• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

NPR temporarily stopped it's twitter accounts in a "state-media" beef with Elon Musk

We've heard a lot about how bad social media is for children and their mental health. There are lots of articles on the subject, and some pending legislation that would put age restrictions on social media.


But Musk himself is a great example of how harmful social media is to adults. This is a very rich and successful person who has been reduced to being an online troll by his own device:
 
It's a new version of lifestyles of the rich & famous. They have no lives so they file lawsuits or send threatening emails to people.
Except lawyers don't sue people. Plaintiffs sue people.

People are driving the lawsuits, not lawyers.

People also send threatening emails and letters to people. They use lawyers to give the complaints some weight.

As far as the Elon vs. NPR debacle, he needs to let it go. He's accomplishing nothing aside from messing with the Twitter brand.
 
Except lawyers don't sue people. Plaintiffs sue people.
People are driving the lawsuits, not lawyers.
People also send threatening emails and letters to people. They use lawyers to give the complaints some weight.
I'll disagree with you somewhat on this point. While it's true that plaintiffs ultimately do need to "sign on the dotted line" to file a suit, with the way many lawyers work in modern times, plaintiffs are enticed to do so.

As I'm sure you've seen from the many advertisements for personal injury attorneys, the key phrases are "no risk to you" and "there's no fee for our services if we don't get you $$". Especially if there's a potential for a huge payout or they want to build their name by having involvement in a high-profile case, attorneys will take your case, or they'll often headhunt potential plaintiffs and they'll explain how your suit could work and tell you that, since their law firm is taking on all the risk here, they want a significant portion of any payout or settlement they get for you. If they take your case and lose or get no money, you owe them nothing and you're not out anything aside from your time. However, if they hit the jackpot and get you a payout, they want a significant portion of it, as it was they who more or less took on all the risk when taking your case, and their firm did the work involved. Even Vegas and the lotto don't come with those kinds of "so risk" terms, so many happily sign.
 
Last edited:
Except lawyers don't sue people. Plaintiffs sue people.

People are driving the lawsuits, not lawyers.

Yes I know. That's what I said. Billionaires have the endless resources to hire lawyers and file endless lawsuits.

NPR was innocently using twitter, and the billionaire twitter owner lashed out at them for no reason at all.
 
RE: high speed internet: for basic content, DSL is adequate for most of it. Cell service can provide adequate internet access for a lot of people, too. In fact, that might be how a lot of people already get their internet -- on their phone.
Is DSL in use anywhere, still, today? I thought that some existing DSL lines were being preserved until cancelled, but new ones not offered in the US.
 
Is DSL in use anywhere, still, today? I thought that some existing DSL lines were being preserved until cancelled, but new ones not offered in the US.
Sure, in areas with underground lines that are too costly to dig up and replace with fiber optic. The phone lines might be all fiber optic until the last mile before your residence, then they're copper. At least then you'll get decently fast and reliable DSL, instead of the 3 Mbps maximum and interference-prone DSL I had when the lines were poorly-maintained 50-year-old copper all the way to the central office 10 miles away. Thunderstorms would make the connection drop out frequently.
 
Sure, in areas with underground lines that are too costly to dig up and replace with fiber optic. The phone lines might be all fiber optic until the last mile before your residence, then they're copper. At least then you'll get decently fast and reliable DSL, instead of the 3 Mbps maximum and interference-prone DSL I had when the lines were poorly-maintained 50-year-old copper all the way to the central office 10 miles away. Thunderstorms would make the connection drop out frequently.
Good information. But will they install a new DSL connection, or are they just sustaining the old ones?
 
Good information. But will they install a new DSL connection, or are they just sustaining the old ones?
In markets of sufficient size and modern infrastructure, ILECs are not offering new DSL anymore. The underlying technology is obsolete (and has been for years). But what "Kev" is describing is FTTN, fiber to the node. Clean, high speed, all digital from the C.O. to neighborhood pedestal boxes (or sometimes on-pole or underground node boxes). Then the existing copper lines are patched into the node, and the signals go as analog voice and/or ADSL2 data to the individual premises. So the speeds go up, to a point, and bit error rates drop significantly. But still, you can only squeeze so much blood from a rock, and only so much throughput from thin, ancient copper lines. This is the same fundamental technology the cable MSOs (and the company I used to work for) used to create high-speed-data-over-cable in the late '90's-early '00's. Because the cable lines are shielded transmission lines and go up to a much higher top-end bandwidth, they're capable (if maintained well) of *much* greater bandwidth, and FTTN is a better technological solution with more capacity for expansion. And the cable industry has been able to milk it better than telco over the last couple of decades. Which is why the telcos are hustling to push fiber-to-the-home before the steamroller crushes them.
 
Is DSL in use anywhere, still, today? I thought that some existing DSL lines were being preserved until cancelled, but new ones not offered in the US.
Is that the service where a splitter plugs into the phone jack, and one wire goes to the phone and the other goes to the modem? That's what I have.
 
Sure, in areas with underground lines that are too costly to dig up and replace with fiber optic. The phone lines might be all fiber optic until the last mile before your residence, then they're copper. At least then you'll get decently fast and reliable DSL, instead of the 3 Mbps maximum and interference-prone DSL I had when the lines were poorly-maintained 50-year-old copper all the way to the central office 10 miles away. Thunderstorms would make the connection drop out frequently.
I have 10Mbps.

There is the option of fiber.
 
Is DSL in use anywhere, still, today? I thought that some existing DSL lines were being preserved until cancelled, but new ones not offered in the US.
Yes. A lot of areas and regions have DSL. I'm on DSL. Many of my neighbors are DSL. i think the trunk from the central switch to the neighborhood is fiber.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom