56 replies to this topic

[cazidin]

I don't think we'll see Net Neutrality's end. The LAST time somebody tried this they got so much negative attention online that they had to drop this and sneak in another similar bill. Oh, yeah... that happened.

[razenWing]

I Zeratul I, on 20 January 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

ACA(affordable care act) and Obamacare are the same thing.

ACA is the official name of the legislature. Obamacare is a slang term people use to connect the ACA to Obama, even though Obama was never really involved nor did much to endorse the bill.



I'm not here to argue. There are a lot of points people are missing. I'm only here to point some of those out.

Many europeans pay (last I heard) $12 a month for cellphone / broadband internet plans. They have the same cellphone & internet service americans have(better than what americans have in some cases), only they pay about 5 times less. To understand why healthcare(and everything else except gasoline) is ridiculously more high priced in the united states than it is in foreign countries, a person needs to understand why other countries are able to do things more affordably.

Long story short, many industries in the usa like healthcare and telecommunications function like state sanctioned monopolies. People in the healthcare and telecom industry conspire to artificially fix prices in a way that prevents free market competition from bringing prices down. This is why everything in america is more expensive, always.

The ACA was never going to work firstly because it was funded by 20 tax hikes and represented an attempt to tax healthcare into prosperity and secondly because it did nothing to address the price fixing / state sanctioned monopolism of the healthcare industry.

You want evidence healthcare is corrupt? Here read this:

https://www.washingt...-are-ludicrous/

And this:

https://www.techdirt...omic-scam.shtml

There's nothing nearly as legit as either of those articles being written about healthcare now. Factcheck sites and snopes sweep stories like that under a rug and pretend they don't exist. Almost everything in the news are weak attempts to divide, mislead, misinform and outright lie to people.

I haven't kept up on net neutrality, it may be a moot point though. In the past google was trustworthy and somewhat followed its "dont be evil" ideal.

But like they say things change. Google is no longer trustworthy. At one time net neutrality may have been a good thing. I'm not sure if it is anymore.

See, like I really don't care one way or the other whether you think that's correct or not.

I just ask one question, do the Europeans have better internet because of net neutrality? Again, THAT'S ALL I care about. I don't care if you think government is bad or if government is corrupt. I really don't care. And as you admit yourself, you don't know about the issue, so basically, not only are you not on topic, but... you have nothing to contribute?

(But I at least give you credit as the rest of your post, though irrelevant, is fairly interesting, unlike some lie spewing piece of shat)

I_AM_ZUUL, on 20 January 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

They are the exact same thing,,, obamacare is just a nickname, the actual bill is the Affordable Care Act



exactly... welcome to being one of those people, democracy was despised by the Founders which is why they set up a Republic. The fact you said "pure capitalism" is proof positive why the Founders wanted to limit voting... it is NOT capitalism when the GOVERNMENT is involved. That is the very definition of Socialism, where by State Power is used to dictate to the Market therefore the Market is no long Free. America is a De Facto Socialist State which is one of the worst practical applications of Socialism, it is why the actual Socialist countries are ranked Higher of the Economic Freedom Index. Capitalism is a far superior system then Socialism and definitely better than the Corporatism we currently have... but big companies being paid off using Public Funds is the staple of this system, its why they pay billions every year to politicians. The presidential election campaigns are over a billion dollars now... you dont think people are investing that kind of money to not see a return do you?

"Blah blah blah, clearly I lost the net neutrality debate and can't back up any lies that I said earlier, so I am just going to divert the attention by saying some ridiculous ideology that's is going to take anyone far more energy than necessary to disprove."

Quit dodging like a lil b7tch. Answer the damn question. How is net neutrality bad and why is net neutrality killing Google? Just admit it. You got it wrong cause you didn't even know the basic fact that Google supports net neutrality.

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

I know I shouldn't, but this particular point in general bothers the hell out of me, and is the main crux of the argument for Net Neutrality.

Bandwidth is a zero-sum game - for someone to have increased priority, everyone else has to collectively have decreased priority because that is how 'priority' works. If massive companies like Netflix are allowed to buy increased network priority, then anyone who wants to compete with Netflix has to also buy the same or better network priority. Any company that buys this increased priority for any reason makes the rest of the Internet just that little bit worse, that little bit slower, less responsive, less reliable and less useful for everyone else.

