View Full Version : Net Neutrality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/10/ted-cruz-net-neutrality_n_6133584.html
So, tea baggers are against it. Or rather Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell are against it. I think even most republicans are for it. At least the ones who understand it. How do y'all think this is going to play out?
Oh, if only Obama would be against swimming with a plastic bag over your head! :0!
Not sure if this is the right forum but it is about the internet and really is very important.
catherine
11-13-14, 6:44pm
I would be very upset to see the end of net neutrality. It's the last frontier of a democratic (small "d") media platform.
My prediction: how it's going to play out is that we'll reach some absolutely moronic "compromise" between a few screamingly wealthy entities and the rest of the country, as if "compromise" is the only answer when the vote is about a million to one on the side of The People. Yes, by all means let's compromise and shell out more money to a few greedy manipulators of a formerly equitable and non-monetized process, it's only fair. :doh:
I helped invent and implement the Internet, and I'm against "neutrality".
We anticipated and designed the Internet to allow for explicit specification of priority and handling of traffic - see section 3.1 of RFC 791. There are sound technical reasons for this - some things are "hard" without it. I designed and implemented several of the first IP/TCP and XNS protocol stacks, and the routers/gateways/bridges that used them, and went through the NCP -> TCP transition hoorah (see RFC 801). I made my fortune building this stuff and getting it into the hands of hundreds of vibrant innovative competitors who brought you today's Internet. I think I "understand" the technical issues, even though I don't tend to vote for Democrats.
I don't think this innovation would have happened if we'd had the government managing competition at the level that is being proposed in many of the net neutrality solutions that float to the surface every few years.
I also see regulatory capture as a real risk if we go down this road. I see it driving the current net neutrality lynch mob, behind the scenes. Big bandwidth users (Netflix, Youtube, ...) are trying to get the government to step in and foist their costs of doing business onto others (the carriers) under the banner of populism. This effort isn't about your brother's anti-whatever blog, it's about Netflix using the government to force Comcast to give them free cheese, at your expense.
Let 100 flowers bloom, let 100 schools of thought contend.
:)
Ok, I'll bite. Why is there a cost to bandwidth in the first place? And why, exactly, can someone claim to own it? Isn't that sort of like trying to claim I should pay you for ... use of ultraviolet light, because you have created a man made scheme by which you "own" the airspace above my house?
ETA: I do also feel like Catherine's point is really valid: even if this smacks of socialism in some way, isn't some protection of independent news a valid social goal worth protecting? Ok I'll enlarge on that ... to me, allowing corporations to buy my ear at the expense of allowing me to hear anyone else's POV is simply wrong. There's a reason for the "free" in free speech, and just because some crazy legislation has come down allowing people to buy the biggest political megaphone doesn't make drowning out voices with money ethical. That's my flower.
:)
Ok, I'll bite. Why is there a cost to bandwidth in the first place? And why, exactly, can someone claim to own it?
Well, if it is bandwidth delivered to your home via wires, routers, backbones, office space, electrical power, and man-hours belonging to someone else, it seems reasonable that they could lay claim to ownership of the service they are offering to sell you.
If it is bandwidth in the radio spectrum you are speaking of, that is a whole other can of worms, as the air waves "belong" to us all, or to no-one. Cue boring discussion of game theory and tragedy-of-commons and externalities. So far, the USA has decided that while the air waves "belong" to us all, the FCC should allocate frequency slices to users capable of putting that chunk to beneficial use, and charge them for the use of the public air waves. Much like the Federal government administers timber and mineral leases on our public lands.... With many of the same interesting and predictable results.
I'm sitting pretty though, I have access to huge amounts of insanely valuable spectrum, for personal non-profit use only, due to an accident of history. We're all pretty lucky here though - there was a pretty solid proposal in the Early Days of Radio for the US Navy to own this valuable strategic and tactical resource, we barely avoided that.
mtnlaurel
11-13-14, 11:30pm
Oh, if only Obama would be against swimming with a plastic bag over your head! :0!
That made me laugh out loud, thank you.
catherine
11-14-14, 8:25am
Thanks for the information, bae. You make some good points about owners' rights. But there are a lot of social/cultural questions that emerge in this case. I remember when cable TV first came out. Because you had to pay for the service there were no commercials, as opposed to the free TV where you had commercials you had to sit through, but there were no monthly charges. Well, now there's monthly charges and scads of commercials. Yes, this is free enterprise and we will get choked with our own desires, for the benefit of the people who dangled the carrot to begin with, but this is a parallel to the potential slippery slope of unregulated internet access.
Over the last couple of decades now, the internet has changed our lives--for the better for the most part. I love the internet. Love. Love. Thank you for your contribution to it! My world would be a lot smaller if I didn't have it. (I wouldn't know you guys for one thing) But with this net neutrality issue, I feel that if companies are allowed to tier their bandwidth and make more money, it will inevitably bias the information flow. Convince me I'm wrong. Convince me that the regular person who can barely afford a computer, or who has to go to a library to use one, will get the exact same level of information as the person who can afford all the bells and whistles. We have so much disparity in every aspect of our lives, I'd just hate to see the internet fall to the same curse.
Yes, someone invented the internet. Someone "owns" it (or at least pieces of it). To make money. To build capital. To make profits. I get it. But the internet isn't a Mercedes. It's become part of our way of living, learning, doing business, communicating. This is a a question of at what point does pursuit of profit conflict with the common good? There are a lot of analogies to our current healthcare debate here. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
I worry about net neutrality - the media talks about it possibly making sites slower, they don't talk much about the possibility of just blocking sites entirely. Using Comcast for an example, why should they allow internet sites through that compete with their business? Or if they "partner" up some other company, blocking that company's competitors?
Or tiering, like they do with cable TV - pay $ and you get access to X sites, pay $$ if you want access to more.
The one thing that really annoys me is the idea that you are being sold x Mbit of bandwidth - but there's a problem if you actually use it. If I am supposedly paying for a 20 Mbit connection, what difference does it make who I'm streaming data from? It's like having the gas and water to your house throttled based on what you are going to use it for. But maybe they'll decide to meter internet usage like they do with cell phones
Given most folks don't have many options for providers, we could end up in a really bad place. I'd hate to have to stop working from home just because I could no longer afford the internet charges for doing that.
The one thing that really annoys me is the idea that you are being sold x Mbit of bandwidth - but there's a problem if you actually use it. If I am supposedly paying for a 20 Mbit connection, what difference does it make who I'm streaming data from? It's like having the gas and water to your house throttled based on what you are going to use it for. But maybe they'll decide to meter internet usage like they do with cell phones
On the flip side, what about content providers such as Google, Yahoo, Netflix, Hulu or VOIP providers using Comcast's (or whoever) network to deliver their content. Should they be able to pay the various network owners for additional bandwidth to improve their user's quality of service?
My biggest problem with the government regulating the internet as a utility is simply that, the government is regulating the internet. We've seen our own government attempt to regulate talk radio and suggest putting overseers in newsrooms. We've seen other governments restrict access to social media and force search engines to hide results they don't want their citizens to have access to. I'd rather they not be involved in what I can access on public networks.
On the flip side, what about content providers such as Google, Yahoo, Netflix, Hulu or VOIP providers using Comcast's (or whoever) network to deliver their content. Should they be able to pay the various network owners for additional bandwidth to improve their user's quality of service?
My biggest problem with the government regulating the internet as a utility is simply that, the government is regulating the internet. We've seen our own government attempt to regulate talk radio and suggest putting overseers in newsrooms. We've seen other governments restrict access to social media and force search engines to hide results they don't want their citizens to have access to. I'd rather they not be involved in what I can access on public networks.
But you'd rather Comcast decide which sites you can access? That's kind of like saying i don't want the government to regulate insurance companies to make them offer real coverage cause I want insurance companies to decide if i deserve that cancer treatment...oh, well, never mind.
But you'd rather Comcast decide which sites you can access? That's kind of like saying i don't want the government to regulate insurance companies to make them offer real coverage cause I want insurance companies to decide if i deserve that cancer treatment...oh, well, never mind.
Sure, the only downside to letting Comcast decide is the relative lack of competition in individual markets. We've essentially allowed monopolies to flourish within cable and/or telephone providers. If Comcast were to block your access to HuffPo, you could always find another way to get there through anonymous proxies or other means. If the government blocks it, you probably couldn't. Which do you prefer?
Thanks for the information, bae. You make some good points about owners' rights. But there are a lot of social/cultural questions that emerge in this case. I remember when cable TV first came out. Because you had to pay for the service there were no commercials, as opposed to the free TV where you had commercials you had to sit through, but there were no monthly charges. Well, now there's monthly charges and scads of commercials. Yes, this is free enterprise and we will get choked with our own desires, for the benefit of the people who dangled the carrot to begin with, but this is a parallel to the potential slippery slope of unregulated internet access.
Over the last couple of decades now, the internet has changed our lives--for the better for the most part. I love the internet. Love. Love. Thank you for your contribution to it! My world would be a lot smaller if I didn't have it. (I wouldn't know you guys for one thing) But with this net neutrality issue, I feel that if companies are allowed to tier their bandwidth and make more money, it will inevitably bias the information flow. Convince me I'm wrong. Convince me that the regular person who can barely afford a computer, or who has to go to a library to use one, will get the exact same level of information as the person who can afford all the bells and whistles. We have so much disparity in every aspect of our lives, I'd just hate to see the internet fall to the same curse.
Yes, someone invented the internet. Someone "owns" it (or at least pieces of it). To make money. To build capital. To make profits. I get it. But the internet isn't a Mercedes. It's become part of our way of living, learning, doing business, communicating. This is a a question of at what point does pursuit of profit conflict with the common good? There are a lot of analogies to our current healthcare debate here. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
And it's not just poor people not having access to all of the internet, it's start ups. Little businesses trying to get started. How can they compete with amazon or netflix when Comcast demands lots of money to have their content sent out? This will devastate small business and entrepreneurs who are just starting out and don't have extra money to bribe Comcast or the other providers.
And to Alans hand wringing about those PROVIDERS having to, you know, actually provide service. Well, that IS their service, isn't it? I mean, they charge people money to PROVIDE the gateway into the internet. They don't want to actually spend the money to upgrade, if that's what's needed. We already pay more and get less than just about every other country out there. Allowing these companies to tier 'programming', charge we the users more if we actually want to access all of the internet while demanding extortion from websites who actually want to be seen is obscene.
Once again, setting regulations isn't a 'government takeover' anymore than setting regulations on insurance companies is a take over of health care. I sure hope folks aren't fooled by the fear mongering about 'regulations'. As if regulations are HORRIBLE. Yeah, I hope people keep that in mind next time they buy meat in the store, or eat at a restaurant, or turn on the water tap, or put their kids on a bus, or any one of a thousand regulations that keep them and their loved ones safe, and keep this country as wonderful as it is and not like Somalia.
Net neutrality is keeping the internet as it is now. Koch backed republicans want you to pay more while getting less, or just Koch approved web sites.
Sure, the only downside to letting Comcast decide is the relative lack of competition in individual markets. We've essentially allowed monopolies to flourish within cable and/or telephone providers. If Comcast were to block your access to HuffPo, you could always find another way to get there through anonymous proxies or other means. If the government blocks it, you probably couldn't. Which do you prefer?
The government wouldn't block it. Why would they? They have no interest in blocking my website anymore than they block your ability to buy from any insurance company you want, at whatever price you want to pay. Comcast would block it. And yes, competition would be harmed. I hope all the people out there with their small websites to sell art, or product, or info keep that in mind when they see who wants to destroy their business.
