comcast

[Wode]

So not being the internet savy type I am kinda curious. Comcast is going to charge internet users who go over 300gb in a month more money. People will be billed by extra 50gb incriments or pay 30$ more a month for the service they have now.

Im not a comcast customer and I really dont know how gaming uses GB's but I am curious if one of you guys know and if that impacts gaming.

[am0n]

Even during my busiest months I haven't downloaded in excess of 100 GB. If you are doing 300 GB a month you are either running a server of some type, or actively trying to break a record for most porn on one PC.

[nyclin]

it's not going to impact p99 or any other game really. maybe if you play lots of different MMOs that issue huge patches on the regular, or download lots of games from stream.

also comcast isn't rolling this out to all of their markets, only specific ones:

http://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-trials/

[Shrubwise]

I can't wait to curbstomp Comcast to the pits of hell when Google Fiber comes to my town. By far the worst company I've ever had the displeasure of doing business with.

[phacemeltar]

one day they will take away the limit and customers will be forced to pay per mb

[azeth]

The Internet, like health care, like credit scoring is too integral to an Americans life to be dealt with in a capitalist private sector. Not saying our gov has the expertise at the moment to take over and offer these services, but it needs to.

Just let me pay taxes and give me the Internet, health care, access to a transparent credit system etc

[Lisset]

I have Comcast and the only way to go over 300 is with lots of video.

[nilbog]

FYI, Comcast Business doesn't have a data cap.

[Lisset]

FYI, Comcast Business doesn't have a data cap.

:eek:

[nyclin]

comcast business is also about twice the price of consumer access for similar speeds, but if data caps are that important to you it may be worth it

[sirelothar]

Been running a program that keeps track of my network usage by program and my eqgame.exe has only used 300mb in the course of 31 days.

[ronasch]

The Internet, like health care, like credit scoring is too integral to an Americans life to be dealt with in a capitalist private sector. Not saying our gov has the expertise at the moment to take over and offer these services, but it needs to.

Just let me pay taxes and give me the Internet, health care, access to a transparent credit system etc

Feed me government feed me.

Don't worry, those are just Jewish "showers"

I'm wondering how people think things get better when government is involved?

[phacemeltar]

Feed me government feed me.

Don't worry, those are just Jewish "showers"

I'm wondering how people think things get better when government is involved?

the internet as we know it was funded by the government, goofus. should be considered a resource, imo

[Shrubwise]

Feed me government feed me.

Don't worry, those are just Jewish "showers"

I'm wondering how people think things get better when government is involved?

Well, that escalated quickly.

[Tahlvin]

You have to be really trying to go above 300GB. Not defending Comcast, but they have been raising their speeds significantly higher lately (up to 105mbps or higher) so that's probably why they are being more strict about the monthly cap.

[Gumbo]

I have Comcast and I have a regular internet account and my download is 80mbps.

I also have 7 computers running non-stop in my household and we have never came close to 300GB od bandwidth. So you wouldn't have to worry...

Speaking of download speeds with Comcast having 80mbps downloads and business accounts having 105mbps. I know they also offer 150mbps download and they act like it's some sort of big deal. Check out the rest of the world and USA has one of the slowest internet speeds available. Some countries are running 200mbps downloads and they think it's slow...

[ronasch]

the internet as we know it was funded by the government, goofus. should be considered a resource, imo

Ok so because some U.S. Tax dollars went to some research that resulted in what we call the Internet, it should be handed out like candy to the masses? What about those who pay no tax, should we give them Internet for free and make u pay a higher tax to offset the extra construction/maintenance required to give these non tax payers Internet. Yes I know it's already happening. Who decides what speed is standard? Can I pay extra tax for a higher speed? Do I need a license to surf the web? Net Neutrality FTL

[Ele]

Ok so because some U.S. Tax dollars went to some research that resulted in what we call the Internet, it should be handed out like candy to the masses? What about those who pay no tax, should we give them Internet for free and make u pay a higher tax to offset the extra construction/maintenance required to give these non tax payers Internet. Yes I know it's already happening. Who decides what speed is standard? Can I pay extra tax for a higher speed? Do I need a license to surf the web? Net Neutrality FTL

None of that is Net Neutrality.

[phacemeltar]

Ok so because some U.S. Tax dollars went to some research that resulted in what we call the Internet, it should be handed out like candy to the masses? What about those who pay no tax, should we give them Internet for free and make u pay a higher tax to offset the extra construction/maintenance required to give these non tax payers Internet. Yes I know it's already happening. Who decides what speed is standard? Can I pay extra tax for a higher speed? Do I need a license to surf the web? Net Neutrality FTL

i think youre going a little overboard with this. replace "the internet" with "fresh water" and maybe u will see my point. i would try arguing with you but it seems like you are just repeating stuff you read on reddit.

[phacemeltar]

and yes, i think starving children in southern asia should have access to "the internet" just the same as those lounging in the gated communities of new england. but ive been accused of being a hippy before....

[dafier]

FYI, Comcast Business doesn't have a data cap.

Of course not, but that's why business's pay a lot more for internet services than residential. And, they, for the most part get the same bandwidth as residential.

Before you other people ask, you are paying for consistent up time. If something goes down, the business gets priority over all else.

[ronasch]

Lol, really u people don't see how government involvement operate. Here's how it goes down Shitty politician A meets with shitty Lobbyist B, who's being paid by shitty company C. Shitty Lobbyist B promises kickbacks to shitty politician A and Shitty conpany C gets huge overpriced government contract and u the shitty voter D gets insane tax hike, and shitty Internet service. Yes we've been doin this for decades in other industries. And that's why we're in SHIT

[drktmplr12]

I use 250-400 a month. i am affected by this :mad:

[Ele]

Lol, really u people don't see how government involvement operate. Here's how it goes down Shitty politician A meets with shitty Lobbyist B, who's being paid by shitty company C. Shitty Lobbyist B promises kickbacks to shitty politician A and Shitty conpany C gets huge overpriced government contract and u the shitty voter D gets insane tax hike, and shitty Internet service. Yes we've been doin this for decades in other industries. And that's why we're in SHIT

How do you think our cable/fiber infrastructure was built? The kindness of ATT/Comcast/Verizon's hearts because they wanted to provide a good product for a competitive price?

