Perhaps the question they should be asking is why the hell were the Fire Service using an insufficient data plan that would leave them liable to run out of data in an emergency
They weren't. They were operating under a cap that is sufficient for normal operations, as in the day-to-day responding to a house fire and such.
In addition, the contract says that if there is a fire emergency, the FD will notify Verizon and Verizon will turn off the cap.
The first two parts happened, and Verizon didn't turn off the cap. Thus Verizon violated their contract with the fire department.
Verizon and the Fire Department had a contract, where the cap is high enough for normal operations. The contract says that if a fire emergency is declared and the FD notifies Verizon, Verizon will turn off the cap.
The first two parts happened. Verizon didn't turn off the cap. This is 100% Verizon's fault.
Call this ignorant, but when the f&^% did you need high bandwidth to fight a fire?
Modern firefighting involves a great deal of GIS data and dispatching. Knowing exactly where something is burning and what it is, and where your firefighters are, in realtime, is a very useful thing. That requires sending data in both directions over a wireless network.
As far as Verizon not switching off the restriction, these things happen when humans are involved
And when it happens Verizon violates their contract. Which means the city has all sorts of reasons to complain that Verizon did not hold up their end of the deal. If Verizon can't keep their end of the deal "because humans are involved", then Verizon should not have written that into their contract.
Actually, it has everything to do with net neutrality. Because of how net neutrality was implemented.
Net neutrality was implemented by making Verizon's Internet service a Title II service. That provided net neutrality as well as a bunch of other rules. Those other rules would have prevented throttling in this case.
So yes, the end of net neutrality caused this. Because that converted Verizon's Internet service from Title II to Title III, ending the rules that would have prevented throttling.
Verizon and the fire department have a contract. The contract has a cap before throttling that is sufficient for normal operations. It's not sufficient if something very large happens. So the contract says that if a fire emergency is declared, the FD will notify Verizon and Verizon will turn off the throttling.
The first two parts happened. Verizon did not do the last part, violating their contract with the fire department. So this is 100% Verizon's fault.
This would not have happened if net neutrality was still in force. Because net neutrality was implemented by making Verizon's Internet service a Title II service. Title II includes more rules than net neutrality, and would have forbidden throttling.
It's a fire department, it will always be in a emergency situation. How will Verizon really know if they have an emergency within a couple minutes?
Because a declared fire emergency is not the same as "something is on fire". The cap is sufficient for normal, "something is on fire" operations.
The contract spells out that an emergency is declared, Verizon is notified by the FD, and Verizon turns off data caps. Verizon didn't do the last part, violating their contract with the FD.
It's "unlimited" but subject to throttling over 25 gigs, as spelled out in the contract. If they wanted no throttling they should have bought a different plan.
It's subject to throttling when there is not a declared fire emergency. It's spelled out in the contract. That Verizon violated.
This incident has everything to do with how net neutrality was implemented. Net neutrality was implemented by making Verizon's Internet service a Title II service, which required net neutrality. It also forbade throttling of "unlimited" plans, because Title II isn't just about net neutrality.
If Verizon was back under Title II (how "net neutrality" was implemented), it would be under a different set of regulations. The claim is those regulations would not have allowed throttling at all.
You know, if migrants really are stealing and committing sex crimes at a statistically higher rate above the norm then it should be reported.
Ok. They aren't. Immigrants of all type are committing violent crimes at a rate lower than citizens.
But it's being reported as if they are more violent, along with the invention of "no-go zones" that don't actually exist and a host of other anti-immigrant propaganda.
It doesn't help that there seem to be a sadly-not-"fake news" plethora of stories about crime and illegals* like Mollie Tibbetts and Kathryn Steinle - nearly 25% of Federal prisoners are illegal immigrants. Racism is not acceptable, but not wanting criminals in ones' community is a pretty reasonable desire.
This is an excellent example of lying with statistics.
The reason undocumented workers (and yes, I'm using that phrase just to annoy you) are such a high percentage in the Federal prison system is twofold: 1) The Feds are the only ones that can arrest people for immigration crimes, since it's federal law, and 2) violent crimes are almost always violations of state laws, and thus those criminals end up in state prisons. For example, the undocumented workers in the cases you cited are not in Federal prison.
But you get this nice, juicy anti-immigrant statistic that you can throw out that will utterly and completely misinform the reader.
*they're not "undocumented" - that's a flat-out lie; "undocumented" implies that they just don't happen to have their papers
That's why there's a second word - workers. They lack the documentation required for working. This is also an attempt to get at the reason that these people are here - work.
