Texas has Austin. But that said, Texas is heavily loyal to AT&T. I'm pretty sure that Cornyn and Cruz could only resort to describing the Internet with dump trucks and tubes analogies. So who do you think actually wrote this legislation with all the cute marketspeak?
Please show me where I've ever stated that you'll get 50-100mbps over twisted pair copper above a half mile. That would also take all 4 pairs on the wire. Your designation of what is useful is actually rather arbitrary. Where I live, I'd kill to get anything better than 3 mbps / 1 mbps that is wired. I'm stuck on either a tethered cell phone or on a neighbor's factory default configuration on an ubnt airmax network with some crappy TP Link firewall in front of it which gets 3/1 mbps, and if you're lucky it only drops 20% of the packets. And I live a whopping 5 miles away from where all the McMansions on 1/5 acre lots that start at $500,000 are being built in my metro area right now as we speak.
You're still sidestepping the fact that AT&T's goal wasn't to provide "faster service", it was to "push out the competition". As part of the 1996 Telecom Act deal, iirc, they [the RBOCs] promised that they were going to wire up fiber to the premise, then they renegged on the deal and did it the cheap way. If they had kept to their promise, then there really wouldn't be much need for adsl2 now would there?
Seriously man, I really don't know why you're trying to lecture me. I've been working in this industry for the past few decades.
You're missing how U-Verse and similar came about as a result of the stipulations of the 1996 Telecom act. By running fiber to the node, the RBOCs didn't have to grant access under competitive terms to the CLECs because it was no longer a straight copper run to the premise. So the real issue here isn't the viable range of adsl2. It's that the RBOCs refuse access to CLECS.
Except that they're just double-dipping. The FUSF is supposed to fund exactly these types of roll-outs to the poorer and underserved areas. Otherwise, why the hell are we being made to pay for the USF?
AT&T cannot even properly perform an inventory on all their equipment, and I'm not even talking about how much cabling they've hung up or buried. I'm talking about equipment for the remote terminals, the dslams, etc. They simply cannot account for it, and apparently even the IRS doesn't bother to make them provide a proper accounting and inventory of network assets.
I've had the AT&T linemen up on the pole at the edge of my property doing work on the access terminal on their 48-conductor copper wire telling me that not only is the older 6mbps/768kbps ADSL service available in this neighborhood, but that they're working a trouble ticket for a neighbor of mine. Yet no matter how many hours I waste on the phone with AT&T, I usually end up talking to some idiot in the Philippines who can only ever repeat the same line "the computer says that we don't service your area, so sory". If I really waste a few more hours per call, I'll eventually end up talking to somebody in a call center about 7 hours drive away from where I am. And I'll still be told the exact same line. I'm withing 5000-7000 feet from the nearest remote terminal, which should have me well within the attenuation of signal for 6mbps downstream.
Labor might be going down, but even with these pre-termed cables, labor is the single largest piece of that capital expenditure. The cables and the other equipment costs pale in comparison.
We've been paying a USF fee for longer than most of us have been alive. Yes, those underserved areas deserve to get the same high speed Internet that the posh upscale neighborhoods and new construction get. It's been paid for.
Meaningful service area is only 1000 feet for adsl2 service? (That is what U-verse has been anywhere I've lived, and for speeds over 24 mbps they simply bind in more pairs.) According to all the numbers I've seen for the attenuation of the signal, at around 2 1/2 km distance you should still peg at ~13mbps. (Although it doesn't fit the definition of broadband, it is about 4 times better than what I get on neighborhood wifi running on ubnt's factory default settings because he really is in over his head and refuses to respond to any of my requests.) Perhaps you're confusing the fact that U-Verse came about in this country as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which iirc, stated that the RBOCs had to provide access to all straight-copper runs to the CLECs at a standard/reasonable cost? So what did Ameritech/SBC/AT&T do? They cheated by running fiber to the terminals but kept the wiring from the terminals to the customer's NIDs as copper, thus allowing Ameritech/SBC/AT&T to block all access to the CLECs on their whim.
Crap man, and here I thought you were all libertarian and such.:-) Actually you described my predicament re: internet quite succinctly... though i was thinking as to whether or not we could make a mesh network by attaching radios to the goats. In the meantime, when I can't tether, it's rfc2549 for me...
