Live data from Hacker News

The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

pbs.org

41–50 of 246 posts

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#41
post #32
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Australian that lived in America for a long time, trust me when I say life in Australia with crappy internet is significantly better than life in America with fast internet. You don't want to live there, trust me.

As an Australia who also has lived in the USA, wtf are you talking about? Yes, the USA is not perfect, but it is an amazing place, with so much support and infrastructure to get anything going. Everything is cheaper, available at all hours, and much better services (I am not just talking about the bars, I am talking about getting stuff done!). On top of that you have a supportive government towards startups, somethin…

Why do you think Australia has poor startup support? I believe politicians call it "small business", if you're arguing subsidization, then I'm not sure if you want to use the American government as a favorable example.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#42
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because a whole country is TexaFlorida and all the inhabitants are Duck Dynasty Honey Boo Boo.

Again, I still haven't heard any arguments _for_ a life in America other than "it isn't all bad" or "it isn't as bad as Hollywood makes it look".

Robust free speech protections, ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world, and the ability to enter industries that don't exist to the same extent elsewhere.

We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#43
post #16

My broadband service is terrible. Far to expensive, it is slow and drops packets. And the competitive environment sucks. Comcast and Regulators: go to hell. I'll vote for any politician who is interested in improving the situation.

We've tallied the votes, and it turns out it didn't matter who you voted for. Sorry. We hope it felt, for a fleeting moment, like you had influence over anything outside your immediate surroundings.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#44
post #16

My broadband service is terrible. Far to expensive, it is slow and drops packets. And the competitive environment sucks. Comcast and Regulators: go to hell. I'll vote for any politician who is interested in improving the situation.

I don't understand how Comcast charges differnt rates for internet speeds, but at around 5:30 p.m., when people settling in after a hard day of work--the rate is reduced?

My hope is Comcast is eventually split up by the government.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#45
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I still haven't heard any arguments _for_ a life in America other than "it isn't all bad" or "it isn't as bad as Hollywood makes it look".

Robust free speech protections, ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world, and the ability to enter industries that don't exist to the same extent elsewhere. We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

>ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world

Does rough it mean suffer? I don't know if that's a point in favor...

>We're also much less racist than Europe

That's like comparing apples and oranges or countries and continents

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#46
post #38

> Then there were regulatory problems as the FCC tried to control deployment centrally while states and cities tended to view video dial tone as just another cable company to be taxed and regulated. That seems like the most egregious thing in the article: treating Internet-based video delivery as a cable company. The concept of local cable franchise monopolies is ridiculous enough to begin with, and the only possible…

They should be subject to regulation; they should not be granted monopolies. These are two entirely different concepts. The current system grants them monopolies, and fails to regulate them appropriately. This is exactly the wrong way round. But this is the problem with politicians: monopoly provides concentration of cash, and this can be tapped into far more efficiently from the perspective of political exploitation…

Its much easier to garner a donation from a rich individual with concentrated cash, than many individuals.

Interestingly, this may change soon. It's probably inevitable that we're going to see politicians raising money a'la Kickstarter. A well-presented and charismatic politician should be able to raise a decent amount with crowdfunding, especially if they're a Redditor. Since most children are Redditors, and since some of those children will grow up to be politicians, it seems a matter of time till we see political crowdfunding.

The effects could be pretty huge. Therefore I expect this avenue of raising campaign money to be outlawed. But maybe it will slip by unnoticed long enough to change the political landscape.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might have experienced our healthcare. Even if he had insurance, our system is a clusterfuck that makes everyone worse upon contact. Or, he might be older than 30 and therefore not willing to deal with the puny two-week vacation allotment that is still socially acceptable from US employers. Or, he might have children who will have to be educated someday, and see that a system that combines astronomical tuition plu…

> He might have experienced our healthcare. Even if he had insurance, our system is a clusterfuck that makes everyone worse upon contact. I'm not disagreeing with you I just need help understanding. I get a job. My job offers health insurance coverage, which most do now. I pay a small fee ( > Or, he might be older than 30 and therefore not willing to deal with the puny two-week vacation allotment that is still social…

How is this not ideal?