If you actually want to keep them out of the country, you'd want to go after the companies and people that illegally employ those workers. First, the employers have fixed addresses and are way easier to find. Second, no jobs, no workers - whether you call them "undocumented workers" or "illegal immigrants".
But this way you get angry and/or scared, and thus keep watching/listening to the "right" programs, and keep voting for the "right" people, to attack a problem that doesn't actually exist (violent crime by all immigrants, legal or not, is far below the rate of citizens), while you let those actually benefiting from and perpetuating this situation off the hook.
You do realize that I have access to the internet, don't you? I can fact check this. It's real easy for you to fact check it too. Here's a place to fact check that: https://www.instituteforenergy... [institutef...search.org]
You do realize that your fact check should also include checking on the source for your statistics? 'Cause you cited an "institute" that was created by the nuclear power industry. They may just have a weee bit of bias in their study.
Better numbers from a variety of sources just so happen to disagree with the people who only get paid if we pour money into their new theoretical reactor designs. Odd.
It should also be noted that "nuclear" on that Wikipedia page is using those new theoretical designs, not existing designs. So, best case scenario for nuclear and assumes that we won't run into the same thing we ran into with pebble beds where they turned out to not be a panacea. Real-world nuclear is much more expensive.
The argument isn't if we will build more nuclear power plants, it's when and how many. We've run out of choices for cheap and reliable electricity. We will be building more nuclear power.
The massive gaping hole in this is the nuclear industry is the nuclear industry is abandoning plants in the US in mid-construction. Already approved, so no issues with regulation or NIMBY. And the people who are closest to the numbers are giving up.
That's really odd for something that's supposedly so incredibly cheap.....almost like it isn't actually incredibly cheap.
Meanwhile that "incredibly expensive" solar power is actually the fastest-growing power source in the US...even with a trade war and subsidies that expired last year.
Only if you ignore the lack of water during those growing seasons. And forget that temperature isn't the only limit on your growing season. Or forget that crops on fire or covered in smoke tend not to produce a high yield.
Then you've not spent all that much time looking at solutions.
(Everything below is talking about the US)
Hydro isn't going to expand significantly. We already built dams on all the good places for hydro.
Nuclear is about 4 times to 8 times the kwh price of natural gas, wind and solar. And that price does not include waste disposal. It's so expensive that France, the most nuclear-friendly country on the planet (75% of their electricity), is abandoning nuclear plants that are already under construction. And no, there is no magic reactor that will never produce waste. The key thing in the claims people make about not producing waste is to limit the discussion to only certain kinds of waste that they might eliminate....if there's no unforeseen issues like with pebble bed reactors. And if we ignore non-proliferation issues.
Which leaves wind and the one you didn't mention, solar. Which then means the primary thing we need to engineer is grid-scale storage to deal with intermittency. On the positive side, there's very little engineering required for that. We need to build massive batteries where size and weight are not terribly relevant, so any battery chemistry will do the job.
The new standard is ATSC 3.0 where any TV bought from 1900 to now.. and maybe now + 5 years will be obsolete (tuner-based) when these standards become mainstream. Welcome to SDTV-HDTV where your TV suddenly needs a third-party tuner to become useful again.
I really want you to describe how a 1975 TV works without a third-party tuner when receiving digital TV broadcasts.
Hint: It doesn't. When analog TV broadcasts were shut off in 2009, that 1975 TV started needing a "converter", which is just a third-party tuner (some low power stations could keep broadcasting in analog until 2015, but that's still in the past).
Yes, ATSC 3 could mean yet another 3rd party tuner, but this isn't the first time this has come up.
We have a huge oversupply of unskilled labor and well educated laborers without a specific skill set (think liberal arts majors), while we have a severe shortage of highly skilled laborers (doctors, airline pilots, engineers)
There is no shortage. We graduate 1.5 STEM students for every entry-level STEM job opening. Also, in an actual shortage, salaries shoot up quickly and that's not happening. Entry-level pilots are paid something like $20k-30k/year. That doesn't happen in a "severe shortage".
Lastly, the number of people who get degrees in "dumb" majors is tiny compared to the number of people who get degrees in "something useful". But that doesn't fit the narrative, so there's lots of people claiming all the college graduates who are underemployed must have gotten a degree in a useless field.
For Medicare, you are forced to pay into it your entire working life
You realize this phrasing is completely wrong, right?
You are not "paying into" anything. You are paying for the people who currently receive Medicare. When you retire, younger people will be paying for your Medicare.
The "Pay Into" phrasing is deliberately designed to misinform people, and make them believe that Medicare (or Social Security) is some sort of personal savings program instead of a wealth redistribution program. Because if people think of such popular programs as wealth redistribution, it's harder to malign wealth redistribution as a subject.
why am I able to buy generic versions of many other types of drugs and medications?