Hospitals are required to provide services to the level of "stabilization" only in the ER. That means they are not required to cure you all the way through to the end. If they do, that is there prerogative. You seem to have a misperception about what is required by law to be done. Also, do you have any sources that support your assertion that every of the 50 states would have insurance requirements upon the employer as you so assert? And beyond the 50 states, don't forget the protectorates and territories too...
I am familiar with the progressive nature of our taxation system. It needs to be adjusted yes. We also need to really cut back hard on the tax breaks for the wealthy. The only way that trickle-down works is that you get some drops of the rich guy's pee on your head - he [the wealthy guy] doesn't really create jobs like they still try to claim after all these years.
Dragon, take ye treasure and hideaway in a cave. I am done here, you can put a fork in me and serve me. It doesn't even matter whether or not Obama said premiums would be like the cost of a phone bill - the POTUS has exactly 0 say in any of that, and if you believed that, you probably also believed Jason Chaffetz when he basically said all you have to do to afford your premiums is not buy that new iPhone. I shan't discuss this any further with you, you can't even accept a "thank you" for the lives you touched when offered and leave it at that. Find somebody else to troll.
Negative, ghostrider. I'm arguing for the law of diminishing returns basically. Sure, you can keep earning more money, but on each increment larger you'll also pay a larger portion of that money in taxes. There's a finite amount of things that you can own, so I don't see why, if implemented correctly, that it would be a net negative.
Because you're not being deprived of anything other than some finances. Which by the way, even if you are insufferably selfish, thank you for making it so that *I* can get coverage for my condition and thank you for helping to see that my mom was as comfortable as possible on her last days. I know you didn't give from the kindness of your heart, and I know if you could, in a heartbeat you'd stop paying and thus end up making it so that I would not be able to afford my treatment, but thank you nonetheless.
Which brings me to my next point: People with chronic conditions on the old system rarely could get affordable coverage to them. Chronic conditions very often times affect a person's ability to work and to function in society. Less work due to no medical coverage means less taxes collected from that person, means less beneficial for society as well. And if that person has something debilitating enough when not treated that they cannot hold down a job, guess who ends up paying for them to receive starvation rations? You, once again. So while I understand it's a bitter pill for you to swallow, think of it this way: you'll end up paying that money one way or another. And I assure you that my condition has absolutely nothing to do with any wrong choice I made in my life - I've had it since childhood. And as it is degenerative, I could one day become more or less immobilized.
As crappy as the ACA is, you'll be paying less over the long term. It's going to smart in the short term, and sure has taken a bite out of my own ass too. But I can see the forest for all the trees. Cheers.
No, I said this was a small step in the right direction. I acknowledge the benefit afforded to both me and my late mom as well as the shortcomings (namely the rates and the deductibles - at this point I'd be better under the socialized Israeli health system as I'd pay the same amount or less, but wouldn't have to worry about that huge extra deductible to meet every year nor would I have to worry about a minor procedure costing $50,000 or more). My rates have gone up 187% over the course of 2 years time. Don't conflate my comments here as walking around with rosy glasses. I never said this was an ideal situation. But still, fuck you very much. Maybe you should stand at an arbitrary spot on your road and shoot anybody with an out-of-state plate that drives by. That person didn't pay for the road and feels entitled to it and are therefore stealing from you. You work up every month thousands of dollars poorer as a result of having paid for that road to be built.
Also, I'd like to add that complex political ideologies and policies cannot be distilled down to a binary system. Your attempt to cast this as an "us versus them" scenario is very pathetic. All you are is a walking list of talking points and complaints about how you have to pay a bit extra so that your fellow human being can receive proper medical care.
I'm not in charge of the economic well-being of the country, so I can only speculate on specific numbers. However, history has shown that having a large middle class with both the income and wealth disparity within certain thresholds is when the economy is the strongest. What we have here is an ongoing erosion of the middle class. So if that family has to survive on around $40,000 or so a year, and the earner of $300,000 has to survive on $230,000 year (or so, just rough numbers), I'm supposed to feel bad because the person who earned $300,000 only got to keep $230,000 of their income? That's 5.75 times the net income. Surely expecting them to pay even more, to the point that they even pay around $100,000 of their income, isn't going to cramp their style or make them need to sell a kidney to pay the rent.
Slashdot Mirror
Texas has Austin. But that said, Texas is heavily loyal to AT&T. I'm pretty sure that Cornyn and Cruz could only resort to describing the Internet with dump trucks and tubes analogies. So who do you think actually wrote this legislation with all the cute marketspeak?