No, they all received (and still receive) massive tax breaks and kick backs for promised capabilities and roll out without going through with most of it and did not return any of the tax payer money they took.

Now that it is in place and thanks to state and local municipality deals (i.e. monopolies), the cable/internet companies can prevent other companies from using the tax payer funded lines to offer competing services.

[ronasch]

How do you think our cable/fiber infrastructure was built? The kindness of ATT/Comcast/Verizon's hearts because they wanted to provide a good product for a competitive price?

No, they all received (and still receive) massive tax breaks and kick backs for promised capabilities and roll out without going through with most of it and did not return any of the tax payer money they took.

Now that it is in place and thanks to state and local municipality deals (i.e. monopolies), the cable/internet companies can prevent other companies from using the tax payer funded lines to offer competing services.

I think I just pointed that out. The government is involved already and it's SHIT. Why would we want them to take anymore control?

[jarshale]

You would have to be torrenting like mad or have netflix running in HD 24/7 to hit that cap I would imagine.

[ronasch]

Lol, really u people don't see how government involvement operate. Here's how it goes down Shitty politician A meets with shitty Lobbyist B, who's being paid by shitty company C. Shitty Lobbyist B promises kickbacks to shitty politician A and Shitty conpany C gets huge overpriced government contract and u the shitty voter D gets insane tax hike, and shitty Internet service. Yes we've been doin this for decades in other industries. And that's why we're in SHIT

Don't forget shitty non tax payer E who also is a shitty voter D keeps voting for shitty politician A cause everyone loves free stuff

[Ele]

I think I just pointed that out. The government is involved already and it's SHIT. Why would we want them to take anymore control?

It read like you were talking about other industries rather than Internet/cable infrastructure. I expounded upon it as it relates to Internet/cable infrastructure in light of your prior misapprehension regarding Net Neutrality. You keep claiming "more government control" when that is not what Net Neutrality is as a concept.


If we go down your road and add no additional government involvement, we maintain the status quo, which as you say is already "shit".

A complete deregulation of cable/Internet service will never happen, so that is out. Might it work in theory had the government never been involved? Interesting theorycraft but not applicable to reality.

Less governmental involvement/regulation would leave more control to ATT/Verizon/Comcast, which are already providing "shit" service for comparably high prices. Do you think they would all of a sudden provide better service with less involvement? Where would you go? What competition is there?

Yes, in markets where Google is laying out its own infrastructure Comcast/Cox/ATT/Verizon magically lower their prices and double/triple/quadruple the available speeds and throughput of their users. But you are dealing with another massive corporation that persists because it sells off your personal information. This is only available to a minimal market, while most of the country is still locked into choosing from bad option A and worse option B.

[maskedmelon]

Before we land in RnF, I thought i'd contribute to the original discussion ^^ 300gb is a hell of a lot of data. I remember back in the day though, my local broadband provider called me to complain that I'd exceeded 10gb of use in a month. At the time that apparently placed me near the upper end of their top 1% of users. They were like "what are you doing?" There wasn't anything about a limit in their terms of service at the time, but that was amended shortly thereafter ^^

[ronasch]

It read like you were talking about other industries rather than Internet/cable infrastructure. I expounded upon it as it relates to Internet/cable infrastructure in light of your prior misapprehension regarding Net Neutrality. You keep claiming "more government control" when that is not what Net Neutrality is as a concept.


If we go down your road and add no additional government involvement, we maintain the status quo, which as you say is already "shit".

A complete deregulation of cable/Internet service will never happen, so that is out. Might it work in theory had the government never been involved? Interesting theorycraft but not applicable to reality.

Less governmental involvement/regulation would leave more control to ATT/Verizon/Comcast, which are already providing "shit" service for comparably high prices. Do you think they would all of a sudden provide better service with less involvement? Where would you go? What competition is there?

Yes, in markets where Google is laying out its own infrastructure Comcast/Cox/ATT/Verizon magically lower their prices and double/triple/quadruple the available speeds and throughput of their users. But you are dealing with another massive corporation that persists because it sells off your personal information. This is only available to a minimal market, while most of the country is still locked into choosing from bad option A and worse option B.

Your opinion on how Net Neutrality will play out in the future differs from mine. We keep running to government to fix problems and we end up getting more problems. If u don't like a product don't buy it. I hate Comcast btw would never buy there junk service.

[Kevris]

Your opinion on how Net Neutrality will play out in the future differs from mine. We keep running to government to fix problems and we end up getting more problems. If u don't like a product don't buy it. I hate Comcast btw would never buy there junk service.

And therein lies the problem:

The vast majority of people using Comcast services have no choice in the matter. You either have Comcast internet, or you use dial-up.

And that, my good man, is exactly why we need regulation in this industry: It is at best duopolistic leaving little to no choice to the consumer.

If these monopolies didn't exist, "Net Neutrality" wouldn't be a thing. Nobody would be able to beat you over the head with their shitty business practices if you had choice in the matter.

[ronasch]

And therein lies the problem:

The vast majority of people using Comcast services have no choice in the matter. You either have Comcast internet, or you use dial-up.

And that, my good man, is exactly why we need regulation in this industry: It is at best duopolistic leaving little to no choice to the consumer.

If these monopolies didn't exist, "Net Neutrality" wouldn't be a thing. Nobody would be able to beat you over the head with their shitty business practices if you had choice in the matter.

So Internet access that fits your needs is now an inalienable Right? Sorry I don't see that in the Constitution.

So because Internet Service provider offers high speed service to an area that didn't have
It before gives u the right to dictate,how when and what shall be provided?
I think I'll try that today at Walmart the only department store in my town, wonder how that goes over. The Entitlement generation makes me sick

[Ele]

So Internet access that fits your needs is now an inalienable Right? Sorry I don't see that in the Constitution.

So because Internet Service provider offers high speed service to an area that didn't have
It before gives u the right to dictate,how when and what shall be provided?
I think I'll try that today at Walmart the only department store in my town, wonder how that goes over. The Entitlement generation makes me sick

If the company takes tax payer money in exchange for a promise to build out and provide services, then yes citizens should have a say in how it is provided.

[Kevris]

So Internet access that fits your needs is now an inalienable Right? Sorry I don't see that in the Constitution.

