Should The Government Fix Slow Internet Access? (fivethirtyeight.com) 315
An anonymous reader quotes a story from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight site about "the worst internet in America":
FiveThirtyEight analyzed every county's broadband usage using data from researchers at the University of Iowa and Arizona State University and found that Saguache, Colorado was at the bottom. Only 5.6 percent of adults were estimated to have broadband... It has some of the worst internet in the country. That's in part because of the mountains and the isolation they bring... Its population of 6,300 is spread across 3,169 square miles 7,800 feet above sea level, but on land that is mostly flat, so you can almost see the full scope of two mountain ranges as you drive the county's highway...
But Saguache isn't alone in lacking broadband. According to the Federal Communications Commission, 39 percent of rural Americans -- 23 million people -- don't have access. In Pew surveys, those who live in rural areas were about twice as likely not to use the internet as urban or suburban Americans.
In Saguache County download speeds of 12 Mbps (with an upload speed of 2 Mbps) cost $90 a month, and the article points out that when it comes to providing broadband, "small companies and cooperatives are going it more or less alone, without much help yet from the federal government." But that raises an inevitable question. Should the federal government be subsidizing rural internet access?
But Saguache isn't alone in lacking broadband. According to the Federal Communications Commission, 39 percent of rural Americans -- 23 million people -- don't have access. In Pew surveys, those who live in rural areas were about twice as likely not to use the internet as urban or suburban Americans.
In Saguache County download speeds of 12 Mbps (with an upload speed of 2 Mbps) cost $90 a month, and the article points out that when it comes to providing broadband, "small companies and cooperatives are going it more or less alone, without much help yet from the federal government." But that raises an inevitable question. Should the federal government be subsidizing rural internet access?
universal service fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Before Clinton converted it in to a "laptops for schools" program, the Universal Service Fund was used to fund telephone lines in rural America where the cost was too high. It worked: telephones became ubiquitous. The Universal Service Fund should be restored to its original purpose with the simple tweak: fund the initial builds for broadband Internet access in rural America.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Then, when every provider has to negotiate individually with every property owner where they need to install a pole or dig a trench, things will be great? And then when one stubborn owner in a critical location refuses to allow lines across their property, an entire neighborhood will be denied any sort of internet access at all. And it'll be even better when small providers can't even begin to cover the costs of even the smallest rollout due to all the rent-seeking property owners who are now dema
Re: (Score:3)
Right. Then, when every provider has to negotiate individually with every property owner where they need to install a pole or dig a trench, things will be great?/p>
YES! I really can not believe how far people's minds have gone into promoting authoritarianism!
If I own property it is MY property, and Telecom/broadband companies can't just take what they want because Government. I truly hope that you people claiming they should were not out bashing Trump for trying to take a woman's property for a parking structure, because that would make you a hypocrite.
And then when one stubborn owner in a critical location refuses to allow lines across their property, an entire neighborhood will be denied any sort of internet access at all.
We have already reserved massive amounts of land for public use. Roads, and in most cases everything 10' on either
Re: (Score:2)
Get the government the hell out of the internet.
Somebody's never heard of the 70/30 rule.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it's worked so well in India, right?
=Smidge=
Re:universal service fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: universal service fund (Score:2)
No, phones were not always seen that way. They were privately funded for many years.
No... (Score:5, Insightful)
They should fine the shit out of the telcos who took billions in subsidies to provide broadband to the nation and then reneged on their end of the deal.
Re:No... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do not only fine them, also cut their tax breaks and everything else that's money-related.
Re: (Score:3)
Do not only fine them, also cut their tax breaks and everything else that's money-related.
More importantly, don't only fine the telcos, take back the money! They gave that money to executives in the form of bonuses! Those are stolen assets, the law permits recovering them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a much, much better idea instead of allowing them to bribe the government with a fine that's going to be the equivelant of a slap on the wrist.
We charge the executive staff with embezzelment and put them in jail for 20 or 30 years.
That way, they can never do it again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isolation (Score:2, Informative)
So, those people who decided to live way the heck out in the middle of nowhere to get away from civilization need internet access? Why?