Massive megacorps can afford to eat that hit in order to make their personal web systems run more smoothly, but Plucky Start-Ups that can't afford to pay the exorbitant, extortionistic SuperMegaUltraFees that telecoms will charge for "priority" usage will, effectively, be priced off the Internet. Netflix will never have to compete with a newer video service ever again because any newer video service, regardless of whether it's a better, stronger platform, won't be able to afford to pay through the nose for high priority network handling.

This is to say nothing, of course, of the individual Internet consumer's experience, which would become absolutely horrific. As a single individual paying for home Internet, your ability to connecto to sites with superhigh priority like Netflix, Google, Wal-Mart's online shopping center, or whatever else will be great! ...but every other single use you can put the Internet to will be utterly awful because you are at the absolute bottom of the priority bucket. Your network requests and traffic get handled after absolutely everyone else in the world because all the corporations buying Me-First "high priority" traffic have ensured that you're going to be at the bottom of that heap forever. You do not begin to have the pockets to pay for working Internet to your personal home.

The Internet goes from being a free playground that anyone and everyone can use equally to do anything they feel might work out to being, effectively, a virtual strip mall utterly and completely dominated by Big Business, with everyone else choked out and forced to fold because they can't sustain their smaller businesses or personal web tools or sites/blogs/whatevers in the face of extremely discriminatory network handling that panders to Big Corporate at the direct expense of literally everyone and everything else.

Of course, the incoming administration is basically Big Corporate personified, so the end of Net Neutrality, at least temporarily, is unfortunately sort of a given. Hopefully when Trump and Co. push through all the ridiculous laws Big Telecom keeps trying to push so they can monetize every last one and zero and price the overwhelming majority of network traffic off the Internet doing it, the monumental decrease in the power and freedom will result in enough of a public uproar that Net Neutrality will be forcefully re-invoked, to stay this time.

Until then...well, don't get too attached to any of your non-Blizzard online games. Smaller companies like Piranha simply won't be able to afford the priority network handling needed to keep a game like MWO running smoothly. Nor will any amount of Awesome New Infrastructure that abolishing Net Neutrality will, ostensibly, allow Big Telecom to build help in the least, since none of us will be able to benefit from that sweet new infrastructure without paying until we bleed for High Priority access. And that's if they bother building new infrastructure in the first place instead of just pocketing their profits and laughing their aszes off all the way to the bank.

Here's a hint: they won't. Building infrastructure costs money, and Big Telecom is not going to spend money. Spending money gets in the way of making money, and making money is the only thing in the entire world that matters to the people who are, by horribly unfortunate circumstance, the guardians of all of humanity's collected and accumulated knowledge and our gateway to the world.

The Internet is a precious and irreplaceable resource that should be readily and easily available to absolutely everyone on the planet. You shouldn't be able to spend money to kick everyone else off of that resource or forcibly strangle your business competition...but that's the direction we're headed in now.

God f***ing damnit.

You sir, are making the same dumb@ss mistake as I_AM_ZUUL. Netflix or whatever other services DO PAY MORE for traffic. What, did you think mega corporations like that pay the same 50 dollars a month to provide streaming services to everyone? No one is arguing the volume. (which is essentially what you are saying)

[edit:] Sorry, totally misread your post. What you said is absolutely correct. I read the first 2 paragraphs and assumed the rest of the paragraph. My bad! So the following is from what I'd typed originally (with the misunderstanding) and will be used as addendum to people that still don't get it [end edit]

If netflix use more VOLUME than me and still pay same price, then yea, I will be pissed too. But that's not the crux of the issue. The issue is velocity. HBO Go for example, can tell Verizon

"Hey, put me ahead of Netflix because I am willing to pay you 50 million more."

or worse yet, Verizon can go to Cinemax and say, "Hey, if you DON'T pay us 50 million, we are going to throttle your speed to 50%"

If you still don't understand, think like this... say you open a store on Main Street. One day, police came knocking. "Hey bozo, give us 200 dollars a month or I can't guarantee what will happen to your store." So if you don't pay, mafia starts coming to your store everyday. You lose 50% of your business until you cave in. "Ok, mighty policeman, here is 200 dollars a month."

So your store resume operation. Except, nothing really changed. You have the same customer as before the extortion, the only difference, you're cost to maintenance just jump 200 dollars to pay off corrupt police Tom like everyone else on Main Street. Customers will have to bear the cost because YOUR cost increase. Everything is more expensive for no reason.

