What a Tuel

Changing out Fitzpatrick for EJ Manuel didn't work? Well yeah, Fitzpatrick sucking does not increase the statistical probability that Manuel would be good. So no, changing out the pieces does not guarantee success, and it is ridiculous to assume not changing out one piece is the cause for our turmoil. Especially when no one can point to anything specific that he has done.

No I mean he changed the play and threw a TD to Antonio Brown instead because he saw 1on1 man coverage.

I saw Roethlisberger do this several times on 4th and 1 Monday Night. Not comparing just making an observation.

He is certainly guaranteed for a game ending pick in every close game. I called it Sunday against the Bengals haha. Bills sneak by the Jets 17-13

Could be a new record.

Yeah, I was really disappointed with Bennett's performance. I thought they would use him a lot more, but he was just out there blocking a lot. Maybe if Gronk plays, it will free him up or something, or maybe Belichick doesn't see that role for Bennett.

In the hysteria, no one is talking about this.

Jesus Christ. This is the one and only post I am making today because everyone is straight up unbearable.. You are acting smug. You know who else is "fragile"? Demaryius Thomas - hip injury Julio Jones - Tweaked his ankle Keenan Allen - Torn ACL There is no such thing as injury prone. It's the NFL and injuries happen. Sammy has missed less games than most WR's but our Buffalo bias makes us act like douchebags to our own players.

Let it go man. 1 pass thrown to Sammy in two series. I guess you could call that a lack of a connection. I call it 6 plays though.

Really? Is this suspension worthy or something? Why would he bother lying? Man up and admit you were protesting. Geez.

Yes there was. Time Warner was awful. They opted to make improvements, and increase speeds to compete with the new competition. Once Verizon ran out of the money it had allocated to building the network it stopped. Now they maintain a decent market share. We are conflating issues here though. Net neutrality isn't a take over of the internet. It is doing exactly the below. The only one I can imagine you having a problem with is paid prioritization which in my opinion we will just have to agree to disagree on. You think these network builders should be able to charge a premium for a "fast lane", I think it is a dangerous precedent that would only get worse in conjunction with data caps, and time. We already see it with the "watch our affiliate content with unlimited data" on mobile and Comcast experimenting with data caps in other areas. What is stopping them from saying "Watch our affiliate content, it is faster!" (obviously simplified). It is obvious you think that is fair for them to do that since they built the infrastructure, I don't believe it is fair because their consumers are paying for a distinct service, and not the type of service the ISP's desire to provide based on what is more profitable for them. No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

That is not true. Verizon sued the moment the FCC put forward the open internet order (net neutrality) for not having the regulatory authority or jurisdiction to regulate the internet. The court ruled that the FCC did not have that authority. The FCC gained that authority and survived subsequent lawsuits by reclassifying the internet as a utility. As for Verizon I don't mind at all that Verizon stopped building it's network. It sucks that it fell short of my area, but I have no sense of entitlement to it. The thing about that is that Time Warner Cable is entrenched in the area. Verizon took a bunch of money and built up its network. They dove in and it is great in areas that offer both choices. However they won't continue building their network because of how entrenched Time Warner Cable is, and how it can stand to simply increase speeds, and lower prices at the hint of any sort of competition. So it just isn't worth it to Verizon at this point. So, yes it is quite annoying that I am stuck with Time Warner Cable as my only choice and no competition or innovation is taking place in my area. It would be awesome if Google laid down fiber in our area, but it won't be happening. In the areas they are, you see the current ISP's scrambling to up their speeds, and lower prices though. Especially with their 1000 mbps connection.

Then we agree to disagree.

They had to do this as a result of court challenges by ISP's saying that the FCC did not have the regulatory authority to impose net neutrality. If all you are referring to is the precedent the FCC is setting then fine, but do you really have a problem with the below? No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

My god the logical leaps Ted Cruz makes. It is painful. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, whoever make their own policies and censor what they want already. They don't need government permission because you agree to their terms from the start. Take this for example. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-norway-primeminister-idUSKCN11F194 Ever hear Ted Cruz commission on NASA? The guy has a continued agenda and frames his arguments around it without letting facts get in his way. (This is how we got Trump as a nominee btw) To each their own. I can say that the truth is somewhere in the middle between content creators and ISP's, but net neutrality is not some government takeover of the internet. But we can agree to disagree.

