[equalizer]

[quote=gandalf]Perhaps combine universal coverage for catastrophic matters with a market-based approach for everything under a certain threshold.

Insurance companies are a racket.[/quote]
Just about to say same thing. Medical savings account could cover the common procedures. In order to work we need to see upfront prices for health care. This is one of the few sectors in USA that prices are banned until one gets crazy bill.

patientrenter,

great explanation of the conflicts.

flu,

the other outrage is that person who doesn’t have insurance is billed the full rate with no discount. Does that item cost $200 or $1000?? No wonder that many people cant afford to pay the bill and hospitals raise the retail prices to $1100 next year.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]
Don’t forget that VOD is their highest margin product as well. Now that Netflix have streaming over the internet as well as satellite have On-Demand programming (also over internet), I think they’re trying their best to cripple the competition, instead of making themselves better than the competition. The only people who will be hurt by this move is the consumer.[/quote]

First ESPN [Disney] blackmails the cable and sat. cos into carrying all the espn channels on basic package instead of sports tier, lest Disney cuts off ABC channel [has already happened].

Faced with ever increasing costs from carriage fees [thanks to doped athletes and Hollywierd elites who are rightfully adored as saints],
cable companies are now blackmailing the “cable” networks into reducing programs on web, lest cable cos reduce funds they pay these networks.

Thus, programming is removed from the web and we end up back with the monopoly. Fine, I cut cable tv last year so the heck with them. Back to good old DVD with no commercials and 20 foot antenna to pick up digital channels. Oh wait, darn HOA.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]
Don’t forget that VOD is their highest margin product as well. Now that Netflix have streaming over the internet as well as satellite have On-Demand programming (also over internet), I think they’re trying their best to cripple the competition, instead of making themselves better than the competition. The only people who will be hurt by this move is the consumer.[/quote]

First ESPN [Disney] blackmails the cable and sat. cos into carrying all the espn channels on basic package instead of sports tier, lest Disney cuts off ABC channel [has already happened].

Faced with ever increasing costs from carriage fees [thanks to doped athletes and Hollywierd elites who are rightfully adored as saints],
cable companies are now blackmailing the “cable” networks into reducing programs on web, lest cable cos reduce funds they pay these networks.

Thus, programming is removed from the web and we end up back with the monopoly. Fine, I cut cable tv last year so the heck with them. Back to good old DVD with no commercials and 20 foot antenna to pick up digital channels. Oh wait, darn HOA.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]
Don’t forget that VOD is their highest margin product as well. Now that Netflix have streaming over the internet as well as satellite have On-Demand programming (also over internet), I think they’re trying their best to cripple the competition, instead of making themselves better than the competition. The only people who will be hurt by this move is the consumer.[/quote]

First ESPN [Disney] blackmails the cable and sat. cos into carrying all the espn channels on basic package instead of sports tier, lest Disney cuts off ABC channel [has already happened].

Faced with ever increasing costs from carriage fees [thanks to doped athletes and Hollywierd elites who are rightfully adored as saints],
cable companies are now blackmailing the “cable” networks into reducing programs on web, lest cable cos reduce funds they pay these networks.

Thus, programming is removed from the web and we end up back with the monopoly. Fine, I cut cable tv last year so the heck with them. Back to good old DVD with no commercials and 20 foot antenna to pick up digital channels. Oh wait, darn HOA.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]
Don’t forget that VOD is their highest margin product as well. Now that Netflix have streaming over the internet as well as satellite have On-Demand programming (also over internet), I think they’re trying their best to cripple the competition, instead of making themselves better than the competition. The only people who will be hurt by this move is the consumer.[/quote]

First ESPN [Disney] blackmails the cable and sat. cos into carrying all the espn channels on basic package instead of sports tier, lest Disney cuts off ABC channel [has already happened].

Faced with ever increasing costs from carriage fees [thanks to doped athletes and Hollywierd elites who are rightfully adored as saints],
cable companies are now blackmailing the “cable” networks into reducing programs on web, lest cable cos reduce funds they pay these networks.

