You seem to be missing that I addressed peering. Here it is, typo and all:
Oh, I see. You didn't sell any bandwith to Netflix, and want to charge them anyway. That's not how peering works.
If you're peering agreement is not currently making enough money for you greedy fuckholes, then you need to renegotiate your peering agreement.
Last-mile ISP has no monetary incentive to upgrade their hardware at all these common meeting places
Because last-mile ISP wants to lose customers it makes unhappy because they can't get a decent connection to the content provider?
Intentionally under-serving your customers is generally not considered a good idea.
To get true "net neutrality", what needs to happen is Last-mile ISPs need to be allowed to offer nothing but the connectivity - no media or telephone services or alarm or any other add-on services. They need to set some sort of QoS limits so that no one service starves any other
You started out good, and then threw it away with "QoS limits", aka, "we want to charge you to remove the arbitrary throttle we applied".
Then everyone who wants to be connected to Last-mile ISP pays their share for whatever they send. What is that share? It seems to me the video providers would be paying the lyon's share
Everyone is already paying for a particular bandwith allocation. If you failed to build out your network to deliver the allocations you sold, that's you committing fraud and not the fault of your customers.
How does this work internationally, or beyond a single US State or the USA? Good luck solving that.
You realize that Netflix and Youtube and all the rest of the "video" sites are currently available, and connecting to the entire planet, right? And they're doing so successfully? Almost like we already worked this out by having everyone pay for a particular amount of bandwidth, and peering agreements that deal with asymmetry.
It's fascinating just how many of you people think that convincing people you can't possibly do something you are already doing is a good idea.
You know you have to pay for the emergency room if you go there, right?
You will be paying You also know people who go to the doctor have strokes too, right?
You know that the vast majority of strokes happen in people who are either 1) elderly (thus irrelevant for private insurance thanks to Medicare) or 2) have an untreated underlying condition that massively increased the odds of their stroke, right?
I'd make a Logan's Run joke but you won't get it until J.J. Abrams a remake.
I'd make a joke about you being a dumbass for assuming I'm young, but references earlier than 1973 will go over your head.
I started to type a comment that if your engine seizes while you're driving down the road and you cause a wreck then it's better off if everyone is required to have regular oil changes for the common good
The odds of an engine seizing due to the lack of oil changes is not that high.
The odds that you will develop a significant medical condition are >99%. And the vast majority of the time, catching that condition early reduces the cost of treatment by two or more orders of magnitude.
If oil changes were that likely to prevent engine seizing, then your insurance would pay for them too.
That only happens when the cost of the work is small. If it's large, you're going to be cutting a check before the job is done.
And again, Clinton only started the ball rolling. 2000 would be about when planning was wrapping up if they were actually doing the roll-out. So accountability was up to the Bush administration.
Did you even research who they are? LOL An ISP that serves every geographic location
They don't have fiber to my building. Thus they do not serve my geographic location. This really isn't complicated, but it does get in the way of the bullshit fountain so I can see why you failed to understand it.
That's why the rest of your post is bullshit. Someone needs to pay the cost and you don't want to pay it.
1. Netflix pays the cost of their Internet service. 2. The ISP's customers that use Netflix pay the cost of their Internet service. 3. Peering agreements between ISPs frequently require payment when the bandwith is not symmetrical.
Everyone is already paying. What they are not doing, and what you greedy shitbags are demanding, is that people pay twice.
I'm 60 and don't do routine doctor visits nor have tests performed that have been ordered because I can't control my costs
Actually, taking those tests would control your costs. Not taking those tests mean your costs are unlimited. Again, strokes aren't cheap.
You can insist on getting a list of all the costs up-front, assuming it isn't an emergency. But it is indeed a pain in the ass.
There's no way to know ahead of time what costs I will incur as the healthcare corporations that own hospitals don't want people to be able to make wise decisions
Generally, the hospitals have fairly controlled rates that are covered by insurance (and thus negotiated down by the insurance company).
The scam is when some of the hospital's doctors technically work for an agency that is not the hospital, and thus not in-network. So you'll find out your surgery used an out-of-network anesthesiologist that you didn't know about until the bill shows up.
It just means they'll be out far more money in the long run.
No, it means you're out more money in the long run, since you are driving up insurance premiums. They're gonna get paid, even if they got to charge 1000 other patients.
Does lying on the behest of your boss pay that well?
with net neutrality, content publishers and distributors get to peer directly with an isp
False. Netflix pays an ISP, just like anyone else. That gives them an Internet connection with a specific bandwith limit.
and flood their network with whatever data the content provider wants
Again, their Internet connection has a specific bandwith limit. If your network can't handle the bandwith you've sold, that's you committing fraud, not the "content provider" being a free rider.
ISPs eat the cost
False. ISPs sold bandwith to a customer (Netflix). They also sold bandwith to consumers. There is no cost to eat, they are being paid for what they sold.
Without net neutrality, content publishers must pay the transit costs
Oh, I see. You didn't sell any bandwith to Netflix, and want to charge them anyway. That's not how peering works.
If you're peering agreement is not currently making enough money for you greedy fuckholes, then you need to renegotiate your peering agreement.
in the end, we the consumer will pay more
Yes, that is currently your plan, thanks to the lack of net neutrality. Your C-suite is masturbating over the thought of selling a "Streaming package" and "gaming package" to consumers to turn off the arbitrary throttling you are applying. Heck, when they want a bigger bonus, they can just turn down the bandwith a little more.
you are never prevented from going with a non-subsidized provider (e.g. cogent, xo, or running and lighting up your own fiber).
I am fascinated by your delusional world where every ISP serves every geographic location.
ACA banned catastrophic health insurance/health saving accounts.
Since I currently have a HSA, I'm gonna have to point out you're wrong.
The ACA banned catastrophic health insurance plans and HSA-backed plans from the ACA marketplace. The ACA marketplace is not "insurance". In fact, it's a small percentage of insurance plans. Employer-based plans can still be HSA plans, and employer-based insurance dwarfs the ACA marketplace insurance.
Where you pay for your own routine doctor visits and only have coverage for actual medical emergencies.
The problem with this plan is people just don't do routine doctor visits when they have this plan. Which means they end up getting far more medical emergencies.
If your response is something like "but I paid for my checkups!!!!", you're forgetting the cost-sharing aspect of insurance. You paid more for your insurance because the vast majority on these plans did not get regular medical care
It's much cheaper to pay for someone's $100 annual visit for a couple decades and catch that they have high blood pressure instead of waiting for them to show up in an ER with complications. Strokes aren't cheap.
When they pass 'ACA for car insurance', it will require coverage for oil changes, which will cost you $5,000 once all the costs are rolled in.
This might be funny if you forget most states have mandatory car insurance, as well as minimum requirements for that insurance.
Alternatively, you could read aaaaalllllll the way to the second paragraph of the summary. Where it explains the throttled plans are a discounted personal plan for the first res ponders and their families, and the plans for the actual agencies are not throttled.
You know, the ones that are actually used in an emergency.
It's almost like you don't know there's already Korean and Chinese alliances in Eve.......and they're not doing all that well. I'm sure FRT will stop feeding Keepstars soon.
If labor costs go up, prices go up and/or employers go out of business
Only if they continue to refuse the "cheaper" labor pool.
Either way, it's not Amazon or Bezos that pays for this, it's Americans as a whole
Who, exactly, do you think pays for our various safety net programs?
And the effect is that we are paying for government assistance twice: once through taxes, and a second time through higher prices.
Math isn't your strong suit, is it? If the money is coming from taxes on these businesses (and they raise prices), it isn't coming from taxes on the rest of us.
Also, raising prices is one option. There are others. Maybe the CEO doesn't need an 8th mansion.
There's also raising wages, which increases spending when you're talking about the poverty end of the wage distribution. When you're Wal-Mart and your shoppers are literally running out of money the 4th week of every month, those higher wages mean higher sales 'cause your customers can actually buy stuff from you when they have money.