It would probably be cheaper to find the ones who actually want high-speed internet and give them money to move.
It's hilarious to see these "the US has a lot of people who don't get 10 megabit internet, when compared to other countries," while noticing that the countries they compare us to generally don't have a lot of wide open spaces to cover. There's a whole lot of countr
Re:Isolation (Score:4, Interesting)
So, those people who decided to live way the heck out in the middle of nowhere to get away from civilization need electricity? Why?
So, those people who decided to live way the heck out in the middle of nowhere to get away from civilization need telephones? Why?
while noticing that the countries they compare us to generally don't have a lot of wide open spaces to cover.
Then why not compare the other countries to sections of the US where the population distribution looks similar?
Overlay South Korea on any chunk of the US that has a similar population, why doesn't that area have the speeds SK does? If you toss Germany on top of the Midwest you have similar mix of rural and urban areas, why don't those areas have broadband options that Germany does?
Re: (Score:3)
South Korea has 51 million people in 38,000 square miles. In the U.S., that density is only achieved with gerrymandering the east coast.
By way of comparison, California has 39 million people in 163,000 square miles.
New York State has 19.7 million people in 54,000 square miles.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Romania? or Poland? because Im paying ~$20 for 250Mbit and my friends from Romania $15 for 1Gbit.
Asshole of EU has better internet than people living in Manhattan.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is the East Bloc countries all had primitive telephone networks until the fall of communism, and cheap and fast data connections are mostly the result of a telecommunications networks re-built from the ground up post-communism.
Re: (Score:2)
South Korea is roughly the size of Indiana. And, while the population density does vary, it's much denser than most anyplace in the U.S. On top of that, any provider there only has to deal with one set of (much simpler) laws/regulations, unlike trying to cable up any state in the U.S., where you have federal, state (varying), and local (also varying) rules to deal with. S.Korea simply put, is an orange, to the U.S. apple. FWIW, I spent six years there.
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention...
Want to know how we got cable to the four homes I lived in? Some guy would come over an climb a pole, and toss coax across the roofs to your home. No messy business of marking & digging up the neighbors lawns. You call the place, and they showed up the next day to throw the wires. It was quite an eyesore, but quick, cheap and effective. We wouldn't put up with wires everywhere like that, nor the lack of (over)regulation.
THEY chose - but their children didn't (Score:2)
The case in favour of the tax payer providing adequate internet coverage is the same as that of providing education; the next generation should be adequately provided for to ensure they can be part of their society. The fact that the US is making a pig's ear of providing adequate schooling is a reminder that this is an optimistic ideal, but it's worth engaging with.
Re:Isolation (Score:4, Insightful)
As noted in the article, the problem isn't "have internet," but "have cheap and fast internet." Having a handful of people, spread across a large area, does a lot to make cost-effectiveness an issue.
People way out in the boonies often DON'T have grid electricity - they either use generators or do without, because running a single power line out to a single house twenty miles from anyone is not cost effective. Solar power is also an option. Organizations like the World Bank say that 100% of Americans have electricity, but they really mean "almost 100%."
Even if those people DO want internet, they can get it, often through satellite services. Basically, the only thing preventing someone out in the middle of nowhere from having reasonably good internet is wanting it - or wanting to pay for it.
Many people don't. Really. Yes, even in cities.
A lot of people in remote areas have phone internet, by the way - and those broadband surveys usually don't count that, even though good cell phone connections have pretty fast speeds (I get 50 megabits on my phone in most big cities).
10 GB/mo is still slow (Score:2)
Satellite and cellular often don't count because 10 GB per month is still a slow sustained connection, even if it does happen to be burstable to 10 Mbps or more. It's too slow, for example, to support three PCs in a household automatically downloading a feature update for Windows 10 in the month of its release.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, the only thing preventing someone out in the middle of nowhere from having reasonably good internet is wanting it - or wanting to pay for it.
You clearly are not familiar with the scope of the problem.
A lot of people in remote areas have phone internet, by the way - and those broadband surveys usually don't count that, even though good cell phone connections have pretty fast speeds (I get 50 megabits on my phone in most big cities).