Pills are relatively cheap and easy to develop. Mix drug with already-approved filler and you're basically done.
Autoinjectors are more complicated and require more FDA approvals, since it's both a drug and a medical device. That means longer R&D time and R&D cost, which makes it easier for Mylan to harm the competitor much more than Mylan.
Plus, Mylan has been significantly more aggressive on pricing than other companies, so the assumption has been they would be aggressive here too.
Who could attribute the high price to the government completely forbidding competition in view of this totally not bullshit explanation.
The government did not forbid competition. Anyone could develop a generic, get it approved and sell it. For decades.
Mylan's anticompetitive history caused companies to decide that losing a giant pile of money developing a generic only to get crushed by the incumbent was not in their best interest. The government's role is a relatively minor increase in development cost.
The issue with the last step is that another company can threaten to restart the cycle
That threat has to be credible to be effective.
We're not talking about something easy-to-make like a pill. An autoinjector is significantly more complex. So higher R&D costs, as well as more FDA approval work.
So another company saying "we're gonna come get you" is not as much of a threat because it's going to take that company longer to develop and get approval for their version. That gives Mylan plenty of time to react and thus cause far more damage to the generic than to their business.
The FDA doesn't just approve generics that do not exist yet. Someone has to decide to make a generic, and then seek FDA approval.
With Mylan's anticompetitive history, anyone wading into this space knows that Mylan will slash their price to drive the generic out of the market. So no one decided to lose a giant pile of money developing a generic.
This particular company is betting that Mylan has attracted enough scrutiny that they won't be able to do it without antitrust regulators going after Mylan. We'll see if they pull it off.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the question they should be asking is why the hell were the Fire Service using an insufficient data plan that would leave them liable to run out of data in an emergency
They weren't. They were operating under a cap that is sufficient for normal operations, as in the day-to-day responding to a house fire and such.
In addition, the contract says that if there is a fire emergency, the FD will notify Verizon and Verizon will turn off the cap.
The first two parts happened, and Verizon didn't turn off the cap. Thus Verizon violated their contract with the fire department.
Verizon and the Fire Department had a contract, where the cap is high enough for normal operations. The contract says that if a fire emergency is declared and the FD notifies Verizon, Verizon will turn off the cap.
The first two parts happened. Verizon didn't turn off the cap. This is 100% Verizon's fault.
Call this ignorant, but when the f&^% did you need high bandwidth to fight a fire?
Modern firefighting involves a great deal of GIS data and dispatching. Knowing exactly where something is burning and what it is, and where your firefighters are, in realtime, is a very useful thing. That requires sending data in both directions over a wireless network.
As far as Verizon not switching off the restriction, these things happen when humans are involved
And when it happens Verizon violates their contract. Which means the city has all sorts of reasons to complain that Verizon did not hold up their end of the deal. If Verizon can't keep their end of the deal "because humans are involved", then Verizon should not have written that into their contract.
Actually, it has everything to do with net neutrality. Because of how net neutrality was implemented.
Net neutrality was implemented by making Verizon's Internet service a Title II service. That provided net neutrality as well as a bunch of other rules. Those other rules would have prevented throttling in this case.
So yes, the end of net neutrality caused this. Because that converted Verizon's Internet service from Title II to Title III, ending the rules that would have prevented throttling.
Verizon and the fire department have a contract. The contract has a cap before throttling that is sufficient for normal operations. It's not sufficient if something very large happens. So the contract says that if a fire emergency is declared, the FD will notify Verizon and Verizon will turn off the throttling.
The first two parts happened. Verizon did not do the last part, violating their contract with the fire department. So this is 100% Verizon's fault.
This would not have happened if net neutrality was still in force. Because net neutrality was implemented by making Verizon's Internet service a Title II service. Title II includes more rules than net neutrality, and would have forbidden throttling.
It's a fire department, it will always be in a emergency situation. How will Verizon really know if they have an emergency within a couple minutes?
Because a declared fire emergency is not the same as "something is on fire". The cap is sufficient for normal, "something is on fire" operations.
The contract spells out that an emergency is declared, Verizon is notified by the FD, and Verizon turns off data caps. Verizon didn't do the last part, violating their contract with the FD.
It's "unlimited" but subject to throttling over 25 gigs, as spelled out in the contract. If they wanted no throttling they should have bought a different plan.
It's subject to throttling when there is not a declared fire emergency. It's spelled out in the contract. That Verizon violated.
Actually, the contract allows throttling when there is not a fire emergency. It's part of the deal the Fire Department and Verizon negotiated.
