Justin

I recently signed up for Charter Internet and I am unable to find any information regarding whether or not Charter enforces their internet bandwidth caps. The package I have signed up for states that there is a 100GB/month cap. I have a feeling that with the amount of data that I stream through Netflix and like, I will likely go over this amount.

I understand the logic behind the caps. Charter has them to ensure that people aren't congesting their networks. Do they enforce the caps only when a user is causing this problem? Or, is this one of those new policies where they are defining how much data a person can download in a month?

I find it hard to believe Charter would be willing to sacrifice receiving payments from customers each month by cancelling them because they used their service too much if the user wasn't causing issues for the network.

I recently ordered Charter Internet. The tier I signed up for is 12Mbps for downloads. When I initially did a speed test the day service was connected, the results were at that speed. However, now when I do the test, I average between 18 and 25 Mbps download. I have even had as much as 26Mbps.

The questions I have are as follows:

Why might I be getting the faster speeds?

Can I be charged extra for the speed being faster than my advertised speed?

Is this something that happens to other people, or is this likely a mistake on Charter's part?

Please let me know. I am looking for anyone that may have had this experience themselves, or anyone with technical knowledge of the reason for the faster than advertised speed.

Thank you in advance for your expertise.

While I generally agree with objections to paying taxes, I still don't comprehend why so many people are against taxation of the richest of people. I'm not saying that government should take away all the money these people have earned. However, if they are in effect reducing the amount of money available for people to earn simply by saving it for themselves, isn't government the only group that is able to discourage this type of behavior. I guess I just don't understand where all the sympathy comes from for very wealthy people (top 1%), when they reduce the amount of money available for others to earn.

An additional note: I'm not advocating communism or socialism, so please don't just comment about those things. I'm actually thinking in regards to the notion many industrialist had about their wealth. Andrew Carnegie once wrote: 'The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.' Basically commenting on the fact that earning great amounts of money is pointless if that is the goal and not the means of do something great for the rest of society. The same reason why he gave away nearly 90 percent of his wealth.

So, my question stems from this aspect of things. If many of the rich are continuously hoarding the available money, shouldn't the government have a duty to prevent this from happening. Perhaps income tax isn't the best means of doing something about it. However, the often talked about 'death tax' seems perfectly reasonable. In fact, all of these taxes could be avoided a person with this amount of money were to simply give more of it back to society.

What I'm having trouble understanding, is if the FAIR tax was implemented, wouldn't this adversely affect the poor while saving the wealthy the most money. I'm finding it hard to believe that if everything was taxed at the same 30% rate, people under a certain threshold would be able to afford to live. Additionally, if your wealthy, it is nearly always because you spend less of your income than you earn. So, for those that spend all of there income, wouldn't this tax mean they have 30% less income to spend, thus making them poorer? If I'm looking at this the wrong way, please explain it to me. As it stands, this system seems great so long as your income exceeds your cost of living. Otherwise it would be a nightmare.

With there being so many different programs that the government uses taxes for, why are so many people against taxes. Granted, people don't get to pick which programs their money goes for. However, for the majority of people, the amount they pay in taxes probably only contributes to the programs they would like to see the government spend money on. Furthermore, in the overall scope of taxes, each program is likely to have enough supporters that if we could choose how our money was spent, each program would still be funded. So, with this in mind, why are YOU against taxes? If your tax money can be thought of as going to support a program that you benefit from, or are in favor of, then what are the reasons that you still oppose taxes.

Many people qualify for government assistance programs (i.e. Food Stamps, Childcare, Disability, etc.) If a person utilizes one of these programs legitimately, why do many people voice opposition to them doing so in a way that optimizes their quality of life. Simply put, if a person is getting 'welfare' and are making the most of it, why do many people speak as if doing so is a bad thing.

A general example of what I am discussing is situations where someone complains about a person using food benefits to buy quality food. However, in some cases, people receiving benefits live a lifestyle that is far from being a stereotypical poverty situation. When this happens, there are people that get angry about how well that person is doing for themselves.

If many of these people getting benefits are making the most of things on far less than many jobs would pay, should they be chastised for doing so? Or are many of these complaints born out of some form of jealousy toward a person having achieved so much on so little. Frankly, I don't understand how if a person is following all the rules why they shouldn't make the most of it. Most of the time these recipients have less money each month than they would if they were working. Should they instead have to live in a way that makes them look poor as well?