I live on a paved road which is a loop. People at both ends of the road can get both DSL and cable. I can get neither. My best option is a WISP which charges $99/mo for 90GB at 6/1. The cable company was given an exclusive right of way, but they weren't even required to bring cable to... well, anywhere really. They got to put it wherever they want. That is bullshit. When a cable company or telco gets exclusivity they should be required to cover ever
Re:Isolation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isolation (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a fundamental need (despite what city folk think would happen to their lives if they were without net access for more than an hour).
I disagree. The internet should be considered a basic need.
It enables communication and participation in civil and political discourse, and facilitates the spread of ideas. And in a society where some have it and some don't the have-nots are missing out on a principle means of participating in government.
It is also fast becoming the principle means of consuming government services, and accessing government documents. Making inquiries, filing documents, etc.
Further, it facilitates economic development, by providing an avenue for commerce -- from connecting people with jobs, to being able to source goods and services.
Finally, it betters social welfare though the availability of information -- from being able to use it to figure out if that spider that just bit you was a brown recluse or a wolf spider. From being able to read up on troubleshooting your furnace, or a tear down guide for your laptop, to how to grow tomatoes, or gut a fish, research a solar installation. etc...
Government should absolutely be treating internet access like a public utility, and striving to make it available to everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
>free porn
>basic need
Nice try.
re: clean water
vibrator rinsing
basic need
"Nice try"
re: electricity
vibrator charging
basic need
"Nice try"
I mean sure, nobody is going to dispute the internet has a lot of uses that are irrelevant to democracy, to economic development, etc. Some of those uses are even destructive or criminal. So what? clean water can even be used to drown puppies...I'm not sure that supports any serious argument against it being a public benefit that the government should be involved with providing.
Re: (Score:3)
However, at base, the government shouldn't have an interest in providing internet access to citizens. It's not a fundamental need (despite what city folk think would happen to their lives if they were without net access for more than an hour).
Where my mother grew up doesn't have running water, much less hot and cold water nor a phone line. It has electricity but I'm sure if you could ask her parents or grandparents they'd say electricity wasn't a fundamental need either. The concept evolves, I'd say any place without internet access lacks fundamental needs in the 21st century. Fortunately there's very few places you got absolutely no mobile/radio/satellite link. Is broadband a fundamental need? Eh, I think that's a much more questionable concept
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the US but in the UK they are trying to move over all of the reporting that farmers have to do to the Internet. I listen to a podcast about farming there and they have interviews every now and again about it. Sometimes people where there's a deadline a farmer will go into the village coffee shop to do their work on their Internet because the Internet on the farm is too slow.
It's not a fundamental need for them to be checking Twitter or Facebook but the government has made it fundamental f
Re:Isolation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not more "difficult" to construct and deploy utilities than in those other places.
It does make it either non-profitable and/or incredibly expensive, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps telephone poles - but then, there's a lot more involved in pulling very, VERY long runs from a CO.
We paid the telcos to do this. Remember Pacific Bell? They promised that all subscribers would have DSL access by 2000. How did that pan out? Instead of pulling some new fiber, AT&T would rather patch the same old shit copper eternally. It can't possibly be cheaper, but that's how they do business.
Re: More lies from lying cock (Score:2, Interesting)
Makes construction and deployment of utiities rather difficult!
No, it doesn't. My city-owned electric utility built a fiber network in a few years, at an affordable cost, and everyone in the service area can have high-speed internet at an affordable price. Wasn't hard at all.
Unfortunately, too many state Legislators are preventing city governments from doing that same thing across the land. They don't give the local community a choice,but impose it from afar.
See, your problem, LynnwoodRooster, is that you think we're all stupid, and have no ability to recognize the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: More lies from lying cock (Score:3)
When I moved here, I paid for a new CO and upgraded lines, so that I could get DSL. The phone company installed it without charging me for labor and a neighbor paid for an extra mile of new lines. This wired up all but one house, and they don't want Internet. It can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
When I moved here, I paid for a new CO and upgraded lines, so that I could get DSL.
You paid for a new central office? Most of us don't want to pay multiple millions of dollars for a building full of telco switches and batteries so that we can have internet access. Perhaps you are misusing terminology?
Re: (Score:2)
What do borders have to do with anything? Even in US cities internet access is often terrible... clearly it's not just about size or density, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
You are spot on. The biggest country in Western Europe is France, and it falls between the size of California and Texas. Most people simply haven't a clue of the scale of the United States of America,
Hi, I'm Australian, Australia is roughly the size of the continental US and has a much lower population density. We had a workable plan to fibre up most of the country and provide fixed wireless (LTE Advanced) to most rural areas with satalite covering the rest. The requirement was for 12 MBit and the technology could have delivered it.
Australia called this, the National Broadband Network.
So you know nothing of scale and nothing about how it isn't a hindrance.
So what happened to Australia's NBN whi
Re: (Score:2)
If you take EU as a whole the area is greater than USA and the overall connectivity is better. Rural area, blah, blah, Saguache, blah, blah, let's cherry pick like you Sweden [wikipedia.org], lower population density than USA, high percentage of rural population, far far far better connectivity.
The truth is USA really sucks at providing services to everyone (except for jails, I concede that usa is the best): education, health, even water (WTF!), internet, ...
Area of the EU is 1.7 million square miles [wikipedia.org]. Area of the contiguous US (lower 48) is 3.1 million square miles [wikipedia.org]. The EU is about half the size of the lower 48 - and has 2.3 times more people. Meaning the density of the EU is about 5 times that of the US. If we factored in Hawaii and Alaska, then it skews close to 7 times the density...
Yeah, Sweden. However, in Sweden 22% of the population live in two cities; nearly 33% of the population lives in just 10 cities. Conversely, the US has just 8% of its pop
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, those people who decided to live way the heck out in the middle of nowhere to get away from civilization need internet access? Why? It would probably be cheaper to find the ones who actually want high-speed internet and give them money to move.
I'll bite. I'm a senior software engineer working out of Research Triangle Park - North Carolina. I live about 40 miles from RTP in a "rural" community. Its a neighborhood with multiple large acre lots (5 - 25 acres each). Its about the same time to commute every day as those who live in nearby suburbs (540 towards Falls of Neuse / Apex / etc.) - big difference - I don't have to deal with traffic. All of us CHOSE to live out here to enjoy the lifestyle it offers. Bit more travel time to run to the gro
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't require isolation to have poor internet choices. I live 20 miles from the state capitol of California and my only choice is satellite with a 10 GB/month cap or a funky 1 Mb/sec wireless connection that is unreliable. No DSL, no cable available in the area.
The problem is I live in an area that isn't high density housing. It requires more cable between the homes for a possible customer so the internet providers don't want to touch the area.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, if you go back to a time when they spelled the letter "s" with an "f", sure, you can win that argument. I'm just thinking how hard it all was when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth!
Dinosaurs (Score:2, Funny)
The dinosaurs lacked high-speed access to the internet too, you insensitive clod . . . and now they're extinct! Coincidence? I think not.
This is a true progressive conundrum (Score:3, Insightful)
On one hand, they want the government to force their favorite solutions to every problem they can imagine (real or otherwise) down everyone's throats whether the solution actually works or not, or fits individual preferences or not (human differences are to be confined to skin color and what you do with your genitalia; everything else must be plus-plus same). On the other hand, they want everyone (with the exception of people running small, organic farms) to lived in highly-planned (by them), densely-populated urban areas.
If somebody wants to live out in the sticks, that's their business. Living out in the sticks generally means lower land prices, but most other things are more expensive because you're further away. Let people figure out their own trade-offs.
Re: (Score:2)
Living out in the sticks generally means lower land prices, but most other things are more expensive because you're further away. Let people figure out their own trade-offs.
Fine by me, as long as it goes both ways. California has "great weather"? Enjoy it, but keep your hands off our water then.
Re: (Score:2)
California has "great weather"? Enjoy it, but keep your hands off our water then.
They already are.
Arizona built an aqueduct to the Colorado river that is upstream of California's aqueduct. Arizona takes so much water that California can't take much. As a result, virtually all of California's water comes from Northern California.