Edited by razenWing, 20 January 2017 - 11:51 AM.

[1453 R]

razenWing, on 20 January 2017 - 11:43 AM, said:

...
You sir, are making the same dumb@ss mistake as I_AM_ZUUL. Netflix or whatever other services DO PAY MORE for traffic. What, did you think mega corporations like that pay the same 50 dollars a month to provide streaming services to everyone? No one is arguing the volume. (which is essentially what you are saying)

If netflix use more VOLUME than me and still pay same price, then yea, I will be pissed too. But that's not the crux of the issue. The issue is velocity. HBO Go for example, can tell Verizon

"Hey, put me ahead of Netflix because I am willing to pay you 50 million more."

or worse yet, Verizon can go to Cinemax and say, "Hey, if you DON'T pay us 50 million, we are going to throttle your speed to 50%"

If you still don't understand, think like this... say you open a store on Main Street. One day, police came knocking. "Hey bozo, give us 200 dollars a month or I can't guarantee what will happen to your store." So if you don't pay, mafia starts coming to your store everyday. You lose 50% of your business until you cave in. "Ok, mighty policeman, here is 200 dollars a month."

So your store resume operation. Except, nothing really changed. You have the same customer as before the extortion, the only difference, you're cost to maintenance just jump 200 dollars to pay off corrupt police Tom like everyone else on Main Street. Customers will have to bear the cost because YOUR cost increase. Everything is more expensive for no reason.

You guys don't even understand the concept or the issues behind the debate, and just kept trying to argue using your limited imagination. Netflix pay more than you. Way more. Get over it. If you want to use the same volume of traffic, pay like gajillion dollars a month, no one is stopping you. Until then, STFU with downloading like 5000 terrabyte of porn through BT and pay only 50 dollars a month.

EDIT: Misunderstanding dealt with. Original post in spoiler below, for the curious.

Spoiler

...do...do you have the slightest idea how the Internet actually works, or...?

it's simple. Internet hardware nodes (routers, gateways, dataservers, whatever else) generate packets. Packets are the cars driving on the Information Superhighway. Those packets can have a certain priority level assigned to them. Packets with higher priority are given preferential treatment in regards to access/work being done by network hardware, i.e. they get pushed through to their destinations first. Those cars get special lanes all to themselves that nobody else can touch. Packets with lower priority - i.e. any packet not paid for by Big Corporate - are subsequently handled last, because in order for there to be a "first" there must also be a "last". These cars are all squeezed into any remaining space not taken up by Special High Priority lanes, and the result is increasingly severe network congestion.

Net Neutrality says that every lane is open to every car equally at all times. No priority traffic. Netflix's packets don't get to where they're going any faster than Sally Libwick's personal blog packets. Netflix is able to send out a great deal morepackets because they pay for a whole helluva lot more throughput/bandwidth than Sally Libwick does, but once those packets are out in the wild they're treated no differently than anyone else's.

Big Telecom hates that. They want to monetize packet handling and current law states that they can't. To them, not being able to offer "Premium" priority grades is "leaving money on the table". To the rest of us, it's keeping the Internet stable and accessible for everyone.

Priority traffic laws - i.e. Net Neutrality or lack thereof - have nothing to do with bandwidth. You can download all the porn you want, up to your bandwidth limit. Priority means that packets bringing your porn to you are forced to the back of the line whenever packets bringing Netflix's latest cheap cashgrab production to Sally Libwick just so happen to occupy the same hardware space as your porn. Until all priority traffic has been dealt with, your packets, and thus your porn, gets to wait.

Edited by 1453 R, 20 January 2017 - 12:06 PM.

[razenWing]

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

...do...do you have the slightest idea how the Internet actually works, or...?

it's simple. Internet hardware nodes (routers, gateways, dataservers, whatever else) generate packets. Packets are the cars driving on the Information Superhighway. Those packets can have a certain priority level assigned to them. Packets with higher priority are given preferential treatment in regards to access/work being done by network hardware, i.e. they get pushed through to their destinations first. Those cars get special lanes all to themselves that nobody else can touch. Packets with lower priority - i.e. any packet not paid for by Big Corporate - are subsequently handled last, because in order for there to be a "first" there must also be a "last". These cars are all squeezed into any remaining space not taken up by Special High Priority lanes, and the result is increasingly severe network congestion.

