Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
PatrThom said:
I’m expecting this to boil down to a T&C issue where the plan said it would have been enough to meet their needs unless they wanted to use more than 20GB per day or some other secret surcharge-y sort of thing.
Click to expand...
No, it can't boil down to that. There's no reaching the fine print only to shrug and say "guess that's what the contract said". Someone approved this plan when they shouldn't have. Any plan that can result in throttling is unacceptable for emergency services. No matter how common such clauses are for contracts, someone screwed up by having terms that result in throttling for emergency services.

Hopefully every single emergency service in the US will be reviewing their contracts right now.
 
Gared

Gared

figmentPez said:
No, it can't boil down to that. There's no reaching the fine print only to shrug and say "guess that's what the contract said". Someone approved this plan when they shouldn't have. Any plan that can result in throttling is unacceptable for emergency services. No matter how common such clauses are for contracts, someone screwed up by having terms that result in throttling for emergency services.

Hopefully every single emergency service in the US will be reviewing their contracts right now.
Click to expand...
Seriously, the amount of public safety/public works contracts I've seen that were beyond completely screwed is insane - and these were all contracts for cabinetry builds and installs. There is a serious need for contract lawyers in this country - but I suspect it's more an issue of companies wanting to hire one attorney to be their General Counsel instead of having specialists on retainer than it is a shortage of people interested in contracts and law. Hell, our GC was an environmental law attorney, and a crummy one at that. If we wanted to actually cut waste in government, actually having auditors and contract lawyers work together to vet bids would be a damn good start.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Did Verizon fall down on the job by not realizing what was needed? Did Verizon outright lie about what they were going to provide? Did the fire department try to cheap out and not buy what they needed? Clearly Verizon really fucked up by insisting on an upgrade to the plan in the middle of a crisis, but there's the bigger issue that the plan the fighter deparment was on wasn't sufficient for their needs, period.
Click to expand...
PatrThom said:
I’m expecting this to boil down to a T&C issue where the plan said it would have been enough to meet their needs unless they wanted to use more than 20GB per day or some other secret surcharge-y sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Seems that Verizon does have a policy of removing data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations, but because the "Unlimited" plan they were on was one that throttles data to 200-600kbps once usage hits a 25GB/mo cap, the automated limiters kicked in, and that's what happened. Verizon said the representative was supposed to have removed the cap due to the extenuating circumstances rather than pushing the upgrade, and that this was therefore just a customer support issue, not a Net Neutrality one. "Ha ha! Our bad. All better, right?"

Well, Santa Clara County, which also just so happens to be one of the communities which has sued the FCC to overturn the Net Neutrality repeal, begs to differ, saying, "Verizon's throttling has everything to do with Net Neutrality. It shows that the ISPs will act in their economic interests, even at the expense of public safety. That is exactly what the Trump Administration's repeal of Net Neutrality allows and encourages." They go on to say, "In repealing Net Neutrality rules, the Trump Administration failed to consider public safety threats as required by law. For this reason alone, the repeal of Net Neutrality is illegal and must be overturned."

Verizon has further gone on record saying they don't believe the fact that they throttled the firefighters' data should be included in the lawsuit to overturn the repeal, saying, "This situation has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or the current proceeding in court."

Riiiiiiight...

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Eriol

Eriol

PatrThom said:
Verizon has further gone on record saying they don't believe the fact that they throttled the firefighters' data should be included in the lawsuit to overturn the repeal, saying, "This situation has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or the current proceeding in court."
Click to expand...
I actually agree with Verizon that this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. They throttled them to EVERYWHERE based upon data limits and ability to pay. It's still horrific, especially to emergency services, but I do not see it as a Net Neutrality issue. Where it WOULD be an issue is if they throttled access to a hospital's dispatch from the fire department because the hospital didn't pay extra, but DID allow the services to access the other private hospital that DID pay extra to be in a "priority lane" or the like.

IMO it's bad to bundle things in that aren't related. Not every Internet issue is an NN issue. It's still bad behavior from Verizon either way. They can be bad in more ways than just NN!
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Eriol said:
I actually agree with Verizon that this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. They throttled them to EVERYWHERE based upon data limits and ability to pay. It's still horrific, especially to emergency services, but I do not see it as a Net Neutrality issue. Where it WOULD be an issue is if they throttled access to a hospital's dispatch from the fire department because the hospital didn't pay extra, but DID allow the services to access the other private hospital that DID pay extra to be in a "priority lane" or the like.

IMO it's bad to bundle things in that aren't related. Not every Internet issue is an NN issue. It's still bad behavior from Verizon either way. They can be bad in more ways than just NN!
Click to expand...
His connection to net neutrality was how you can't trust the ISPs to do the right thing on their own, which is why they need to be regulated.
 
Eriol

Eriol

blotsfan said:
His connection to net neutrality was how you can't trust the ISPs to do the right thing on their own, which is why they need to be regulated.
Click to expand...
Agreed, since they have local monopolies, they misbehave. When there's healthy competition, there is less need, though not necessarily zero.

But casting it in a "Net Neutrality" banner is not good IMO. It "strongarms" people to your point of view, similarly to how some frame everything they argue for as "freedom" since freedom is good, right? You wouldn't argue against freedom? And everything they don't like is "facism" or whatever, since you wouldn't argue FOR fascism, would you? It's a dirty tactic IMO to try and get more people on your side by bundling something with a "universal" good or bad. This is the "tech version" of it, since anybody tech-literate wouldn't be caught dead arguing AGAINST Net Neutrality. But this is NOT that issue. It IS worth fighting for, and it's a good cause, but don't bundle it. I hate bundling like that, since all you do is weaken the other argument.
 