Whatever you guys say. I am comfortable in my knowledge of the subject.

I wish we wouldn't take any game for granted. This will be a hard fought win just like any other.

Classic retort - I know more than you so you are wrong.

Sorry, but you are the one lacking an understanding of broadband. Now we are saying competition is impossible and the lack of it is good for the consumer? Are you kidding me? Not only is there ample evidence to show ISPs throttling different kinds of traffic, but Netflix has been forced to pay untold millions to ISPs to keep their content running at even speeds to their customers. The internet industry is not doing fine. You are paying through the nose at prices that are only increasing as costs are dropping. They are feeding you a line of BS that the infrastructure is making them raise prices except the data shows those costs are dropping. Throw in data caps, and if we keep acquiescing to these monopolies and the internet will be pretty much hell like Mobile internet is right now. Imagine that, Verizon offers free data through its "partners", wonder how they accomplish that. Same thing will happen with the cable giants. But you wait and see and defend an abomination of a monopoly and pretend it is free market capitalism. So here's a question for you. What services were you denied as a result of net neutrality? What evidence do you have that they raised prices? Stopped developing their networks? These company's are making money hand over fist, and any money they don't get from content providers they hold hostage is a drop in the revenue bucket. You are accepting getting screwed over because a company won't make as much money. Trust me, if comcast doesn't want to develop their network because Netflix won't pay their extortion fees then someone else will take up the torch. There is too much money on the table not to. You have a choice here (as do content providers): Allow your ISP to dictate what speeds your content can be streamed at Tell your ISP to off and provide you the speeds you pay for, for whatever content you damn well see fit to stream As for your hatred of Google "stirring" things up. Well they do have a vested interest in people browsing content on the internet without the gatekeeper ISP's getting in the way, and maybe someday they will turn into the monstrosities that are the current ISP's. But for now they are offering the greatest internet experience of all ISP's. Who woulda thunk it could be done with such slim profit margins. 1. This is flat out wrong and part of the ridiculous fear mongering. Prove it or knock it off. 2. I live in North Tonawanda. It is pathetically empty and not rural at all. Time Warner is the sole reasonable option for broadband internet. There are more places like this than not. Yes, Google is pushing the ISP's to improve their networks. It is a fresh breath of competition. I don't think we are in disagreement here. Competition is good for the industry. As for caps, Comcast does them consistently. They recently just raised them from 300gb to 1TB per month which is good, but there shouldn't be any cap. If they cannot afford to provide customers the level of service they promise, then they need to let those customers go. You allow caps in the door, and your internet turns into the mobile hell hole that we are in now. Monetizing data is not the route we want to go with the internet. It doesn't make any sense outside of increased profits for these companies. It is an awful idea for consumers and content providers alike. If a company cannot take the load on their networks, they need to invest the money or shed the customers. That is the service they provide. 3. The numbers are out there. Estimates range anywhere from <$0.01 to $0.15 per gb but of course it varies depending on location, existing infrastructure, time of day, etc so it is difficult to pin down. Don't think this ever includes the government investment into the ISP's infrastructure through tax breaks or credits (something they don't mind taking)

Tell me what net neutrality does if it is so bad. It's out there right now. What is it doing that is wrong besides preventing what I outlined? The comparison of internet to buying per pound meat at a grocery story is insane, mainly because as I have said before there is no competition within areas to keep prices down. Down the street FIOS might be available, but it isn't right here. People do not and likely cannot move for the sake of internet. There is no protection from the insanely high markup. You are paying through the nose for high priced internet, and then they cap you. I am not sure you realize that the data under the caps that companies like Comcast put forward a just a tiny fraction of the bill you are paying. So they are effectively saying "Hey, pay for this internet $60 a month. But make sure you stay under the 300gb cap that costs us much less than $3 to provide. If you want more data, you can pay another $10 for 50 more gbs (<$0.50 cost to them)". You are paying $60 a month for a $3 service. Before you invoke infrastructure costs remember the quote I posted in which a smaller company's infrastructure costs fell to 2% of revenue. So including infrastructure, you are paying $60 a month for a $5 service. Now I get free market and all that. I would love it too if there was actual competition. ComCast's CEO Cohen says as much when trying to get the FCC to approve the merger with TWC. Cohen: "That is correct."