So because Internet Service provider offers high speed service to an area that didn't have
It before gives u the right to dictate,how when and what shall be provided?
I think I'll try that today at Walmart the only department store in my town, wonder how that goes over. The Entitlement generation makes me sick

Your attempt to compare a retail store to a utility really highlights your lack of knowledge on this subject.

You should educate yourself a little further on this topic! It would be a good chance for some personal growth and new knowledge acquisition, and something tells me that when you know why the comparison isn't a good one, you'll change your tune about the entire subject matter.

[ronasch]

If the company takes tax payer money in exchange for a promise to build out and provide services, then yes citizens should have a say in how it is provided.

How bout we don't give the tax payer money in the FIRST PLACE

[Ele]

How bout we don't give the tax payer money in the FIRST PLACE

It is too late for that. Again, nice theorycraft, but we have to work with reality.

[nyclin]

How bout we don't give the tax payer money in the FIRST PLACE

you should probably take a basic economics course, and a civics course too

for-profit entities like Comcast would have basically no reason to invest in bleeding-edge technology or network expansion without some sort of incentive to do so; the risk is just too great. they're generally happy plodding along, as long as they can turn a profit and meet quarterly projections. they'll only make changes to their business model when the potential for profit outweighs the risk. that's why they get taxpayer money in some cases; because it offsets risk.

government is different; legislative bodies create legislation which mandates what they must do, and they do it, regardless of the risk or lack of profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_motive

lack of profit motive is why it's better for the government to provide services which are considered essential to daily life. government entities (should) have no profit motive, and therefore will provide a service as they are mandated without altering or degrading that service in the name of making additional money.

[jarshale]

I used to work for a large ISP who was kinda like Comcast. There are literally entire towns where they don't go out to fix speed or disconnect issues because the lines are so old there's nothing they can do. But they never upgrade them because they are the only service in the area and they don't have to.

[Gaunja]

They started this data cap in my area a few months ago. I have two children who LOVE watching youtube on separate xbox consoles. They also game for at least 2-3hours a day. At night they fall asleep with youtube on autoplay going from video to video. Top that with me playing video games, my wife and I streaming videos on netflix, and downloading music / video games. I hit 550gb my first month and 750gb the second month. Needless to say I switched to AT&T and have been a very happy customer ever since. Fuck comcast.

[Shrubwise]

They started this data cap in my area a few months ago. I have two children who LOVE watching youtube on separate xbox consoles. They also game for at least 2-3hours a day. At night they fall asleep with youtube on autoplay going from video to video. Top that with me playing video games, my wife and I streaming videos on netflix, and downloading music / video games. I hit 550gb my first month and 750gb the second month. Needless to say I switched to AT&T and have been a very happy customer ever since. Fuck comcast.

You shouldn't let them fall asleep watching YouTube. Dat blue light is bad for sleep. Make 'em read a book for half an hour before bed.

[maskedmelon]

So Internet access that fits your needs is now an inalienable Right? Sorry I don't see that in the Constitution.

So because Internet Service provider offers high speed service to an area that didn't have
It before gives u the right to dictate,how when and what shall be provided?
I think I'll try that today at Walmart the only department store in my town, wonder how that goes over. The Entitlement generation makes me sick

Ronasch, I am staunchly opposed to paying for other people's shit, but there are some things that cannot be efficiently furnished by the free market and those are the services government should provide. National security, highways, law enforcement and fire fighting are a few examples. Internet service also fit into that category due to the massive infrastructure investments needed even in profitless areas. Is everyone entitled to Internet? No. Does society benefit from broad availability of internet? Absolutely.

I don't care for crony capitalism anymore than I care for socialism, but some products demand government involvement. This is one of them.

[ronasch]

Ronasch, I am staunchly opposed to paying for other people's shit, but there are some things that cannot be efficiently furnished by the free market and those are the services government should provide. National security, highways, law enforcement and fire fighting are a few examples. Internet service also fit into that category due to the massive infrastructure investments needed even in profitless areas. Is everyone entitled to Internet? No. Does society benefit from broad availability of internet? Absolutely.

I don't care for crony capitalism anymore than I care for socialism, but some products demand government involvement. This is one of them.

/disagree

[Ele]

/disagree

It is easy to say "/disagree". How do you fix it?

[ronasch]

basically what your talking about is pooling enough money together to draw an ISP to your area. We need government to be the middle man? I think not. Government is corrupt that's why we're 19 trillion dollars in debt. If an ISP believes its profitable to provide your area service then they will make the investment. If not, oh well MOVE.

[cukazi]

Must be nice being able to bitch about companys like comcast and 300gb limit :) where i live i have phone tether for internet that is around 10$ a gig. That provides me a way to play p99 with a 200ms latency.

My only other option is satellite internet at 99$ for 15 gig per month. This however is unplayable for online games at 800 ms latency.

I dont even live in that rural of an area buts not profitable for cable company to run 1 mile of line for 5 or 6 possible subs.

I don't agree with the way they treat customers and such but its better than dealing with satellite companys

[maskedmelon]

basically what your talking about is pooling enough money together to draw an ISP to your area. We need government to be the middle man? I think not. Government is corrupt that's why we're 19 trillion dollars in debt. If an ISP believes its profitable to provide your area service then they will make the investment. If not, oh well MOVE.

Do you understand what the internet is, how it works and how it benefits society as a whole (not just the individual). We wouldn't have the internet at all if it weren't for government. Government is a necessary evil my friend.

[ronasch]

[QUOTE=maskedmelon;2041368]Do you understand what the internet is, how it works and how it benefits society as a whole (not just the individual). We wouldn't have the internet at all if it weren't for government. Government is a necessary evil my friend.[/QUOTE

Government funded space flight too, does that mean the tax payer owes u a shuttle to Mars. Internet is a luxury and just because it provides u with entertainment, comfort, and enjoyment doesn't mean I should have to pay higher taxes so those who can't afford it have those same luxuries. Just because some people are of an opinion that something benefits society doesn't mean the heavy hand of government should make it so

[Ele]

basically what your talking about is pooling enough money together to draw an ISP to your area. We need government to be the middle man? I think not. Government is corrupt that's why we're 19 trillion dollars in debt. If an ISP believes its profitable to provide your area service then they will make the investment. If not, oh well MOVE.