Eriol

Eriol

This goes to criminal incompetence (not negligence, since they DID meet about it) soon: Investigators: Big Cracks, But No Cause Yet for Florida Bridge Collapse

The quote from the professor of structural engineering is the most interesting IMO:
One reader responding to ENR's posting of these photos was William L. Gamble, professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Illinois in Urbana. In comments sent to ENR, Gamble noted: "After even a brief look at these pictures, I am astonished that anyone who had ever taken a course on reinforced concrete could have dismissed them as anything other than deadly serious. If such cracks had been seen in an occupied building, the correct response would be to pull the fire alarm and tell every one: 'Run, don't walk, to the nearest exit.'"

In the case of this pedestrian bridge project, Gamble asserts that responsible parties should have taken steps to "close everything near and under it until it had been either significantly shored up or demolished. I taught courses on reinforced and prestressed concrete for 40 years, and am appalled at the response, or lack thereof, in this case."
Click to expand...
Yikes. They had f'n meetings about it. Whomever did the evaluation and said "ya, needs repair, but not THAT bad" should have their license reviewed and/or pulled. So again, not negligence, it's incompetence, and in engineering, that CAN be to a CRIMINAL degree (part of the thing with being licensed). If it comes out later they were DIRECTED to "spin" it that way, then it's conspiracy or something.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Eriol said:
I actually agree with Verizon that this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. They throttled them to EVERYWHERE based upon data limits and ability to pay. It's still horrific, especially to emergency services, but I do not see it as a Net Neutrality issue.
Click to expand...
There are many who believe that the act of throttling, itself, constitutes a violation of Net Neutrality. Not everyone feels this way (and you are obviously one of the ones that don’t), but there are those who believe that interfering with packets for any reason not related to helping them get safely to their destination constitutes a violation of Net Neutrality.

—Patrick
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
PatrThom said:
There are many who believe that the act of throttling, itself, constitutes a violation of Net Neutrality. Not everyone feels this way (and you are obviously one of the ones that don’t), but there are those who believe that interfering with packets for any reason not related to helping them get safely to their destination constitutes a violation of Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's a Net Neutrality issue, but no connection billed as "unlimited" should be subject to throttling. It's blatantly false advertising to call something "unlimited" if it has artificial limits. It's ridiculous that such labeling has been allowed to continue.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

I’m of the opinion that you should be prohibited from advertising any speed higher than what you could actually get if you took the total amount you could possibly download per pay cycle with all restrictions factored in and averaged that out over the entire billing period.

—Patrick
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Dave said:
John McCain has ceased all further treatment for his cancer.
Click to expand...
I'm really gonna miss his inability to vote the last few months.

Edit: I didn't realize Arizona is electing a governor again this year. Hopefully if the Democrat wins, McCain doesn't die until after inauguration.
 
Last edited:
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

So far Duncan Hunter has blamed the following for his misuse of campaign funds:

- the Democrats
- his wife
- the taxpayers (because living on $174,000 salary a year is hard)

It's anyone's guess who he'll blame next, but I'm sure he won't blame himself.
 
Frank

Frank

The best thing I saw replying to an interview he did blaming not making enough money was, "Maybe he shouldn't have bought an iPhone"
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Frank said:
Another warmonger gone that the media and folks will whitewash with the pretense of decorum.
Click to expand...
This. For every time he took a stand and did something for the good of all Americans, there's at least half a dozen where he let his counterparts do what they wanted to the innocent or even joined in. John McCain was not a good person.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

AshburnerX said:
This. For every time he took a stand and did something for the good of all Americans, there's at least half a dozen where he let his counterparts do what they wanted to the innocent or even joined in. John McCain was not a good person.
Click to expand...
This. And he gave us Sarah Palin.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

You have to admit, he may not have been the best person, but you can tell he at least tried more then most republicans.

I remember back when he was running versus Obama, and the whole republican base was basically saying Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim, all that stupid birther bullshit, and most just kind of went along with it or ignored it. Then during a rally a voter basically came up and called Obama a muslim and McCain had to take the mic from her and shut her down, telling her that Obama was a decent, American family man regardless of what the rumors said.

Try to imagine anyone trying to do that today in a political race towards his opponent, at best they might just smile and ignore it and let the rumor fester, but he didn't play with that shit, and I gotta give him at least some respect for that, even if I disagreed on his policy and voted for Obama myself.
 
Gared

Gared

ScytheRexx said:
You have to admit, he may not have been the best person, but you can tell he at least tried more then most republicans.

I remember back when he was running versus Obama, and the whole republican base was basically saying Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim, all that stupid birther bullshit, and most just kind of went along with it or ignored it. Then during a rally a voter basically came up and called Obama a muslim and McCain had to take the mic from her and shut her down, telling her that Obama was a decent, American family man regardless of what the rumors said.

Try to imagine anyone trying to do that today in a political race towards his opponent, at best they might just smile and ignore it and let the rumor fester, but he didn't play with that shit, and I gotta give him at least some respect for that, even if I disagreed on his policy and voted for Obama myself.
Click to expand...
I would have agreed with this sentiment up until today, when I went to check out his voting record, and some of the bills that he either sponsored or co-sponsored. They're horrible - most of them heavily weighted toward taking opportunity away from the little guy and giving more power to either the federal government or big business. And it's not like he started out as some high-minded, staunch defender of the little guy - the real, hardworking American - and became jaded over time or anything. Oh no - the very second bill he co-sponsored was aimed at stripping as much protection away from consumers as possible in regards to product liability cases. Another one was an amendment to shut the hell up and stop investigating discrimination against homosexuals in the military. Every opportunity this guy had to strip rights away from people other than rich white men he took, so (politically, at least) fuck him.
 
jwhouk

jwhouk

Y'all might not want to come visit me here in AZ anytime soon. You might get lynched for saying stuff like that around here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top