|
im no historian, but i also dont talk like i know everything. quote from wiki:
Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. which doesnt sound like good times. obviously when shit hits the fan, we learn, get back and improve, but it doesnt neglect the fact that times were shitty.
i think basically the nay sayers are all from places that such an idea would fail, not because of the idea but because that's cuz you have corrupt governments AND corrupt corporations who will profit short term. until most of you realize the "perfect" system is NOT a socialist state nor a free market state, but a state that can balance both ideals (aka norway). extremes are a nono.
|
On October 16 2009 05:41 Velr wrote:
I'm really shocked that there are people wo think this is a bad thing... REALLY shocked...
You're probably overestimating the number of people that actually use the internet for something productive as opposed to watching porn / playing games / watching youtube videos etc.
|
are u taling about the nay sayers, or are u giving a reason of why its a bad idea?
|
The american right wing cognitive dissonance in this thread is awesome. When the ideas you've been fed don't square up to reality, what are you supposed to do? I mean, they're the most educated, happiest, healthiest people on the planet and they have nothing else to improve on except making internet access a right, but surely you can find a twisted convoluted way to rationalize republican propaganda and keep your precious rally slogans...
Not everything is black and white, America. Sometimes socialism works - live with it. You can argue the scandinavians are a rare exception, or that they have other qualities that counteract the evils or incompetence of their government, whatever. But you can't deny simple reality: there is a place in the world where socialism works, and damn well. You guys would be a lot more convincing if you'd at least acknowledge that much.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Why is it a terrible idea?
Did you see their broadband target? They want 100 Mbit to be available EVERYWHERE. That means forcing ISPs to spend millions of dollars running 100Mbit fibers up and down the back-country of Lappi while its cities get a little choked from lack of bandwidth. It also signals the beginning of an tightly-controlled ISP industry because which ISP is going to volunteer to lay miles and miles of fiber pipes for a few sparse customers?
When the US got AT&T to wire up rural "America" with telephone lines, the federal government had to essential offer up a monopoly on the long distance market. I suppose Finland government could pay to lay the 100 MBit lines and give them to certain ISPs to service. That seems like a give away to politically-connected ISPs though.
My thoughts are perhaps the Finnish parliament will come to its senses and scale back its broadband targets and they will resort to more energy-hungry but less capital-intensive and multi-use cellular-based wireless. But even 3-G Broadband (1.5 Mbps) will still be really expensive to deploy in the wilderness and there will be some huge dead zones.
I'll just say that this is a reason not to move to Finland. The broadband availability in their cities will languish and it'll be expensive. Any improvements in speed will have to matched by deadweight investment of bandwidth in rural areas.
|
you do realise that finland is one thirtieth the size of america?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 16 2009 07:32 RoyW wrote:
you do realise that finland is one thirtieth the size of america?
It also only has 1/60 of the population....
|
Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
|
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote:
This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
I disagree. If you want to livie out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location.
I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
|
United States43902 Posts
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote:
They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
Yeah, they kinda are.
|
On October 16 2009 07:37 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 07:32 RoyW wrote:
you do realise that finland is one thirtieth the size of america? It also only has 1/60 of the population....
"Any improvements in speed will have to matched by deadweight investment of bandwidth in rural areas."
Could you provide any hypothetical figures to back up your wild anti-socialism policies? You seem idealistically invested in opposition to government provision of any facilities. I'm going to guess you oppose a free health-care service, and not to divert the topic, but opposition to that is repulsive, and from a purely fiscal viewpoint, wrong.
|
they wont be FORCING, they will be suisiding it. long term goal > short term loss. skeopticism runs deep in your argumentation wich is alrite since you come from the land of oppurunity. where theres opportunity there is opportunists, and america has a shitload of that. but dont worry other people in the world know how to build long term without messing up.
go read upon Norway and how they went from nothing to one of the strongest sound economies in the world after they build roads to those 2 people you eep refering too in the north. and thats more of costly plan and cables.
|
On October 16 2009 07:43 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote:
They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right. Yeah, they kinda are.
I am jealous.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote:
Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
The article is really misleading. The Finnish parliament is not buying broadband for everyone. It is merely mandating that broadband be available to be purchased by everyone. The perceived problem is that rural and back country Finland have provided no economic justification for investing in broadband infrastructure into those areas. Without a legal threat or some kind of subsidization, ISPs would not invest in infrastructure just so that they can offer broadband to some rural communities at a price that no one would ever want. Thus there is no broadband for money to buy in some locations.
|
On October 16 2009 07:43 Jonoman92 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote:
This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people. I disagree. If you want to livie out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location. I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
It's not 'nowhere land' it's part of the country they all share taxes with. I don't believe people who live in rural areas should pay a higher % of tax because of the added cost of providing medical assistance, policing, fire protection, road maintenance, and electricity/gas network etc etc etc.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 16 2009 07:47 uiCk wrote:
they wont be FORCING, they will be suisiding it. long term goal > short term loss. skeopticism runs deep in your argumentation wich is alrite since you come from the land of oppurunity. where theres opportunity there is opportunists, and america has a shitload of that. but dont worry other people in the world know how to build long term without messing up.
go read upon Norway and how they went from nothing to one of the strongest sound economies in the world after they build roads to those 2 people you eep refering too in the north. and thats more of costly plan and cables.
Norway has a strong economy because of Oil. That's it - open secret. It's the same reason why UAE has a strong economy. It's like how that Alaska Oil pipeline and the Siberia natural gas lines and supporting road structures were sound investments.
Norways roads were probably losers though. They had nothing to do with oil extraction in the North Sea. It's just that their offshore oil fields were such a jackpot.
|
royw , obviously, but when your educated that profit is the only buisness tool, and that anything you pay for and not use is communism, then you have a hard time educating yourself with other issues since, like religion, you already know the answer.
|
tangen, you dont get my point, (not explaining properly probably).
not everything you do has to be profit related for it to work. comes down to that i guess.
edit : also from wiki : Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to 45% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP.
yea its a big chunk, but its not all, anyways not the point.
|
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote:
Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
i will definatly take you up on that and call you closed minded.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A closed mind (or closed-minded) is someone unreceptive to new ideas or information.
so yea stop running your mouth since this is a debate, wich by nature is an exchange of ideas and information, and since yourself are not able to keep up with such tasks, i would highly recommend an education.
|
On October 16 2009 07:59 uiCk wrote:
royw , obviously, but when your educated that profit is the only buisness tool, and that anything you pay for and not use is communism, then you have a hard time educating yourself with other issues since, like religion, you already know the answer.
And with no long term/big picture view, cutting off their nose to spite their face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