The government wouldn't block it. Why would they? For our own good? Isn't that why I can't buy a 32oz soft drink in New York?
The government wouldn't block it. Why would they? They have no interest in blocking my website anymore than they block your ability to buy from any insurance company you want, at whatever price you want to pay.
Come now. Among other things, I invented and shipped some of the first internet proxy caching servers. Entire countries ran their full traffic through these puppies. There was incredible demand from the governmental customers to add features to let them monitor individual user's access patterns, to restrict access to certain sites/regions, to transparently redirect traffic through sites of their own on the way to the final destination, to alter traffic on-the-fly, and so on. Some of the features China wanted were clearly aimed at identifying and killing dissidents.
When I was developing some of the initial commercial routers, we were under great pressure to provide back-door access so the FBI and other agencies could tap into traffic. This was over 30 years ago. It is routine now. You've probably seen it in the news.
I have the fellow who ran Cisco's security architecture for the last 10 years visit my home regularly - the things that go on now would probably make most of you hide under your beds. I'd tell you more but they'd probably kill you.
No thanks.
The thing is ... sigh. We - the world - always seem to wind up with the question of ownership. Who should own this, who should regulate that, who should have the rights and who should pay for the privilege. Yes, the same old same old argument about the commons. Why the bleep couldn't we just for bleeping once consider a model in which something is not owned, hoarded and exploited. Imagine.
For our own good? Isn't that why I can't buy a 32oz soft drink in New York?
Government blocking is not something that's currently, or likely to be in the future, on the table. Sort of like government healthcare death panels. It appears to be an attempt to deflect the argument away from what is actually happening to fear of a theoretical similar thing that the government might theoretically do some day.
ApatheticNoMore
11-15-14, 2:02pm
Most things seem to be done for my own bad. I think this for my own good is starting to sound like an improvement.
* eh relax, that's humor, but really almost everything is done against the public interest at this point anyway
iris lilies
11-15-14, 5:50pm
Government blocking is not something that's currently, or likely to be in the future, on the table. Sort of like government healthcare death panels. It appears to be an attempt to deflect the argument away from what is actually happening to fear of a theoretical similar thing that the government might theoretically do some day.
Ah, but there is a "death panel" in existence right now. It's a reality, I read about it recently. It's the board that determines when Medicare thresholds have been exceeded. It's their job to step in and say "no more care for grandma" in specific areas. But to be fair (according to the article I read) the panel hasn't actually had to act since none of the costs have exceeded the defined thresholds. I am scratching my head about "no costs exceeding" business but then, I forget that the gumnt has unlimited money. So perhaps, in the end, you are right, the death panels sits there for show having no real teeth.
I am "pro-death panels" and you will find all my past posts to be consistent with that idea. Unfettered spending on healthcare for all Americans is not something I support.
Bring on the death panels. I can't see how any rational citizen who actually pays any tax would be against that, but I am often wrong. :~)
And before the ACA there were death panels too, they worked at insurance companies refusing to provide approvals for treatments that cost too much money. The difference is that the insurance company death panels actually carried out their function.
Truthfully I'm fine with death panels too. And physician assisted suicide for terminally ill people. Frankly I think we tend to treat our pets far more humanely at the end of their lives than we do grandma oftentimes.
ApatheticNoMore
11-15-14, 9:26pm
honestly they will pull the plug when someone is going to die anyway, they aren't that heroic in their measures. I find my actual experiences of things like that and well probably everything else, match not at all the type of things people talk about (they do know when it's hopeless and they don't encourage heroic measures). I would caution anyone from taking discussions about how they take heroic measures all that seriously - it won't prepare you for reality and it's better off to be prepared for things that are actually real in such a situation. If you think you are going to be fighting doctors who only want to take heroic futile measures - not likely, they don't want to do that either.
Come now. Among other things, I invented and shipped some of the first internet proxy caching servers. Entire countries ran their full traffic through these puppies. There was incredible demand from the governmental customers to add features to let them monitor individual user's access patterns, to restrict access to certain sites/regions, to transparently redirect traffic through sites of their own on the way to the final destination, to alter traffic on-the-fly, and so on. Some of the features China wanted were clearly aimed at identifying and killing dissidents.
.
Yeesss....and this is EXACTLY what Comcast and Verizon and Ted Cruz/McConnell want to do. So what are you saying here? You think we should have to pay for the privilege of them doing it?
Yes, yes (sigh) OF COURSE you invented the internet...why am I not surprised...
You also think there shouldn't be a government, and all people should be armed everywhere, every time...You clearly don't exist in the same world as the rest of us, on many levels.
iris lilies
11-15-14, 11:02pm
honestly they will pull the plug when someone is going to die anyway, they aren't that heroic in their measures. ....
My experience was different. When my father was lying in a coma induced state in an ICU, his family (us!) were the ones to focus on "what happens next?" i.e. pulling the plug. Now, I'm sure that at some point later the professionals would have convened a meeting with his family and said there's no hope, pull the plug so perhaps it's just a matter of timing. The pros would have waited a few day longer (?) But I thought it was weird that we had to chase down the various Drs. of record to get them to give a bloody opinion.
Same for DH's mother--heart attack, clinically dead, and the family pushed for pulling the plug.
iris lilies
11-15-14, 11:05pm
And before the ACA there were death panels too, they worked at insurance companies refusing to provide approvals for treatments that cost too much money. The difference is that the insurance company death panels actually carried out their function.
Truthfully I'm fine with death panels too. And physician assisted suicide for terminally ill people. Frankly I think we tend to treat our pets far more humanely at the end of their lives than we do grandma oftentimes.
Yes, I've had the same thought that insurance companies are another sort of death panel. That's why I'm not freaked out by the idea.
Do you then agree that health care provided to all American's must have a cap? Who determines the cap? Do you think it's ok for some Americans to have gumnt funded health care that is a lower product thatn those who can pay out of pocket?
How is it determined elsewhere? Maybe we don't have to invent the wheel from the hub on out.
