# The Role of Government (Formerly Net Neutrality Thread)



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 14, 2017)

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/...l-vote.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer

Regardless of party lines, the crap that Pai and his cronies on the committee have done so far are blatantly pro-corporation and anti-consumer. This is seriously disheartening since the telecom companies have even more leverage now.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Dec 14, 2017)

Yeah i watched that shit storm go down live. They really have no idea what they are talking about or what they are doing.


----------



## Mathemagician (Dec 14, 2017)

They know. Their goal is to pretend to not know.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 14, 2017)

Mathemagician said:


> They know. Their goal is to pretend to not know.



I agree.

Bastards.


----------



## MFB (Dec 14, 2017)

Who would've thought sharing memes and petitions online wasn't enough to stop big corporations and lobbyists from doing exactly what they wanted?

Shocking!


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 14, 2017)

MFB said:


> Who would've thought sharing memes and petitions online wasn't enough to stop big corporations and lobbyists from doing exactly what they wanted?
> 
> Shocking!



There is literally nothing - short of money - that would have stopped them. Calling my congressman does jack for this (clearly). This is all about money.

What I AM hoping is that Google or Apple rolls out a complete network. They could easily do it. Apple considered doing its own cell service prior to the iphone's release. Both of those companies, while interested in maximizing income in their own right, do not need various network traffic fees to make all of their profit. They could easily stop ATT/Verizon from having access to iphones. Or, they could negotiate that iphone users get full internet. But regardless, silicon valley companies are not going to like having their customers not have access. Facebook ad revenue will decrease if we have to pay a separate fee for "social media access" like in New Zealand, etc.


----------



## vilk (Dec 14, 2017)




----------



## bostjan (Dec 14, 2017)

Knew it was coming, still don't like it, but don't feel like I can do anything about it.


----------



## MFB (Dec 14, 2017)

Hollowway said:


> There is literally nothing - short of money - that would have stopped them. Calling my congressman does jack for this (clearly). This is all about money.



Oh most definitely.

I feel like given the all the 'big bads' that people have said would happen if this did go into effect, it's sort of it's own downfall and will end up biting the companies that wanted it in the ass.


----------



## schwiz (Dec 14, 2017)

Still has to go to the federal court. So many there is still a chance?


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Dec 14, 2017)

The government is SUPPOSED to be for the people. This is crystal clear proof that the government doesn't work for its citizens, it just takes advantage of them at this point.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 14, 2017)

Ajit Pai is a piece of garbage. Here's what I suggest: I suggest someone throw his ass in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and go, "If you pay, we'll drag you behind our boat and take you to shore. If you pay even more, we'll bring you on board. However, if you refuse to pay, you can swim your idiotic ass back with no compass, no directions, and probably end up going the wrong way."

Fucking imbecile.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 14, 2017)

schwiz said:


> Still has to go to the federal court. So many there is still a chance?


I hope a lawsuit drains Ajit Pai's bank account and he ends up panhandling around Washington DC.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 14, 2017)

By the way, I am almost certain that Charter Spectrum was throttling certain services before this shit was even repealed. "What!? They're gonna repeal it possibly!? THROTTLE THE INTERNET!" Fucking useless twats.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 14, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> By the way, I am almost certain that Charter Spectrum was throttling certain services before this shit was even repealed. "What!? They're gonna repeal it possibly!? THROTTLE THE INTERNET!" Fucking useless twats.


Yeah I'd swear they've been throttling my internet the last year or two. It's been slower than in the past..


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 14, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> Yeah I'd swear they've been throttling my internet the last year or two. It's been slower than in the past..


The past few weeks, I've noticed the internet being up and down, and just ridiculous in general. I used an app to test the speed of my net, and it was for the most part fine, but still having issues with things. So what I did was ping certain sites, and it supported my suspicions: That some sites were being throttled while others were not. 

Charter Spectrum should be ashamed of themselves -- they did this prior to it being repealed -- and when they get their asses handed to them in a court of law for these kinds of practices, AGAIN, I'll enjoy the schadenfreude it will give me.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 14, 2017)

Full disclosure: I generally enjoy watching Alex Jones for various reasons. When he's selectively throttled for being conservative and the rest of it, I really do not want to hear him whine that he's being "discriminated against" since he was so for getting rid of NN to begin with. It's absolutely astounding how Conservatives are supporting this move just because "it's an Obama regulation of federal overreach and a power grab." And yes, I'm generally more conservative, but the idea that some sites should be held hostage because "They use up too much bandwidth" [ie, the users of our ISP is using a service that we aren't getting paid for rather than our shit cable/satellite TV], is utter bullshit. Perhaps Twitter should start charging Donald Trump since Twitter is his sounding board and podium for everything he has to say.


----------



## auxioluck (Dec 14, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Full disclosure: I generally enjoy watching Alex Jones for various reasons. When he's selectively throttled for being conservative and the rest of it, I really do not want to hear him whine that he's being "discriminated against" since he was so for getting rid of NN to begin with. It's absolutely astounding how Conservatives are supporting this move just because "it's an Obama regulation of federal overreach and a power grab." And yes, I'm generally more conservative, but the idea that some sites should be held hostage because "They use up too much bandwidth" [ie, the users of our ISP is using a service that we aren't getting paid for rather than our shit cable/satellite TV], is utter bullshit. Perhaps Twitter should start charging Donald Trump since Twitter is his sounding board and podium for everything he has to say.



This is really well put. I have been a Conservative my entire life, but I have never liked Trump, nor do I agree with any of this "Get rid of ________ because Obama did it" bullshit the GOP has been pulling. Absolutely no thought behind anything except whether or not there's money in it, or whether or not Obama put it into place. The GOP has really loved pulling the "Obama era overreach" nonsense while letting shit like this happen to the benefit of large corporations. I sincerely hope that a Federal Court can look at this with some form of neutral perspective. Ajit Pai can go fuck himself.

And I thought 2016 sucked.


----------



## narad (Dec 14, 2017)

You could always be throttled, just not systematically based on the type or origin of your content.

But yea, I hope this entirely backfires and functions as a "woke the sleeping dragon" sort of moment for Apple/Google to enter the ISP space but with great product and customer service.

And yea, reminding me of an example in an earlier post here -- if anyone thought the telecom companies were lobbying for this to not exploit the shit out of it, just remember the tethering/hotspot fee. Could their be a more obvious precedent of what they'll do?


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

I figured id be in the minority here, but im not all that upset about this ruling. And rather than me typing it out, Ron Paul has said it best already. 

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/net-neutrality-and-the-problem-with-experts


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I figured id be in the minority here, but im not all that upset about this ruling. And rather than me typing it out, Ron Paul has said it best already.
> 
> http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/net-neutrality-and-the-problem-with-experts


Yeah, I'm just going to discount anyone who discounts Tim Berners-Lee's opinion on the internet.

And not to be anal, but if you're going to title your article "the problem with experts" and then say "you don't know how an economy works", playing the expert card, I'm also going to discount your opinion.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

StevenC said:


> Yeah, I'm just going to discount anyone who discounts Tim Berners-Lee's opinion on the internet.
> 
> And not to be anal, but if you're going to title your article "the problem with experts" and then say "you don't know how an economy works", playing the expert card, I'm also going to discount your opinion.


