  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
1 edit | This is actually really interesting Broadband is important. if you are reading this comment, then you are a member of this site, thus have some vested interest.
What I find exceedingly interesting about this article, is that its not a government subsidized program, its being reclassified as a utility. I am not sure about everyone else on this site, but I only have one choice for my gas, electric and water companies. It would be REALLY interesting if this route was taken in the US. In all fairness though, Finland has 2% of the amount of people, and they are generally in more concentrated areas, so wiring issues and network congestion (yes, its real) isnt as much of a hurdle. The sheer volume of the US as far as geography and popluation makes the project exponentially harder.
If we did the same route in the US, it would essentially have to be backed by taxpayer dollars, but would they only let one incumbant per area? I cant ever see the government going to private companies and saying "you have to spend a lot of capital wiring an area that you have deemed not profitable (or else is would have been wired already), or upgrade your equipment to increase speeds, plus we are going to allow 4 or 5 other ISPs in there to compete?"
I am pro-consumer, but I always like to take the stance of "well, if I was ATT/Comcast/Timewarner how would this affect my company". Government force shouldnt be allowed. | |
|
 |  Vamp9190Premium
join:2002-02-11
Chantilly, VA
kudos:1 | Re: This is actually really interesting *Sigh*
I always loved Finland. Reindeer, cross-country skiing, fjords, hot blondes in snowshoes, all that.
I wonder how much a flat in Helsinki costs.... | |
|
| |  RockCakePremium
join:2005-07-12
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: This is actually really interesting said by Vamp9190:*Sigh* I always loved Finland. Reindeer, cross-country skiing, fjords, hot blondes in snowshoes, all that. I wonder how much a flat in Helsinki costs.... Hot tubs, don't forget hot tubs!  | |
|
| | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: This is actually really interesting said by RockCake:said by Vamp9190:*Sigh* I always loved Finland. Reindeer, cross-country skiing, fjords, hot blondes in snowshoes, all that. I wonder how much a flat in Helsinki costs.... Hot tubs, don't forget hot tubs! And don't forget higher suicide rates due to all those dark winter days.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: This is actually really interesting said by Linklist:And don't forget higher suicide rates due to all those dark winter days. I love the cold winter. Everything is dead and abiotic. Darkness is good on my eyes too. | |
|
| | | |  birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:8 | said by Linklist:And don't forget higher suicide rates due to all those dark winter days. Not sure what makes Greenland different from Finland. Summer seems to be the suicide peak there (spike, actually). »neurocritic.blogspot.com/2009/05···est.html
One comment in that link says it could be different, since suicide rates before and after the 70s is more significant than seasonal variations. Something to do with mandatory settlements for Inuits.
From »herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514256042/html/ (emphasis added) quote:
The seasonal variation of suicides is a well-documented phenomenon in the medical literature. In the late 1880s, Durkheim (1970) found that the incidence of suicide was at its highest during spring or early summer and at its lowest during winter. This finding has been confirmed in numerous subsequent studies both from Northern (see for example, Kevan 1980, Massing & Angermeyer 1985, Chew & McCleary 1995, Altamura et al. 1999) and Southern Hemisphere countries (see, for example, Parker & Walter 1982, Flisher et al. 1997).
Modern studies are looking into the seasonal variation of suicides and homicides. The Finnish website linked above goes into very academic detail. The abstract on the first page should be sufficient reading for most. | |
|
| | | |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| said by Linklist:said by RockCake:said by Vamp9190:*Sigh* I always loved Finland. Reindeer, cross-country skiing, fjords, hot blondes in snowshoes, all that. I wonder how much a flat in Helsinki costs.... Hot tubs, don't forget hot tubs! And don't forget higher suicide rates due to all those dark winter days. AND really don't forget the 49% tax burden!
Of course with you working 2 or more jobs to pay for the 350 Sq ft studio apt. and putting a decent meal on the table every week or 2, you'll hardly have time for the internet stuff, IF you can afford the "reasonable price" (this is only right of access, not free) after you pay your heating bill. | |
|
| | | | |
2 edits | Re: This is actually really interesting said by tshirt: AND really don't forget the 49% tax burden! My source says the average real tax in Finland is 46%. And, they have an extremely low level of wealth disparity compared to the US, whose real tax averages 40%.