Thus, programming is removed from the web and we end up back with the monopoly. Fine, I cut cable tv last year so the heck with them. Back to good old DVD with no commercials and 20 foot antenna to pick up digital channels. Oh wait, darn HOA.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]
Don’t forget that VOD is their highest margin product as well. Now that Netflix have streaming over the internet as well as satellite have On-Demand programming (also over internet), I think they’re trying their best to cripple the competition, instead of making themselves better than the competition. The only people who will be hurt by this move is the consumer.[/quote]

First ESPN [Disney] blackmails the cable and sat. cos into carrying all the espn channels on basic package instead of sports tier, lest Disney cuts off ABC channel [has already happened].

Faced with ever increasing costs from carriage fees [thanks to doped athletes and Hollywierd elites who are rightfully adored as saints],
cable companies are now blackmailing the “cable” networks into reducing programs on web, lest cable cos reduce funds they pay these networks.

Thus, programming is removed from the web and we end up back with the monopoly. Fine, I cut cable tv last year so the heck with them. Back to good old DVD with no commercials and 20 foot antenna to pick up digital channels. Oh wait, darn HOA.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]TW is not subsidizing apple HD, Youtube, etc. We pay TW for the service to access interest at a certain speed. What we do with it shouldn’t be of their concern and it wasn’t until now. They’re only able to do this because of the duopoly that the government let them operate in. This is pure ridiculousness and customers do not have a say in this. What good is a fast internet if you’ll be maxing out your usage all the time and end up paying up the a$$ for extra bandwidth.

BTW, videos are not the only thing you can download/upload on the internet. There are such things as OS, updates for software, backing up your data to the cloud, etc.[/quote]
The cable monopoly is the problem. Add in the terrible decision (for users) by ATT in San Diego to put in Uverse instead of true fiber to the home like Verizon in Riverside. Wherever TW competes with FIOS, speed has gone up and price as stayed the same.

However, if data usage keeps growing there could be bottlenecks without upgrades. Should every user pay for that? Should the person reading email using 1Gb/month subsidize some people I know who are downloading 150Gb/month?

The big problem I see is the low limits proposed by TW compared to Cox.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]TW is not subsidizing apple HD, Youtube, etc. We pay TW for the service to access interest at a certain speed. What we do with it shouldn’t be of their concern and it wasn’t until now. They’re only able to do this because of the duopoly that the government let them operate in. This is pure ridiculousness and customers do not have a say in this. What good is a fast internet if you’ll be maxing out your usage all the time and end up paying up the a$$ for extra bandwidth.

BTW, videos are not the only thing you can download/upload on the internet. There are such things as OS, updates for software, backing up your data to the cloud, etc.[/quote]
The cable monopoly is the problem. Add in the terrible decision (for users) by ATT in San Diego to put in Uverse instead of true fiber to the home like Verizon in Riverside. Wherever TW competes with FIOS, speed has gone up and price as stayed the same.

However, if data usage keeps growing there could be bottlenecks without upgrades. Should every user pay for that? Should the person reading email using 1Gb/month subsidize some people I know who are downloading 150Gb/month?

The big problem I see is the low limits proposed by TW compared to Cox.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]TW is not subsidizing apple HD, Youtube, etc. We pay TW for the service to access interest at a certain speed. What we do with it shouldn’t be of their concern and it wasn’t until now. They’re only able to do this because of the duopoly that the government let them operate in. This is pure ridiculousness and customers do not have a say in this. What good is a fast internet if you’ll be maxing out your usage all the time and end up paying up the a$$ for extra bandwidth.

BTW, videos are not the only thing you can download/upload on the internet. There are such things as OS, updates for software, backing up your data to the cloud, etc.[/quote]
The cable monopoly is the problem. Add in the terrible decision (for users) by ATT in San Diego to put in Uverse instead of true fiber to the home like Verizon in Riverside. Wherever TW competes with FIOS, speed has gone up and price as stayed the same.

