said by Ahrenl :

Capitalism also isn't the antonym of socialism.

Our communications are WAY more socialists than capitalist as it stands now anyway.

A capitalist network would be owned by no one (free market) where service providers could compete on an even playing field.

Since everyone is not allowed to build their own network (because of the government) because it would obstruct the sun and crush small children and cars in storms. (no matter how wet 10,000 fiber cables going to your house makes you, believe me, it's a bad thing.) The network owners SHOULD be forced to open their networks, and the government should set prices that allow enough cash flow to provide for the needed capex.

said by Tzale :

We live in a CAPITALISTIC society... We are not socialists.... Broadband is not supposed to be "subsidized" by the Government.

Get this through your frigging heads already. Different types of governments. There are positives and negatives to both. For some, this might be a negative of capitalism, but there are also some things under socialistic governments that fail miserably.

said by RadioDoc :

It's not about the $1.5 billion. Hell, it would take 100x that to get the same deployment in the US. The point, should you actually look at the situation, is that while we're pissing away time the rest of the world is doing what is necessary to get the job done.

Nice try to redden the discussion with the 'America-bashers' nonsense, though.

Get with the program.

said by RadioDoc :

"The South Korean government in 1995 decided to spend $1.5 billion to build a nationwide broadband network that any ISP could offer service on."

Meanwhile...

In the late 90's, our government was obsessed with a dress stain.