The Gini-index part is interesting. The US has more in common with Mexico and China in terms of wealth disparity, which are both near 45. Canada is with all the other WASPie nations like Finland, Belgium, Germany.
And just a 6% real tax difference? Seems like we're getting shortchanged. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: This is actually really interesting Yep.
USA is only better for high-income individuals; for anyone with average-or-below, nordic socialist nations are a far better choice. | |
|
| | | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | The EU counsel puts Finland at TOTAL taxation 48.8% of GDP, and the comparitive measure for the US around 29.6 (2009 numbers for both) A long way apart.
However if you think you'll be better off there, feel free to move. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: This is actually really interesting said by tshirt: The EU counsel puts Finland at TOTAL taxation 48.8% of GDP, and the comparitive measure for the US around 29.6 (2009 numbers for both) A long way apart. I thought you were talking about what an individual would pay.
I think everyone knows we pay a lot more than 29.6% tax when income, sales, property and sin taxes are added together. It's only by adding corporate and capital gains taxes (with all the loopholes) that it goes back down to 29.6%. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  M A R SPremium
join:2001-06-15
Long Island
·Optimum Online
| Re: This is actually really interesting said by amigo_boy:said by tshirt: The EU counsel puts Finland at TOTAL taxation 48.8% of GDP, and the comparitive measure for the US around 29.6 (2009 numbers for both) A long way apart. I thought you were talking about what an individual would pay. I think everyone knows we pay a lot more than 29.6% tax when income, sales, property and sin taxes are added together. It's only by adding corporate and capital gains taxes (with all the loopholes) that it goes back down to 29.6%. interesting, does any one have a link to what some like me on Long Island pays? I bet in the end its much more than 29.6%
--
Democrats Have Guns Too.. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: This is actually really interesting said by M A R S: does any one have a link to what some like me on Long Island pays? I bet in the end its much more than 29.6% I haven't seen anything broken down by state.
It's difficult to measure, and especially apply cross-culturally. For example, earlier in this thread "pnh" pointed out how ISPs pay a tax to cities for their use of easements and rights of way. That tax is passed on to the ISPs' customers.
So, if a country like Finland doesn't do that (instead paying for the administration of easements from the general fund), their tax rate looks higher than ours.
Same with healthcare. You pay for your private insurance premiums through a paycheck deduction (and co-pay at time of visit, and deductables each year). If a country like Finland has single-payer healthcare insurance coming out of the general fund, you can't really compare their total (real) tax rate without considering what we pay which isn't a precisely a tax.
It's not as clear as it might seem. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Where did I say I think I would be better off?
Reading comprehension...? | |
|
| | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by Vamp9190:*Sigh* I always loved Finland. Reindeer, cross-country skiing, fjords, hot blondes in snowshoes, all that. I wonder how much a flat in Helsinki costs.... I think the blonde's are actually Swedish | |
|
| | |
approval from:
Linklist 
| Re: This is actually really interesting Plenty of blonds in all Nordic countries.
Good luck finding fjords in Finland, though. | |
|
| |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | said by Vamp9190:*Sigh* I always loved Finland. Reindeer, cross-country skiing, fjords, hot blondes in snowshoes, all that. I wonder how much a flat in Helsinki costs.... let me know ill go half with you | |
|
| | | said by baineschile:It would be REALLY interesting if this route was taken in the US. In all fairness though, Finland has 2% of the amount of people, and they are generally in more concentrated areas, so wiring issues and network congestion (yes, its real) isnt as much of a hurdle. The sheer volume of the US as far as geography and popluation makes the project exponentially harder. If we did the same route in the US, it would essentially have to be backed by taxpayer dollars, but would they only let one incumbant per area? Finland is the most sparsely populated country in the European Union. Your FUD is pathetic. This plan will provide broadband to nearly everyone in the country, not just those in the more densely populated portions in the south. The fact their economy is orders of magnitudes smaller than ours makes it even *more difficult* for them to conduct such a massive project.
And we don't even have a project to wire up our densely populated cities and suburbs, let alone the East Coast of the US.
quote:
I cant ever see the government going to private companies and saying "you have to spend a lot of capital wiring an area that you have deemed not profitable (or else is would have been wired already), or upgrade your equipment to increase speeds, plus we are going to allow 4 or 5 other ISPs in there to compete?"
