Ads on sites
-
@tonyshowoff said:
That or, the even smarter thing is, to create a pseudo-cap, where you charge for over that, which is what Cox does. Cox does not have a cut off cap, I know this because I've gone into the TB range, and they just charge me more.
You have gotten used to the high bandwidth world in the east of Europe. America still has a lot of problems with bandwidth.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
Aren't data caps sort of a 2000s era type of thing? I know some used to have hard limits. Knowing Americans, I can't imagine it lasting that long..
I'd say the opposites. Americans are very, very accepting of these things.
Really? No Internet for the rest of the month? Mom can't pay the bills, dad can't look up porno. Comcast dropped it once before. Meanwhile they're paying $40 a month? That's definitely the kind of thing Americans get mad about.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
Really? No Internet for the rest of the month? Mom can't pay the bills, dad can't look up porno. Comcast dropped it once before. Meanwhile they're paying $40 a month? That's definitely the kind of thing Americans get mad about.
It's mostly "pay more" caps. There are stories of AT&T customers getting hit with massive bills (that they were idiots and were warned about.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
Really? No Internet for the rest of the month? Mom can't pay the bills, dad can't look up porno. Comcast dropped it once before. Meanwhile they're paying $40 a month? That's definitely the kind of thing Americans get mad about.
It's mostly "pay more" caps. There are stories of AT&T customers getting hit with massive bills (that they were idiots and were warned about.)
Wasn't that mobile data?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
Really? No Internet for the rest of the month? Mom can't pay the bills, dad can't look up porno. Comcast dropped it once before. Meanwhile they're paying $40 a month? That's definitely the kind of thing Americans get mad about.
It's mostly "pay more" caps. There are stories of AT&T customers getting hit with massive bills (that they were idiots and were warned about.)
Pay more caps is a different story all together, I'd say those are data limits. A cap is, like I said, Australia where people pay $50 a month for 10GB of crappy Internet service that cuts off after a week for the rest of the month. that's an exaggeration, but it is pretty insanely high like that. So far haven't talked to any Australian which didn't think this was common elsewhere, they really don't know they're getting screwed.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
Aren't data caps sort of a 2000s era type of thing? I know some used to have hard limits. Knowing Americans, I can't imagine it lasting that long..
I'd say the opposites. Americans are very, very accepting of these things.
I wouldn't say we are accepting of these things, I would say we are pretty forced, ISPs have done a pretty good job of becoming a monopoly in places.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
Really? No Internet for the rest of the month? Mom can't pay the bills, dad can't look up porno. Comcast dropped it once before. Meanwhile they're paying $40 a month? That's definitely the kind of thing Americans get mad about.
It's mostly "pay more" caps. There are stories of AT&T customers getting hit with massive bills (that they were idiots and were warned about.)
Wasn't that mobile data?
That one story, yes. But the US has lower rates, hard caps, soft caps, mobile, non-mobile.... it's all different than in Europe.
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
I wouldn't say we are accepting of these things, I would say we are pretty forced, ISPs have done a pretty good job of becoming a monopoly in places.
There is only one process that can make that possible.... acceptance.
-
Americans are more accepting of business practices such as monopolies that lead to these things. It's not that Americans like bad ISPs, is that they tolerate them more through business practices.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Americans are more accepting of business practices such as monopolies that lead to these things. It's not that Americans like bad ISPs, is that they tolerate them more through business practices.
You're saying what - that Europeans aren't willing to put up with that - and what? there is an option for them to change to?
American's put up with it only because there are no other options, or the options are outside a price range they are willing to pay. that compiled with the fact that basically most cities in the US have monopoly agreements in place with carriers to prevent other competition from coming in. So it's really less on the citizens (of course you'll argue that we voted these ass hats in who give away our freedom of choice) and more on the city officials and their BS agreements.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Americans are more accepting of business practices such as monopolies that lead to these things. It's not that Americans like bad ISPs, is that they tolerate them more through business practices.
You're saying what - that Europeans aren't willing to put up with that - and what? there is an option for them to change to?
Yes and yes. They have far stricter laws about these things.
-
@Dashrender said:
American's put up with it only because there are no other options,
Other way around.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
American's put up with it only because there are no other options,
Other way around.
Both are probably correct. either way you write it.
-
@Dashrender said:
So it's really less on the citizens (of course you'll argue that we voted these ass hats in who give away our freedom of choice) and more on the city officials and their BS agreements.
Exactly. If people were unhappy with corruption in municipal government, they could do something about it.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
American's put up with it only because there are no other options,
Other way around.
Both are probably correct. either way you write it.
Well... either America isn't a Republic and has no freedom, or the people control these things. You can't have both. In either case, it's not the best answer. But it is what it is. If you believe in the American process, then the answer has to be that the people have been more or less happy to put up with it. Not happy, but happy enough. Complacent goes a long way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Americans are more accepting of business practices such as monopolies that lead to these things. It's not that Americans like bad ISPs, is that they tolerate them more through business practices.
You're saying what - that Europeans aren't willing to put up with that - and what? there is an option for them to change to?
Yes and yes. They have far stricter laws about these things.
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better. I seriously doubt the citizen actually put more influence into their government than we do (though I could be mistaken), Their laws and their leaders just more closely resemble the benevolent dictator that you would like to see in power.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So it's really less on the citizens (of course you'll argue that we voted these ass hats in who give away our freedom of choice) and more on the city officials and their BS agreements.
Exactly. If people were unhappy with corruption in municipal government, they could do something about it.
I'm not sure I truly believe this - in principal it's true - we can vote in new leadership. The problem is getting someone who the people will follow that isn't already corrupt, yet has the people behind them enough to get elected.
-
@Dashrender said:
Their laws and their leaders just more closely resemble the benevolent dictator that you would like to see in power.
Because they are less tolerant of the things that Americans tolerate (and moreso of other things.)
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So it's really less on the citizens (of course you'll argue that we voted these ass hats in who give away our freedom of choice) and more on the city officials and their BS agreements.
Exactly. If people were unhappy with corruption in municipal government, they could do something about it.
I'm not sure I truly believe this - in principal it's true - we can vote in new leadership. The problem is getting someone who the people will follow that isn't already corrupt, yet has the people behind them enough to get elected.
Which kind of goes back to the original point, right? The only people we vote for are corrupt. ... when people perceived as not corrupt run for office they are rarely voted in.