Arizona would also like to thank you for blaming California while they build another dozen golf courses near Phoenix.
Knock down barriers to access (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Cable companies started in densely populated rural areas. One of the first places to have cable was Mahanoy City, PA. While it was indeed small (about .5 Sq mi) and rural, it had a population of about 11000. That is the ideal situation for a small company to come in and wire. The place referenced in TFA has an area 6000 times as large, but only 1/3 the population. No small company is going to be able to afford to wire that.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does everyone in the US think the solution is to string more cable? Just make the existing companies lease out the last mile of the infrastructure to third parties at a small profit. A whole bunch of companies digging up the streets and yards is going to messy and the cities don't want that. Canada has shown that third party ISPs can exist with this model and deliver services that are less expensive than the existing companies. I haven't been with either the telco or cable company in at least 17 years e
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the FEDERAL government, certainly. States can enact policies supported by their individual populations however.
People aren't MANDATED to live in rural areas.
If they do, one of the 'sacrifices' they have to make is shitty internet service.
I'm reminded of the bullshit limousine liberals who moved out to western Montana for the low prices, splendid vistas, lack of congestion, and privacy...and then bitched the first winter because the power occasionally went out and nobody came to clear the snow from their 2 mile driveways.
Life's a series of tradeoffs. It's not the federal government's role to build safety nets for people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you even got modded to +3, but your lack of knowledge and history is truly breathtaking to behold. No Interstate Highway System! Yay! What? It's a "Safety Net"?
The irony in you accusing others of lack of knowledge and(of?) history is hilarious!
The US Interstate Highway System was first and foremost, and remains to this day, a military logistics infrastructure project to be able to more quickly & efficiently move troops and materiel to help mitigate the logistics/transportation problems being such a large nation poses. It's estimated probable commercial/industrial private sector economic benefits during peacetime were also a factor in deciding to go ahead, but
NOPE! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "slow" internet in the USA, is BECAUSE OF THE SPREAD OUT NATURE of the United States.
This is a spectacularly stupid thing to say when even people in big cities in the USA have crap internet access, and it sounds even stupider when we're the nation that invented the goddamned thing. Make America Great Again? Let's make it great once, first.
Municipal fiber (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that the cities that can't make the buses run on time or fix the potholes are really going to be able to run an ISP properly?
Re: (Score:3)
Municipal broadband systems already exist. Their customers report higher satisfaction with their ISP than people served by private companies. So yes, cities can run broadband networks just fine.
They can also fill potholes just fine if you don't attempt to starve them via tax cuts.
federal government already did, $400 Billion (Score:2)
http://newnetworks.com/ShortSC... [newnetworks.com]
http://newnetworks.com/bookofb... [newnetworks.com]
FiveThirtyEight ? (Score:2)
FiveThirtyEight - where internet polls = scientific studies. Nope. The question itself is retarded. These problems are because of government.
define slow. (Score:2)
Every week I get call from peopple that think you can run a household with 15 devices off of 50 meg internet. They all say wow I didn't know that everyone is streaming 4k videos on everything it would slow down. We beat out our only competitor in the area and the max I've seen is 15 meg down 512k up. It will take regulation and subsidies that only pass money to small operators to bring the average speed up in this country. It won't happen by giving it to Comcast or any of the other large ISP.
This is what the Post Office should have done (Score:2)
At one time, there was a proposal that postal service would ensure every citizen in the USA would receive permanent free-for-life email address at @usps.us or whatever domain would make sense.
Was a good idea.....free very basic level email (no frills)...the modern equivalent of the original postal service goal of ensuring a minimum ability for people to communicate within the country.
Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo should have been focusing on enhanced premium email services just like FedEx and UPS do for over
Re: (Score:3)
Need some not that expensive meds on a regular basis to stay alive....government shouldn't absorb the entire cost, but it should give a good discount so that 60% of population wouldn't be spending very much at all.
Congratulations on your good health and youth. I hope you don't find out how easy it is to suddenly need expensive meds. Especially as that youth part goes away.