Or maybe they'll do exactly what Australia's government and Google are planning to do? Build out an open infrastructure and let numerous ISPs compete over the services provided using that infrastructure. *GASP* did I just crack open your false dichotomy? Oh I'm sorry.
quote:
I am pro-consumer, but I always like to take the stance of "well, if I was ATT/Comcast/Timewarner how would this affect my company". Government force shouldnt be allowed.
You are most definitely not pro-consumer. For as long as I've been on this site, the majority of your views have been anti-consumer, pro-corporation, and completely unjustifiable when taking logic into account.
Government force is used to prevent mobs from taking pitchforks to the ISPs they hate. It's used to force people to let ISPs use "rights of ways" to lay their lines, to use public utility poles, to use public spectrum. The very idea that government force shouldn't be used to provide people with a service in an industry that is already massively subsidized by the government is bizarre and utterly disingenuous. | |
|
| | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
3 edits | Re: This is actually really interesting said by sonicmerlin:Finland is the most sparsely populated country in the European Union. Your FUD is pathetic. This plan will provide broadband to nearly everyone in the country, not just those in the more densely populated portions in the south. The fact their economy is orders of magnitudes smaller than ours makes it even *more difficult* for them to conduct such a massive project. Finland has 5.2 million people. Over a million live in the Helsinki area (about 20 square miles). Thats about 20% of the population. Can you name a city in the US that has 20% of the population?
Now, Finland is a reasonable large landmass, which accounts for your view of it being "sparsely" populated. But, population, for the most part, is concentric there.
The most sparsely populated state is Alaska, but 80% of the population live in the Juneau or Anchorage area. It just happens to be a very large state otherwise.
As for as your Australia/Google arguement, guess how that is being funded....you got it, taxpayer dollar! Some of it is subsidized by Google, but they get advertising rights along all pipes. I think its a great idea, but did you really think that neither doing it for the dollar. You cower behind government regulation, and call it consumer protection, but they are in the for the money just as any private corporation would be. It may not be ideal, but I dont stray from the truth for the sake of arguement.
Last I looked, the incumbants pay PEG and regulatory fees to the state and federal level, not the other way around. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: This is actually really interesting quote:
Finland has 5.2 million people. Over a million live in the Helsinki area (about 20 square miles). Thats about 20% of the population. Can you name a city in the US that has 20% of the population?
What the *heck* are you talking about? Who in their right mind uses percentage of population as a metric of economic feasibility? What kind of stupid FUD is this?
quote:
Now, Finland is a reasonable large landmass, which accounts for your view of it being "sparsely" populated. But, population, for the most part, is concentric there.
The government's plan is to provide EVERYONE with 100 mbps by 2015. That requires fiber to every single household, regardless of where they live.
As for the "concentric" of people, the 1 million+ live in the Greater Helsinki Area, not the metropolitan area itself. The density of population in that area is still far less than most US states, and if you look at just the metropolitan area most major US cities have much higher population densities. So basically you're full of it.
quote:
Last I looked, the incumbants pay PEG and regulatory fees to the state and federal level, not the other way around.
How much money do you think ISPs would have to pay if they had to negotiate settlement fees with every landowner to use their property for line placement? That alone is an incredible subsidy. What about the government's enforcement of public spectrum allocation? Do you think wireless companies could by itself prevent people from illegally interfering in their licensed airwaves?
In addition, numerous states have outright bans on the buildout of municipal networks, while numerous others have extremely difficult to overcome regulatory hurdles. You don't think this provides ISPs with monetary advantages? | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: This is actually really interesting You should stop using the term FUD in your posts as you've reached too far to apply the term in both your posts making you look silly.
Just because you don't agree with his post doesn't mean it's FUD. | |
|
| | | | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | You havent addressed the most important questions I allured to though. Do you have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water? | |
|
| | | | |  zitch
join:2002-07-08
Lafayette, LA | Re: This is actually really interesting How can you make it possible to have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water? Or are you suggesting we should just have multiple pipes/electrical lines running everywhere just so people have "choice"?
There's a good reason these are considered utilities and are run by regulated monopolies in an area. But we only have a physical limitation when it comes to broadband access. It is very possible to have multiple ISPs serve a neighborhood, even if there's only one physical line going to each house.
Let's put it this way: Do you have a choice of who builds and maintains the roads to your home? At the same time, are you limited to which company you can purchase vehicles to drive on this road?