 Did you read the while thing or just one paragraph?

The economy doesnt work, thats the thing. I know how the economy SHOULD work. Do you? Most people dont know how the economy currently works (or doesnt) ALSO how it should work

Btw, yes i am back. My account was throttled for a while


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Did you read the while thing or just one paragraph?
> 
> The economy doesnt work, thats the thing. I know how the economy SHOULD work. Do you? Most people dont know how the economy currently works (or doesnt) ALSO how it should work
> 
> Btw, yes i am back. My account was throttled for a while


It took a while but I read the whole thing. Did you read this whole thread? Did you see the list of anti-consumer actions by ISPs? Is that how economies are supposed to work? Because if publicly funding infrastructure, chopping it up into monopolies, and those monopolies abusing their power is how an economy is supposed to work, then screw that.


----------



## narad (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Did you read the while thing or just one paragraph?
> 
> The economy doesnt work, thats the thing. I know how the economy SHOULD work. Do you? Most people dont know how the economy currently works (or doesnt) ALSO how it should work
> 
> Btw, yes i am back. My account was throttled for a while



Why don't you get specific about how the economy will work with net neutrality repealed and we can revisit this thread in 2 years to see how it played out?


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

StevenC said:


> It took a while but I read the whole thing. Did you read this whole thread? Did you see the list of anti-consumer actions by ISPs? Is that how economies are supposed to work? Because if publicly funding infrastructure, chopping it up into monopolies, and those monopolies abusing their power is how an economy is supposed to work, then screw that.


No thats not how the economy is supposed to work. There wouldnt be monopolies in a true free market. That is Chronyism and it doesnt work.. 

All i know is we dont need big brother to get involved with regulating anything.


----------



## narad (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> No thats not how the economy is supposed to work. There wouldnt be monopolies in a true free market. That is Chronyism and it doesnt work..
> 
> All i know is we dont need big brother to get involved with regulating anything.



I hate how big brother tells you not to drive 60 mph in a school zone. Or like, doesn't let companies charge disproportionately for water or electricity depending on what it's being used for. It's like 1984 up in here.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> No thats not how the economy is supposed to work. There wouldnt be monopolies in a true free market. Chronyism doesnt work.


Well, that's how it currently works, except you have net neutrality to stop that. You see, the ISPs get together and say "I'll stay out of your part of town if you stay out of mine". This is how it works the world over. The reason this is how it works is because there are things that can't be done privately. There are things that are so expensive that companies would go bankrupt trying to do them. For example, fibre optic cabling costs thousands of dollars per mile, and that's before you install it. The economics of it prevent competition and make your vision of a "true free market" impossible.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

narad said:


> I hate how big brother tells you not to drive 60 mph in a school zone. Or like, doesn't let companies charge disproportionately for water or electricity depending on what it's being used for. It's like 1984 up in here.


The free market wouldnt allow for companies to charge disproportionately for utilities. People would simply find another provider, and if there is a demand for such utilities, someone will surely come along to provide it to get your business. Not sure where you were going with that one


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> The free market wouldnt allow for companies to charge disproportionately for utilities. People would simply find another provider, and if there is a demand for such utilities, someone will surely come along to provide it to get your business. Not sure where you were going with that one


By all means install your own water pipe infrastructure and compete with your local provider. I understand CT has one of the higher average incomes in the US, but that's a lot more zeros than most people will ever see, even if the government keeps their filthy taxing hands off.


----------



## narad (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> The free market wouldnt allow for companies to charge disproportionately for utilities. People would simply find another provider, and if there is a demand for such utilities, someone will surely come along to provide it to get your business. Not sure where you were going with that one



The free market? How many ISP options do you have in your area? You get maybe one choice between 2 major landline providers throughout huge swaths of the US. It's hard to think of an industry in the US where consumers have fewer options.

And just go ahead and check out customer service reviews of major telecoms. That's how you can consistently offer shit poor service -- there's no real alternative in most areas, so there's no way to "vote with your dollar".


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

StevenC said:


> Well, that's how it currently works, except you have net neutrality to stop that. You see, the ISPs get together and say "I'll stay out of your part of town if you stay out of mine". This is how it works the world over. The reason this is how it works is because there are things that can't be done privately. There are things that are so expensive that companies would go bankrupt trying to do them. For example, fibre optic cabling costs thousands of dollars per mile, and that's before you install it. The economics of it prevent competition and make your vision of a "true free market" impossible.


I suppose i would then ask, why does something like that cost so much? Is there any government regulation/intervention involved with that? One plan B pill costs $50, does that mean it should? Of course not. Whenever you have government subsidies/intervention, prices go way up


StevenC said:


> By all means install your own water pipe infrastructure and compete with your local provider. I understand CT has one of the higher average incomes in the US, but that's a lot more zeros than most people will ever see, even if the government keeps their filthy taxing hands off.


The taxes


narad said:


> The free market? How many ISP options do you have in your area? You get maybe one choice between 2 major landline providers throughout huge swaths of the US. It's hard to think of an industry in the US where consumers have fewer options.
> 
> And just go ahead and check out customer service reviews of major telecoms. That's how you can consistently offer shit poor service -- there's no real alternative in most areas, so there's no way to "vote with your dollar".



So your saying there should be more isp's? I agree with that. Perhaps in a better system there would be


----------



## synrgy (Dec 14, 2017)

I'm on the side of preserving neutrality. That said, with apologies for picking nits: 

Pinging a bunch of different sites from one machine/location doesn't provide any indication of 'throttling', or not. There are so many variables necessary to the equation left unaccounted for; the number of others on the network at that moment, the size of packets being delivered, the capabilities of the host server(s), the capabilities of the servers each packet needs to pass through between the host and client -- a path which can be different for each individual packet based on another set of variables..

I get that programmers and engineers from decades ago were so slick that they made this stuff _feel_ like we have one-to-one connections with any site we want to reach, but that's an illusion. It's not how the 'Net... Works. (I'll show myself out.)

Anyway, I'm _not_ saying throttling doesn't happen. I'm just saying that there's little one can do to _prove it_ without documenting a lot of confirmation data provided by the administrators at each external server sampled.

Anyway, per the topic: I sincerely hope this gets killed, but per the present zeitgeist, that's all I've got: Hope. I expect it will fly, because the companies pushing it had/have the bankroll to bribe the necessary individuals the necessary amounts to get this thing done.

(Skip to 1:32 for the wisdom.)


----------



## Mathemagician (Dec 14, 2017)

People like unleash the fury have a general understanding of how capitalist competition should work.

However the end state of capitalism is often oligopolies/monopolies over a long enough time frame. After Bell was split into competing firms, what has happened? They all consolidated AGAIN into just a few big players. 

Oligopoly example in healthcare: My firm has 3 “different” healthcare providers. So whether you have a high deductible, intermediate, or the “best” insurance you supposedly have options.

The reality? They all offer the EXACT same coverage/plans/breakpoints. The ONLY difference is that one is like $10 less in a given year than the other.