And before you discount that, that's what's actually happened in places that passed minimum wage hikes. The increased sales from people having money to spend largely made up for the increased labor costs.
Turning down a large pool of workers means reducing supply of labor, while demand is still present - it's not like the shelves stock themselves (at least not yet).
What happens when you reduce the supply of something while not reducing the demand? The price goes up.
So, if employers start refusing to hire poor people, their available pool of workers becomes near zero, massively increasing the wages the remaining workers can demand, driving costs up....making the poor desirable employees....hey look! problem gone.
Candidate one is a single worker with no children. Candidate two is a single mom with four children. The wage is a "living wage" of $15/hr. Guess which candidate is going to generate a ton of under the Sander's tax plan? That's right, the single mom with four kids.
That's OK, the Mom can retire with the settlement from the illegal employment discrimination you just described.
Because minimum wage would affect all employers. This specifically targets employers who's business plan requires very large numbers of low-paid workers.
Frankly, I'd prefer both. Employers can either handle the problem themselves by paying more, or they can let us handle the problem but we charge for our services.
Slashdot Mirror
If there is a 10 year lull in hurricanes, will anyone do a study to see if climate change is responsible?
Considering that multiple studies were done on it, it's pretty safe to say such studies would be done.
The answer, btw, was "These climate-change things might have caused it, or maybe not. No way to know for sure."
Your employer and insurance company are lying to you.
The "Cadillac" tax was scheduled to start 5 years after the ACA passed. And the tax was repealed by Congress before it took effect.
But by telling you it's all the fault of the Cadillac tax, they get to make more money off you while you yell at the government.
You seem to be missing that I addressed peering. Here it is, typo and all:
Oh, I see. You didn't sell any bandwith to Netflix, and want to charge them anyway. That's not how peering works.
If you're peering agreement is not currently making enough money for you greedy fuckholes, then you need to renegotiate your peering agreement.
Last-mile ISP has no monetary incentive to upgrade their hardware at all these common meeting places
Because last-mile ISP wants to lose customers it makes unhappy because they can't get a decent connection to the content provider?
Intentionally under-serving your customers is generally not considered a good idea.
To get true "net neutrality", what needs to happen is Last-mile ISPs need to be allowed to offer nothing but the connectivity - no media or telephone services or alarm or any other add-on services. They need to set some sort of QoS limits so that no one service starves any other
You started out good, and then threw it away with "QoS limits", aka, "we want to charge you to remove the arbitrary throttle we applied".
Then everyone who wants to be connected to Last-mile ISP pays their share for whatever they send. What is that share? It seems to me the video providers would be paying the lyon's share
Everyone is already paying for a particular bandwith allocation. If you failed to build out your network to deliver the allocations you sold, that's you committing fraud and not the fault of your customers.
How does this work internationally, or beyond a single US State or the USA? Good luck solving that.
You realize that Netflix and Youtube and all the rest of the "video" sites are currently available, and connecting to the entire planet, right? And they're doing so successfully? Almost like we already worked this out by having everyone pay for a particular amount of bandwidth, and peering agreements that deal with asymmetry.
It's fascinating just how many of you people think that convincing people you can't possibly do something you are already doing is a good idea.
You know you have to pay for the emergency room if you go there, right?
You will be paying You also know people who go to the doctor have strokes too, right?
You know that the vast majority of strokes happen in people who are either 1) elderly (thus irrelevant for private insurance thanks to Medicare) or 2) have an untreated underlying condition that massively increased the odds of their stroke, right?
I'd make a Logan's Run joke but you won't get it until J.J. Abrams a remake.
I'd make a joke about you being a dumbass for assuming I'm young, but references earlier than 1973 will go over your head.
I started to type a comment that if your engine seizes while you're driving down the road and you cause a wreck then it's better off if everyone is required to have regular oil changes for the common good
The odds of an engine seizing due to the lack of oil changes is not that high.
The odds that you will develop a significant medical condition are >99%. And the vast majority of the time, catching that condition early reduces the cost of treatment by two or more orders of magnitude.
If oil changes were that likely to prevent engine seizing, then your insurance would pay for them too.