If we can even call that a solution, your solution is not based in reality. We are not starting from square one and have to deal with the issues as they currently exist and moving forward from there.

I do appreciate voting with your wallet/feet, but it is not at all pragmatic or reasonable in many situations. This is not the frontier days where you can just pick up your wagon, burn your house down for the nails, and go West for some free land. Today, much like an individual's vote doesn't statistically matter on election day, neither does you cancelling Internet service from Comcast, boycotting Wal-Mart, gasoline for a day, etc. There is someone else on either side of you that does not care and will continue living their life and fill the spot you left empty (mostly because there are limited options for these types of services).

Additionally, if everyone moved that wanted decent high speed internet, eventually we would all be coalesced into several dense urban metroplexes as they are the most economically viable locations for these ISPs to service due to population density versus coverage area. There is a reason phone bills have a universal access fee (tax) so that phone companies would be required to provide phone service to rural/remote locations even when not economically viable to the company.

You suggest that people draw private ISPs to their towns, but is a town of 1000 people really supposed to throw $1000 each into a pool to entice a brand new ISP to come to town and build out a cable/fiber network that then hooks into a major Internet backbone in the metroplex 100 miles away? No business in their right mind is touching that for $1 million dollars. Much less how each one of those people has $1000 to spend on building out Internet infrastructure to their town. Instead, a number of towns are building out their own networks through the use of municipal bonds and funds and making them utilities where people can purchase Internet service through the municipality (local government doing something good?). In the process of doing this, these towns/municipalities are also being sued/lobbied against by companies like Comcast/ATT/Verizon for daring to compete with them.


Regarding your general complaint about corruption, I don't think anyone here will disagree with you that corruption is legitimized and legalized in our current public and private sectors and that it is a huge problem that needs to be rooted out of the system. I don't know what being 19 trillion in debt has to do with Net Neutrality though. You keep running on tangents about "government = bad" without addressing or arguing the basic concept Net Neutrality.

[Ele]

Government funded space flight too, does that mean the tax payer owes u a shuttle to Mars. Internet is a luxury and just because it provides u with entertainment, comfort, and enjoyment doesn't mean I should have to pay higher taxes so those who can't afford it have those same luxuries. Just because some people are of an opinion that something benefits society doesn't mean the heavy hand of government should make it so

What does space flight have to do with any of this?

Are roads a luxury? Phone service? Clean water service? Sewer service? Electricity service? Natural gas service? Heating oil/gas service? Police? Firefighters? EMS?

The Internet is no longer a "luxury" as it was in 1996 when you got your AOL cd and set up your Geocities page.

It is largest channel of commerce in modern society. Not to mention the impact on education, the sciences, financial markets, and international commerce/relations.

[Kevris]

[QUOTE=maskedmelon;2041368]Do you understand what the internet is, how it works and how it benefits society as a whole (not just the individual). We wouldn't have the internet at all if it weren't for government. Government is a necessary evil my friend.[/QUOTE

Government funded space flight too, does that mean the tax payer owes u a shuttle to Mars. Internet is a luxury and just because it provides u with entertainment, comfort, and enjoyment doesn't mean I should have to pay higher taxes so those who can't afford it have those same luxuries. Just because some people are of an opinion that something benefits society doesn't mean the heavy hand of government should make it so

You stated earlier that you lived in a small town, with one large store (Walmart).

You should probably read a little bit about the fees associated with every broadband bill; those fees are there because the ISP's and Telco's are required to bring broadband to rural locations.

Based on the statement that you live in a rural area, it would not be a huge stretch for one to assume you have directly benefited from those fees and it is the people living in large metropolitan areas who have funded your internet service.

Edit: And you know what? I'm OK with subsidizing your internet. I believe that the benefit to children in your area is well worth a few cents added to my broadband bill to ensure they have equal access to the Internet and all of the associated educational resources that are included with that access.

[maskedmelon]

Government funded space flight too, does that mean the tax payer owes u a shuttle to Mars.

Of course not and that is not at all what I am suggesting. However without government funding space technologies would not be where they are at present because they have historically lacked a clear return on investment. They same is true for certain areas of medical research, but that does not mean government should provide healthcare for individuals. The internet is the national highway system, except more vitally important to society. It is not just the individual who benefits from broad deployment of web resources.

[ronasch]

You people keep telling me because it was government funded everyone should have access, I philosophically disagree. The roads highways bridges in this country are funded by government, some people walk, bike, and or drive these roads, highways, bridges that are government funded so since the walker/bicycler who cannot afford to purchase a car to go as fast as those who can purchase a car be given a car by government because it's "beneficial."
This constant DRONE of how the Internet "benefits society" grows old. Tell that to the millions of people that had there lives destroyed by identity theft, or the little girl who committed suicide because every time she opened her email some asshole kid at school is calling her fat and ugly. A blanket statement of benefits society thus it should be so is tunnel vision, and I'm not saying the Internet doesn't have its positives cause it does. My point is I know it can be done w/o government involvement. Yes might it take longer and require some of the citizenry to get off their asses sure, but in the end you will not only have a better product, but a more accountable company providing you service. Your need to steal the labor (tax) of others to achieve your access to the Internet is fundamentally destructive in and of itself.

[Kevris]

You people keep telling me because it was government funded everyone should have access, I philosophically disagree. The roads highways bridges in this country are funded by government, some people walk, bike, and or drive these roads, highways, bridges that are government funded so since the walker/bicycler who cannot afford to purchase a car to go as fast as those who can purchase a car be given a car by government because it's "beneficial."
This constant DRONE of how the Internet "benefits society" grows old. Tell that to the millions of people that had there lives destroyed by identity theft, or the little girl who committed suicide because every time she opened her email some asshole kid at school is calling her fat and ugly. A blanket statement of benefits society thus it should be so is tunnel vision, and I'm not saying the Internet doesn't have its positives cause it does. My point is I know it can be done w/o government involvement. Yes might it take longer and require some of the citizenry to get off their asses sure, but in the end you will not only have a better product, but a more accountable company providing you service. Your need to steal the labor (tax) of others to achieve your access to the Internet is fundamentally destructive in and of itself.

What part of what you just said outlines a clear path to wide-spread broadband access without government intervention?