However, if data usage keeps growing there could be bottlenecks without upgrades. Should every user pay for that? Should the person reading email using 1Gb/month subsidize some people I know who are downloading 150Gb/month?

The big problem I see is the low limits proposed by TW compared to Cox.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]TW is not subsidizing apple HD, Youtube, etc. We pay TW for the service to access interest at a certain speed. What we do with it shouldn’t be of their concern and it wasn’t until now. They’re only able to do this because of the duopoly that the government let them operate in. This is pure ridiculousness and customers do not have a say in this. What good is a fast internet if you’ll be maxing out your usage all the time and end up paying up the a$$ for extra bandwidth.

BTW, videos are not the only thing you can download/upload on the internet. There are such things as OS, updates for software, backing up your data to the cloud, etc.[/quote]
The cable monopoly is the problem. Add in the terrible decision (for users) by ATT in San Diego to put in Uverse instead of true fiber to the home like Verizon in Riverside. Wherever TW competes with FIOS, speed has gone up and price as stayed the same.

However, if data usage keeps growing there could be bottlenecks without upgrades. Should every user pay for that? Should the person reading email using 1Gb/month subsidize some people I know who are downloading 150Gb/month?

The big problem I see is the low limits proposed by TW compared to Cox.

[equalizer]

[quote=AN]TW is not subsidizing apple HD, Youtube, etc. We pay TW for the service to access interest at a certain speed. What we do with it shouldn’t be of their concern and it wasn’t until now. They’re only able to do this because of the duopoly that the government let them operate in. This is pure ridiculousness and customers do not have a say in this. What good is a fast internet if you’ll be maxing out your usage all the time and end up paying up the a$$ for extra bandwidth.

BTW, videos are not the only thing you can download/upload on the internet. There are such things as OS, updates for software, backing up your data to the cloud, etc.[/quote]
The cable monopoly is the problem. Add in the terrible decision (for users) by ATT in San Diego to put in Uverse instead of true fiber to the home like Verizon in Riverside. Wherever TW competes with FIOS, speed has gone up and price as stayed the same.

However, if data usage keeps growing there could be bottlenecks without upgrades. Should every user pay for that? Should the person reading email using 1Gb/month subsidize some people I know who are downloading 150Gb/month?

The big problem I see is the low limits proposed by TW compared to Cox.

[equalizer]

[quote=flu]Dubai still throws people in jail for unpaid debt….Hmmm maybe we could learn something about that here.[/quote]
I don’t think Mr Trump would like that being the biggest abuser of unpaid debt in the world. Trump is a visionary, while those people getting sick, laid off and losing homes need to be locked up. But I’m sure there is an exemption for walking away from billions in corporate debt, so Trump would be safe and probably say bring it on.

[equalizer]

[quote=flu]Dubai still throws people in jail for unpaid debt….Hmmm maybe we could learn something about that here.[/quote]
I don’t think Mr Trump would like that being the biggest abuser of unpaid debt in the world. Trump is a visionary, while those people getting sick, laid off and losing homes need to be locked up. But I’m sure there is an exemption for walking away from billions in corporate debt, so Trump would be safe and probably say bring it on.

[equalizer]

[quote=flu]Dubai still throws people in jail for unpaid debt….Hmmm maybe we could learn something about that here.[/quote]
I don’t think Mr Trump would like that being the biggest abuser of unpaid debt in the world. Trump is a visionary, while those people getting sick, laid off and losing homes need to be locked up. But I’m sure there is an exemption for walking away from billions in corporate debt, so Trump would be safe and probably say bring it on.

[equalizer]

[quote=flu]Dubai still throws people in jail for unpaid debt….Hmmm maybe we could learn something about that here.[/quote]
I don’t think Mr Trump would like that being the biggest abuser of unpaid debt in the world. Trump is a visionary, while those people getting sick, laid off and losing homes need to be locked up. But I’m sure there is an exemption for walking away from billions in corporate debt, so Trump would be safe and probably say bring it on.

[Author]

Posts