I agree with kib. How do other countries handle this. I'm not sure a hard dollar cap is the right answer, but maybe certain aggressive procedures should only be done if the person is at a certain level of health to be likely to recover and have a decent quality of life.
In my personal experience my dad opted not to have a cardiac catheterization that would have opened up the 90% plugged arteries in his heart. He died a month later. He could have had the procedure, would have likely lived longer, but would've probably spent the rest of his life working to get strong enough to hopefully go home again. He had the same procedure done 2years ago and spent the next 4 months in the hospital and rehab. This time around would likely have been longer. I'm sad that he's gone, but glad he didn't have the procedure done since it would've likely just been an expensive way to extend his misery.
Sorry to derail this thread...
iris lilies
11-15-14, 11:33pm
I agree with kib. How do other countries handle this. I'm not sure a cap is the right answer, but maybe certain aggressive procedures should only be done if the person is at a certain level of health.
In my personal experience my dad opted not to have a cardiac catheterization that would have opened up the 90% plugged arteries in his heart. He died a month later. He could have had the procedure, would have likely lived longer, but would've probably spent the rest of his life working to get strong enough to hopefully go home again. He had the same procedure done 2years ago and spent the next 4 months in the hospital and rehab. This time around would likely have been longer.
Sorry to derail this thread...
My impression is that in Canada one may NOT use one's own money to go beyond what the gubmnt pays for a specific treatment. I completely, utterly, think this sucks. If I have $$$ why shouldn't I be able to go beyond the treatment that some asshat gubmnt bureaucrat thinks I should not have? Granted, IRL I personally would likely not want experimental or even high end, aggressive treatment. But if I wanted it and could pay for it, why the h*ll not?
Meanwhile, in the UK, they have tiered system whereby those who want to skip pas the NHS can go to Harley Street. I like that idea.
iris lilies
11-15-14, 11:38pm
I agree with kib. How do other countries handle this. I'm not sure a hard dollar cap is the right answer, but maybe certain aggressive procedures should only be done if the person is at a certain level of health to be likely to recover and have a decent quality of life.
In this case you are placing, I believe, the decision in the hands of the DR for the most part. And while that might be fine, he would likely ceed this decision to the patients and family in many cases. Dr. absolutely CANNOT determine outcome many time.
And the patient and family won't be picking up the bill. I will, as a taxpayer. All the more reason to make certain that patients have skin in the game, and if they cannot afford big ticket treatments. so be it.
My impression is that in Canada one may NOT use one's own money to go beyond what the gubmnt pays for a specific treatment. I completely, utterly, think this sucks. If I have $$$ why shouldn't I be able to go beyond the treatment that some asshat gubmnt bureaucrat thinks I should not have? Granted, IRL I personally would likely not want experimental or even high end, aggressive treatment. But if I wanted it and could pay for it, why the h*ll not?
Meanwhile, in the UK, they have tiered system whereby those who want to skip pas the NHS can go to Harley Street. I like that idea.
Sorry if you already responded, I rethought what I wanted to say.
It sounds like the Canadian prohibition is in place to keep people from bribing their way to the front of the line? I have to agree that if you can pay for it yourself, there should be a secondary source for treatment, but that the people already in queue, regardless of their ability to pay, shouldn't be shouldered out of the way by the rich.
It still, of course, doesn't address the question of what procedures should be covered, gubmnt, insurance or otherwise. And I suppose if cutting edge procedures are never paid for, the cutting edge stops advancing.
... and I just realized we're having this conversation in "Net Neutrality." Sorry.
In this case you are placing, I believe, the decision in the hands of the DR for the most part. And while that might be fine, he would likely ceed this decision to the patients and family in many cases. Dr. absolutely CANNOT determine outcome many time.
No, that's not what I was intending to say. When I said no treatment unless the patient had a certain level of health I was envisioning a checklist of things that would disqualify the person from the new treatment, based on the researched statistical likelihood of success. For example (and I'm not a doc so I have no idea if this would be reasonable, but I imagine studies have been done that would come up with reasonable ideas on this line of thought) heart bypass operations will not be done (paid by medicare) on people over 80 who have not been capable of walking 25 feet without assistance in the last month. Or another, life support will only be paid for by medicare/medicaid for X period of time if the patient has been determined to be in a persistent vegetative state. Insurance companies figured out how to take the doc out of the death panel process. Surely medicare could do the same thing.
As kib mentioned, I would imagine that other countries have already put together such lists of when things will and won't be covered.
... and I just realized we're having this conversation in "Net Neutrality." Sorry.
That's OK. Such is the nature of the ebb and flow of normal conversation.:) I quite like it as these are all thoughtful words.
Actually, even though folks like to criticize all the 'heart transplants' that poor people are getting, it's actually quite hard to get one, whoever you are...unless of course you ARE wealthy. The reality is, IL's experience not withstanding, most hospitals deal in reality. They might call a code on an 85 year old, but they probably won't put them on a vent and give them a heart transplant.
If I remember correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong IL, her family wasn't all on board with unplugging. This is where things get sticky, and where a board of some kind would be useful. If the family says 'do everything possible', (and if adequate insurance is involved) hospitals/doctors will. No one wants to be accused of knocking off grandpa. And really, more often than not this is the reason, and not some unbridled greed. "Grandpa is ALIVE and you want to KILL him!"
I am all for limits. A set of 'rules', if you will, on what can and can't be done at what age and health level. Unfortunately, there will always be those who push back. (remember the Terry Schiavo fiasco!)
I love that most can get at least basic health care (for now) but it isn't an infinite resource. These has to limits.
iris lilies
11-16-14, 8:44pm
That's OK. Such is the nature of the ebb and flow of normal conversation.:) I quite like it as these are all thoughtful words.