There is no way to shop for a better plan. I pay out the ass for shit healthcare because to buy individually would cost me over $1k/mo. I want universal healthcare. Would make me feel better about the annual cost if I knew it was supporting anyone that was ill could then go to a doctor. 

When there are only 1 or 2 players for something like internet that should be REGULATED LIKE A UTILITY, I.e. water/electricity/etc it’s in the ISP’s best interest to not be regulated.

Meanwhile for consumers they absolutely should be even MORE heavily regulated.

Just like water and electricity, you cannot be a functioning student/adult in the modern world without internet access. THAT is why the prices are so high, and why they create data caps to artificially create reasons to charge more.

I’m a capitalist, and I manage money for a living, I LOVE competition. The ISP/telecom industry is not capitalism. It absolutely should be regulated like a utility, because there is generally no real competition.


----------



## narad (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> So your saying there should be more isp's? I agree with that. Perhaps in a better system there would be



That depends -- do you think there should be more water providers? Just like 10 companies for each city just running pipes everywhere.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I suppose i would then ask, why does something like that cost so much? Is there any government regulation/intervention involved with that? One plan B pill costs $50, does that mean it should? Of course not. Whenever you have government subsidies/intervention, prices go way up


You're actually so wrong it's funny. Every country in the world with publicly subsidised healthcare pays less per pill because they buy more pills at once than I can on my own, or a bunch of insurers competing. This information is widely reported and available. When I call up Jason's Prosthetics to order replacement hips, it costs per hip if I buy 1000 than if I buy one. You understand economics, right?

Now, the thing is it costs loads of money to dig up and bury fibre optic cables before we consider the price of the cables. It costs so much per hour to employ people, it costs so much per hour to operate a digger. The reason these are done as public works projects is because if ISPs had to do it, there'd be no more ISPs.

However, if we remove government intervention we can enslave people to do the work and steal the diggers. Problem solved, I guess.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

StevenC said:


> You're actually so wrong it's funny. Every country in the world with publicly subsidised healthcare pays less per pill because they buy more pills at once than I can on my own, or a bunch of insurers competing. This information is widely reported and available. When I call up Jason's Prosthetics to order replacement hips, it costs per hip if I buy 1000 than if I buy one. You understand economics, right?
> 
> Now, the thing is it costs loads of money to dig up and bury fibre optic cables before we consider the price of the cables. It costs so much per hour to employ people, it costs so much per hour to operate a digger. The reason these are done as public works projects is because if ISPs had to do it, there'd be no more ISPs.
> 
> However, if we remove government intervention we can enslave people to do the work and steal the diggers. Problem solved, I guess.


Yes i do understand. Of course you get a discount when buying in bulk. But, why does one pill cost $50?


----------



## narad (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Yes i do understand. Of course you get a discount when buying in bulk. But, why does one pill cost $50?



R&D


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Yes i do understand. Of course you get a discount when buying in bulk. But, why does one pill cost $50?


Because pills don't just happen. They need to be manufactured. And when you have the exclusive production rights to something you can gouge the price. When you don't have a centralised buying power you get a worse deal. Costs have to be recouped, and if there's a guarantee that a company will sell X pills, they can charge a lower price and still be profitable.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

Sorry OP to derail the thread.


StevenC said:


> Because pills don't just happen. They need to be manufactured. And when you have the exclusive production rights to something you can gouge the price. When you don't have a centralised buying power you get a worse deal. Costs have to be recouped, and if there's a guarantee that a company will sell X pills, they can charge a lower price and still be profitable.


What i should have asked was how can hospitals be allowed to charge $50 for an aspirin that would buy you a year supply from buying aspirin at the store? Or upwards of $100 for baby diapers? Its not right. Its a result a government intervention. 

Its also kinda off topic. Sorry OP


----------



## narad (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Sorry OP to derail the thread.
> 
> What i should have asked was how can hospitals be allowed to charge $50 for an aspirin that would buy you a year supply from buying aspirin at the store? Or upwards of $100 for baby diapers? Its not right. Its a result a government intervention.
> 
> Its also kinda off topic. Sorry OP



That's based on the interaction between the hospital and the insurance company. In countries where this is regulated, you don't get such a ridiculous hospital inflation. Of course, you wouldn't be paying $50 for aspirin or $100 for diapers if you had insurance, so that becomes an atypical price for such items.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Sorry OP to derail the thread.
> 
> What i should have asked was how can hospitals be allowed to charge $50 for an aspirin that would buy you a year supply from buying aspirin at the store? Or upwards of $100 for baby diapers? Its not right. Its a result a government intervention.
> 
> Its also kinda off topic. Sorry OP


It's literally the opposite, because in every other country in the world where governments intervene in healthcare prices are lower than the USA.

Another comparable example is that if a doctor prescribes a name brand medication, a pharmacy won't give you a generic. In the NHS for example, cost reduction is important so when I am prescribed Nurofen, I am given generic ibuprofen, because the regulation is to give out cheaper generics where available.

The moral of the story is that running utilities and basic rights for profit results in higher prices, because lo and behold, people need water and medication.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 14, 2017)

narad said:


> You could always be throttled, just not systematically based on the type or origin of your content.
> 
> But yea, I hope this entirely backfires and functions as a "woke the sleeping dragon" sort of moment for Apple/Google to enter the ISP space but with great product and customer service.
> 
> And yea, reminding me of an example in an earlier post here -- if anyone thought the telecom companies were lobbying for this to not exploit the shit out of it, just remember the tethering/hotspot fee. Could their be a more obvious precedent of what they'll do?


Of course you could always be throttled, but they'd have to try and hide it, and if you complained, more than likely stop it until a later time when they throttle you again.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 14, 2017)

synrgy said:


> I'm on the side of preserving neutrality. That said, with apologies for picking nits:
> 
> Pinging a bunch of different sites from one machine/location doesn't provide any indication of 'throttling', or not. There are so many variables necessary to the equation left unaccounted for; the number of others on the network at that moment, the size of packets being delivered, the capabilities of the host server(s), the capabilities of the servers each packet needs to pass through between the host and client -- a path which can be different for each individual packet based on another set of variables..
> 
> ...



Well, my speeds per a speed test seemed to be working just fine, yet certain websites and services were running piss poor. But you're right, it's not the best way to determine such, but it confirmed my thoughts regarding why, for instance, YouTube was running like shit yet I was getting typical speed test results.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

StevenC said:


> It's literally the opposite, because in every other country in the world where governments intervene in healthcare prices are lower than the USA.
> 
> Another comparable example is that if a doctor prescribes a name brand medication, a pharmacy won't give you a generic. In the NHS for example, cost reduction is important so when I am prescribed Nurofen, I am given generic ibuprofen, because the regulation is to give out cheaper generics where available.
> 
> The moral of the story is that running utilities and basic rights for profit results in higher prices, because lo and behold, people need water and medication.


Lower healthcare prices at the cost of what though? 50% of your paycheck going to income taxes for as long as you shall live in said country.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Lower healthcare prices at the cost of what though? 50% of your paycheck going to income taxes for as long as you shall live in said country.


The guarantee of not being bankrupt if I develop an illness completely at random, and not being extorted by health insurance companies. And not to get to personal, but I'm super glad my two week stay in hospital as a 4 year old, and my pending spinal surgery plus week long hospital visit is covered.