And as to the benefit of the internet ... let's take the same wrong-headed approach to other utilities: Electricity is a benefit? Tell that to the people who's homes are destroyed by fires caused by downed power lines or any other kind of electrical accident, or the thousands of children killed every year when they stick something into an electrical socket. Water is a benefit? Tell that to the millions of people who's property is destroyed by flooding from broken water pipes every year. Roads are a benefit? Tell that to the millions of people who die in car accidents every year, many of which aren't even in a car. You can do that nonsensical OHH ITS SO BAD stuff with anything.

How can you fail to see that having, literally, THE SUM OF ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE available to anyone with an internet connection is a huge benefit to society!?

[Ele]

You people keep telling me because it was government funded everyone should have access, I philosophically disagree.

There in lies part of the issue. You keep wanting to talk philosophy, when we are discussing reality.

The roads highways bridges in this country are funded by government, some people walk, bike, and or drive these roads, highways, bridges that are government funded so since the walker/bicycler who cannot afford to purchase a car to go as fast as those who can purchase a car be given a car by government because it's "beneficial."

Everyone has equal access to those roads and has to obey the same rules/laws. Your method of conveyance on those roads may vary depending on how you access them (walk, bike, drive).

No one has argued that the government purchase people bikes or cars. Why you would even make that argument is beyond me.


This constant DRONE of how the Internet "benefits society" grows old. Tell that to the millions of people that had there lives destroyed by identity theft, or the little girl who committed suicide because every time she opened her email some asshole kid at school is calling her fat and ugly. A blanket statement of benefits society thus it should be so is tunnel vision, and I'm not saying the Internet doesn't have its positives cause it does.

What does this have to do with anything?

My point is I know it can be done w/o government involvement. Yes might it take longer and require some of the citizenry to get off their asses sure, but in the end you will not only have a better product, but a more accountable company providing you service.

Could it be done? Yes, it is possible. Is it realistic without government involvement? Not likely.

Are we starting from square one? No. We have to work with the situation as it exists now. Again, reality versus philosophy.

Your need to steal the labor (tax) of others to achieve your access to the Internet is fundamentally destructive in and of itself.

Cruz2016?

[razzulx]

Sadly I think the goverment needs to get involved just like they did for Water / Power.

The internet as it is today is needed for our society to function, I couldn't even deposit money into my bank when their internet was down.

Could you imagine one day the internet companies just being like NOPE...we are going to shut the internet off today to help save $$$...The current world we live in would change drastically.

[ronasch]

What part of what you just said outlines a clear path to wide-spread broadband access without government intervention?


And as to the benefit of the internet ... let's take the same wrong-headed approach to other utilities: Electricity is a benefit? Tell that to the people who's homes are destroyed by fires caused by downed power lines or any other kind of electrical accident, or the thousands of children killed every year when they stick something into an electrical socket. Water is a benefit? Tell that to the millions of people who's property is destroyed by flooding from broken water pipes every year. Roads are a benefit? Tell that to the millions of people who die in car accidents every year, many of which aren't even in a car. You can do that nonsensical OHH ITS SO BAD stuff with anything.

How can you fail to see that having, literally, THE SUM OF ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE available to anyone with an internet connection is a huge benefit to society!?

Never said it wasn't beneficial. I take the same approach with the "Internet" as I do Electricity, water, insert anything u want. If YOU can't afford it, DON'T tax ME to get it. Plain and simple.

Your wants/needs don't outweigh my Liberty. Sorry I don't wanna pay for your electricity, water, telephone, or Internet.

[Ele]

Never said it wasn't beneficial. I take the same approach with the "Internet" as I do Electricity, water, insert anything u want. If YOU can't afford it, DON'T tax ME to get it. Plain and simple.

Your wants/needs don't outweigh my Liberty. Sorry I don't wanna pay for your electricity, water, telephone, or Internet.

Please explain what any of that has to do with Net Neutrality.

[ronasch]

Sadly I think the goverment needs to get involved just like they did for Water / Power.

The internet as it is today is needed for our society to function, I couldn't even deposit money into my bank when their internet was down.

Could you imagine one day the internet companies just being like NOPE...we are going to shut the internet off today to help save $$$...The current world we live in would change drastically.

My point exactly, we (the citizen) have become sooooooo dependant on the "Internet" that we can't even function in society without it. Talk about a flawed society. To think government involvement makes it better is farcical. They wanna make you even more dependant.

Reality doesn't mean you can't stop the insanity that's going on. The problem is when people aka Americans can't get what they want right this second they run to government to provide it. I don't understand this idea that because something u want is unaffordable you have a Right to Tax, Steal, Plunder others to get it, beneficial to society or not.

[ronasch]

Net neutrality = government involvement

[Kevris]

Never said it wasn't beneficial. I take the same approach with the "Internet" as I do Electricity, water, insert anything u want. If YOU can't afford it, DON'T tax ME to get it. Plain and simple.

Your wants/needs don't outweigh my Liberty. Sorry I don't wanna pay for your electricity, water, telephone, or Internet.

Ahh, I see now. I'll get my coat. Good luck to you sir!

[Swish]

In the UK there's people who don't pay their water bills, or at least they put them to the back of the pile.... because water is a basic human right and they aren't allowed to disconnect it etc.

Not sure that applies to internet though, really?

[Ele]

My point exactly, we (the citizen) have become sooooooo dependant on the "Internet" that we can't even function in society without it. Talk about a flawed society. To think government involvement makes it better is farcical. They wanna make you even more dependant.

America can certainly "function" without it, we did for 200 years. However, America would fall behind the rest of the world without the Internet and quickly lose any status it has any kind of leader in technology, economy, or culture.

Reality doesn't mean you can't stop the insanity that's going on. The problem is when people aka Americans can't get what they want right this second they run to government to provide it. I don't understand this idea that because something u want is unaffordable you have a Right to Tax, Steal, Plunder others to get it, beneficial to society or not.

You keep positing this position, when I don't believe anyone here is making the counter-argument to tax everyone for free monthly internet service.

Net neutrality = government involvement

You still obviously do not understand the basics of what net neutrality is and implications, if that is all you have to say about it.

[Champion_Standing]

The right to send and receive unlimited amounts of data

1st step towards a true transhumanist future.