Please show me where I've ever stated that you'll get 50-100mbps over twisted pair copper above a half mile. That would also take all 4 pairs on the wire. Your designation of what is useful is actually rather arbitrary. Where I live, I'd kill to get anything better than 3 mbps / 1 mbps that is wired. I'm stuck on either a tethered cell phone or on a neighbor's factory default configuration on an ubnt airmax network with some crappy TP Link firewall in front of it which gets 3/1 mbps, and if you're lucky it only drops 20% of the packets. And I live a whopping 5 miles away from where all the McMansions on 1/5 acre lots that start at $500,000 are being built in my metro area right now as we speak.
You're still sidestepping the fact that AT&T's goal wasn't to provide "faster service", it was to "push out the competition". As part of the 1996 Telecom Act deal, iirc, they [the RBOCs] promised that they were going to wire up fiber to the premise, then they renegged on the deal and did it the cheap way. If they had kept to their promise, then there really wouldn't be much need for adsl2 now would there?
Seriously man, I really don't know why you're trying to lecture me. I've been working in this industry for the past few decades.
You're missing how U-Verse and similar came about as a result of the stipulations of the 1996 Telecom act. By running fiber to the node, the RBOCs didn't have to grant access under competitive terms to the CLECs because it was no longer a straight copper run to the premise. So the real issue here isn't the viable range of adsl2. It's that the RBOCs refuse access to CLECS.
And I'm currently being made to pay $60 for a POTS line.
Except that they're just double-dipping. The FUSF is supposed to fund exactly these types of roll-outs to the poorer and underserved areas. Otherwise, why the hell are we being made to pay for the USF?
AT&T cannot even properly perform an inventory on all their equipment, and I'm not even talking about how much cabling they've hung up or buried. I'm talking about equipment for the remote terminals, the dslams, etc. They simply cannot account for it, and apparently even the IRS doesn't bother to make them provide a proper accounting and inventory of network assets.
I've had the AT&T linemen up on the pole at the edge of my property doing work on the access terminal on their 48-conductor copper wire telling me that not only is the older 6mbps/768kbps ADSL service available in this neighborhood, but that they're working a trouble ticket for a neighbor of mine. Yet no matter how many hours I waste on the phone with AT&T, I usually end up talking to some idiot in the Philippines who can only ever repeat the same line "the computer says that we don't service your area, so sory". If I really waste a few more hours per call, I'll eventually end up talking to somebody in a call center about 7 hours drive away from where I am. And I'll still be told the exact same line. I'm withing 5000-7000 feet from the nearest remote terminal, which should have me well within the attenuation of signal for 6mbps downstream.
Labor might be going down, but even with these pre-termed cables, labor is the single largest piece of that capital expenditure. The cables and the other equipment costs pale in comparison.
We've been paying a USF fee for longer than most of us have been alive. Yes, those underserved areas deserve to get the same high speed Internet that the posh upscale neighborhoods and new construction get. It's been paid for.
Meaningful service area is only 1000 feet for adsl2 service? (That is what U-verse has been anywhere I've lived, and for speeds over 24 mbps they simply bind in more pairs.) According to all the numbers I've seen for the attenuation of the signal, at around 2 1/2 km distance you should still peg at ~13mbps. (Although it doesn't fit the definition of broadband, it is about 4 times better than what I get on neighborhood wifi running on ubnt's factory default settings because he really is in over his head and refuses to respond to any of my requests.) Perhaps you're confusing the fact that U-Verse came about in this country as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which iirc, stated that the RBOCs had to provide access to all straight-copper runs to the CLECs at a standard/reasonable cost? So what did Ameritech/SBC/AT&T do? They cheated by running fiber to the terminals but kept the wiring from the terminals to the customer's NIDs as copper, thus allowing Ameritech/SBC/AT&T to block all access to the CLECs on their whim.
Never have a tire blowout? Some of us might just be more endowed than others. :-)
And it's not just the hop, but the repeated buffering at each hop.
I hear this machine doesn't file for child support, though those girls in bikinis might... http://boingboing.net/2017/04/...
This, however, isn't the purview of the FCC. We're not talking specifically about Google Fiber...
Yeah, but these bees are bigger than most Buicks... and twice as ugly.
Crap man, and here I thought you were all libertarian and such. :-) Actually you described my predicament re: internet quite succinctly... though i was thinking as to whether or not we could make a mesh network by attaching radios to the goats. In the meantime, when I can't tether, it's rfc2549 for me...