Basically, treat the physical lines to each home as a utility; either the municipality or a regulated monopoly company will build and maintain these lines. Heck, treat the whole system as a giant local network, if you must. Then let users pick whatever company to be their "gateway" to the Internet. You monopolize the physical aspects of broadband access out of necessity, yet still allow consumer choice and fair competition for internet access. This is not possible to do with the current utilites (electricity, water, and gas). | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: This is actually really interesting said by zitch:Basically, treat the physical lines to each home as a utility; either the municipality or a regulated monopoly company will build and maintain these lines. Heck, treat the whole system as a giant local network, if you must. Then let users pick whatever company to be their "gateway" to the Internet. I agree. We need a different model, where the "last mile" of infrastructure is treated like water, sewer, gas, electric. A city service, taxpayer-subsidized co-op, private company (like most gas and electric companies). Any of which governed by the state's corporation commission as a public utility to regulate expenses and rates.
Residents could then interconnect to a multitude of competing ISPs offering anything from bare-bones connectivity to teevee and telephone.
That still doesn't address how wireless service providers should be better regulated to operate in the public interest. They obtain a monopoly on finite public resources (airwaves). There's no way to demarcate access to that public resource like a city's "last mile." I think wireless providers should be treated as a public utility. | |
|
| | | | | |  Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | primary carrier in an area but power/gas being charged by a second company. My electrical bill does NOT go to the provider in the area, so yes this is possible without having tons of lines going everywhere. | |
|
| | | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by baineschile:You havent addressed the most important questions I allured to though. Do you have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water? Many PA residents now have a choice in electricity and natural gas suppliers (but not the owner of the utility wires or gas lines) and there is always bottled water. | |
|
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by baineschile:Finland has 5.2 million people. Over a million live in the Helsinki area (about 20 square miles). Thats about 20% of the population. Can you name a city in the US that has 20% of the population? yeah but the article didn't say only 20% will get 100 Mbps by 2015 it said 100%.
Rhode Island has over 1000 people per sq mile compared to Finland's 40. So why doesn't Rhode Island have 100 Mbps? why doesn't RI have 100% broadband availlability? Finland by the way is only slightly smaller than Montana. There are 38 states with higher population densities than Finland. | |
|
| | | | birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:8 | Re: This is actually really interesting There are still a few places in RI where some form of broadband is not readily available. FiOS isn't everywhere, DSL coverage is limited by distance, but cable goes most places. Granted, we don't have ubiquitous 100Mbps, but it's safe to say most people in RI can get broadband. Not counting satellite as broadband. | |
|
| | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: This is actually really interesting said by birdfeedr:There are still a few places in RI where some form of broadband is not readily available. FiOS isn't everywhere, DSL coverage is limited by distance, but cable goes most places. Granted, we don't have ubiquitous 100Mbps, but it's safe to say most people in RI can get broadband. Not counting satellite as broadband.
Why not? it meets the 1Mbps download requirement. | |
|
| | | | | | birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:8 | Re: This is actually really interesting said by tshirt:said by birdfeedr:Not counting satellite as broadband. Why not? it meets the 1Mbps download requirement. Broadband definition is very loose with no real consensus in industry or government as to what is or isn't broadband. It's still a moving target depending on who's talking.
Cost and technical limitations put satellite internet into the category of last ditch methods. There's a reason it isn't more widely adopted.
That said, a friend of mine on Block Island can't get any of the more common providers, and it appears his only option is satellite. Too far for DSL, his house has bad cell phone reception, and the Block Island cable company relinquished its license to operate (a couple of years ago I think), and I don't think they ever expanded beyond 40 channels of SD or into HSI.
Not counting satellite as broadband is a subjective opinion mostly based on the least feasible method I'd use.
So I should modify my statement. It's safe to say most people in RI can get non-satellite broadband. | |
|
| | | | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: This is actually really interesting I was speaking of finland, where the population in the northern 40 % is under 7 per Sq mi.