Tried, wasted hundreds of billions, and failed (Score:2)
Seriously, we already tried federal funding of broadband expansion. All it did was fill the pockets of telecoms; the problem still exists. Why would you expect another attempt to do particularly better? Because Trump's people will do it right?
If you're going to do anything, don't even consider the supply side at all. Set up a program on the demand side where sufficiently-rural addresses can apply for subsidies toward Internet access. That'll make fundraising for the OneWeb and SpaceX constellations eas
Idiotic (Score:2)
Yes (e-Commerce) (Score:2)
If you want to get it done any time soon (Score:2)
The government might as well do it because private industry isn't going to as long as they can milk the existing infrastructure.
So far most of the money the government has given them to expand infrastructure has been gobbled up by contract loopholes rather than laying cables.
By fix do you mean.... (Score:2)
If you mean should the gov't subsidize companies to provide you with faster internet service......then in that case no, not only no, but go fuck a running Weed Wacker no.
Re:Nine most terrifying words... (Score:5, Informative)
The US government has been paying for nothing for years.
Verizon Knows You're A Sucker: Takes Taxpayer Subsidies For Broadband, Doesn't Deliver, Lobbies To Drop Requirements [techdirt.com]
Shocker: Billions In Broadband Subsidies Wasted As Government Turns Blind Eye To Fraud [techdirt.com]
Wired to fail [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that shows the government should get out of this, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you may be misusing Betteridge's Law a little For instance, if I publish an article with the head line "Should convicted murderers be punished?", the rather skimpy logic you apply to the problem would suggest "No, they should not." The "law" in question is a bit of ironic observation, and is not meant to be an absolute rule, like say, the inverse square law in physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just take that seriously?
Crossing non-subscribers' land (Score:2)
Government regulation allows those permits to have effect in the first place. Without government regulation, any non-subscriber can use trespassing and destruction of property laws to prevent an ISP from pulling cable or fiber across his land to reach subscribers on the other side.
Re: Crossing non-subscribers' land (Score:2)
The government is responsible for carrot and stick action to tell the network providers where and how to build.
If a provider get a tax write-off for rural investments and a tax hike if they lack rural presence then the government is serving the fringe population.
Re: (Score:2)
If the HOA contract is written anything like the Director's Rules in Seattle, it probably takes 60 percent of property owners to approve construction, where abstention counts as a no vote, as does a property being vacant.
Re: (Score:3)
Insightful? Seriously? Those who want a completely deregulation are ignorance. Those who want more regulations are also ignorance.
No one should completely trust any private companies to do the right thing all the time. If you do, I have a bridge to sell you because those companies are there to make money. If they can find a way to gain more profits, some of them (if not most) will do whether it is the right thing to do. That's why regulations are there in attempt to block them from doing so.
Too many regulat
Re: (Score:2)
My mother who is living on only Social Security ($12k/yr before they make deductions!) has had numerous trips to the ER, several falls, two stent operations, etc. So, basically you're full of shit.
Non-expansion states; repeal bills in Congress (Score:2)
You're really poor (and assets no longer are counted in "poor", only income). Your answer is Medicaid.
This depends on whether your state's legislature has decided to expand Medicaid. Republican states have tended on the whole to opt out as part of the general GOP philosophy to provide fewer public services.
Your income is below 400% of FPL (i.e., about $100K for a family of four). Your answer is to get insurance on the exchanges and get a government subsidy to help with premiums.
Republicans in Congress are attempting to repeal exactly this.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans in Congress are attempting to repeal exactly this.
No they aren't. 6 months in with Republicans controlling the House, Senate, and Whitehouse, yet nothing has happened. If they really wanted it, it would have been done 5 months ago. If they really wanted it, after all the bitching they've done since ACA came about, they would have had a bill drafted and ready to go as soon as Trump was sworn in.
What they are doing is making a big show of it so they can go home and say "See! We are trying to do what you asked, but XXX is the real problem.". It's all theater
Re: (Score:2)
(6) You think that someone else should provide your healthcare at no cost to you.