Hospitals are required to provide services to the level of "stabilization" only in the ER. That means they are not required to cure you all the way through to the end. If they do, that is there prerogative. You seem to have a misperception about what is required by law to be done. Also, do you have any sources that support your assertion that every of the 50 states would have insurance requirements upon the employer as you so assert? And beyond the 50 states, don't forget the protectorates and territories too...
Do I *have* to make hipster cheese? I don't even own any goats yet...
I am familiar with the progressive nature of our taxation system. It needs to be adjusted yes. We also need to really cut back hard on the tax breaks for the wealthy. The only way that trickle-down works is that you get some drops of the rich guy's pee on your head - he [the wealthy guy] doesn't really create jobs like they still try to claim after all these years.
Dragon, take ye treasure and hideaway in a cave. I am done here, you can put a fork in me and serve me. It doesn't even matter whether or not Obama said premiums would be like the cost of a phone bill - the POTUS has exactly 0 say in any of that, and if you believed that, you probably also believed Jason Chaffetz when he basically said all you have to do to afford your premiums is not buy that new iPhone. I shan't discuss this any further with you, you can't even accept a "thank you" for the lives you touched when offered and leave it at that. Find somebody else to troll.
Negative, ghostrider. I'm arguing for the law of diminishing returns basically. Sure, you can keep earning more money, but on each increment larger you'll also pay a larger portion of that money in taxes. There's a finite amount of things that you can own, so I don't see why, if implemented correctly, that it would be a net negative.
Because you're not being deprived of anything other than some finances. Which by the way, even if you are insufferably selfish, thank you for making it so that *I* can get coverage for my condition and thank you for helping to see that my mom was as comfortable as possible on her last days. I know you didn't give from the kindness of your heart, and I know if you could, in a heartbeat you'd stop paying and thus end up making it so that I would not be able to afford my treatment, but thank you nonetheless.
Which brings me to my next point: People with chronic conditions on the old system rarely could get affordable coverage to them. Chronic conditions very often times affect a person's ability to work and to function in society. Less work due to no medical coverage means less taxes collected from that person, means less beneficial for society as well. And if that person has something debilitating enough when not treated that they cannot hold down a job, guess who ends up paying for them to receive starvation rations? You, once again. So while I understand it's a bitter pill for you to swallow, think of it this way: you'll end up paying that money one way or another. And I assure you that my condition has absolutely nothing to do with any wrong choice I made in my life - I've had it since childhood. And as it is degenerative, I could one day become more or less immobilized.
As crappy as the ACA is, you'll be paying less over the long term. It's going to smart in the short term, and sure has taken a bite out of my own ass too. But I can see the forest for all the trees. Cheers.
s/until the fuss dies down/until the fuss dies down and the money gets offered in sufficient quantities/ . ftfy :-)
No, I said this was a small step in the right direction. I acknowledge the benefit afforded to both me and my late mom as well as the shortcomings (namely the rates and the deductibles - at this point I'd be better under the socialized Israeli health system as I'd pay the same amount or less, but wouldn't have to worry about that huge extra deductible to meet every year nor would I have to worry about a minor procedure costing $50,000 or more). My rates have gone up 187% over the course of 2 years time. Don't conflate my comments here as walking around with rosy glasses. I never said this was an ideal situation. But still, fuck you very much. Maybe you should stand at an arbitrary spot on your road and shoot anybody with an out-of-state plate that drives by. That person didn't pay for the road and feels entitled to it and are therefore stealing from you. You work up every month thousands of dollars poorer as a result of having paid for that road to be built.
Also, I'd like to add that complex political ideologies and policies cannot be distilled down to a binary system. Your attempt to cast this as an "us versus them" scenario is very pathetic. All you are is a walking list of talking points and complaints about how you have to pay a bit extra so that your fellow human being can receive proper medical care.
I'm not in charge of the economic well-being of the country, so I can only speculate on specific numbers. However, history has shown that having a large middle class with both the income and wealth disparity within certain thresholds is when the economy is the strongest. What we have here is an ongoing erosion of the middle class. So if that family has to survive on around $40,000 or so a year, and the earner of $300,000 has to survive on $230,000 year (or so, just rough numbers), I'm supposed to feel bad because the person who earned $300,000 only got to keep $230,000 of their income? That's 5.75 times the net income. Surely expecting them to pay even more, to the point that they even pay around $100,000 of their income, isn't going to cramp their style or make them need to sell a kidney to pay the rent.