For people who don't think $200 every month is "a small fee". Folks on minimum wage might not agree with you on 'small', particularly if they're part-time. For people who don't have a job. For when your healthcare provider hasn't done a deal with your insurance. For having to do the paperwork in the first place.

David Sedaris talks about getting medical care while living in France. He tried to pay for it, and got "Oh, fix us up next time". On insisting, he got "oh, I suppose you could pay, if you really want to".

What would be better for the tax payer?

It's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that the US system is ridiculously expensive for the taxpayer with poor outcomes for society as a whole, compared to other systems.

Edit: I've never figured out how to do dot points on HN...

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#48
post #13
post #3

Just remember to resist the urge to think of this as corporations stealing money from the government. This is government stealing money from citizens.

Absolutely. Corporations do nothing but good. They bear no responsibility for their purposeful misuse of the funds. And government does nothing but bad. Swear on your stack of Ayn Rand books that the world would be better if we had more corporations, because they are perfectly ethical and never screw anybody over. Yes, that's right. Never blame the con artists^W^Wcorporations who didn't do what they promised. Instead…

I enjoy HN comments for their tempered, rational thought. I don't think diminutive hyperbole benefits your position here.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#49
I have tried posting this idea a couple of times before and have been roundly scolded, but oh well, here goes again. I think... that readers of this forum are ideally equipped to find a way around this problem. What I mean to say is that it is universally felt by everyone that they hate their broadband provider, phone company etc. Why can't we, the tech community come up with a competing technology? I know many have tried to do "open source" types of mesh wifi networks, but I think something more robust than that is needed. Everyone agrees current companies are leaving their customers unsatisfied, hence there must be an opportunity there for someone clever enough to come up with a good alternative.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might have experienced our healthcare. Even if he had insurance, our system is a clusterfuck that makes everyone worse upon contact. Or, he might be older than 30 and therefore not willing to deal with the puny two-week vacation allotment that is still socially acceptable from US employers. Or, he might have children who will have to be educated someday, and see that a system that combines astronomical tuition plu…

> He might have experienced our healthcare. Even if he had insurance, our system is a clusterfuck that makes everyone worse upon contact. I'm not disagreeing with you I just need help understanding. I get a job. My job offers health insurance coverage, which most do now. I pay a small fee ( > Or, he might be older than 30 and therefore not willing to deal with the puny two-week vacation allotment that is still social…

I'm not disagreeing with you I just need help understanding. I get a job. My job offers health insurance coverage, which most do now. I pay a small fee (

Red pill alert.

Your doctor accepting insurance is not guaranteed, or even likely, these days. As insurance companies become more aggressive against doctors, an increasing number are either deciding not to put up with that bullshit at all (in New York, half the doctors don't take insurance at all because there are enough richies) or to only accept a couple of plans (which you won't get, unless your company is union and the union does a hell of a job). Companies often buy cheapskate insurance where the network is thin, and you may need a specialist but be unable to get one (in network) for several months, or have to drive 100 miles. In an emergency, you pay a lot out of pocket. Possibly $20,000+. That's with insurance.

Most plans also have high deductibles ($2000+) these days, which means that the first $2000 of expenses you will pay. There's typically an exemption for an annual physical and for routine stuff, but getting seriously sick is beyond what most Americans can afford.

Oh, and if you have to buy individual insurance (your employer isn't big enough to get a group plan) then you will be paying a hell of a lot more than $200 per month for it. If you've ever had a serious illness, make it $2,500 per month. Cancer survivors are uninsurable if seeking individual plans (chemotherapy is carcinogenic, believe it or not). Diabetics are fucked.

Finally, if you deal with anxiety or depression or panic attacks (hey, it happens) you will get a lot of pushback from health insurance, even on unrelated claims, because statistically people with MH issues (especially depression) are more likely to just give up and eat losses, or fuck up on paperwork and eat losses, on claims that the insurer should technically pay.

American health insurance is, with no exaggeration, a 9/11 every 24 days. 45,000 per year. Many of those have insurance.

Post reply on HN