Actually, even though folks like to criticize all the 'heart transplants' that poor people are getting, it's actually quite hard to get one, whoever you are...unless of course you ARE wealthy. The reality is, IL's experience not withstanding, most hospitals deal in reality. They might call a code on an 85 year old, but they probably won't put them on a vent and give them a heart transplant.
If I remember correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong IL, her family wasn't all on board with unplugging. This is where things get sticky, and where a board of some kind would be useful. If the family says 'do everything possible', (and if adequate insurance is involved) hospitals/doctors will. No one wants to be accused of knocking off grandpa. And really, more often than not this is the reason, and not some unbridled greed. "Grandpa is ALIVE and you want to KILL him!"
I am all for limits. A set of 'rules', if you will, on what can and can't be done at what age and health level. Unfortunately, there will always be those who push back. (remember the Terry Schiavo fiasco!)
I love that most can get at least basic health care (for now) but it isn't an infinite resource. These has to limits.
oh no no no! My brother, mother, and I were completely in agreement with pulling the plug. Once we chased down the heart doc, the lung doc, and the GP who had to assent and give their opinion, all were in agreement.
I just wonder how long my father would have lain in ICU racking up those costs, and on a ventilator, if we had not been proactive. I'm sure it would have been just a matter of days, but each day costs how much?
And even if the only insurance is medicare, if the family tells the docs to do all possible, they will. A friend's father had made it well known to everyone in the family that he wanted to be kept alive and given all possible medical treatments and life support available in the event that something happened. Then he suffered a massive stroke. He spent the last two years of his life first in a hospital ICU and eventually a nursing home, all paid for by medicare and mediCal since he had no assets or other insurance. Although the family generally thought this was ridiculous none wanted to pull the plug because they all knew it would be going against his wishes. In a situation like that having a 'death panel' that has determined what will and won't be paid for could go a long way towards reigning in stupidity like this man's.
They tried to kill off my father before his time, taking my SO (obviously no relation) and I aside to ask if we thought it would be a good idea to just let him go, or (reluctantly) if we thought he should have a feeding tube and fluids after his stroke. We said "Why don't you ask him?" He turned down the feeding tube, okayed fluids, and lived on. My observation is that if you have something serious wrong with you and are over, say, 70 you're just a GOMER and they want to wash their hands of you.
catherine
11-17-14, 2:19pm
They tried to kill off my father before his time, taking my SO (obviously no relation) and I aside to ask if we thought it would be a good idea to just let him go, or (reluctantly) if we thought he should have a feeding tube and fluids after his stroke. We said "Why don't you ask him?" He turned down the feeding tube, okayed fluids, and lived on. My observation is that if you have something serious wrong with you and are over, say, 70 you're just a GOMER and they want to wash their hands of you.
We were on vacation in Vermont when my MIL became critically ill (and died). Had she been at home, she would have been in a very strong academic hospital in the area. As it was, we were in a small Vermont community hospital on a Friday night. I often wonder if she would have lived a lot longer or just a little longer if we had been in NJ, because the VT country surgeon definitely gave us the "she's 85 and if it were my mother I wouldn't want her to go through this surgery which she might not survive anyway" speech.
However, if I think about what I want (and I'm sure I should make this very clear in a living will), I prefer to let nature take its course. No heroic measure for me if I'm in my mid-80s and the outcome is questionable from a quality of life standpoint.
ApatheticNoMore
11-17-14, 3:00pm
They tried to kill off my father before his time, taking my SO (obviously no relation) and I aside to ask if we thought it would be a good idea to just let him go, or (reluctantly) if we thought he should have a feeding tube and fluids after his stroke. We said "Why don't you ask him?" He turned down the feeding tube, okayed fluids, and lived on. My observation is that if you have something serious wrong with you and are over, say, 70 you're just a GOMER and they want to wash their hands of you.
Yea I'm not sure it necessarily tilts toward keeping people alive no matter what at present. There may a belief system that it does but there may be a belief system that the main thing making medicine expensive is legal liability as well and like that it may be quite false. Anecdotes have truth, but they are anecdotes and may vary based on the hospital, culture, who knows what etc. My anecdote is they give up when the odds are long, which I don't think is unreasonable, but I don't think matches some stereotype of pushing for heroic measures. And if it the system doesn't match the stereotype at present, but let's for the sake of argument say already strikes a pretty good balance most of the time, then pushing for it to "have more death panels" or whatever, is pushing ice floes.
All of which has probably only so much to do with why our healthcare system sucks, I mean our healthcare system sucks horribly quite independent of end of life care being expensive.
Both of my parents are in relatively good health, and at 85/90, I don't actually see any age-related advice being given to them, they're just on the same pills and more pills treadmill as everyone else who gets into the medical complex. Mom had a pacemaker put in last year; I had just finished reading Katy Butler's memoir, NYT excerpt here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20pacemaker-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 about how her own father and family went through hell because of it. Basically the doctors refused to turn it off, saying "when it's his time, he'll go", when obviously the only thing keeping him from 'going' was the pacemaker itself. Her book is a very interesting turn on the question of what to do at what age, because it asks the question of when enough may be enough, before there is an obvious crisis.
They tried to kill off my father before his time, taking my SO (obviously no relation) and I aside to ask if we thought it would be a good idea to just let him go, or (reluctantly) if we thought he should have a feeding tube and fluids after his stroke. We said "Why don't you ask him?" He turned down the feeding tube, okayed fluids, and lived on. My observation is that if you have something serious wrong with you and are over, say, 70 you're just a GOMER and they want to wash their hands of you.
Well this is really weird. I've never heard of the family being asked to make such a decision when the actual patient is conscious and able to communicate and make decisions for themselves. How creepy. I think I would avoid going to that hospital ever for any reason, or taking a family member there. What did they expect you to do? Talk dad into starving himself? This really is not the norm, believe me. Usually it's too far the other way.
oh no no no! My brother, mother, and I were completely in agreement with pulling the plug. Once we chased down the heart doc, the lung doc, and the GP who had to assent and give their opinion, all were in agreement.