6 is great. It's called national health care (example, the UK's NHS) and it's not exactly at no cost when you consider national insurance/tax, plus think of all that money that could go toward actual health care for those that need it rather than get gobbled up by insurance companies and padding bottom lines. Of course if you think that those without money are worthless then you can go a fuck yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
the govt still uses Windows because the agents at the IRS have to make excuses for the hold time they put you on because...they use slow computers which are connected to their slow Internet / Intranet.
They don't have to make any excuses to anyone. Nobody holds them accountable because they're the government. It's like that in nearly every government run office I've been to, and I've been to plenty here in the DC area, along with working in/around the military for the last 40 years. It's simple, bureaucratic sloth.
Free Speech Matters A Lot (Score:4, Insightful)
In a country where you die from illness if you're not rich, Internet should not be your priority.
Incorrect. Internet as a critical means of Free Speech is how you communicate the inefficiencies and corruptions of your society to the rest of it. Having a hearable voice to speak truth to power, and reveal injustice, is much more important than focusing on optimizing your healthcare within the existing inefficient/corrupt system.
Free Speech is the beginning of fixing the bigger problems. The Internet should be about Free Speech.
Re: Free Speech Matters A Lot (Score:3)
This is quite possibly the dumbest comment I've ever read on Slashdot, even by ACs. Free speech has nothing to do with Internet access and therefore has nothing to do with this conversation. For the record the concept of Free speech simply means the government cannot act to silence you. It doesn't mean you have sort of right to be able to communicate with everyone all the time and someone else (like tax payers) need to subsidize this for you. Grow up.
Outsourcing censorship through exclusive licensing (Score:2)
For the record the concept of Free speech simply means the government cannot act to silence you.
Not even by exclusively licensing radio frequency spectrum to carriers who would silence you?
Re: Not going to happen (Score:2)
I'm not rich and I've never died from an illness.
Re: (Score:2)
neither did every non-rich person that died from an illness.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry bud. You have been modded troll for actually saying what is probably the first thought for most non-Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
It's rather unfortunate that no-Americans would believe this because it's simply not factual. I have first hand experience with it in my own family.
Re: (Score:2)
That explains why so many people immigrate here to die.
Re: (Score:2)
In a country where you die from illness if you're not rich, Internet should not be your priority.
Canada then huh? Because that does happen here. Happens in the UK too, and in many other countries with socialized medicine because healthcare is rationed and in some cases it's rationed so badly that ambulances are turned away from hospitals because the ER shutdown due to funding shortages. If you want to see the wait times for Ontario, you can click here [gov.on.ca] then search by various areas. Seeing half a year for cancer treatment to start, or 200 days for a double bypass isn't uncommon for example.
Let's be r
Re: (Score:3)
CenturyLink is full of shit right now. They are backpedaling very VERY hard. I always go and do screen caps like that from time to time to show the shit service they offer in my neighborhood. One day, the site shows gigabit internet, so I went and signed up (thinking it was a fluke), and sure enough, they went and signed me up and I've been on it over a year!! (I'll save the rant for how unstable it has been for another time), but since then, I've gone back to check what offerings they have for my house and
Re: (Score:2)
server-prohibition ISPs
To what extent is this actually enforced in the United States?
Re: (Score:2)
It's enforced in several ways.
First, they use various technical means to make it difficult, but not impossible, to host a server. Such as setting up a firewall that blocks inbound connections (AT&T & Charter do this. Time Warner does in some areas but not all). That firewall has holes as needed for a few protocols (the classic example being FTP's data channel). If you know about those holes, you can use those holes to host a server on a non-standard port because they are using relatively dumb fi
Re: (Score:2)
I asked because I was recently discussing Discord bot hosting with someone who didn't believe me that home server bans were being enforced anywhere. Where can I find instances of "Enough to matter"?
Re: Yes (Score:2)
If I had modpoints! You are too reasonable for these murica-first/total-comunism slashtards. You describe a model that works pretty well where I live. 10mbit is the minimum available for everyone at a reasonable price (40-50 USD/mo).
Re: (Score:2)
Stop spamming. It's ironic your ad-blocking software can't block your spam adverts, but your competitors' can. You're doing their work for them!