The idea that there are competing markets in broadband internet is laughable. I am not sure if that is what you are saying but these companies have a few areas where they overlap but they mostly keep to their own agreed upon markets. The ISP's should be blamed for that problem. Why shouldn't Netflix pay more because they are utilizing the transmission of more data? Because they already do. They already pay for the transmission of all of their data. They aren't getting a free ride. We are talking about Comcast telling Netflix to pay them more money or they will not get the speeds they are already paying for. That is what Net Neutrality is stopping. How do you feel about data caps for broadband internet at the home level? Do you think it is reasonable? Do you think it serves any purpose other than getting people under their thumb? (like mobile did albeit they have little more legitimate reasoning)

Without net neutrality, access to the internet is not universal. Without net neutrality, your ISP can decide that competing services can run slower than their own. Or they can hold content providers hostage. They shouldn't have that power. They are providing a service - access to the internet at an agreed upon speed. Allowing them to mess with this will only lead to exploitation of content providers and customers (Who do you think foots the bill when Netflix has to pay Comcast for "the fast lane"?). The cost of maintaining speed is dropping as traffic goes up. The best way to move forward with the internet is to separate access to the internet from what you are accessing on the internet. There is too much bias and money involved for it not to be. This is the future you are signing up for without net neutrality. Also a video to watch: http://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/

No it doesn't. The alternative is cable television. Is that what we want for the internet? The ISP's might provide access to the internet, but the content of the internet is independent as it should be. The ISP should not get to play favorites and allow/disallow certain entertainment providers. As for the myth that other people like Azalin who are referring to customers "using too much traffic", well then these ISPs need to improve their infrastructure to serve their existing customers or shed those customers. We are talking about reducing the quality of a service because they have too many customers. In any other industry you start losing customers. There is too much lobbying going on to rely on "true" competition with these ISP's though. A standard speed needs to be set for the internet for the good of the consumer. And data caps shouldn't even be a thing. The cost of pushing this traffic has declined dramatically as the traffic has increased. Again though, this would be a completely different story if there was actual competition between these companies, but there simply isn't. Don't get me started on mobile data caps. What higher costs? We are talking about an ISP being able to say "Hey Netflix, pay me more money or we slow down your speed" vs an ISP having to provide the same speed for most services. This offers a dramatically higher variety of access to the entirety of the internet at consistent speeds. This is good for consumers, but admittedly not for Comcast's stockholders. Edit: For those that will say "well Netflix uses a ton of data, they should pay more" then ok, what happens when Netflix pays for higher speeds to the detriment of other services? Do we see how this will hinder competition and independence of the internet? Not to mention the ISP's are multimedia conglomerates who have a vested interest in the success of their content as well. Imagine it 20 years down the road. Access to the internet should be universal and separate from the content of the internet.

It isn't about maturity. It is about perception. The NFL sees an opportunity to stay out of the public perception of a drug culture. Alcohol is legal, they can't stop that, but while marijuana is illegal they have an excuse to ban it and sidestep the cultural drug issues they would have to face, including the perception of fans of the league. Made widely legal and available, there is no doubt the characters of the NFL would make fools of themselves bringing unwanted attention to things not involving football like they do with alcohol. It's all a game playing with perception and social stigmas. (Edit: There is an argument to be made that they aren't sidestepping opioids in the same manner.)

It may be on Henderson because he knew the rules, but it also means that we don't have to blame him for being an idiot and have a little compassion for what he went through. Also Goodell should take that into consideration for his suspension if changing a phone number merits consideration. "Bell knew the rules"