The implementation of net neutrality was to make Verizon's Internet service a Title II service.
Title II covers more than net neutrality. It also would have forbade throttling of "unlimited" service.
So while it's not specifically net neutrality, it is affected by how we did net neutrality.
This incident has everything to do with how net neutrality was implemented. Net neutrality was implemented by making Verizon's Internet service a Title II service, which required net neutrality. It also forbade throttling of "unlimited" plans, because Title II isn't just about net neutrality.
If Verizon was back under Title II (how "net neutrality" was implemented), it would be under a different set of regulations. The claim is those regulations would not have allowed throttling at all.
You know, if migrants really are stealing and committing sex crimes at a statistically higher rate above the norm then it should be reported.
Ok. They aren't. Immigrants of all type are committing violent crimes at a rate lower than citizens.
But it's being reported as if they are more violent, along with the invention of "no-go zones" that don't actually exist and a host of other anti-immigrant propaganda.
So now what?
It doesn't help that there seem to be a sadly-not-"fake news" plethora of stories about crime and illegals* like Mollie Tibbetts and Kathryn Steinle - nearly 25% of Federal prisoners are illegal immigrants. Racism is not acceptable, but not wanting criminals in ones' community is a pretty reasonable desire.
This is an excellent example of lying with statistics.
The reason undocumented workers (and yes, I'm using that phrase just to annoy you) are such a high percentage in the Federal prison system is twofold: 1) The Feds are the only ones that can arrest people for immigration crimes, since it's federal law, and 2) violent crimes are almost always violations of state laws, and thus those criminals end up in state prisons. For example, the undocumented workers in the cases you cited are not in Federal prison.
But you get this nice, juicy anti-immigrant statistic that you can throw out that will utterly and completely misinform the reader.
*they're not "undocumented" - that's a flat-out lie; "undocumented" implies that they just don't happen to have their papers
That's why there's a second word - workers. They lack the documentation required for working. This is also an attempt to get at the reason that these people are here - work.
If you actually want to keep them out of the country, you'd want to go after the companies and people that illegally employ those workers. First, the employers have fixed addresses and are way easier to find. Second, no jobs, no workers - whether you call them "undocumented workers" or "illegal immigrants".
But this way you get angry and/or scared, and thus keep watching/listening to the "right" programs, and keep voting for the "right" people, to attack a problem that doesn't actually exist (violent crime by all immigrants, legal or not, is far below the rate of citizens), while you let those actually benefiting from and perpetuating this situation off the hook.
Having read a printed newspaper, I don't think you can hold them up as a paragon of journalism.
You do realize that I have access to the internet, don't you? I can fact check this. It's real easy for you to fact check it too. Here's a place to fact check that:
https://www.instituteforenergy... [institutef...search.org]
You do realize that your fact check should also include checking on the source for your statistics? 'Cause you cited an "institute" that was created by the nuclear power industry. They may just have a weee bit of bias in their study.
Better numbers from a variety of sources just so happen to disagree with the people who only get paid if we pour money into their new theoretical reactor designs. Odd.
It should also be noted that "nuclear" on that Wikipedia page is using those new theoretical designs, not existing designs. So, best case scenario for nuclear and assumes that we won't run into the same thing we ran into with pebble beds where they turned out to not be a panacea. Real-world nuclear is much more expensive.
The argument isn't if we will build more nuclear power plants, it's when and how many. We've run out of choices for cheap and reliable electricity. We will be building more nuclear power.
The massive gaping hole in this is the nuclear industry is the nuclear industry is abandoning plants in the US in mid-construction. Already approved, so no issues with regulation or NIMBY. And the people who are closest to the numbers are giving up.
That's really odd for something that's supposedly so incredibly cheap.....almost like it isn't actually incredibly cheap.
Meanwhile that "incredibly expensive" solar power is actually the fastest-growing power source in the US...even with a trade war and subsidies that expired last year.
We're getting longer growing seasons.
Only if you ignore the lack of water during those growing seasons. And forget that temperature isn't the only limit on your growing season. Or forget that crops on fire or covered in smoke tend not to produce a high yield.
I like hydro, nuclear, and wind as solutions
Then you've not spent all that much time looking at solutions.
(Everything below is talking about the US)
Hydro isn't going to expand significantly. We already built dams on all the good places for hydro.
Nuclear is about 4 times to 8 times the kwh price of natural gas, wind and solar. And that price does not include waste disposal. It's so expensive that France, the most nuclear-friendly country on the planet (75% of their electricity), is abandoning nuclear plants that are already under construction. And no, there is no magic reactor that will never produce waste. The key thing in the claims people make about not producing waste is to limit the discussion to only certain kinds of waste that they might eliminate....if there's no unforeseen issues like with pebble bed reactors. And if we ignore non-proliferation issues.