Net Neutrality says that every lane is open to every car equally at all times. No priority traffic. Netflix's packets don't get to where they're going any faster than Sally Libwick's personal blog packets. Netflix is able to send out a great deal more packets because they pay for a whole helluva lot more throughput/bandwidth than Sally Libwick does, but once those packets are out in the wild they're treated no differently than anyone else's.

Big Telecom hates that. They want to monetize packet handling and current law states that they can't. To them, not being able to offer "Premium" priority grades is "leaving money on the table". To the rest of us, it's keeping the Internet stable and accessible for everyone.

[i]Priority traffic laws - i.e. Net Neutrality or lack thereof - have [i]nothing to do with bandwidth. You can download all the porn you want, up to your bandwidth limit. Priority means that packets bringing your porn to you are forced to the back of the line whenever packets bringing Netflix's latest cheap cashgrab production to Sally Libwick just so happen to occupy the same hardware space as your porn. Until all priority traffic has been dealt with, your packets, and thus your porn, gets to wait.

Please read correction. I must have edited it way too late.

Edit: Again, sorry, my original post was from only your first 2 paragraphs and made assumptions about the rest. Which I promptly edited, but apparently not fast enough. I realize that I just summarized everything you had said in a more layman's term. So, my bad again.

Edited by razenWing, 20 January 2017 - 12:03 PM.

[KuroNyra]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 19 January 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

No one has a RIGHT to anyone elses Services... Doctors and Nurses are not your Slaves

They aren't in France. But you have the system called Securité Social who allow EVERYONE to have all the healt care they need.
Does it have flaws? Yeah. But it's not that big and it's not for nothing the Securite Social of France is considered one of the best model ever made for Population protection.

[1453 R]

razenWing, on 20 January 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

Please read correction. I must have edited it way too late.

Edit: Again, sorry, my original post was from only your first 2 paragraphs and made assumptions about the rest. Which I promptly edited, but apparently not fast enough. I realize that I just summarized everything you had said in a more layman's term. So, my bad again.

Noted. Not a big issue; all it means is that everyone's on the same page where Net Neutrality is concerned Will leave the other stuff up with a similar edit so people don't wonder what the frog is going on.

[Maker L106]

And since 1354R made the car example, in b4 people compare this to actual cars and roadways then point out trains and aircraft (it is not a 1:1 argument it is an example don't even go there.) @1354R YOU'RE WELCOME!

[1453 R]

Maker, Maker...

You could, at least, get my handle right, couldn't you bud? C'mon. It's not that hard. It's even written out right there next to my posts and everything.

AND I'LL TALK ABOUT TRAINS IF I WANT TO, DAMNIT

[Mawai]

I Zeratul I, on 20 January 2017 - 06:22 AM, said:

...

#1 If you live in america, you should know that your cellphone plan and internet are the same or inferior to the service europeans enjoy. Yet being american you pay about 5 times more than europeans pay for their cellphone / internet. This is something americans should be aware of & ask the question why this is so. Without knowledge & information on this, americans will never understand why things like healthcare, internet and cell phone service are so much more expensive in the united states than in other countries.

...

Anyways, there is much info many are not aware of that is essential with these types of topics which makes them difficult to discuss.

Hi! Unfortunately, I don't simply believe statements someone makes on the internet since so many of them are uninformed BS made simply to try to convince someone of their position.

"pay about 5 times more than europeans pay for their cellphone / internet"

The following is a link to a study that is performed annually comparing the rates for various services including mobile wireless between Canada and the US, European countries, Australia and Japan for comparable service packages divided into 5 different service levels. This attempts to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples ... not the least expensive plan in one jurisdiction to the most expensive in another.

The US does pay more on average (as does Canada). However, it is at most a factor of 2 and usually much less than that (20% to 50%) ... NOT 5 TIMES MORE ... also all European countries are not equal.

http://www.crtc.gc.c...p150618.htm#a18

Similar data on broadband internet service ... factor of 2 or less for comparable service though that is still a significant difference.

http://www.crtc.gc.c...p150618.htm#a23

The following article outlines that in fact the average data connection speeds in the US are substantially faster than Europe (2013 data) ... and that US consumers use their phones far MORE than European counterparts. The article cites a report by the GSMA for the information but I don't have a link to the original source ... so as with anything less reliable on the internet .. they could be making it up (like paying 5 times more ).