We also have the best education system in the world here in Northern Ireland, for free.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I figured id be in the minority here, but im not all that upset about this ruling. And rather than me typing it out, Ron Paul has said it best already.
> 
> http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/net-neutrality-and-the-problem-with-experts



In theory, having the government step out of this, and let the free market decide, is good. It's a very libertarian view (hence the Ron Paul connection), but libertarianism is one of those things that can't be done piecemeal. Yes, net net neutrality is not an ideal solution, because it requires government control, and we all agree that the government cannot be trusted to always do the right thing. However, repealing net neutrality does NOT result in a free market economy online. The fact is, the government is ALREADY subsidizing the companies that stand to gain the most from the repeal of NN. The telcos have received over $200 billion from the US government as it is. Ostensibly to have provided fiber to us all. But that never happened. So, Ron Paul and the libertarians can claim that NN is bad because the government shouldn't be involved, but the government already IS involved. It's hardly a free market when the US government is giving some companies $200 billion in free money. Take that away from them, and then sure, you can repeal NN. But no level playing field, no free market.


----------



## narad (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Lower healthcare prices at the cost of what though? 50% of your paycheck going to income taxes for as long as you shall live in said country.



btw, let's not throw around bullshit figures. You're trying to support an argument with bullshit. The average UK citizen pays a 20% income tax.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

narad said:


> btw, let's not throw around bullshit figures. You're trying to support an argument with bullshit. The average UK citizen pays a 20% income tax.


Nor is there even a 50% tax bracket or the possibility to pay a 50% effective tax rate.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

I never mentioned UK. Sorry for not bothering to look where you lived.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I never mentioned UK. Sorry for not bothering to look where you lived.


Did you even read earlier comment mentioning that I made use of the NHS for prescriptions or just one paragraph?


----------



## narad (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I never mentioned UK. Sorry for not bothering to look where you lived.



It doesn't really matter. 20% income tax rate for the average citizen, free healthcare. Really flies in the face of the American story of how it's somehow not possible to manage to put it under regulation, without insurance providers, and without that competition all the medical costs would skyrocket, and ...hmm... is that starting to sound like something a else? Even something...on topic?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 15, 2017)

Yeah, enough about healthcare and taxes. Take it somewhere else.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

I hope the care is good wherever you live. I know people that live in canada that come to the US for healthcare because its better and you dont have to wait in line to get treated, especially to see a specialist.

Nonetheless, id rather pay 0% income tax and have affordable healthcare ideally.


----------



## narad (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I hope the care is good wherever you live. I know people that live in canada that come to the US for healthcare because its better and you dont have to wait in line to get treated, especially to see a specialist.



I'm not sure how I'd feel if I had something like cancer, but in all other experiences the UK system has completely trounced the US one in terms of convenience and quality of care.

Much like the 50% income tax, I suspect a lot of stories of canadians seeking US healthcare are politically-motivated fabrications.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 15, 2017)

What does healthcare have to do with Net Neutrality?


----------



## narad (Dec 15, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What does healthcare have to do with Net Neutrality?



They're both domains where there is debate about the extent to which government should regulate such services, which everyone needs, and the costs to the consumer under various regulation schemes. It also serves as a counter-example to much of the logic put forth by the anti-NN crowd, i.e., that a more free market will benefit the consumer by bringing costs down and more directly matching services to the customer.

So like... a fair bit.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

On the flipside, id rather not see anymore cell towers around. Lol


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 15, 2017)

narad said:


> They're both domains where there is debate about the extent to which government should regulate such services, which everyone needs, and the costs to the consumer under various regulation schemes. It also serves as a counter-example to much of the logic put forth by the anti-NN crowd, i.e., that a more free market will benefit the consumer by bringing costs down and more directly matching services to the customer.
> 
> So like... a fair bit.


I think what might be good for health care is not necessarily the same for the internet. It's still off-topic.

Oh, and a lot of the anti-NN crowd thinks it has something to do with Facebook, Google, and Twitter being able to censor conservatives or some shit.


----------



## thraxil (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I hope the care is good wherever you live. I know people that live in canada that come to the US for healthcare because its better and you dont have to wait in line to get treated, especially to see a specialist.



As an American who currently lives in the UK and has previously lived in the Netherlands, yes, the healthcare is better over here. My SO was just diagnosed by a UK doc with a condition that's been bothering her for her entire adult life and that US doctors missed for a good twenty years. Total cost: 250 GBP. That's only because she decided to pay out of pocket and skip the queue (since she had travel plans over the holidays). Yes, things can be slow here, but like the US, you *also* can pay money to speed it up. The only difference there is that the amount you have to pay is far, far less. And, yeah, our taxes here are slightly higher, but pretty close to what we paid in the US.

In the US, 643000 people go bankrupt every year over medical bills. Over here, that just isn't a thing that happens.

https://www.snopes.com/643000-bankruptcies-in-the-u-s-every-year-due-to-medical-bills/

In NL, it was even more extreme. Our taxes were higher there (but still not that bad), but man, _everything_ was better there. Public transport, health care, the streets are better maintained. And a good chunk of those taxes go towards a pension. It's hard to understand if you haven't lived there yourself, but the time I lived there was the most stress-free of my life. It's a huge burden off your mind knowing that there's pretty much no way you can end up destitute. It allows you to make life choices that aren't based on fear.


----------



## Demiurge (Dec 15, 2017)

Not quite sure if I'm boned-up on the political metaphysics in play here, but I'd tend to believe that while the idea of fewer regulations sounds great, it really only works when companies show they are capable of acting in good faith. 

Knowing my ISP/cable provider... well, if we're also supposed to believe that ISPs will be free to drive innovation without somehow rising their rates to pay for it- I'll really only expect one miracle at a time.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Dec 15, 2017)

Mathemagician said:


> When there are only 1 or 2 players for something like internet that should be REGULATED LIKE A UTILITY, I.e. water/electricity/etc it’s in the ISP’s best interest to not be regulated.
> 
> Meanwhile for consumers they absolutely should be even MORE heavily regulated.
> 
> ...




This pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing. 

I wouldn't really have an issue with it if there 10 other options in my area for internet...but I have 1 who is already horrible. They are going to bend America over and stick it to us.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 15, 2017)

cwhitey2 said:


> This pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing.
> 
> I wouldn't really have an issue with it if there 10 other options in my area for internet...but I have 1 who is already horrible. They are going to bend America over and stick it to us.


same. where I live there's only 2 options and frontier is trash while charter is barely giving me 45-50mb/s download speeds for 60$ a month. I've got a buddy down in nashville where internet is considered a utility and he pays 60$ a month but gets like 1-2gb/s download speeds. ;_;


----------



## vilk (Dec 15, 2017)

Dum-dum question time!

If we can shoot internet out of the sky into our phones, why we gotta have fiber optics and cables and DSLs? I mean, obviously we _can_ use them because we already put them in the ground so it is convenient... but we keep talking about how it's prohibitively expensive to enter the industry on account of how much work goes into putting physical cords in the the earth... but is it also prohibitively expensive to like just buy some antennas or satellites or however magic sky internet works and have a bunch of competing ISPs that just beam the net directly into your shit?


