You're not even refuting a single point. You're just committing ad-hominem and genetic fallacies.)
    As you imply, his laundry list of so called "Facts" is simply a collection of random points collected in order to justify a conclusion that he had already reached -- a conclusion that is not based on truth or logic but rather which "team" he supports and/or his ideology.  As such, by debating him point by point I would be lending credence to lies and propaganda.  I choose not to do that.

    An analogy might be:  If I were a neo-Nazi, I could easily come up with a laundry list of "facts" that proved how much good Hitler did for 1930's Germany and the benefits of eugenics and the cleansing of society of inferior humans such as jews, autistics and those with a learning disability.  But, starting with a conclusion and backing into the facts to prove it is not a legitimate argument.  It's bull.

    singularity
  • Reply 98 of 134
    jbdragon said:
    volcan said:
    bells said:

    Here is the thing. These companies didn’t develop the Internet. The government did using tax payer dollars. So the public should absolutely have a say in what happens with the internet. 

    Further, these same companies spend tons of dollars so that they don’t have to compete fairly. For instance, laws attacking municipalities from creating internet services or passing laws that only allow one ISP provider.
    The US government created the Internet to the extent that they standardized a routing protocol, IP addresses, and domain name system that were actually invented by mostly private universities. Furthermore the government didn't build out the infrastructure. The carriers installed the cables, dug the ditches, leased space on utility poles, built data centers, etc at their own expense. All the government does is charge them taxes. And also there are no laws attacking municipalities. Those are contractual agreements such that a single ISP won the bid from the city to install the infrastructure. The city agrees to protect them from competition for a given number of years so they can recoup their investment and also earn a profit. The arrangement doesn't give consumers any choice but the fees the cable company charges are regulated by the same contract. Without that arrangement you wouldn't have cable at all.

    Comcast put in place its 1TB cap. The only real reason in doing so is to protect their TV service.

    But, hey, now you can pay another $50 to get unlimited that you had before and was taken away.

    In reading the articles abount NN the past few days I logged onto my Comcast account to see what they said I was using in data. Only about 5% of what I watch is on Comcast TV. My monthly usage is between 165GB and 325GB. So no worry here for exceeding the 1TB cap. Although I would tend to believe what they are reporting is BS. The last three months have been 163, 165 and 164GB. I find it rather doubtful that my usage is that consistent. So if the cap is to protect their TV service I don’t think it will work based on my experience. If a person exceeds the 1TB cap they are watching way too much televsion. I suppose if you have multiple TV’s all being used daily then 1TB is feasable.
  • Reply 99 of 134
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    GeorgeBMac said:
    As you imply, his laundry list of so called "Facts" is simply a collection of random points collected in order to justify a conclusion that he had already reached -- a conclusion that is not based on truth or logic but rather which "team" he supports and/or his ideology.  As such, by debating him point by point I would be lending credence to lies and propaganda.  I choose not to do that.

    An analogy might be:  If I were a neo-Nazi, I could easily come up with a laundry list of "facts" that proved how much good Hitler did for 1930's Germany and the benefits of eugenics and the cleansing of society of inferior humans such as jews, autistics and those with a learning disability.  But, starting with a conclusion and backing into the facts to prove it is not a legitimate argument.  It's bull.

    Well, no I wouldn't say it's a random collection. It was a set of data leading towards a conclusion. You can disagree with the conclusion, of course. Just like people present a set of data they believe leads to a conclusion of, say, evolution, trickle-down-economics, or global warming. But, others might disagree with those conclusion based on a different interpretation of the data. Or, poke a hole in the data. Or, present some alternative data.

    re: analogy - Well, what you've presented there is a representation of what happened which aligns nicely with a particularly worldview. The problem is we (societies with an alternate set of morality) deemed it 'bad' instead of 'good'... based on a different worldview. You didn't pick a set of facts that paints a false picture, just a picture you and I don't like. It's actually a pretty accurate picture.

    And, as I said, I don't expect you're going to comb through it point by point with refutations. But, what about it do you think is 'right-wing' or 'conspiracy theory'? Are you aware of what the USA has been doing under the Patriot Act (both in terms of foreign policy, or domestic spying)? A lot of this stuff is pretty proven even if you don't want to face it. It hardly takes conspiracy theory.

    What is more in question, IMO, is whether it is 'good' or not... kinda like your Hitler analogy. Maybe it's best for us if the government covertly takes down foreign governments to keep our economy and energy more stable, and hurts competing nations' interests? Maybe it's best for us if our own government spies on us to help keep 'order'? Maybe it's best for us if the government shapes our education system and puts right-think ideas into future generations so we're more likely to go along with Science™ instead of free-thought (which could go wrong)?

    But, that's not 'right-wing' or 'conspiracy theory,' it's a difference of ideology, worldview, and approach. Once you admit that, then we can debate whether it's good or bad, and agree or disagree. But, there is too much there to be simply dismissed.... with, 'oh, that is nuts so I don't have to engage it.'
    tallest skilmagman1979
  • Reply 100 of 134
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    kent909 said:
    In reading the articles abount NN the past few days I logged onto my Comcast account to see what they said I was using in data. Only about 5% of what I watch is on Comcast TV. My monthly usage is between 165GB and 325GB. So no worry here for exceeding the 1TB cap. Although I would tend to believe what they are reporting is BS. The last three months have been 163, 165 and 164GB. I find it rather doubtful that my usage is that consistent. So if the cap is to protect their TV service I don’t think it will work based on my experience. If a person exceeds the 1TB cap they are watching way too much televsion. I suppose if you have multiple TV’s all being used daily then 1TB is feasable.
    Yea, I think we typically use (household) 400-500GB/mo. It could be really easy to use 1TB though if you watched a lot of high-def content from streaming services. Or, say you do a lot of data backup or pulling from the cloud.

    But, I think caps are totally fair. In fact, that's really the most fair way to measure and charge for usage, or content distribution. IMO, the 'pipes' should just be as fast as the technology allows, and then some set rate for the amount of data.

    It costs (last I heard, it might be lower now) between $0.01 and $0.03 per GB of data, when all the costs of infrastructure, service, repair, etc are taken into account. So, since I use 500GB, my cost to the ISP is between $5 and $15. So, when they charge me $100+, they are making a pretty huge profit.

    A more fair way of charging would be just the fastest possible pipe, and then maybe charge me $0.05 per GB. I'd pay $25, you'd pay $8.50, and the person really sucking down the data would pay $50 or $100. (Or, some similar scale... and then services could compete on that price... one might charge $0.06 while another $0.04.) They'd all still make a healthy profit.
Sign In or Register to comment.