[razzulx]

And sorry no I am not saying we should have free internet for everyone when I say treat it like Water / Power.

As a utility service there is a basic standard of service that is required from the provider, they can't just be like sorry your internet is down, we will get to it when we can next week. They are required to keep a certain uptime % for water/power or get fined.

[Ele]

The right to send and receive unlimited amounts of data

1st step towards a true transhumanist future.

Time to enter the Oculus Rift and shed this mortal coil!

[ronasch]

Another observation, comparing the "Internet" to Electricity or Running Water is absurd. I would ague the benefits of the discovery and replication of Electricity are much more pivotal to humanity's survival. As well as harnessing H2O, did u hear about the girl who died because she had no internet for 3 days?

[Ele]

Another observation, comparing the "Internet" to Electricity or Running Water is absurd. I would ague the benefits of the discovery and replication of Electricity are much more pivotal to humanity's survival. As well as harnessing H2O, did u hear about the girl who died because she had no internet for 3 days?

It is being compared to electricity, heat, and water in terms of infrastructure planning and capital expenditure. Not that it is a basic component essential to human survival.

Keep bringing the strawmans though.

[razzulx]

No, but if the Telecom's are gonna take the money and they did, they should have some standards they have to keep.

[phacemeltar]

Another observation, comparing the "Internet" to Electricity or Running Water is absurd. I would ague the benefits of the discovery and replication of Electricity are much more pivotal to humanity's survival. As well as harnessing H2O, did u hear about the girl who died because she had no internet for 3 days?

you dont think that a universal means of communicating ideas is pivotal to humanity's survival? were in the future now, an age of ideas. youre arguing against the basis for democracy, the ruling global ideal.

edit: i realize that im not addressing congress here, so i dont expect to be taken seriously ofc.

[salimoneus]

The Internet, like health care, like credit scoring is too integral to an Americans life to be dealt with in a capitalist private sector. Not saying our gov has the expertise at the moment to take over and offer these services, but it needs to.

Just let me pay taxes and give me the Internet, health care, access to a transparent credit system etc

The way America is headed, that socialist utopia you speak of may just become a reality. They run the largest deficit in the free world, and can't even deliver the mail without going into the red, and you want them to take on more responsibility? I find your lack of logic disturbing.

[ronasch]

UCLA 1968 annual tuition less then $500

Today 28000/year

Now that's affordable and accessible

Thank You government

Case closed

[Ele]

UCLA 1968 annual tuition less then $500

Today 28000/year

Now that's affordable and accessible

Thank You government

Case closed

You can't rebut any of the arguments in this thread so you throw out rising education costs as evidence government is bad?


Case closed alright.

[ronasch]

I think I proved my point, your inability to understand it is your problem.

Median income 1968 $7500

Today $49000

Median income grew alittle over 6x's in that same period college tuition grew at 56x's

Yeah for government loans for eduMacation!

[captnamazing]

pretty obvious the fault is ours. our educations are 56 times more valuable but we can't figure out how to make more than 6 times the average median of our parents? pathetic

[baalzy]

Ronasch is a blithering idiot. Warning to all who tread beyond, you should never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[ronasch]

Ronasch is a blithering idiot. Warning to all who tread beyond, you should never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Typical liberal, when they're unable to disprove fact they resort to name calling. You make me happy to be ~~~~~> RIGHT

[Daldaen]

Typical liberal, when they're unable to disprove fact they resort to name calling. You make me happy to be ~~~~~> RIGHT

The irony here is delicious.

[Swish]

pretty obvious the fault is ours. our educations are 56 times more valuable but we can't figure out how to make more than 6 times the average median of our parents? pathetic

Outsourcing will always prevent that from ever happening. America is bad for it, so is the UK :/

[ronasch]

The irony here is delicious.

Surprised you didn't take the grammar nazi route, daldaen.

[Daldaen]

I would prefer to revel in the glory that is a (wo)man posting on an Internet board with the first two words of their post name calling the individual who posted above them; then this individual, with the remainder of that sentence, goes on to say those who cannot refute another's facts/argument resort to name calling.

Pot, may I introduce you to Kettle?

[Swish]

I would prefer to revel in the glory that is a (wo)man posting on an Internet board with the first two words of their post name calling the individual who posted above them; then this individual, with the remainder of that sentence, goes on to say those who cannot refute another's facts/argument resort to name calling.

Pot, may I introduce you to Kettle?

Non-confrontational Daldaen is non-confrontational.

Rather than just spitting out what he's trying to say, he treats you to a full paragraph of something cryptic.

Do you have a Livejournal or Blogger page where you secretly vent?

[Barrier]

This is just like my old server and their arguments!!! Classic indeed!!!

But I have comcast :(

[maskedmelon]

pretty obvious the fault is ours. our educations are 56 times more valuable but we can't figure out how to make more than 6 times the average median of our parents? pathetic

lol

[maskedmelon]

Typical liberal, when they're unable to disprove fact they resort to name calling. You make me happy to be ~~~~~> RIGHT

This is the problem with rigid adherence to any ideology. It neuters the mind. You've shackled your intellectual sovereignty to the simple posits of other men and with your eyes wide shut strain to discern the subtle complexities of contemporary issues through the clouded lens of their dead eyes.

[Llodd]

pretty obvious the fault is ours. our educations are 56 times more valuable but we can't figure out how to make more than 6 times the average median of our parents? pathetic

Once upon a time teachers were respected.

Now they're just paid 0.00000001% the wages of people who can kick/throw/hit a ball REALLY REALLY well.

[ronasch]

This is the problem with rigid adherence to any ideology. It neuters the mind. You've shackled your intellectual sovereignty to the simple posits of other men and with your eyes wide shut strain to discern the subtle complexities of contemporary issues through the clouded lens of their dead eyes.

I love pseudo-intellectualism it's so grandiose. I can play your game too

[Charlievox]

Ok so because some U.S. Tax dollars went to some research that resulted in what we call the Internet, it should be handed out like candy to the masses? What about those who pay no tax, should we give them Internet for free and make u pay a higher tax to offset the extra construction/maintenance required to give these non tax payers Internet. Yes I know it's already happening. Who decides what speed is standard? Can I pay extra tax for a higher speed? Do I need a license to surf the web? Net Neutrality FTL

The basic fear of all conservatives is that somewhere, somehow, someone is getting a dollar that they are morally undeserving of.