This law only guaruntees 1 Mbps ACCESS/availability by 2015, doesn't say it needs to be low latentcy or cheap. (if you live 50 klicks for "1000 miles from nowhere" (Northing finland qualifies) AND you insist on your right of access, then satellites costs /latentcies/ and outages are reasonable. ) | |
|
| | |  Frankis chillingPremium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere | said by baineschile:said by sonicmerlin:Finland is the most sparsely populated country in the European Union. Your FUD is pathetic. This plan will provide broadband to nearly everyone in the country, not just those in the more densely populated portions in the south. The fact their economy is orders of magnitudes smaller than ours makes it even *more difficult* for them to conduct such a massive project. Finland has 5.2 million people. Over a million live in the Helsinki area (about 20 square miles). Thats about 20% of the population. Can you name a city in the US that has 20% of the population? Now, Finland is a reasonable large landmass, which accounts for your view of it being "sparsely" populated. But, population, for the most part, is concentric there. The most sparsely populated state is Alaska, but 80% of the population live in the Juneau or Anchorage area. It just happens to be a very large state otherwise. As for as your Australia/Google arguement, guess how that is being funded....you got it, taxpayer dollar! Some of it is subsidized by Google, but they get advertising rights along all pipes. I think its a great idea, but did you really think that neither doing it for the dollar. You cower behind government regulation, and call it consumer protection, but they are in the for the money just as any private corporation would be. It may not be ideal, but I dont stray from the truth for the sake of arguement. Last I looked, the incumbants pay PEG and regulatory fees to the state and federal level, not the other way around. the united states has a higher population density than finland so your point is invalid.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by baineschile:but would they only let one incumbant per area? I cant ever see the government going to private companies and saying "you have to spend a lot of capital wiring an area that you have deemed not profitable (or else is would have been wired already) It can be done through a regulated monopoly, guaranteeing profits. Think Ma Bell all over again. | |
|
| | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: This is actually really interesting Would you have a regulateed monopoly over choice? | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: This is actually really interesting I've never stated that. I've only suggested regulated monopolies when requests for governments to enter marketplaces have come up potentially at the expense of taxpayers. I will say that for the relatively small population in the US that doesn't have access to any service, that something needs to be done. | |
|
| | |
approval from:
amigo_boy
| A more realistic question, given the state of the american market would be
"Would you rather have regulated monopoly or largely unregulated duopoly"
and it isn't clear that regulated monopoly would be worse. We would prefer, in an ideal world, to have robust competition with many choices, but wishing doesn't mean it is likely to ever be an american reality.
And no, there is no reason to believe that "getting the government out of it" is going to get us there either. That is a romantic dream with little supporting empirical evidence. | |
|
 hello123454Delaware FIOSPremium
join:2002-02-02
Wilmington, DE
kudos:1 | Interesting 100 Mbps service by 2015 is pretty impressive. I mean it's comparing apples to oranges looking at what the US has and this smaller country..but look at what West Virginia is supposed to get out of the Verizon deal by 2015...
I have FiOS and i'm sure it will be a lot faster in 5 years but it definitely won't be a 'right' to have it. | |
|
|
See 41 replies to this post |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
4 edits | We could do that... ...if we weren't $13.1 trillion in the hole, going to $20 trillion in just a few years along $109 trillion in unfunded liabilities all growing with no end in sight.
Evidently Finland doesn't get it either as their pub and private debt and spending also spiral out of control, increasing nearly 100% in just 4 years. Debt at 47% of GDP and climbing, GDP growth -7%...spending even MORE money they don't have...priceless. Evidently massive taxation isn't a cure for a horrible spending problem.
So sure, BB for all, followed by insolvency or hyperinflation...awesome.
EDIT - CORRECTED their spending increase percentage
--
"Our goal (was to make) a billion phones Flash-enabled by 2010...We're actually going to get 1 billion Flash-enabled phones by 2009." -Adobe Chief Technology Officer Kevin Lynch in Nov 2008. | |
|
| | | Re: We could do that... At least they'll be able to download the news that their country is failing at a blistering 100mbps. | |
|
|
2 edits | said by Z80A:...if we weren't $13.1 trillion in the hole, going to $20 trillion in just a few years along $109 trillion in unfunded liabilities all growing with no end in sight. Evidently Finland doesn't get it either as their pub and private debt and spending also spiral out of control, increasing 1000% in just 5 years. Debt at 47% of GDP and climbing, GDP growth -7%...spending even MORE money they don't have...priceless. Evidently massive taxation isn't a cure for a horrible spending problem. So sure, BB for all, followed by insolvency or hyperinflation...awesome. You do realize we're in the middle of a recession, right? The vast majority of able EU countries are spending to get themselves out of the recession. The recent G20 summit was focused on striking the right balance between debt minimization and stimulus spending. Not to mention the majority of US debt is owed to US citizens, not abroad. Your characterization of national spending habits is purposely misleading and ignorant.
