What a Tuel

Classic retort - I know more than you so you are wrong.

Sorry, but you are the one lacking an understanding of broadband. Now we are saying competition is impossible and the lack of it is good for the consumer? Are you kidding me? Not only is there ample evidence to show ISPs throttling different kinds of traffic, but Netflix has been forced to pay untold millions to ISPs to keep their content running at even speeds to their customers. The internet industry is not doing fine. You are paying through the nose at prices that are only increasing as costs are dropping. They are feeding you a line of BS that the infrastructure is making them raise prices except the data shows those costs are dropping. Throw in data caps, and if we keep acquiescing to these monopolies and the internet will be pretty much hell like Mobile internet is right now. Imagine that, Verizon offers free data through its "partners", wonder how they accomplish that. Same thing will happen with the cable giants. But you wait and see and defend an abomination of a monopoly and pretend it is free market capitalism. So here's a question for you. What services were you denied as a result of net neutrality? What evidence do you have that they raised prices? Stopped developing their networks? These company's are making money hand over fist, and any money they don't get from content providers they hold hostage is a drop in the revenue bucket. You are accepting getting screwed over because a company won't make as much money. Trust me, if comcast doesn't want to develop their network because Netflix won't pay their extortion fees then someone else will take up the torch. There is too much money on the table not to. You have a choice here (as do content providers): Allow your ISP to dictate what speeds your content can be streamed at Tell your ISP to off and provide you the speeds you pay for, for whatever content you damn well see fit to stream As for your hatred of Google "stirring" things up. Well they do have a vested interest in people browsing content on the internet without the gatekeeper ISP's getting in the way, and maybe someday they will turn into the monstrosities that are the current ISP's. But for now they are offering the greatest internet experience of all ISP's. Who woulda thunk it could be done with such slim profit margins. 1. This is flat out wrong and part of the ridiculous fear mongering. Prove it or knock it off. 2. I live in North Tonawanda. It is pathetically empty and not rural at all. Time Warner is the sole reasonable option for broadband internet. There are more places like this than not. Yes, Google is pushing the ISP's to improve their networks. It is a fresh breath of competition. I don't think we are in disagreement here. Competition is good for the industry. As for caps, Comcast does them consistently. They recently just raised them from 300gb to 1TB per month which is good, but there shouldn't be any cap. If they cannot afford to provide customers the level of service they promise, then they need to let those customers go. You allow caps in the door, and your internet turns into the mobile hell hole that we are in now. Monetizing data is not the route we want to go with the internet. It doesn't make any sense outside of increased profits for these companies. It is an awful idea for consumers and content providers alike. If a company cannot take the load on their networks, they need to invest the money or shed the customers. That is the service they provide. 3. The numbers are out there. Estimates range anywhere from <$0.01 to $0.15 per gb but of course it varies depending on location, existing infrastructure, time of day, etc so it is difficult to pin down. Don't think this ever includes the government investment into the ISP's infrastructure through tax breaks or credits (something they don't mind taking)

Tell me what net neutrality does if it is so bad. It's out there right now. What is it doing that is wrong besides preventing what I outlined? The comparison of internet to buying per pound meat at a grocery story is insane, mainly because as I have said before there is no competition within areas to keep prices down. Down the street FIOS might be available, but it isn't right here. People do not and likely cannot move for the sake of internet. There is no protection from the insanely high markup. You are paying through the nose for high priced internet, and then they cap you. I am not sure you realize that the data under the caps that companies like Comcast put forward a just a tiny fraction of the bill you are paying. So they are effectively saying "Hey, pay for this internet $60 a month. But make sure you stay under the 300gb cap that costs us much less than $3 to provide. If you want more data, you can pay another $10 for 50 more gbs (<$0.50 cost to them)". You are paying $60 a month for a $3 service. Before you invoke infrastructure costs remember the quote I posted in which a smaller company's infrastructure costs fell to 2% of revenue. So including infrastructure, you are paying $60 a month for a $5 service. Now I get free market and all that. I would love it too if there was actual competition. ComCast's CEO Cohen says as much when trying to get the FCC to approve the merger with TWC. Cohen: "That is correct."

The idea that there are competing markets in broadband internet is laughable. I am not sure if that is what you are saying but these companies have a few areas where they overlap but they mostly keep to their own agreed upon markets. The ISP's should be blamed for that problem. Why shouldn't Netflix pay more because they are utilizing the transmission of more data? Because they already do. They already pay for the transmission of all of their data. They aren't getting a free ride. We are talking about Comcast telling Netflix to pay them more money or they will not get the speeds they are already paying for. That is what Net Neutrality is stopping. How do you feel about data caps for broadband internet at the home level? Do you think it is reasonable? Do you think it serves any purpose other than getting people under their thumb? (like mobile did albeit they have little more legitimate reasoning)

Without net neutrality, access to the internet is not universal. Without net neutrality, your ISP can decide that competing services can run slower than their own. Or they can hold content providers hostage. They shouldn't have that power. They are providing a service - access to the internet at an agreed upon speed. Allowing them to mess with this will only lead to exploitation of content providers and customers (Who do you think foots the bill when Netflix has to pay Comcast for "the fast lane"?). The cost of maintaining speed is dropping as traffic goes up. The best way to move forward with the internet is to separate access to the internet from what you are accessing on the internet. There is too much bias and money involved for it not to be. This is the future you are signing up for without net neutrality. Also a video to watch: http://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/