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 15, 2017)

vilk said:


> Dum-dum question time!
> 
> If we can shoot internet out of the sky into our phones, why we gotta have fiber optics and cables and DSLs? I mean, obviously we _can_ use them because we already put them in the ground so it is convenient... but we keep talking about how it's prohibitively expensive to enter the industry on account of how much work goes into putting physical cords in the the earth... but is it also prohibitively expensive to like just buy some antennas or satellites or however magic sky internet works and have a bunch of competing ISPs that just beam the net directly into your shit?


the biggest problem with satellite internet is that coverage can be intermittent and speeds typically don't approach those of fiber optics. At least that's how it used to be, nowadays I'm sure there's enough satellites out there to get pretty steady coverage, though I don't know about the speed aspect improving. As far as putting the cables into the ground, that's part of why I think internet should be a govt run utility, they already tear up the streets every year to mess with water/electrical lines/whatever, why not just install fiber optics and undercut the shit out of charter and time warner?


----------



## synrgy (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I know people that live in canada that come to the US for healthcare because its better and you dont have to wait in line to get treated, especially to see a specialist.



I'll bite.

The available data suggesting that any statistically significant portion of Canadians come to the US for any/all care is -- at best -- shaky. Generally, I'd say the suggestion is verifiably false*.

Most of these situations are exclusive to people in border towns, and that stands to reason: If one happens to live on the Ontario side of the 1,000 Island border crossing, for instance, the three (arguably four) nearest hospitals are all on the other side of the border, in New York.

In terms of averages, Canaians wait longer for _specialized_ care, but that average _doesn't_ account for the nuances between different areas and population numbers. It's not fair to compare the wait times in/near Lanark Highlands, ON (population 5,128) to those of Toronto (population 2.8 million), any more than it would be fair to compare Milford, DE (population 10,979) to Washington, DC (population 681,170).

Waiting for specialists is extremely common here, too. How many of you have made phone calls to specialist's offices in The States, only to be told that either A) that doctor isn't taking on any new patients, and/or B) it will be several weeks or months before they will be available to see you, and/or C) that doctor doesn't work with _your_ insurance? Maybe I've just got bad luck, but that's been my experience with the offices of _every_ specialist I've ever needed.

*Sources here, here, here, here. Also, anecdotally, I'm happily married to a Canadian.

Some keys takeaways:



> The first thing to note is that any broad statements about “the Canada health care plan” have to be qualified, because Canada does not have a single national health care plan (and therefore what is true about health care in one part of Canada is not necessarily true in another).





> Canadians are also just happier with the system than Americans: 40 percent of Canadians said the system works well and needs just minor changes, compared to 25 percent of Americans who said the same thing about the US system.


----------



## narad (Dec 15, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I think what might be good for health care is not necessarily the same for the internet. It's still off-topic.



I let the mods do the modding.


----------



## vilk (Dec 15, 2017)

The ratio of Canadians traveling for medical care to the USA as compared with Americans traveling to Canada is only comparatively higher because Canada has a much smaller population.

In sheer numbers, there are far more Americans traveling to Canada for health care than vice versa.

And especially a far greater number of Americans purchasing medicine in Canada. I'd bet there's veritably _no one _in Canada who comes to America to purchase medicine.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

synrgy said:


> I'll bite.
> 
> The available data suggesting that any statistically significant portion of Canadians come to the US for any/all care is -- at best -- shaky. Generally, I'd say the suggestion is verifiably false*.
> 
> ...


Not saying whose right or wrong, but three of the links include 15+ year old data. The snopes article is comprised of "study data" written by someone who doesnt live in canada it seems. And even still, for those with the highest income to pay near 50% tax (the minority of residents), is disturbing.

Taxation is absolutley theft. Healthcare costs should be lower. 

The old days of your family doctor visiting you in your house with his briefcase of antidotes in hand is loooong gone.........and so is competition. While a "free healthcare" system seems like a great perk, it does come with a great cost. And i dont believe it will be sustainable in the coming future. All of this stuff costs money, where will the money come from? 

This has turned into a different thread now


----------



## synrgy (Dec 15, 2017)

The depressing part is that care _without insurance _is generally cheaper there than it is _with insurance_ here.


----------



## vilk (Dec 15, 2017)

I think it's more disturbing that you could tax 50% of someone's income and they can still afford to live a life several thousands of times more lavish than 99% of the population.

_Ohhhhh noooooooo they're taking 50% of my moneyyyyyy now I can only afford 70 houses and 50 yachts instead of even 100 each that I wanteddddddddd
_
"Oh no! Only 70 houses!?!? That's so *disturbing!*"


----------



## synrgy (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> three of the links include 15+ year old data.



Right. Which was kind of my point: Everyone claiming 'Canadians come here for care' is cherry picking from that same set of data, which wasn't super accurate to begin with.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Taxation is absolutley theft.


He said through publicly funded infrastructure for a the publicly developed world wide web. Though, to be fair that was European funding, so get off my lawn!


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

vilk said:


> I think it's more disturbing that you could tax 50% of someone's income and they can still afford to live a life several thousands of times more lavish than 99% of the population.
> 
> _Ohhhhh noooooooo they're taking 50% of my moneyyyyyy now I can only afford 70 houses and 50 yachts instead of even 100 each that I wanteddddddddd
> _
> "Oh no! Only 70 houses!?!? That's so *disturbing!*"


Hahaha i love these kinda posts.

Rob peter to pay.........................yourself?????!!! Oh tgif


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

synrgy said:


> Right. Which was kind of my point: Everyone claiming 'Canadians come here for care' is cherry picking from that same set of data, which wasn't super accurate to begin with.


You missed the part where i said "i know somebody who lives in canada....."


----------



## synrgy (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> You missed the part where i said "i know somebody who lives in canada....."



No, I didn't, but it seems like maybe you missed the part where I said "I'm married to a Canadian".

Like, I didn't want to go so far as to call you a liar, so instead I just presented a bunch of evidence to support that your anecdotal experience is statistically insignificant/irrelevant.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

synrgy said:


> No, I didn't, but it seems like maybe you missed the part where I said "I'm married to a Canadian".
> 
> Like, I didn't want to go so far as to call you a liar, so instead I just presented a bunch of evidence to support that your anecdotal experience is statistically insignificant/irrelevant.


15 year old studies is not relevant evidence


----------



## synrgy (Dec 15, 2017)

*edit* Nevermind. I should know better than to engage.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

Tag your it. Are we done now?


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Tag your it. Are we done now?


*you're*


----------



## narad (Dec 15, 2017)

It really is crucially important to get your grammar correct when you're trying to do a "mic-drop" post.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

narad said:


> It really is crucially important to get your grammar correct when you're trying to do a "mic-drop" post.


Weve had a similar conversation about grammar a month ago. I care not to get into it again  i just dont care


----------



## narad (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Weve had a similar conversation about grammar a month ago. I care not to get into it again  i just dont care



It's okay, I'm not going to read into it (too much). But believing some campaign talking point in the absence of any evidence to support it, and justifying it with a single sample of anecdotal evidence -- that's something you should care more about. You're choosing to believe what is convenient for you, rather than what studies indicate.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

narad said:


> It's okay, I'm not going to read into it (too much). But believing some campaign talking point in the absence of any evidence to support it, and justifying it with a single sample of anecdotal evidence -- that's something you should care more about. You're choosing to believe what is convenient for you, rather than what studies indicate.