"the average mobile data connection speed in the US is now 75% faster than those in Europe"
"US consumers spend more each month than their EU counterparts, which in and of itself isn’t necessarily a good thing, but they are consuming five times as many voice minutes and twice as much data than consumers in the EU."

http://www.androidau...etworks-218148/

Anyway, the reason Europe is falling behind the US in terms of service provision technology is that US providers are spending more in infrastructure ... building LTE networks etc ... which provide faster speeds, greater capacity and whose funding is at least partially covered by the higher rates paid in the US/Canada.

Anyway, those are the facts .. it would be nice to pay less for wireless services and the fact that north american consumers are paying more than necessary is in the significant profits reported by the wireless divisions of the large telecommunications companies. However, we don't pay 5 times more and on average the infrastructure is better.


Note: Second tier ISPs/Mobile companies often provide significantly less expensive pricing than the national brands.

Edited by Mawai, 20 January 2017 - 12:22 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Mawai, on 20 January 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

Hi! Unfortunately, I don't simply believe statements someone makes on the internet since so many of them are uninformed BS made simply to try to convince someone of their position.

"pay about 5 times more than europeans pay for their cellphone / internet"

The following is a link to a study that is performed annually comparing the rates for various services including mobile wireless between Canada and the US, European countries, Australia and Japan for comparable service packages divided into 5 different service levels. This attempts to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples ... not the least expensive plan in one jurisdiction to the most expensive in another.

The US does pay more on average (as does Canada). However, it is at most a factor of 2 and usually much less than that (20% to 50%) ... NOT 5 TIMES MORE ... also all European countries are not equal.

http://www.crtc.gc.c...p150618.htm#a18

The following article outlines that in fact the average data connection speeds in the US are substantially faster than Europe (2013 data) ... and that US consumers use their phones far MORE than European counterparts. The article cites a report by the GSMA for the information but I don't have a link to the original source ... so as with anything less reliable on the internet .. they could be making it up (like paying 5 times more ).

"the average mobile data connection speed in the US is now 75% faster than those in Europe"
"US consumers spend more each month than their EU counterparts, which in and of itself isn’t necessarily a good thing, but they are consuming five times as many voice minutes and twice as much data than consumers in the EU."

http://www.androidau...etworks-218148/

Anyway, the reason Europe is falling behind the US in terms of service provision technology is that US providers are spending more in infrastructure ... building LTE networks etc ... which provide faster speeds, greater capacity and whose funding is at least partially covered by the higher rates paid in the US/Canada.

Anyway, those are the facts .. it would be nice to pay less for wireless services and the fact that north american consumers are paying more than necessary is in the significant profits reported by the wireless divisions of the large telecommunications companies. However, we don't pay 5 times more and on average the infrastructure is better.

You know things are bad.

When someone says: "your claims of americans being screwed are vastly exaggerated, sir. We only pay 2 or 3 times what everyone else does!"

Why can't we pay the same fees and rates europeans do.

I thought america was the greatest country on earth?

[razenWing]

Mawai, on 20 January 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

Hi! Unfortunately, I don't simply believe statements someone makes on the internet since so many of them are uninformed BS made simply to try to convince someone of their position.

"pay about 5 times more than europeans pay for their cellphone / internet"

The following is a link to a study that is performed annually comparing the rates for various services including mobile wireless between Canada and the US, European countries, Australia and Japan for comparable service packages divided into 5 different service levels. This attempts to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples ... not the least expensive plan in one jurisdiction to the most expensive in another.

The US does pay more on average (as does Canada). However, it is at most a factor of 2 and usually much less than that (20% to 50%) ... NOT 5 TIMES MORE ... also all European countries are not equal.

http://www.crtc.gc.c...p150618.htm#a18

Similar data on broadband internet service ... factor of 2 or less for comparable service though that is still a significant difference.

http://www.crtc.gc.c...p150618.htm#a23

The following article outlines that in fact the average data connection speeds in the US are substantially faster than Europe (2013 data) ... and that US consumers use their phones far MORE than European counterparts. The article cites a report by the GSMA for the information but I don't have a link to the original source ... so as with anything less reliable on the internet .. they could be making it up (like paying 5 times more ).

"the average mobile data connection speed in the US is now 75% faster than those in Europe"
"US consumers spend more each month than their EU counterparts, which in and of itself isn’t necessarily a good thing, but they are consuming five times as many voice minutes and twice as much data than consumers in the EU."

http://www.androidau...etworks-218148/

Anyway, the reason Europe is falling behind the US in terms of service provision technology is that US providers are spending more in infrastructure ... building LTE networks etc ... which provide faster speeds, greater capacity and whose funding is at least partially covered by the higher rates paid in the US/Canada.