I just wonder how long my father would have lain in ICU racking up those costs, and on a ventilator, if we had not been proactive. I'm sure it would have been just a matter of days, but each day costs how much?
Well they do all have to agree, and sometimes that may take a day or two. You really don't want them to jump the gun. There is something between pulling the plug too fast and waiting too long. And sometimes, they know it's just a matter of a day, or hours, and would really just rather let nature take it's course. Turning off (unplugging) is a very serious, and difficult thing to do for hospitals and doctors. We can say, OK unplug him, but it is very much more complicated than that.
On the other hand, there are people like my brother in law, who likes to micro manage EVERYTHING, including his own mothers death. When she slipped into a coma following a stroke, we were all there within a few hours. She wasn't on a vent or anything, just IV drip and usual heart monitor, etc..., in a regular hospital room (no ICU) It was obvious she wouldn't last long, and certainly no one was suggesting heroics, but my brother in law kept talking about pulling out her IV and withholding medicine, etc... This within about 5 hours of her going into a coma. What a tool! It's like geez! she wasn't going fast enough for him! As it was, she passed the next day.
ToomuchStuff
11-18-14, 11:56am
I understand the reasons to be against it and if it weren't for enforced monopolies, I would be on that side. (let the market decide) But allowing those monopolies to be enforced, makes me think about long distance phone calls and Ma Bell (when it was whole), or the post office, without UPS or FedEX.
If you allow a monopoly and enforce it, then it needs to be regulated.
As to Allens do you want the government to decide what your looking at, they already can. Big business due it with marketing, bandwidth restrictions, protocol blocking (remember the Torrent lawsuits), etc. The government has that ability plus National Security letters. Kind of like choosing the lesser of two evils, is still choosing evil.
I understand the reasons to be against it and if it weren't for enforced monopolies, I would be on that side. (let the market decide) But allowing those monopolies to be enforced, ....
Is there a widespread monopoly issue?
Here in my remote, "underserved" rural area, which is a small lightly-populated island 20 miles offshore from the mainland, I have at least the following options for Internet service:
- CenturyLink - they have the bulk of the market share here at present, because they are cheap, convenient, and provide horrible service. Nobody likes them, almost everyone buys their "service" oddly...
- Two local ISPs, each of which maintain their own links to the mainland, and offer wireless or wired access to their networks. Both provide better service and more leading-edge technology, at higher cost, while providing local jobs.
- At least 4 different satellite ISPs, offering different technologies, speeds, pricing.
- 3 different cell carriers who offer high speed data service for reasonable pricing, that is often much higher speed than any of the other solutions.
- Our local rural electrical cooperative, which has a fiber loop throughout the island, and its own backhaul to the Real World. They are rapidly working on offering all customers on the island Internet service, they have hundreds of customers already using their pilot. High speed, low cost, reliable, operated by locals.
- Two areas on this island maintain their own neighborhood cooperative ISP, using wireless mesh within the neighborhood, point-to-point Ubiquiti hardware to link up disconnected chunks of the mesh, and their own microwave or satellite links to the Real World
- There is a cable TV company that offers cable and Internet service here, which is expanding with some success. Decent pricing, decent customer service.
- I personally also have backup HF, UHF, VHF, and microwave internet connectivity from my home, as I have one of the nodes for our county's emergency communications system here in my radio room. I can get low bandwidth Internet out worldwide, or fast-enough-for-email-and-photos Internet out via microwave or whatnot.
This sure looks like competition between business models, technologies, and customer service to me. And not a monopoly.
And in a couple of years, Google will have its fleet of zillions of satellites up there providing broadband coverage to everyone. Probably competing with Amazon's drones and Tesla's autonomous wireless mesh.
Unless we step in now and allow a few companies to use the force of government to cement in place their business models and technologies, denying our children the future.
Is there a widespread monopoly issue?
Here in my remote, "underserved" rural area, which is a small lightly-populated island 20 miles offshore from the mainland, I have at least the following options for Internet service:
- CenturyLink - they have the bulk of the market share here at present, because they are cheap, convenient, and provide horrible service. Nobody likes them, almost everyone buys their "service" oddly...
- Two local ISPs, each of which maintain their own links to the mainland, and offer wireless or wired access to their networks. Both provide better service and more leading-edge technology, at higher cost, while providing local jobs.
- At least 4 different satellite ISPs, offering different technologies, speeds, pricing.
- 3 different cell carriers who offer high speed data service for reasonable pricing, that is often much higher speed than any of the other solutions.
- Our local rural electrical cooperative, which has a fiber loop throughout the island, and its own backhaul to the Real World. They are rapidly working on offering all customers on the island Internet service, they have hundreds of customers already using their pilot. High speed, low cost, reliable, operated by locals.
- Two areas on this island maintain their own neighborhood cooperative ISP, using wireless mesh within the neighborhood, point-to-point Ubiquiti hardware to link up disconnected chunks of the mesh, and their own microwave or satellite links to the Real World
- There is a cable TV company that offers cable and Internet service here, which is expanding with some success. Decent pricing, decent customer service.
- I personally also have backup HF, UHF, VHF, and microwave internet connectivity from my home, as I have one of the nodes for our county's emergency communications system here in my radio room. I can get low bandwidth Internet out worldwide, or fast-enough-for-email-and-photos Internet out via microwave or whatnot.
This sure looks like competition between business models, technologies, and customer service to me. And not a monopoly.
And in a couple of years, Google will have its fleet of zillions of satellites up there providing broadband coverage to everyone. Probably competing with Amazon's drones and Tesla's autonomous wireless mesh.
Unless we step in now and allow a few companies to use the force of government to cement in place their business models and technologies, denying our children the future.
You are totally trying to mislead here. You are basically using the "What possibly could go wrong..?" argument.
Well let me tell you. First of all, congratulations to you and your wealthy neighbors for having so much choice. From past posts I realize it's pointless to try to point out to you that most of the US doesn't enjoy such riches and choice in so many ways. Never mind.
