krill

Like strigori said, there effectively is no competition in many markets besides bad option #1 (usually a cable company) and bad option #2 (usually a telco) if you're lucky. If Time Warner wants to say, limit Netflix traffic to 100 kbps so you can only stream the lowest quality unless you fork over another $5 / month, most people are not going to run to Windstream because they are even worse and way oversold in many areas of Lincoln. If you really don't believe this will happen, one need only look at how wireless providers have constrained smart devices, owning multiple devices, and actually using those devices to stream media in every possible manner to squeeze every possible cent from consumers. It has been a hugely negative influence on the natural progression of technology and changing consumer preferences. Most troubling in my mind though is if individual ISPs start implementing new fee structures for specific end user content, what effect that will have on the fee structure, or lack their of in peered tier 1 networks. If this becomes the wild west of the really big networks fighting over new fee structures and de-peering, the Internet as we know it will simply not function. With neutrality rules in place there is a strong incentive for the tier 1 networks to provide maximum interconnectivity and reliability as their competitive advantage, without it, the only incentive is finding new ways to create new revenue streams the same way networks down the food chain want to. This is potentially a huge problem that could servery impede our ability to compete globally, while draining more money out of the pockets of consumers for services that don't add real value, don't create new market opportunities, and don't create jobs.

Make TDs 7 by default, with an optional Papa Johns™ extra slice conversion to either add or lose a point, and also add a Bud Light™ super field goal where the kicker has to bong 3 warm Bud Light™ beers right before the kick to make it worth 4 points.

Conga, it's quite interesting that you attack the manner in which OTA / cable / satellite TV has been regulated, and then suggest an equally arbitrary manner of regulation for IP traffic that may happen to carry video streams. I agree that regulation of traditional broadcast TV has probably led to unintended consequences and not kept up with market forces or consumer preferences, but that doesn't account for the channel bundling many of us loath. That's something the media conglomerates that create content force on broadcasters so they can increase their leverage with carriage fees for popular channels like ESPN that are in every bundle, and apparently create value with a bunch of crap content most people don't want. Bottom line is for you free market or death people is that the Internet is the ultimate free market. Bad ideas and money losing models are swept away with ruthless efficiency by consumers. The only way this works is by not allowing intermediaries to tamper with traffic to foist their own garbage on you and distort the market. I don't know if you quite understand how the underlying network protocols of the Internet work, but it's not say, a Verizon network from end to end if Verizon suddenly wants to change an extra $1 for Netflix traffic to their subs. Traffic from Netflix may originate from from six different datacenters and pass through four different networks before even reaching the Verizon network a sub has access to. For Google, it's even more of a mind boggling web. You are basically inviting a system of ad-hoc toll roads where highwaymen can rob consumers at every point instead of a uniform superhighway where everything moves freely.

The unfortunate reality is that That is in theory possible, and what the telecom companies want to do to squeeze more money out of you. They won't outright censor the internet, but it's possible to use traffic shaping so that sites like youtube and netflix will be slowed to a trickle unless they / you pay up. The sad part is if they actually start doing this, it will cost more to implement and enforce the traffic shaping technology that makes this possible than simply upgrading network capacity as needed. Thankfully I see two positive things happening that are happening irregardless of how much money companies like Verizon spend on lobbying and litigation to rob you: 1. T-Mobile is starting to set off a price war and break down the post-paid (contracts with subsidized devices) model for mobile networking. It will also be interesting to see what Softbank does with Sprint. 2. More municipalities are starting to deploy, or at least talk about deploying publicly owned and operated fiber networks for homes and businesses. It's amazing how the local cable / telephone company starts singing a different tune when this happens. I guess you could also count google fiber in here, but there's no reason to believe that google won't engage in monopolistic practices either. To anyone who thinks net neutrality is bad, or the government shouldn't regulate telecom is this way, imagine this scenario. All the local roads are owned by a monopoly, or duopoly that doesn't compete. It would probably be fair to charge tractor trailers more to use your roads, since they cause more wear on the roads, and that's what telecom does by charging for more bandwidth. But now, all of sudden, they want to start charging Toyota owners $20 more, Chevy owners $15 more, and Volvo owners $50 more, but Ford owners get a $10 discount because the company has a stake in Ford. That's not fair by any reasonable standard; it's anti-competitive and terrible for consumers.