What do you mean by campaign talking point exactly?


----------



## narad (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> What do you mean by campaign talking point exactly?



The claim that Canadians come over in droves for American healthcare. And the subtext that they do this because of shortcomings in their own system.

In the words of a Canadian journalist, in response to an international health policy that placed Canada just one place above the US, "So we're better than The United States, but should we really aim so low?" Number one on the list, the UK, another national healthcare country. So to bring it back around -- letting the free market reign doesn't seem to be yielding the highest quality or the highest satisfaction in terms of healthcare across the world.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

narad said:


> The claim that Canadians come over in droves for American healthcare. And the subtext that they do this because of shortcomings in their own system.
> 
> In the words of a Canadian journalist, in response to an international health policy that placed Canada just one place above the US, "So we're better than The United States, but should we really aim so low?" Number one on the list, the UK, another national healthcare country. So to bring it back around -- letting the free market reign doesn't seem to be yielding the highest quality or the highest satisfaction in terms of healthcare across the world.


People who champion free healthcare and those who champion socialism in general, always think that the capitalism that currently is implemented today, is a true free market capitalism. It is not. What you are claiming to be a free market is actually chronyism. Nobody in the world has a true laissez faire free market. There hasnt been for quite some time. We should try it for once. Edit: id like to try it

Still off topic here


----------



## Randy (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Still off topic here



Not anymore it ain't.


----------



## HerbalDude420 (Dec 15, 2017)

Free market relies to heavily on supply and demand. You can easily restrict the supply of a given service or tangible item. And you can heavily influence the demand of something.


----------



## vilk (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Nobody in the world has a true laissez faire free market



Now, why do you suppose that is? I mean, after all, as you insist, it's clearly the best most perfect system that there could ever be... so why doesn't it exist anywhere? 

It's my speculation that it _does not and cannot _exist. The closest thing there is is cronyism. So for that reason, imo, it's a poor argument to say that a certain policy direction is wrong on account of that it isn't true enough to a laissez faire system.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

vilk said:


> Now, why do you suppose that is? I mean, after all, as you insist, it's clearly the best most perfect system that there could ever be... so why doesn't it exist anywhere?
> 
> It's my speculation that it _does not and cannot _exist. The closest thing there is is cronyism. So for that reason, imo, it's a poor argument to say that a certain policy direction is wrong on account of that it isn't true enough to a laissez faire system.


Gee i dunno is it because maybe theres psycopathic people out that want complete control over everything you do??? 

It doesnt exist NOT because it wouldnt work.


----------



## narad (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Gee i dunno is it because maybe theres psycopathic people out that want complete control over everything you do???
> 
> It doesnt exist NOT because it wouldnt work.



Psychotic people aren't the ones with any power to control what you do...

But whatever. In for NN or against NN, the choice was never to enact some idealistic free market economy for everything, so I don't know where you're going with it. You had two choices: ISPs can't throttle/package content, or they can do whatever they want, under the story that market forces will pressure them to do things that benefit consumers. Funny no consumers were asking for it.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 15, 2017)

narad said:


> Psychotic people aren't the ones with any power to control what you do...
> 
> But whatever. In for NN or against NN, the choice was never to enact some idealistic free market economy for everything, so I don't know where you're going with it. You had two choices: ISPs can't throttle/package content, or they can do whatever they want, under the story that market forces will pressure them to do things that benefit consumers. Funny no consumers were asking for it.


Funny that consumers weren't asking for it, web innovators weren't asking for it, and website operators weren't asking for it.

To be clear, Mr The Fury, only the ISPs were asking for ISPs to have more power.

Now maybe it's just me; but I think it's kind of arbitrary to not trust governments, yet happily give businesses more control over what content you consume.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

Whats the matter, someones taking away your free porn like taking candy from a baby? Thats why your up in arms? 

Back to dvd's i guess lol


----------



## narad (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Whats the matter, someones taking away your free porn like taking candy from a baby? Thats why your up in arms? Lol



Nope. Just hate Comcast.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

narad said:


> Nope. Just hate Comcast.


So do i. I hate them all actually. Way too expensive. Frontier and charter sucks in my neighborhood


----------



## StevenC (Dec 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> So do i. I hate them all actually. Way too expensive. Frontier and charter sucks in my neighborhood


Makes you wonder why no other ISPs have moved in to your neighbourhood.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

StevenC said:


> Makes you wonder why no other ISPs have moved in to your neighbourhood.


And why might that be?


----------



## MFB (Dec 15, 2017)

The fact that you can't see the irony of him saying that after everything discussed means this has all been for nothing


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 15, 2017)

Sarcasm flew above your head apparently. 

You dont need government to stop something that a free market would. If anything net neutrality should only make isp and more importantly, places like YouTube, Facebook, be upfront and say "yes we are censoring". This program will allow government to grab it hands on our internet.

I dont have the best understanding of this topic since its confusing. Governement control vs. possibly biased corporate control. Take your pick


----------



## AxeHappy (Dec 15, 2017)

Highest Canadian tax bracket is 33% and only kicks in at 200 000 dollars. Moreover it is a progressive tax system so only income above 200K is taxed at that, with lower incomes being taxed at the appropriate rate for that income.

No one here is paying anywhere near 50% of their income in taxes.


----------



## vilk (Dec 16, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I don't have the best understanding of this topic


You don't fucking say



Unleash The Fury said:


> Whats the matter, someones taking away your free porn like taking candy from a baby? Thats why your up in arms?
> 
> Back to dvd's i guess lol



What is this fucking shit


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 16, 2017)

vilk said:


> You don't fucking say


Perhaps that's why he's spent the majority of this thread completely off topic.


----------



## Mathemagician (Dec 16, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I dont have the best understanding of this topic since its confusing.



Finally. 6 pages of most of us replying to someone who is either trolling or flat out refusing to admit they’re out of their element.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 16, 2017)

Im not trolling. A troll would be somebody who comes on here with the intention of pissing people off. Thats not my intention. I just have to respond to ten different people who usually hold the opposite view point as myself. I came here and posted a link to a Ron Paul website with his opinion on net neutrality.

I just know that whatever big brother touches it gets destroyed. Like when Woodrow Wilson signed in the Federal Reserve act in 1913; it allowed government to borrow money at interest to no end while making people pay federal income tax to pay back that interest. Like when obama implemented the AHA and it did the opposite of making healthcare "affordable" for the majority of people. Does no one see anything wrong with having to pay a $900 fine for not having healthcare? But i know it wasnt Obamas doing, entirely. Sure he could have not signed it in, but he did. But it wasnt his creation. I know that this AHA plan has been in the works for quite some time. Like how the Patriot Act was written 20 years before it was implemented by Bush. Yes a conspiracy. Net neutrality is no different. And wether it gets repealed or not, its to big brothers benefit, and any benefits we get from their decision is an unintentional side-perk. Im not sure where i stand with net neutrality yet because i can see the pros and cons to it. Its just that the government in the U.S. has a large history of fucking the people its supposed to work for.