Which leaves wind and the one you didn't mention, solar. Which then means the primary thing we need to engineer is grid-scale storage to deal with intermittency. On the positive side, there's very little engineering required for that. We need to build massive batteries where size and weight are not terribly relevant, so any battery chemistry will do the job.
The new standard is ATSC 3.0 where any TV bought from 1900 to now.. and maybe now + 5 years will be obsolete (tuner-based) when these standards become mainstream. Welcome to SDTV-HDTV where your TV suddenly needs a third-party tuner to become useful again.
I really want you to describe how a 1975 TV works without a third-party tuner when receiving digital TV broadcasts.
Hint: It doesn't. When analog TV broadcasts were shut off in 2009, that 1975 TV started needing a "converter", which is just a third-party tuner (some low power stations could keep broadcasting in analog until 2015, but that's still in the past).
Yes, ATSC 3 could mean yet another 3rd party tuner, but this isn't the first time this has come up.
We have a huge oversupply of unskilled labor and well educated laborers without a specific skill set (think liberal arts majors), while we have a severe shortage of highly skilled laborers (doctors, airline pilots, engineers)
There is no shortage. We graduate 1.5 STEM students for every entry-level STEM job opening. Also, in an actual shortage, salaries shoot up quickly and that's not happening. Entry-level pilots are paid something like $20k-30k/year. That doesn't happen in a "severe shortage".
Lastly, the number of people who get degrees in "dumb" majors is tiny compared to the number of people who get degrees in "something useful". But that doesn't fit the narrative, so there's lots of people claiming all the college graduates who are underemployed must have gotten a degree in a useless field.
For Medicare, you are forced to pay into it your entire working life
You realize this phrasing is completely wrong, right?
You are not "paying into" anything. You are paying for the people who currently receive Medicare. When you retire, younger people will be paying for your Medicare.
The "Pay Into" phrasing is deliberately designed to misinform people, and make them believe that Medicare (or Social Security) is some sort of personal savings program instead of a wealth redistribution program. Because if people think of such popular programs as wealth redistribution, it's harder to malign wealth redistribution as a subject.
why am I able to buy generic versions of many other types of drugs and medications?
Pills are relatively cheap and easy to develop. Mix drug with already-approved filler and you're basically done.
Autoinjectors are more complicated and require more FDA approvals, since it's both a drug and a medical device. That means longer R&D time and R&D cost, which makes it easier for Mylan to harm the competitor much more than Mylan.
Plus, Mylan has been significantly more aggressive on pricing than other companies, so the assumption has been they would be aggressive here too.
Who could attribute the high price to the government completely forbidding competition in view of this totally not bullshit explanation.
The government did not forbid competition. Anyone could develop a generic, get it approved and sell it. For decades.
Mylan's anticompetitive history caused companies to decide that losing a giant pile of money developing a generic only to get crushed by the incumbent was not in their best interest. The government's role is a relatively minor increase in development cost.
The issue with the last step is that another company can threaten to restart the cycle
That threat has to be credible to be effective.
We're not talking about something easy-to-make like a pill. An autoinjector is significantly more complex. So higher R&D costs, as well as more FDA approval work.
So another company saying "we're gonna come get you" is not as much of a threat because it's going to take that company longer to develop and get approval for their version. That gives Mylan plenty of time to react and thus cause far more damage to the generic than to their business.
Do you need me to link the definition of "example" for you?
The FDA doesn't just approve generics that do not exist yet. Someone has to decide to make a generic, and then seek FDA approval.
With Mylan's anticompetitive history, anyone wading into this space knows that Mylan will slash their price to drive the generic out of the market. So no one decided to lose a giant pile of money developing a generic.
This particular company is betting that Mylan has attracted enough scrutiny that they won't be able to do it without antitrust regulators going after Mylan. We'll see if they pull it off.
I think you're forgetting the part where the government forbids the sale of the generic completely. As has been the case up until now.
I think you're forgetting that someone has to decide to make a generic and apply for FDA approval first.
Companies look at the natural monopoly and Mylan's anticompetitive history, and don't start the ball rolling on making one.
Natural monopoly by the incumbent.
Generic: "Hey, we could make generic Epipens for about $100 each. The brand name costs $600. Let's sell them for $200 and undercut"
Incumbent: (Cuts price to $100. Eats small loss per unit)
Generic: (Goes bankrupt)
Incumbent: (Raises price back to $600, recoups losses)