No it doesn't. The alternative is cable television. Is that what we want for the internet? The ISP's might provide access to the internet, but the content of the internet is independent as it should be. The ISP should not get to play favorites and allow/disallow certain entertainment providers. As for the myth that other people like Azalin who are referring to customers "using too much traffic", well then these ISPs need to improve their infrastructure to serve their existing customers or shed those customers. We are talking about reducing the quality of a service because they have too many customers. In any other industry you start losing customers. There is too much lobbying going on to rely on "true" competition with these ISP's though. A standard speed needs to be set for the internet for the good of the consumer. And data caps shouldn't even be a thing. The cost of pushing this traffic has declined dramatically as the traffic has increased. Again though, this would be a completely different story if there was actual competition between these companies, but there simply isn't. Don't get me started on mobile data caps. What higher costs? We are talking about an ISP being able to say "Hey Netflix, pay me more money or we slow down your speed" vs an ISP having to provide the same speed for most services. This offers a dramatically higher variety of access to the entirety of the internet at consistent speeds. This is good for consumers, but admittedly not for Comcast's stockholders. Edit: For those that will say "well Netflix uses a ton of data, they should pay more" then ok, what happens when Netflix pays for higher speeds to the detriment of other services? Do we see how this will hinder competition and independence of the internet? Not to mention the ISP's are multimedia conglomerates who have a vested interest in the success of their content as well. Imagine it 20 years down the road. Access to the internet should be universal and separate from the content of the internet.

It isn't about maturity. It is about perception. The NFL sees an opportunity to stay out of the public perception of a drug culture. Alcohol is legal, they can't stop that, but while marijuana is illegal they have an excuse to ban it and sidestep the cultural drug issues they would have to face, including the perception of fans of the league. Made widely legal and available, there is no doubt the characters of the NFL would make fools of themselves bringing unwanted attention to things not involving football like they do with alcohol. It's all a game playing with perception and social stigmas. (Edit: There is an argument to be made that they aren't sidestepping opioids in the same manner.)

It may be on Henderson because he knew the rules, but it also means that we don't have to blame him for being an idiot and have a little compassion for what he went through. Also Goodell should take that into consideration for his suspension if changing a phone number merits consideration. "Bell knew the rules"

Unless you are Le'veon Bell. Then they take whatever excuse sticks.

This is where I said above we need to be careful. The FCC has made great decisions lately stopping those ISP's from putting the internet behind a paywall for businesses and eventually people. Net neutrality is not a government takeover of the internet. It is a good thing for the end consumer and small businesses.

We have to be careful here. There are 2 different things going on. The freedom and independence of the internet, and legitimate cyber security threats like China. The ISP's would like nothing more than to became the gatekeepers for the internet, and they are trying to do that with data caps, and offers of "free data" for going with certain providers like Netflix, or even their own streaming services (Comcast owns NBC) . They are trying to close the door to the openness of the internet, or at least control who can go through. (ex. You don't want to go through Netflix? You want to go through "Sling TV? Well good luck streaming HDTV through Sling TV with your data cap. NBC Stream is otherwise data cap free!" So while I am aware of attempts to monopolize the internet, I do think there are valid security concerns that should be listened to. It really depends on what Obama's "international agreements" entail.

How many chances does Bell get? Didn't he have a DUI + Marijuana possession charge reduced to 2 games last year? Now a missed test reduced to 3 games this year. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000504287/article/leveon-bell-suspension-reduced-to-two-games http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000687567/article/leveon-bells-suspension-reduced-to-three-games So maybe someone should tell us what Dareus is doing differently than Bell?

Out of my 5 leagues, I think this is the one I am most proud of. QB Bortles RB Doug Martin RB Matt Forte WR Antonio Brown WR Mohamed Sanu TE Martellus Bennett FLEX Kelvin Benjamin D Jets K Carpenter Bench Jamaal Charles Tyler Eifert Justin Forsett Matt Ryan Kamar Aiken On another note: Forsett went undrafted as a result of his Raven release, but he resigned today. Do I drop Hogan, or Sproles to pick him up in another league?

4 yard td scramble run by Taylor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRL-Kw24hZ0

Too far!

"I would take just about any of the cut quaterbacks over this guy. He straight up sucks and to give up a first rounder and more for him? Is marijuna legal in Minnesota?" Minnesota Fan Should we tell him about Tasker's idea?!? We could talk them into one 1st and one 2nd rounder as a compromise!

Chase Daniel and Carson Wentz are Philly's qbs....

You think the Bills are signing Gronk for $455,000 to sell a fullback jersey? Really?

This is what I thought would have been the context. Thank you.

I feel bad for all of our children and their children. It is going to be one fudged up world.

It's pure racism. They don't have the "systemic power" for it to be frowned upon in the mainstream but that's what it is. (and it's getting there) "We don't want white people to use our stuff" (cultural appropriation) "Those white people are the problem" (white privilege) "white reporters to the back of the protest" (whites can't cover or support black protests) "I was really nervous to get up here because there's a lot of white people in the crowd" (calling out innocent white people as violent at an orlando vigil) "we don't want to associate with white police officers at a barbecue" (BLM activist on the peaceful barbecue between blm protestors and police in Kentucky) "white people are the problem with our society" (white privilege) “Not just all lives. Black lives. Please do not change the conversation by talking about how your life matters, too. The “tired trope that we are all the same,” Garza elaborates, serves only to “perpetuate a level of White supremacist domination.” (not equal) All things reported by the media with no scathing undertones, and hardly any public backlash because there has been a successful and targeted effort to suppress such a retort with destruction of career and reputation with the label "racist" for disagreeing or criticizing. It is disgusting.

There's also one that flys fast and low at 1:09 before the explosion. Chalking it up to tricks on perception with a camera zoomed in a few miles away. The timing on that one is just so crazy though. On another note I already see people claiming this is proof 9/11 was an inside job, because the tower survived lol.

You can take a suspension if you are injured? That's kind of sketchy.

Wait, wouldn't this have not happened if Russ Brandon had the personnel influence everyone complains about?