Furthermore, if the government builds out the infrastructure it can be repaid over the course of its lifetime, and then supplement the government with profit. This is much better than giving money to giant, immobile corporations who do nothing but leech money from the economy while doing the bare minimum. | |
|
| | | Um... It would be to your benefit to learn how to read graphs. The data for 2003-2005 is from... wait for it... 1993. I bet 10-year predictions are 100% accurate, so your claim of this 1000% increase in 5 years must be solid. | |
|
| | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
1 edit | Re: We could do that... You're absolutely right.
Their debt nearly DOUBLED in just 4 years. Their horrid outlook is still exactly the same. GDP in the red and still spending like drunken sailors. | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·ViaTalk
·Vonage
1 edit | i dont understand First people complain about ATT, then they complain about not having universal broadband. If there was such a thing, the money would go right into incumbents hands. Its kinda strange how those hating corporate america the most end up enabling it. See the new finance bill, healthcare bill, bailouts, and new stimulus. | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
 KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | If we cut the damn military budget If we stop spending our money on useless submarines and f22s, we could do this in the USA. | |
|
| | | Re: If we cut the damn military budget but they have to build them... Its to protect the children. | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | This idea of everything government being terrible is laughable and it shows by the sheer number of things that people use on a daily basis THROUGH the government
With that said, I am 100% on the side of those who prefer the government staying OUT of most of our daily lives.
But christ almighty, there are standards and ideas they can set which will not kill the country or whatever over-reaching exaggeration some cry about | |
|
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN | Do it yourself You know everyone waits on the government or a large corporation to do things these days. I've voiced my opinion in the past, but I'll say it again. Homeowners can work together to improve their own infrastructure. Problem is the telcos own a lot of it already. Single family homes are plagued with that. The homeowners that CAN make a difference are those in MDU environments (condos, hi-rises, etc).
It took me 3 months to plan and execute an overhaul for my hi-rise. We went from 2mbps/512kbps per user (former ISP owned the infrastructure in the building) to up to 100mbps/100mbps per user (shared connection, no rate limiting). We obviously had to invest our own money, but it was money in our reserves so there was no out of pocket expense. Fact is it got done. The actual trunk size of the connection was 10mbps before (over copper) , now it's 100mbps (over fiber).
My point is that this sort of thing can be done anywhere. It takes an initiative and money. And no, we don't pay an insane amount of money for the 100mbps service. It's $40/mo per user. The building still makes a profit to recover the original investment in under 2 years. No caps, no ports blocked, no downtime, no congestion. And this is in the US. | |
|
| chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC | Re: Do it yourself Well done, how many units are in that building since that can't be a cheap pipe from the ISP. Is it metro ether connection? | |
|
| | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Do it yourself 150+ units, but only around 100 are actually subscribed.
Metro E over fiber. $30/mbps and the equipment (Cisco router + switches) is managed by an outside IT firm (for a small fee per month). Which is nice because it's monitored for any downtime/packet loss/etc.
Most of the time I can hit 80-95mbps. | |
|
| | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC | Re: Do it yourself Very nice price, so the building is basically getting all of this for around $40 per user per month? That my friend is a wonderful deal, kudos on getting it setup. | |
|
DaveO
join:2001-09-05
Easley, SC | Government Fiber With Private ISPs We need to do something major here in the USA before we're so far behind the rest of the developed world in Internet service that it becomes a drag on economic growth.
What I would do is have all state governments build fiber optic(FTTH) to every home and business. The governments would partner with multiple privately-owned ISPs to provide many different Internet service plans to customers. The ISPs would compete in a free market. The government provides the "last mile" infrastructure so no company has a monopoly on service. | |
|
| | Inane "the Finnish government has declared that broadband is now a legal right for every citizen."