Net Neutrality is keeping the internet as. it. is. now.
Does everyone like the internet now? Do you like that you can bank on line, watch videos, check out library books, or watch goat porn if that's what turns you on? Do you want Verizon or Comcast to decide to slow down your on line banking cause your bank doesn't want to pay their price for a 'fast lane'? Ok, maybe the extortion won't actually get you 'faster' down/up load speed, but if the bank doesn't pay, maybe Comcast will slow it down just a little bit, cause, you know, they don't have space for everyone, do they? Think, Bank that pays, fast speed, bank that doesn't pay, dial-up speed.
Now, that bank certainly wants all their customers to have the fast/regular speed, but they can't pay ransom to every ISP, can they. Certainly not in a market like bae's where there must be, what, 10-15 choices. So they pay the big guys, the one's with the biggest market, and the little guys just wither away.
And speaking of the little guys, if you have a small store, or a catalog on-line, or sell art or books or, well, what business doesn't have at least a small presence on line these days. Good luck there. Do you want to pay every ISP out there to deliver your content? Or maybe you're happy just being visible in your area of the state/country. Especially if you are in competition with one of the bigger ones, like Walmart. Part of their business deal with Comcast just might involve putting 'the thumb' on your website, slowing it down juustt a tad...
Yeah, Walmart. Remember how they moved into so many small towns and destroyed the local competition? Yeah, remember that? Well, without Net Neutrality they will be able to do that on line. And, knowing how WalMart works, is there really any question that they won't try?
Net Neutrality simply says all content is the same, availability wise. Net Neutrality says Comcast, or some other, can't slow down, or block altogether one site in favor of others (who just happened to pay a little something don't'ch know).
Comcast, among other greedy reasons, doesn't want to spend the money to up grade. They just want to sift out the chaff (small, inconsequential you) in order to deliver the big ones, with big money and big sites.
What could possibly go wrong!>8)
First of all, congratulations to you and your wealthy neighbors for having so much choice. From past posts I realize it's pointless to try to point out to you that most of the US doesn't enjoy such riches and choice in so many ways.
Try again. This is by many metrics one of the poorest counties in the state. The people here using these different services are the year-round not-billionaire population.
But by all means, continue to distract and blow smoke and engage in personal attacks.
I see even more options available for Internet service over on the mainland from here. I don't see a "monopoly" - there are many competing services, technologies, business models, pricing schemes, service levels available.
Peggy, if the internet is the information superhighway, let's compare it to our interstate highway system. Everyone gets to use it although some have to pay a higher price to do so such as commercial shippers needing to be licensed in each state in which their trucks operate, higher vehicle registration fees, higher federal tax on diesel than gasoline, etc., all designed to have high capacity users pay for their access. I know you're in favor of that since we've talked about it before. What makes the internet different?
Twenty years ago web traffic was predominately text based traffic consisting of emails and static web pages. The volume of data was nearly insignificant. Today, virtually all media has found a place on the web and a huge array of data travels the pipes in all directions. Pipes that must be able to accommodate new protocols in order to keep up with technological innovations in various types of media. If the government, through a net neutrality law, forces low usage subscribers to subsidize the high volume media conglomerates, and you are in favor of that, does that make you an evil Republican? >8)
Try again. This is by many metrics one of the poorest counties in the state. The people here using these different services are the year-round not-billionaire population.
Perhaps Peggy had it backwards then. The reason I have no choice is because I live in one of the wealthy counties in California. Perhaps I should move to Chowchilla, one of the poorer towns in the central valley, to have more choice beyond crappy comcast internet.
Peggy, if the internet is the information superhighway, let's compare it to our interstate highway system. Everyone gets to use it although some have to pay a higher price to do so such as commercial shippers needing to be licensed in each state in which their trucks operate, higher vehicle registration fees, higher federal tax on diesel than gasoline, etc., all designed to have high capacity users pay for their access. I know you're in favor of that since we've talked about it before. What makes the internet different?
)
What makes the internet different (besides the fact that no one but you and perhaps a few elderly politicians have called the internet the information superhighway in at least a decade) is that Comcast has sold me unlimited service at X speed. What I choose to download at that speed shouldn't matter. It should come through at X speed to the best of Comcast's ability and if a significant portion of their customers are not getting this service than Comcast needs to upgrade their network, refund me money, or downgrade their customer promise to what they can actually deliver.
If the government, through a net neutrality law, forces low usage subscribers to subsidize the high volume media conglomerates, and you are in favor of that, does that make you an evil Republican? >8)
If there's a market for people who want cheap internet with usage restrictions net neutrality shouldn't be a problem. Comcast and the other internet companies could offer a seperate discounted plan for people with those desires. This plan could promise X/2 or x/3 speed (compared to what they offer me) and restrict usage to Y gigabytes per month. As long as they didn't discriminate what content could be downloaded by those parameters it would fit in with net neutrality just fine.
I'm in agreement with jp1. Tiered pricing for various speeds or services seems like a logical business model. Technology Y costs more than technology X to build, but if you're willing to pay for it I will build it. I don't understand why that should be a problem and from the arguments above I'm not sure it is. Peggy? Beyond that, it should not matter in any way shape or form what the content I'm viewing with my service is. Furthermore, the providers and the government should not be in a position to monitor what content I'm viewing, but we all know where that statement ends up.
I'll give a conservative thumbs up to JP1's plan, my only caveat being potential marketing nonsense: it starts out with offering the JP Plan for $50 and the Y plan for $20, and before you know it, the Y plan is $50 and the JP plan is $100. I'm not really groking the rate of inflation for media service, but it's no longer single digits. Yes yes, free market and all that boola boola, but it's so exhausting already, you think a pricing schedule is reasonable only to have it disappear with the dodo two months later.
As far as the Internet itself, I think the old axiom "If it's not broke (sic), don't fix it." applies.