Has anyone looked at both the pros and cons of repealing it or just the cons? I do see the cons of repealing it but fwiw i dont remember the internet being that much different before 2015........besides theres being a lot less unskippable advertisements.


----------



## narad (Dec 16, 2017)

It's gotta be weird spending your whole life thinking everyone is out to get you.

btw, companies aren't lobbying to go back to how things were pre-2015. Pre-2015, things weren't being throttled or package specific to content source, and there is no incentive for ISPs to lobby for the freedom to change things, and then not do it.

The only possible pro I could see is that ISPs could negotiate with streaming service providers like Netflix, so then perhaps your ISP charges you $5 less a month, etc., because they'll be getting a ton of money from Google/FB/netflix/hulu/amazon. The fact that these companies were lobbying for NN makes me suspect this would be why. 

Even as a customer, I prefer it as is. Just every interaction with Comcast makes me feel like they're incompetent and make every trivial change sound like a technically challenging thing. Ex: ever have internet service turned back on at a residence where you already have the gear? You'll still pay a like $40 surcharge for them to basically add your address in their computer, and it'll take 3 days. This makes me think that if I'm going to pay the same price for my current set of streaming things, I'd rather have more money go to Netflix and less go to Comcast. Repealing NN opens up the reverse. Netflix also wasn't established on the backbone of billions of taxpaper dollars.


----------



## Mathemagician (Dec 16, 2017)

1) Calling the entire federal government “big brother” reeks of conspiracy theories. 

2) The federal reserve is the only unit of the US government that turns a profit. The fed lends to banks and earns a (very very small) spread. 

3) No not “everything” the federal government touches goes bad, public schools, the parks system, the FDA, public libraries, hospitals, I could go on. 

These things could use MORE funding, not “unregulated private competition”. 

Because public schools establish a baseline of education, private schools have to offer even BETTER resources/etc to be worth the cost to parents. 

Without publicly funded systems in place, the private sector doesn’t even have to try. 

And as for regulation: If science education wasn’t mandatory most schools in the Midwest would just have “god did it” as the explanation to everything. 

It’s tiring when people don’t realize that the “private options” should have a good federal baseline to COMPETE with. If everyone has access to $50/mo GIGAbit municipal internet like several cities in Colorado and Tennessee (among others) have, then your Comcast wouldn’t fucking cost $300/mo for “up to” 200megabit (1/5 of a gigabit). 

Oligopolies don’t compete, they price fix. OPEC is 4 countries that together and nearly single handedly alone set the price of oil.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 16, 2017)

Mathemagician said:


> 2) The federal reserve is the only unit of the US government that turns a profit. The fed lends to banks and earns a (very very small) spread.


Meanwhile, we go into debt every time they print money.



Mathemagician said:


> 3) No not “everything” the federal government touches goes bad, public schools, the parks system, the FDA, public libraries, hospitals, I could go on.


Public schools in America are a joke.



Mathemagician said:


> And as for regulation: If science education wasn’t mandatory most schools in the Midwest would just have “god did it” as the explanation to everything.


Yeah, because everyone in the Midwest is just some knuckle-dragging country bumpkin hillbilly, right? 

Fucking Christ. I love how it's perfectly A-Okay to stereotype certain people while other people are held on a pedestal and if you demean them with a stereotype, you're an asshole.


----------



## Mathemagician (Dec 16, 2017)

Do you know what education MOST people would have if public school didn’t exist? None. And like I said, they need MORE funding, not less. 

“Starve the beast” is the policy system enacted by anyone that wants to “prove” a program of system is worthless. Keep funding it less and less so the “results” (decreasing test scores for schools, low revenue for Amtrak due to few if any routes being desirable) and boom a few years later there’s your “evidence” that the thing doesn’t work. 

Because they crippled the horse then told it to run a race.


----------



## narad (Dec 16, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Public schools in America are a joke.



They're in a bit of a crisis currently, but previously they've done quite well (by international standards). This could be its own thread, but suffice to say, the having performed well in the past I think is evidence that there's nothing inherent in their publicness that makes them a joke, apart from stifling education funding. And to note, that public schools don't exclude the existence of private schools - just most people not having $30k a year to send their kids there makes it a rarer option.


----------



## Mathemagician (Dec 16, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Yeah, because everyone in the Midwest is just some knuckle-dragging country bumpkin hillbilly, right?
> 
> Fucking Christ. I love how it's perfectly A-Okay to stereotype certain people while other people are held on a pedestal and if you demean them with a stereotype, you're an asshole.



Wanted to touch in this one separately. 

I grew up in the south. With a fundamentalist family. I KNOW what I’m talking about. Jesus dude, I myself used to argue that stuff. 

I’m not stereotyping, I’m speaking from first hand experience. 

Assuming that I’m just generalizing is you grasping at straws. Rural areas in all countries always have a higher concentration of religious conservatism. This is not opinion it’s fact. In the US it’s Christianity. For white/black/Spanish people in the US it’s Christianity.

Who called anyone a bumpkin? It’s the excuse used by the conservative majority of voters that make up the “anti-choice” crowd. “It’s against Jesus”. 

The Bible Belt is the single largest and most consistent voting block.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 16, 2017)

Mathemagician said:


> 1) Calling the entire federal government “big brother” reeks of conspiracy theories.
> 
> 2) The federal reserve is the only unit of the US government that turns a profit. The fed lends to banks and earns a (very very small) spread.
> 
> ...


Ahem. The federal reserve is NOT a unit of the federal government, they are a private entity. You just showed that you know 0. Zero about how the economy works


----------



## Mathemagician (Dec 16, 2017)

Oh goddamnit dude, fuck right off. 

The fact that they do not directly report as a government entity is why they cannot be controlled by political whims. And the fed’s revenue goes directly into the US treasury coffers so...

It’s why mouth-breathing “gut feelings” voters constantly whine that the Fed should answer to Congress. Because they don’t understand that it should be independent. 

To;dr - is the last line from what follows. 


Here’s a copy/paste definition:

“The Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve work together in an effort to maintain a stable economy. The Federal Reserve serves as the government's banker, processing transactions, such as accepting electronic payments for Social Security taxes, issuing payroll checks to government employees and clearing checks for tax payments and other government receivables.

The Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury also work together to borrow money when the government needs to raise cash. The Federal Reserve issues U.S. Treasury securities and conducts Treasury securities auctions, selling these securities on behalf of the Department of the Treasury.

The Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury are also linked in another way. The Federal Reserve is a nonprofit company. After their expenses are paid, any remaining profits are paid to the Department of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury then uses that money to fund government spending. It's a relationship that produces a considerable amount of money. The Federal Reserve System contributed in excess of $29 billion to the Treasury in 2006, according to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB). So, the Federal Reserve not only helps to make and implement policies, it also serves as the government's bank and generates a portion of the revenue used to fund the country's activities.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 16, 2017)

Let's not forget that the USA isn't the only example in the world of a government. The US government doesn't do public systems particularly well because half of the country thinks socialism is a dirty word. The US government is not a good arguing point for libertarianism.