Not two days ago I was at a Kwik Shop in Lincoln, stuck in line behind a lady that used an EBT card to buy pork rinds, candy bars, ice cream, and soda, while using cash to buy malt liquor, vodka, flavored cigars, and lotto cards. It was one the stupidest scenes I've ever seen in my life, and I promise, this is not a scene invented for effect on the internet. I completely understand why a lot of conservative Republicans are outraged by people like this that can only be described as leeches with no self respect. This sort of crap that's on display on a regular basis is something that liberal Democrats often underestimate, or perhaps we just carefully ignore, even if the reality is that 8 out of 10 people who receive food stamps are elderly or disabled people that you'll never notice. It's more than a numbers game where 10% waste with social welfare programs (whatever it is) is ok, because the waste is all people see, and that makes them angry, even if 90% efficiency is entirely defensible. If nothing else, think about this for a second also. If you you make less than roughly 150k as an individual, or 250k as a household, even more with children, you will also be a net receiver of social benefits if you live to age 80. If you are a wise investor and max our your IRA and 401k contributions every year, you cost the federal government far more in revenue than the lady spending $100 month on junk food with an EBT card. That's not a defense of that lady's lifestyle, but it is a fair question to ask who really receiving more benefit. All I know is my life is the only one I can control, and I don't take issue with other people unless they directly harm me physically or financially. No one likes taxes, or seeing their tax money wasted, but for that matter I think way more is wasted on the defense complex than sometimes dubious welfare. Sometimes I wonder if people just need scapegoats for their own failings or misery. Ramble ramble

Actually when the Big 12 was formed, it was Nebraska that desperately wanted to keep partial qualifiers (athletes that could not even meet NCAA academic requirements), while Texas argued against that practice. Coach Osborne defended the practice as means to help student athletes who would otherwise languish in Juco, or possibly not go to to college at all, but I always thought that was a weak argument because there is an entire industry of greasing athletes through Juco to fully qualify as NCAA athletes. Furthermore, the players who did come Nebraska with partial qualification always seemed to be the ones with pseudo majors that were in no way academic or career prospect enhancing. Why should someone who can't even muster a B average in high school and an 18 on the ACT be receiving a scholarship at a public research university? It's ridiculous now more than ever when students who do meet the entrance requirements, but don't receive large scholarships are taking on huge amounts of debt to go to college. A contributing factor to the skyrocketing cost of college is all the money being spent on non-eduction like "lifestyle enhancement" (dorms nicer than most apartments), entertainment, student activities, and athletic departments. I'll always support the Huskers, and I think it's good for people to feel an affinity with public universities that their tax dollars support. At some point though that relationship does seem to move from good for both groups, to a bread and circus atmosphere that is bad for the institution's academic mission, bad for students, and bad for student athletes that are there primarily for the eduction. The Red Lobster, SEC Honor Roll, Sports Management major picture really says it all.

That's so weird...was actually thinking about driving down to Evening With Friends tomorrow...been years since I've been down there. Best steak and prime rib in that part of the state. Too old to enjoy extreme intoxication and projectile vomiting outside the Milligan dance hall though

I voted the Kellogg for a few reasons. One, it had that local hero thing going for it like the Henery 57 yd kick and the Davison catch. Two, I always look at things in the big picture, and if we had lost that game vs. NW, I think we'd be shopping for a head coach right now in a market where there are none

Moore was never on board; he's always been in favor of a single payer system and wrote many opinions blasting Obamacare as a handout to private insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. It's more than disingenuous for those who are opposed to Obamacare because it's big government, socialism, or whatever to keep quoting liberals like Moore in this context, when those individuals oppose it for the exact opposite reason.