What morons -- when a society runs out of serious things to worry about, it declares hi-speed internet a national "right" for everyone. What's next, hybrid cars? Bus tickets? Low fat milk? | |
|
| | | Re: Inane said by DufiefData:"the Finnish government has declared that broadband is now a legal right for every citizen." What morons -- when a society runs out of serious things to worry about, it declares hi-speed internet a national "right" for everyone. What's next, hybrid cars? Bus tickets? Low fat milk? Clean air? Non-polluting energy production? | |
|
| | | | Re: Inane Western countries already have the cleanest air around. If you can figure out a way to generate energy without emissions, be my guest... | |
|
| | | | | Re: Inane Solar? Wind power? | |
|
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by sonicmerlin:said by DufiefData:"the Finnish government has declared that broadband is now a legal right for every citizen." What morons -- when a society runs out of serious things to worry about, it declares hi-speed internet a national "right" for everyone. What's next, hybrid cars? Bus tickets? Low fat milk? Clean air? Non-polluting energy production? What "non-polluting" energy production will provide 700 GW of electric power, 24x7? (Minimum requirement before you factor in electrifying Home Heating, vehicular transport, and heavy industrial applications.) | |
|
| | | Why not? Obviously Finland and its socialist approach has figured out all the "serious things" already (health care, for instance), so why not make things better for the citizens?
Not everyone has to live under the tyranny of corporations. I think your snide remark just shows you're jealous. | |
|
| | hum.... Very interesting that Finland is making it mandatory for everyone to have internet. I for one support the idea and envy them for it. As most of you bicker back and forth about whats right or wrong, laws, money, ILEC/CLEC providers and ISP's. I can tell you this, I live 12 miles away from a decent sized town. The only ISP I can get is either satellite or a mom and pop ILEC phone company who is stuck in 1995 and wont up grade their network. They want to charge me 90$/mo for 1M/128k DSL. The satellite companies arent much better. I would love the idea of having more than just one ILEC ISP or one Satellite ISP to choose from. So many people take their 20Mbps internet service for granted. I would 100% support my government to set up a large network. | |
|
| | | Re: hum.... Out of curiosity. Which government would you support setting it up city/town, county, state, or federal? And the other question is would you be willing to pay for a bond, some tax, something else, or not at all? | |
|
| | | | Re: hum.... I'd say Federal, or at least State. Economies of scale improve cost efficiency.
As to tax; sure I'm willing to pay some extra tax for it. It has to be paid for somehow, and getting this done inevitably improves the US long-term competitiveness in the global market. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Federal and State as was done with the National Defense (Interstate) Highway System. When its size is considered there is not a better highway system in the world. | |
|
| | | | To be honest, I would support all of my governments, city, state and federal. And YES I would pay a tax for it. It would be ridicules for me to want something and not pay for it. Again the bickering back and forth between most Americans is whats causing the problem. Everyone wants everything and they don't want to pay for it. Take a long look at a service member after a 6 month or 1 year deployment and you SHOULD see that it is being paid for. Maybe not directly from your or out of your paycheck but it is. And I believe that since I gave my time to serve my country it would be nice to be able to have the things that everyone else takes for granted. | |
|
1 edit | Sure Maybe after their done "fixing" the Gulf, the government can fix broadband. Who wants to sign up for that plan?
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. XM | |
|
| chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC | Re: Sure Don't forget, this entire gulf mess was caused by a corporation without proper government oversight and so far letting the company that caused it try to fix it has also made things worse so that means private industry is at least as bad as the big bad federal government. | |
|
| | Legal right? Never gonna happen with ACTA. | |
|
| | library? had another thought on this. in areas that dont have broadband at their house do most have a local library with access? while its not as convenient isnt it still there? i remember using the computers when i was younger and still had dial up. what about places like star bucks who offering free wifi does the store get a t1 connection or something? | |
|
| | | Re: library? Um no.....We have 1 store, 1 restaurant and 1 stop sign. There isn't a library to go to. The closest one is like I said 12 miles away. Would you want to drive 12 miles one way to check your email? I think not much less the 1/8 of a tank of gas to drive there and back. And for those of you who think I should just get a vehicle with better gas mileage, well you wouldn't say that if you seen my road or driveway. Put it this way during the spring rains and winter snow/ice. I have to use 4 wheel drive just to get out and go to work. All that to just check my email?.?. yeah right! | |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Pass I think I prefer having a constitution that sets forth the rights endowed on us by our creator. Rights bestowed by government officials aren't really rights, and governments that think they have the power to bestow rights often believe they have the power to un-bestow others. | |
|
|
|
