Highest Rated Comments

Szeraax335 karma

That's too bad. I've had some friends getting married without really seeing if they like each other. "He's breathing and worthy. What else is there??"

Szeraax145 karma

:( My wife and I have warned many friends off of a hasty marriage. "Hey, if its gonna be forever, and you want it to be forever, figure out if he's someone that you'd actually like forever first!"

Szeraax48 karma

Sure, its a valid reason not to marry someone, but a DESIRE for sex is a terrible reason TO marry someone.

Szeraax25 karma

Oh, absolutely. I'm lds and adhered to the same standards for intimacy. Sex isn't a great reason to marry someone though.

Szeraax2 karma

I have someone on facebook talking about this incident and they asked how this is related to net neutrality. Here's what I said. Do you agree that rate limiting/bandlidth limiting is another tier up the Neutral Net ladder?

Copied text:

As with many other things in the world, supporting or implementing Net Neutrality is not just a binary operation. Imagine Net Neutrality (NN) to be a scale with things less aggressive (and more generally accepted) on the bottom and things more aggressive near the top. Something near the bottom of the scale would be no blocking other websites. Its easy to say that comcast blocking access to google.com and redirecting you to their own in house search engine would not be neutrality. On the same scale would be blocking HTTPS traffic and forcing you to use HTTP so they can datamine all your connections.

A step up from that would likely be paid prioritization and throttling. Should comcast be able to slow down your connection to netflix while making your connection to DirectTV online fast because they don't like you using your bandwidth with netflix? Or should they be able to charge you for faster access to netflix to avoid buffering screens?

Another likely step up the scale would be zero rating. Should comcast be able to charge you money to exempt your netflix data from counting against your cap? Should VZ? This is the "net neutrality death" screen everyone sees from portugal. https://i.kym-cdn.com/.../newsfeed/001/316/255/e44.jpg While ISPs can't block or throttle, they can zero rate and offer packages that exempt services from counting against your data cap.

If you recall, CA is working to pass the "toughest" NN legislation in the country where ISPs can't block, throttle, prioritize, or zero-rate ANY data. They can still run Quality of Service (QoS) on their networks so that voice and video data gets routed before text, streaming, or torrent traffic (leading to the best experience possible for real-time traffic).

Now, I imagine above all of these tiers on this NN scale is another rung called "bandwidth limiting". Should comcast, VZ, or others be able to rate limit your bandwidth capabilities while you still have data available?

In the case of the CA fire department, they paid for an unlimited plan and didn't know that their bandwidth would get limited to like 100Kbps after using 25GB. Sure, they still have unlimited data remaining, but it can hardly be accessed. May as well call that a 25GB plan with free 2g access. The logical result of a rung called "bandwidth limiting" would be that VZ and others that may do the same no longer call it an unlimited plan, which I think is more accurate than what we currently see. But that only happens if its put into a NN bill.

It would appear that CA isn't so sure about that tier of NN yet, so they opted to only do the first 3 tiers in their current legislation. I hope it is clear from this comment that supporting NN isn't just a binary position. Many people support that base rung of no blocking. Many of them support the next tier up, but not all. And so forth.

Personally, I believe that the BEST solution is competition so that legislation is not needed. This is one reason why I chose to live somewhere that provides me with 15+ ISPs and I give as little money as possible to wireless operators who don't want to value tiers 2+ of NN. Sadly, most everyone else does not have the same options that I have, so I think that we do need to enact legislation to protect consumers. Whether it should be NN tier 1+, 4+, or other is obviously up for debate.

To be clear: I am not against data caps. They provide a means for customers to save money and only pay for that which they will use. I'm not against companies protecting themselves from people who seek to abuse the limits of service. Companies can easily provide a "25GB plan" with optional "access to 2g/3g for $4/mo" addon to get the EXACT same outcome that this fire department experienced. The fire department in this story would have instead purchased a more expensive plan initially, since they want unlimited data and they want it at 4g bandwidth.

NN tiers 1-4+ can coexist with successful business. With NN in place, companies can't mislead/obfuscate about what they provide and I believe that viable competition would be the best method of making sure the net stays that way (not currently happening).