Anyway, those are the facts .. it would be nice to pay less for wireless services and the fact that north american consumers are paying more than necessary is in the significant profits reported by the wireless divisions of the large telecommunications companies. However, we don't pay 5 times more and on average the infrastructure is better.

Going off topic (but relevant to you) for a little bit, I remember some Europeans were bragging how they have super fast internet in like some random country with 2000 mbps download. Then some American was like, aw damn, you pay that little for that much? I only get 3 mb for X dollars!

The I realized, they are talking about different metrics. 2000 mbps is megaBITS. 3 megaBYTES is more than 3000 megaBITs.

It's a trick that companies sometimes use to boast using big number fallacy. So the whole time, I am like, wait a second...

Besides, how can someone believe that they can download at 2000 megaBYTEs per second? You harddrive can't even write that fast. (Well, I take that back, I guess you can raid0 50 SSDs and run your own server farm...)

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

razenWing, on 20 January 2017 - 12:25 PM, said:

The I realized, they are talking about different metrics. 2000 mbps is megaBITS. 3 megaBYTES is more than 3000 megaBITs.

I think all network speed throughput is measured in megabits per second?

Even those who say megabytes per second, are really referring to megabits.

[Cold Darkness]

some people seem to not understand that european countrys have cheaper prizes in capitalism BECAUSE of government influence on the market. many countrys have agencies that will sue the **** out of your company when you try to build up that monopol by either aquiring concurrent companies or conspiring with them.

this is what healthy capitalism needs to be able to function properly, regardless of whether you call it socialism or not. why? because ALL humans are scumbags.

[WarHippy]

razenWing, on 20 January 2017 - 12:25 PM, said:

Going off topic (but relevant to you) for a little bit, I remember some Europeans were bragging how they have super fast internet in like some random country with 2000 mbps download. Then some American was like, aw damn, you pay that little for that much? I only get 3 mb for X dollars!

The I realized, they are talking about different metrics. 2000 mbps is megaBITS. 3 megaBYTES is more than 3000 megaBITs.

It's a trick that companies sometimes use to boast using big number fallacy. So the whole time, I am like, wait a second...

Besides, how can someone believe that they can download at 2000 megaBYTEs per second? You harddrive can't even write that fast. (Well, I take that back, I guess you can raid0 50 SSDs and run your own server farm...)

You have your math wrong. 2000Mb (little b = bits big B = bytes) is roughly a 2Gb connection so you would have a download speed of roughly 250 MB/s. In the US we do have a lot of rural connections that do only get 3Mb or roughly 375KB/s download. Now even if they are talking 3MB that is still only 24Mb not over 2000Mb.

Edited by WarHippy, 20 January 2017 - 02:11 PM.

[draiocht]

[mod]As this topic is largely outside of Mechwarrior Online,
this thread has been moved to Off Topic Discussions.[/mod]

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 January 2017 - 07:59 PM, said:

I just want to point out that everybody also thought Wheeler would be terrible because he was also an industry insider. I have less faith in the new guy than I do Wheeler, but we could all be pleasantly surprised.

I have to say I was looking like a pretty big fool after talking **** about him...

[I_AM_ZUUL]

I Zeratul I, on 20 January 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

You know things are bad.

When someone says: "your claims of americans being screwed are vastly exaggerated, sir. We only pay 2 or 3 times what everyone else does!"

Why can't we pay the same fees and rates europeans do.

I thought america was the greatest country on earth?

I think you missed the point... Americans pay twice as much and have 75% FASTER rates, that speed difference will only continue to increase in time. As someone who was a Tower Climber for quite a while... I have first hand experence with how much the Mobile services are dumping into upgrading infrastructure as well as secondary hearsay experience with talking with the techs who run it who also handle broadband internet switches throughout the South. It is why I know that clamping down on regulations and devaluing the investment that companies like Google & Netflix were doing is so important... cause that all went into effect while I was doing and I saw first hand the change in jobs that took place and heard from the techs that the changes in internet infrastructure was similar. But sure... some random willfully ignorant person on the Internet pushing their Authoritarian propaganda agenda has a much firmer grasp on what is really happening.