That only happens when the cost of the work is small. If it's large, you're going to be cutting a check before the job is done.
And again, Clinton only started the ball rolling. 2000 would be about when planning was wrapping up if they were actually doing the roll-out. So accountability was up to the Bush administration.
Because the rollout was scheduled to take more than 2 years. It's hard to hold people accountable when the next guy's in office.
We're not debating. Someone would like to exploit their monopolies to get more money, so they're throwing out propaganda.
Did you even research who they are? LOL An ISP that serves every geographic location
They don't have fiber to my building. Thus they do not serve my geographic location. This really isn't complicated, but it does get in the way of the bullshit fountain so I can see why you failed to understand it.
That's why the rest of your post is bullshit. Someone needs to pay the cost and you don't want to pay it.
1. Netflix pays the cost of their Internet service.
2. The ISP's customers that use Netflix pay the cost of their Internet service.
3. Peering agreements between ISPs frequently require payment when the bandwith is not symmetrical.
Everyone is already paying. What they are not doing, and what you greedy shitbags are demanding, is that people pay twice.
I'm 60 and don't do routine doctor visits nor have tests performed that have been ordered because I can't control my costs
Actually, taking those tests would control your costs. Not taking those tests mean your costs are unlimited. Again, strokes aren't cheap.
You can insist on getting a list of all the costs up-front, assuming it isn't an emergency. But it is indeed a pain in the ass.
There's no way to know ahead of time what costs I will incur as the healthcare corporations that own hospitals don't want people to be able to make wise decisions
Generally, the hospitals have fairly controlled rates that are covered by insurance (and thus negotiated down by the insurance company).
The scam is when some of the hospital's doctors technically work for an agency that is not the hospital, and thus not in-network. So you'll find out your surgery used an out-of-network anesthesiologist that you didn't know about until the bill shows up.
It just means they'll be out far more money in the long run.
No, it means you're out more money in the long run, since you are driving up insurance premiums. They're gonna get paid, even if they got to charge 1000 other patients.
Does lying on the behest of your boss pay that well?
with net neutrality, content publishers and distributors get to peer directly with an isp
False. Netflix pays an ISP, just like anyone else. That gives them an Internet connection with a specific bandwith limit.
and flood their network with whatever data the content provider wants
Again, their Internet connection has a specific bandwith limit. If your network can't handle the bandwith you've sold, that's you committing fraud, not the "content provider" being a free rider.
ISPs eat the cost
False. ISPs sold bandwith to a customer (Netflix). They also sold bandwith to consumers. There is no cost to eat, they are being paid for what they sold.
Without net neutrality, content publishers must pay the transit costs
Oh, I see. You didn't sell any bandwith to Netflix, and want to charge them anyway. That's not how peering works.
If you're peering agreement is not currently making enough money for you greedy fuckholes, then you need to renegotiate your peering agreement.
in the end, we the consumer will pay more
Yes, that is currently your plan, thanks to the lack of net neutrality. Your C-suite is masturbating over the thought of selling a "Streaming package" and "gaming package" to consumers to turn off the arbitrary throttling you are applying. Heck, when they want a bigger bonus, they can just turn down the bandwith a little more.
you are never prevented from going with a non-subsidized provider (e.g. cogent, xo, or running and lighting up your own fiber).
I am fascinated by your delusional world where every ISP serves every geographic location.
ACA banned catastrophic health insurance/health saving accounts.
Since I currently have a HSA, I'm gonna have to point out you're wrong.
The ACA banned catastrophic health insurance plans and HSA-backed plans from the ACA marketplace. The ACA marketplace is not "insurance". In fact, it's a small percentage of insurance plans. Employer-based plans can still be HSA plans, and employer-based insurance dwarfs the ACA marketplace insurance.
Where you pay for your own routine doctor visits and only have coverage for actual medical emergencies.
The problem with this plan is people just don't do routine doctor visits when they have this plan. Which means they end up getting far more medical emergencies.