[ronasch]

The basic fear of all conservatives is that somewhere, somehow, someone is getting a dollar that they are morally undeserving of.

Fear is a Plane just off Feerrot.

Handing out money to those who refuse to EARN it has nothing to do with morality.

You wanna hand out money that has not been earned then the money that is earned loses value, basic economic principles.

Just because u "feel" good about it doesn't mean it won't have drastic repercussions.

Give your own money, but forcing others to is akin to slavery

[drktmplr12]

Median income 1968 $7500

Today $49000

Median income grew alittle over 6x's in that same period college tuition grew at 56x's

Yeah for government loans for eduMacation!

not disputing your point about education costs growing faster than wages.. but $1.00 in 1968 is $6.92 in 2015. which makes $7500 1968-dollars equivalent to $51950 2015-dollars. that means median incomes grew 6%.

its basic economics, which you appear to be an expert in.

[drktmplr12]

I love pseudo-intellectualism it's so grandiose. I can play your game too

judging from the arguments..maybe you are the pseudo-intellectual. the untrained mind might believe what you are saying as fact. you really should be careful leading your friends and family astray.

I wouldn't say the same about maskedmelon. his arguments make sense and don't appeal to things like fear and hyperbole.

[Charlievox]

Fear is a Plane just off Feerrot.

Handing out money to those who refuse to EARN it has nothing to do with morality.

You wanna hand out money that has not been earned then the money that is earned loses value, basic economic principles.

Just because u "feel" good about it doesn't mean it won't have drastic repercussions.

Give your own money, but forcing others to is akin to slavery

You are still making a moral judgment about poor people.

You assume that being poor is an indication of laziness and therefore poor moral character.
Or that wealth is a natural result of having worked hard and an indication of good moral character.

Both are false premises.


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

[ronasch]

You are still making a moral judgment about poor people.

You assume that being poor is an indication of laziness and therefore poor moral character.
Or that wealth is a natural result of having worked hard and an indication of good moral character.

Both are false premises.


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

I made no reference to the poor or moral argument judging the less fortunate. You want to make this a moral vs immoral discussion. I am presenting the laws of nature and of natures God. Forced tribute in order to feed the masses results in less and less tribute and finally collapse.

As for my math sorry I'm at work and was ball parking the The figure. More of the same liberal tactic, we can't argue based on fundamental truths so we resort to critism in which the truth is presented.

Alittle Of Frank Capra's figurative realism would do you LIBS some good

[maskedmelon]

You are still making a moral judgment about poor people.


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Interesting assertion. If the expectation of entitlement to one's own property is a selfish one, what of the expectation of entitlement to the property of others?


Are we to assume that poverty is in fact virtuous and those afflicted by it are incapable of such moral failure?

If charity is virtuous and the lack thereof wicked, should not he who has no possessions instead offer up his labor freely?

[Shrubwise]

What are ye nerds going on about? This is a Comcast hate thread. Get back on topic.

[Ele]

What are ye nerds going on about? This is a Comcast hate thread. Get back on topic.

Went from Comcast being bad and the desire for Net Neutrality, then it went off the rails faster than a speeding Ted Cruz Missile when someone failed to comprehend what NN even is.

[ronasch]

Interesting assertion. If the expectation of entitlement to one's own property is a selfish one, what of the expectation of entitlement to the property of others?


Are we to assume that poverty is in fact virtuous and those afflicted by it are incapable of such moral failure?

If charity is virtuous and the lack thereof wicked, should not he who has no possessions instead offer up his labor freely?


In a nutshell, do the needs/wants of the "Collective" Trump the liberties/Rights of the individual?

[Lamil]

Solid read, all over the place

[Ele]

In a nutshell, do the needs/wants of the "Collective" Trump the liberties/Rights of the individual?

It isn't a yes or no question.

[ronasch]

Went from Comcast being bad and the desire for Net Neutrality, then it went off the rails faster than a speeding Ted Cruz Missile when someone failed to comprehend what NN even is.

Gawd, really.

NN was just an example given on government assuming regulatory control over an Industry. I rather not have to litigate the destructive implications of NN again. I'm sure if u search the forums u can find that conversation at nausem.

And with his last breath, he muttered. "A generation of fools." And thus Rome perished.

[ronasch]

It isn't a yes or no question.

Lol it's has a Yes or No result though

[Ele]

Gawd, really.

NN was just an example given on government assuming regulatory control over an Industry. I rather not have to litigate the destructive implications of NN again. I'm sure if u search the forums u can find that conversation at nausem.

And with his last breath, he muttered. "A generation of fools." And thus Rome perished.

I know where it is; I was the one conversing with you.

You still have no clue what the basic concept of NN is and you have used this entire thread to spin every argument into an anti-government/anti-taxation diatribe.

[Ele]

Lol it's has a Yes or No result though

Would you care to expound upon that?

[maskedmelon]

Gawd, really.

NN was just an example given on government assuming regulatory control over an Industry. I rather not have to litigate the destructive implications of NN again. I'm sure if u search the forums u can find that conversation at nausem.

And with his last breath, he muttered. "A generation of fools." And thus Rome perished.

Ele's right. You have failed to demonstrate any tangible association between your arguments and net neutrality. There is a a lot of misinformation surrounding the concept though, so that is understandable I suppose. Maybe give it a once over on Wikipedia ^^

[ronasch]

both of you are still missing my point. Whether or not NN is good or bad or alittle of both it was just an example I used to represent government intrusion into an industry that I believe they have NO authority over. Once again if u don't like the content/download speeds/etc. switch providers or go without. Those ISP's that aren't providing what the consumer wants, will either go bankrupt or change their business practices. Free market principles. Oh noes I can't download porn fast enuff.

[ronasch]

Would you care to expound upon that?

Didn't think it needed explaining but ok.

Think Rome particularly the coliseum, thumbs up, thumbs down.

[Daldaen]

But why is the government bad?

[Ele]

both of you are still missing my point. Whether or not NN is good or bad or alittle of both it was just an example I used to represent government intrusion into an industry that I believe they have NO authority over. Once again if u don't like the content/download speeds/etc. switch providers or go without. Those ISP's that aren't providing what the consumer wants, will either go bankrupt or change their business practices. Free market principles. Oh noes I can't download porn fast enuff.