Northern Ireland, despite how much of a shitshow our politics is, has the best school system in the world and it's 100% free. Our public schools are so good that our private schools can't compete. We also have the NHS which is 100% free.

My cousin lives in America but grew up in NI. He has to spend thousands of dollars a year to have his 4 year old get a comparable education to what he was given for free. EDIT: So that if he returns to NI his kids won't be way behind, but only kinda behind.

Don't judge social governance by a bad example of it.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 16, 2017)

This is a great video to learn about how the federal reserve operates; how it came into existence, and how they masquerade as an entity OF the united states (really they just operate within). This video was an eye opener for me. It will be for anyone who takes the time to watch it. G. Edward Griffin wrote a book about this, and this video is basically just a summary of what the book is about.

You have to dig deep to find the truth. A "quick google search" is only going to give you the top mainstream, pre-frozen, packaged and prepared , bite-sized propaganda.......in most cases.

And "god dammit dude fuck right off", is that necessary?


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 16, 2017)

Mathemagician said:


> 1) Calling the entire federal government “big brother” reeks of conspiracy theories.
> 
> 2) The federal reserve is the only unit of the US government that turns a profit. The fed lends to banks and earns a (very very small) spread.
> 
> ...


Opec? Apparently you are ignorant of what the "petro-dollar" is, and how all of those countries are forced to buy/sell using the american dollar. I suggest you research that as well. Also google "BRICS nations", and how some countries are coming together to drop the petro dollar altogether. (The US hates that. Thats the real reason were on the verge of WW3)

Public schools are indoctrinating kids dumbing them down with common core. You wouldnt believe how many kids cant even read a clock or tie their shoes in todays times. Public education is gov't indoctrination.

The FDA is all conventional wisdom bullshit too. Theres more sick people and more disease than ever.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 16, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Public schools are indoctrinating kids dumbing them down with common core. You wouldnt believe how many kids cant even read a clock or tie their shoes in todays times. Public education is gov't indoctrination.


Again, that's an example of a poorly run system, not of public schools being inherently bad. As I've said already, the schools I attended for free are better than the best schools money can buy in America.

Also, seems kind of contradictory to criticise the ability of the kids today and also not care about spelling, grammar, or effective communication.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 16, 2017)

StevenC said:


> Again, that's an example of a poorly run system, not of public schools being inherently bad. As I've said already, the schools I attended for free are better than the best schools money can buy in America.
> 
> Also, seems kind of contradictory to criticise the ability of the kids today and also not care about spelling, grammar, or effective communication.


When im using my phone, i care not about correct spelling. Typos and such are abound and to be expected. If i was sitting down at my computer i would do everything correctly. But on thr phone all bets are off. Lol

Also, you have a good point about the school system thing


----------



## StevenC (Dec 16, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> When im using my phone, i care not about correct spelling. Typos and such are abound and to be expected. If i was sitting down at my computer i would do everything correctly. But on thr phone all bets are off. Lol
> 
> Also, you have a good point about the school system thing


I also mentioned grammar and communication. FYI saying you "care not" makes you sound condescending. Maybe you're doing that because you're trying to condescend, or maybe you think it makes you sound smart. But you say it consistently. Noticing that is called reading comprehension. You haven't really demonstrated the same, so again I think it's unfair for you to criticise the kids today.


----------



## thraxil (Dec 17, 2017)

I'd be more OK with net neutrality being repealed if the government actually prevented regional ISP monopolies. I lived in five different apartments in NYC during my twenty years there. In every single one of them, I had exactly one option for cable internet. TWC in some buildings, RCN in others. I spent the last two years checking regularly to see if Verizon was offering FiOS on my block yet. I don't know exactly how it works, but ISPs have exclusive holds on most buildings. If I didn't like the service I was getting from TWC, my only option was... dialup? Back in rural Maine, my dad *finally* got crappy DSL service to his house about two years ago. Again, no other option for him but dialup. He doesn't even get cell phone service out there so going over 4G isn't feasible either.

So I get the argument that NN is meddlesome anti-capitalist market interference, but it's NOT a free market in most places.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Dec 17, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Public schools are indoctrinating kids dumbing them down with common core. You wouldnt believe how many kids cant even read a clock or tie their shoes in todays times.


I remember people saying the same things about my cohort 20 years ago over velcro shoes and digital clocks. I'm not necessarily defending common core because I don't know about it, but these scary claims precede it.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 17, 2017)

Socrates was critical of the kids of the day.


----------



## BenjaminW (Dec 17, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Public schools are indoctrinating kids dumbing them down with common core.


I couldn't agree any more with you.


----------



## narad (Dec 17, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Public schools are indoctrinating kids dumbing them down with common core. You wouldnt believe how many kids cant even read a clock or tie their shoes in todays times. Public education is gov't indoctrination.





BenjaminW said:


> I couldn't agree any more with you.



How is the common core "indoctrinating" students? I have criticsms of the common core, but you're just using conspiracy lingo with no facts. For one, common core has nothing to do with the specific curriculum -- it's simply a set of national milestones for each grade. We've always had grade-based milestones, just varying in scope and sometimes varying state to state or district to district. And I can assure you, these milestones have little to do with tying your shoes or reading a clock.

btw, for basically all southern/mid-west states, common core sets more rigorous curriculum goals than were present before.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 17, 2017)

To be fair, as much as I say it's great, my school didn't teach me to tie my shoe laces.


----------



## narad (Dec 17, 2017)

StevenC said:


> To be fair, as much as I say it's great, my school didn't teach me to tie my shoe laces.



Your Irish school system might be highly acclaimed by so-called "international assessment", but at least I know what this means:







#murica


----------



## StevenC (Dec 17, 2017)

narad said:


> Your Irish school system might be highly acclaimed by so-called "international assessment", but at least I know what this means:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never said anything about clocks. I did that in school when I was 5 years old. Do you guys even graduate from finger painting at that stage?

Edit: To demonstrate, that clock reads Guinness Time.


----------



## Drew (Dec 19, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Meanwhile, we go into debt every time they print money.


Ok, I should be a gentleman and let this slide... 

...but the Fed doesn't print money. That's the Treasury you're thinking of, that prints money and issues debt.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 8, 2018)

https://www.theverge.com/platform/a...rkey-claire-mccaskill-net-neutrality-cra-bill


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jan 8, 2018)

StevenC said:


> I never said anything about clocks. I did that in school when I was 5 years old. Do you guys even graduate from finger painting at that stage?
> 
> Edit: To demonstrate, that clock reads Guinness Time.


isn't all the time Guinness time in Ireland?


----------



## MFB (Jan 9, 2018)

For those who were proposing a government built infrastructure and making the internet a utility provided by the city, apparently some places have done just that already

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/ne...s-looks-longmont-broadband-lessons/753336001/

I understand their concerns about changing technology, but fiber has been the sort of 'high-end internet' for what, a decade now? Hell, it's what Google is using for their high-speed services. I feel like it's going to stay that way in the time it'd take to get them up and running (Longmont is just over 3 years in the making), and more on top of that.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jan 28, 2018)

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...5_9q9fpOJfSNoACRYBmJAqbr7ZHXIVhvd7D_gXWsZ2mQA


----------