The throughput of 802.11n is more than enough for what you're doing. The problem arises when you have so many devices simultaneously using one access point, but why is hard to explain without a load of jargon.

Something like 15 minutes of the 3+ hour broadcast is actual plays being ran...so you're saying you actually want to see that part?

Flip on the radio and listen to Greg and Matt...problem solved. CBS has some decent crews for their SEC games, but it seems like pretty much all the ESPN / ABC ones are garbage. Fox is even worse.

Rapid reaction opinions... 1. Almost everything on cable TV besides sports is garbage like this show. 2. Oh neat, another person who found Jesus and suddenly wants to preach about morality when, by his own admission, he did not adhere to those standards previously. 3. Straight to the Nazi Germany analogies huh...what a pillar of intellect.

I was devastated to find out the bowl sponsor isn't this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4LWcDc4Gg

No excuses for the B10 to be mediocre this year. At least 1 BCS bowl win, if not both, 2 out of 3 of the SEC bowls, and both other bowls.

Informative and thought provoking are a couple adjectives that don't come to mind with this topic.

I trust a man on the street coddling a bottle of Thunderbird wine more than random social media source. But I also can't think of many (any?) examples of coaches that did above average at one top tier program suddenly jumping to elite at another.

Biggest downside to the Fire in my experience is the Silk web browser is complete garbage compared to the iOS browser and various Android browsers. Because the Fire is a split from Android, you don't get the Google play store, only Amazon apps. There is a workaround to side load apps on the Fire, but it's a big hassle for most people. You can get an e-ink Kindle for $70 new, or for practically a few bucks used, and a much better tablet like the iPad, Nexus, or Samsung Galaxy in the 7" or 10" size. Personally I would an e-ink Kindle for book reading, and a 10" tablet for heavy internet browsing. The regular Kindles reached a technology plateau years ago and tablets are about there as well. So it's not like you'll be needing a new one in 6 months; they will last years if you don't break them.

Shouldn't be too shocking that talented, competent people that are unencumbered by bureaucracy and politics produced a better result than apparently incompetent people who were. Seems to be basically two different ways of thinking on this topic: 1. Government isn't working efficiency or correct ---> government should not be doing whatever it is 2. Government isn't working efficiency or correct ---> how do we fix the problem I don't know what the solution is when it seems like a startling number of major government contracts with defense, intelligence, and IT services are plagued by cost overruns, boondoggling, and generally poor outcomes.

I won't defend someone that jams two packs of marb reds a day and eats at golden coral three times a week, but amazingly unhealthy lifestyles are not the primary factor in sky high health care cost. Someone posted a video many pages back explaining quite concisely and accurately what is driving health care cost. Personally I had a high deductible HSA for about three years and only used it as a tax shelter; it had zero influence on what decisions I made about health care consumption because all of the before deductible service cost were exactly the same.

Are you implying that people who don't have health insurance by their own choice are no better than illegal aliens, who also get emergency medical care? I've probably asked this question about a half dozen times in our various health care debates and never once got an honest answer. I assume because most people can see it's a ridiculous false choice, but so is choosing not to buy health insurance, and then expecting medical care in an emergency, like that's something that magically happens with no cost. It's a huge cost, and one of the reasons a band-aid in an ER cost $500.

Individuals who are vigorously opposed to buying health insurance should be able to opt out by waiving their right to emergency medical services, in the same way you can choose not to have auto insurance by not driving, or mortgage insurance by not having a mortgage. That seems completely fair and sensible. Eventually, I think we'd get use to ambulances driving off or ERs baring their door to dying people; I mean, it would be their choice, right? I assume that those of you who who don't want to carry health insurance would be first in line to sign up.

Let the QB controversy begin.

wow wow wow wow wow gg