Is there a point to miss? Your posts are barely more than "government = bad."

You mentioned the US Constitution earlier, what about the Commerce Clause and the possibility for Congress to regulate certain utilities and Internet through that channel? Do you simply ignore that?

Is your entire argument and position merely philosophical in nature and the world would be better off with no government? At which point this whole discussion has been meaningless because it has no basis in modern day reality as to solve the issues we have been trying to discuss.

Didn't think it needed explaining but ok.

Think Rome particularly the coliseum, thumbs up, thumbs down.

So in your mind whether or not a gladiator fighting in The Coliseum provides a killing stroke (in a society that tolerated that particular behavior) provides a binary yes or no response to the question of whether or not the needs/wants of the many should ever trump an individual's liberty or freedom?

okay.

[Swish]

But why is the government bad?

This from someone calling for an amnesty on all existing illegals lol

[ronasch]

Is there a point to miss? Your posts are barely more than "government = bad."

You mentioned the US Constitution earlier, what about the Commerce Clause and the possibility for Congress to regulate certain utilities and Internet through that channel? Do you simply ignore that?

Is your entire argument and position merely philosophical in nature and the world would be better off with no government? At which point this whole discussion has been meaningless because it has no basis in modern day reality as to solve the issues we have been trying to discuss.



So in your mind whether or not a gladiator fighting in The Coliseum provides a killing stroke (in a society that tolerated that particular behavior) provides a binary yes or no response to the question of whether or not the needs/wants of the many should ever trump an individual's liberty or freedom?

okay.

Now I must litigate the commerce clause and how the government abuses it. Sorry "I neither the time nor inclination."

Time to kill dragons

[ronasch]

But why is the government bad?

It's not that government is bad, it's who's running it. The nature of man is evil, greed, selfishness, power hungry. Government is a pathway to achieve all that is evil. We have been spoiled as a society and have turned are backs on natures law, and self evident truths. We have defied basic principles, the same basic principles that forged America as the greatest civilization since Rome. We have out of ignorance and complacency Vote (R) or (D) because actually finding out who were voting for takes effort, and when we do find out we dismiss the warning signs because of our pride. Government doesn't have to be bad but we need higher standards when it comes to who were electing. Read The Law, by Bastiat your world will change

Ted Cruz 2016

[Ele]

Ted Cruz 2016

Called that like 7 pages back

[ronasch]

So in your mind whether or not a gladiator fighting in The Coliseum provides a killing stroke (in a society that tolerated that particular behavior) provides a binary yes or no response to the question of whether or not the needs/wants of the many should ever trump an individual's liberty or freedom?

okay.

Once again the "point" eludes you. The majority controls the minority, the gladiator is just A tool the masses (thumbs up/thumbs down) use to oppress the minority. Society doesn't tolerate that particular behavior, it encourages and embraces it. The nature of man.

[ronasch]

Called that like 7 pages back

And your point?

[Ele]

Once again the "point" eludes you. The majority controls the minority, the gladiator is just A tool the masses (thumbs up/thumbs down) use to oppress the minority. Society doesn't tolerate that particular behavior, it encourages and embraces it. The nature of man.

Your points are elusive because you can barely form a coherent thought, much less a cohesive sentence that presents your position.

So have you moved your goal posts now to complain about the nature of man instead of government being bad? If you remove government what does that leave us with man vs man? Then you will really see a majority versus a minority.

[Ele]

And your point?

Your statement of support for Senator Cruz further evidences your misunderstanding of net neutrality.

[ronasch]

Your points are elusive because you can barely form a coherent thought, much less a cohesive sentence that presents your position.

So have you moved your goal posts now to complain about the nature of man instead of government being bad? If you remove government what does that leave us with man vs man? Then you will really see a majority versus a minority.

your right the point doesn't elude you, the point angers you because you have no factual or philosophical argument to rebut my arguments. You support enslavement of the few to benefit the many. You despise personal liberties because you yourself are incapable of survival without forcing others to provide for you. So yes, you will never be persuaded because in order to persuade you to my point, I would have to give you something in return.
Btw were always man vs man, government doesn't change that it just gives power to one of those "man"

[Ele]

your right the point doesn't elude you, the point angers you because you have no factual or philosophical argument to rebut my arguments. You support enslavement of the few to benefit the many. You despise personal liberties because you yourself are incapable of survival without forcing others to provide for you. So yes, you will never be persuaded because in order to persuade you to my point, I would have to give you something in return.
Btw were always man vs man, government doesn't change that it just gives power to one of those "man"

I'm not even mad, I'm simply trying to walk you through your lack reasoning and application to real world problems. You keep dealing in abstracts and dodging the issues when pressed.

I haven't even stated my personal position in this thread on any of these issues. You are arguing against strawmen that you keep pulling out of thin air because you can't rebut or provide real world solutions to any of the issues presented in this thread due to your myopic and unwavering view of the world, government, and man.

[ronasch]

I'm not even mad, I'm simply trying to walk you through your lack reasoning and application to real world problems. You keep dealing in abstracts and dodging the issues when pressed.

I haven't even stated my personal position in this thread on any of these issues. You are arguing against strawmen that you keep pulling out of thin air because you can't rebut or provide real world solutions to any of the issues presented in this thread due to your myopic and unwavering view of the world, government, and man.

I don't need your walk thru on communism I have read Marx and Engels work and understand it fully. Your answer for problems that were created by government is more government. Thus more problems.

I stated solutions multiple times in many of these posts. Just because my solutions require actual work doesn't mean they aren't fundamentally sound.

I mentioned Frank Capra in an earlier post, I suggest you observe his work. I'm sure you'll probably want an explanation on that too.

[Ele]

I don't need your walk thru on communism I have read Marx and Engels work and understand it fully. Your answer for problems that were created by government is more government. Thus more problems.

I stated solutions multiple times in many of these posts. Just because my solutions require actual work doesn't mean they aren't fundamentally sound.

I mentioned Frank Capra in an earlier post, I suggest you observe his work. I'm sure you'll probably want an explanation on that too.

Actual work being completely dismantling modern society and withdrawing into individual seclusion.