I agree with KIB that the less competition for access there is, the pricier it will get. Witness health care.
I'm in agreement with jp1. Tiered pricing for various speeds or services seems like a logical business model. Technology Y costs more than technology X to build, but if you're willing to pay for it I will build it. I don't understand why that should be a problem and from the arguments above I'm not sure it is. Peggy? Beyond that, it should not matter in any way shape or form what the content I'm viewing with my service is. Furthermore, the providers and the government should not be in a position to monitor what content I'm viewing, but we all know where that statement ends up.
Here's the problem. Net Neutrality keeps the internet the way it is now. Up to now the internet has been wide open, so to speak. Not classified really and pretty much a free for all.
Comcast looked at Netflix and saw they had a lot of content (as well as deep pockets) so they said, "hey, we think you should pay us some money for providing our customers with all that content". Netflix said "hey yourself, you promised your customers x amount of speed, unlimited, so, no, we aren't going to pay this ransom". Then Comcast sloowed down Netflix streaming juuust enough to piss off their customers. Netflix paid the ransom and surprise! the streaming went back to normal speed. This is what Net Neutrality is fighting against. Cause you know if they get away with this from Netflix, they will do this to amazon, your bank, your library, and your goat porn sites. Now if Comcast offers x amount of unlimited speed, it doesn't matter what I use it for, or from which sites.
Net Neutrality reclassifies the internet so all sites are treated equal. If Comcast wants to offer dial up speeds for cheaper, they certainly can, but I doubt they would have any customers. But with net neutrality, Comcast can't decide which sites deserve regular speed, and which get dial up speeds. (who don't pay, don'cha know)
That's what the argument is about. As Jane says, If it ain't broke, don't fix it...but put the safeguards in place so no one else breaks it.
So then we agree. Nice when that happens.
ToomuchStuff
11-20-14, 1:44pm
Had an emergency phone call, so I am just now back to this.
I agree with JP1 and Comcast tried this destructive behavior before with Torrents. While there is a lot of illegal copyright violations with torrents, torrents are also used to distribute legal software, such as the operating systems Allen and myself use.
That said, Bae is mixing up a service (internet), with what the cable companies are/were. In my area, there is one licensed cable provider. If you were lucky enough to live in a situation like the house I grew up in, mixed city limits in the yard meant there was another one we could choose (long harried process), but that company is being bought out by Comcast (eliminating its competitor there). The post office is a government approved monopoly of local mail, but competes with packages, that doesn't eliminate that it is the only one that can do local mail. (yet a non profit doing a constitutionally mandated job of someone else). Now the internet, I view more as a utility, especially since more and more want you to have an account/signup online (things like Social Security). It has moved beyond a nicety to more of a both the government and big business, want you to have a searchable, marketable/to digital fingerprint.
There are others that do offer it as a service, although there were some restrictions that caused problems and less choices when I first started online. (free dial up with our local library, years back) Some were technical (couldn't get DSL to my house, just out of reach, satellite cost a LOT more and still used dialup for uploads, while had higher usage restrictions), while others were stopped by court cases (see some of the municipal broadband cases). Smart phones, internet, has their own issues (cost per month, verses things like vision issues, etc).
catherine
11-21-14, 7:02am
So I just happened to come across this article which talks about some of the theories of Jeremy Rifkin. I was interested in the article because it talks about the inevitable transition from our current capitalist paradigm to a Collaborative Commons model.
Seems that if we operate on the old established paradigm, the end of net neutrality is a logical application. However, if we accept that things are evolving to what Rifkin calls "Third Industrial Revolution," which would be a aero marginal cost society, net neutrality must be a given.
I, for one, am really excited at the prospect of a world where the "prosumers" innovate and collaborate at virtually no marginal cost.
Here's one article from The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/07/radical-new-economic-system-will-emerge-from-collapse-of-capitalism?CMP=share_btn_fb)
And one from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/internet-of-things_b_5104072.html)
So I just happened to come across this article which talks about some of the theories of Jeremy Rifkin. I was interested in the article because it talks about the inevitable transition from our current capitalist paradigm to a Collaborative Commons model.
Seems that if we operate on the old established paradigm, the end of net neutrality is a logical application. However, if we accept that things are evolving to what Rifkin calls "Third Industrial Revolution," which would be a aero marginal cost society, net neutrality must be a given.
I, for one, am really excited at the prospect of a world where the "prosumers" innovate and collaborate at virtually no marginal cost.
Here's one article from The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/07/radical-new-economic-system-will-emerge-from-collapse-of-capitalism?CMP=share_btn_fb)
And one from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/internet-of-things_b_5104072.html) The Venus Project also posits something like this, a steady state economy with people doing work out of passion and enjoyment, not a drive for "profit". I watched some documentary the other day that made a very depressing posit: 'back when', perhaps as much as 150 years ago, manufacturers were concerned; they were now automating the manufacture of products that could last a lifetime. Whether through lack of imagination or just laziness, they decided that they had made everything that would ever need to be made, so they'd be in the poor house if they couldn't figure out how to make more profit from the few things that were being created. It was a turning point for capitalism, an intentional turning-away from the idea that people might be free to purchase these items once and then move on to a life of concerning themselves with something other than procuring money to buy essentially the same crap in a new wrapper over and over again.
It's not news, but it disturbed me to feel like ... we had the choice for a steady state economy a long time ago, and if we'd chosen it then, the world probably wouldn't be in this financial and environmental pickle now. However, it's never to late to dream!
ETA: for those who'd say this would have stifled all ingenuity and drive to create, I say that's not true. I think we might have made much greater strides if we were prodded to create honestly new and wonderful things in order to make money (or better, in order to feel creatively fulfilled), and not just lowered the bar so everything was unsatisfying or designed to fall apart. As it is, for every exciting thing we do - creating the internet, for example - the whole focus immediately turns to making it profitable at the expense of making it great.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.