If your response is something like "but I paid for my checkups!!!!", you're forgetting the cost-sharing aspect of insurance. You paid more for your insurance because the vast majority on these plans did not get regular medical care
It's much cheaper to pay for someone's $100 annual visit for a couple decades and catch that they have high blood pressure instead of waiting for them to show up in an ER with complications. Strokes aren't cheap.
When they pass 'ACA for car insurance', it will require coverage for oil changes, which will cost you $5,000 once all the costs are rolled in.
This might be funny if you forget most states have mandatory car insurance, as well as minimum requirements for that insurance.
Alternatively, you could read aaaaalllllll the way to the second paragraph of the summary. Where it explains the throttled plans are a discounted personal plan for the first res ponders and their families, and the plans for the actual agencies are not throttled.
You know, the ones that are actually used in an emergency.
Not throttled.
Making you
Really fucking lazy.
CCP was making a World of Darkness MMO, but canceled the project a few years ago. I think they sold the IP.
It's almost like you don't know there's already Korean and Chinese alliances in Eve.......and they're not doing all that well. I'm sure FRT will stop feeding Keepstars soon.
If labor costs go up, prices go up and/or employers go out of business
Only if they continue to refuse the "cheaper" labor pool.
Either way, it's not Amazon or Bezos that pays for this, it's Americans as a whole
Who, exactly, do you think pays for our various safety net programs?
And the effect is that we are paying for government assistance twice: once through taxes, and a second time through higher prices.
Math isn't your strong suit, is it? If the money is coming from taxes on these businesses (and they raise prices), it isn't coming from taxes on the rest of us.
Also, raising prices is one option. There are others. Maybe the CEO doesn't need an 8th mansion.
There's also raising wages, which increases spending when you're talking about the poverty end of the wage distribution. When you're Wal-Mart and your shoppers are literally running out of money the 4th week of every month, those higher wages mean higher sales 'cause your customers can actually buy stuff from you when they have money.
And before you discount that, that's what's actually happened in places that passed minimum wage hikes. The increased sales from people having money to spend largely made up for the increased labor costs.
It is also based on your dependents.
Which employers also know because they're witholding part of your paycheck to pay taxes based on your dependents.
If you add a few kids... that changes significantly.
Not really. The line doesn't move that much per child. So you need around 4 to be all that different than a single.
I eagerly await your plan to staff a Wal-Mart from another country.
Turning down a large pool of workers means reducing supply of labor, while demand is still present - it's not like the shelves stock themselves (at least not yet).
What happens when you reduce the supply of something while not reducing the demand? The price goes up.
So, if employers start refusing to hire poor people, their available pool of workers becomes near zero, massively increasing the wages the remaining workers can demand, driving costs up....making the poor desirable employees....hey look! problem gone.
Candidate one is a single worker with no children. Candidate two is a single mom with four children. The wage is a "living wage" of $15/hr. Guess which candidate is going to generate a ton of under the Sander's tax plan? That's right, the single mom with four kids.
That's OK, the Mom can retire with the settlement from the illegal employment discrimination you just described.
Because minimum wage would affect all employers. This specifically targets employers who's business plan requires very large numbers of low-paid workers.
Frankly, I'd prefer both. Employers can either handle the problem themselves by paying more, or they can let us handle the problem but we charge for our services.
As other mentioned, he got a book deal.
Also, he's a Senator. Senators get paid $174,000 per year. Before that, he was in the House, where he also got a 6-figure salary.
If you'd been making a six-figure salary for that long, you'd be able to afford a lake house too.
There's very, very few "sympathetic employers" with more than 500 workers. I suspect the number is zero.
Benefits are based on income.
How, oh how, will an employer possibly have any sort of hint about the income of their employees?! /snark
Yeah, remember when people on the right and religious individuals vocally disavowed them?
Disavowing an event does not mean the event did not happen.
Noticed that it stopped pretty hard and fast?
There's been bombings and shootings for multiple decades. You have an odd definition of "fast" and "stopped".
Hey remember those leftist groups from the late 1960's and 1970's? You know the ones that planted bombs, murdered people, engaged in open terrorism
You mean the ones that actually stopped?