🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ho0fot$ikt$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
John Richards <JR@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
" "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ho0cho$1la$1@speranza.aioe.org...
" > Nuenen in the Netherlands has a pop den of 1742/sq mile and
" > they've all [90%] got fibre:
" > 
" > http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Nuenen.html
" > 
" > Eindhoven is next. I'm sure you God-fearing capitalists will abhor
" > the idea of a co-operative building a broadband network, but hey,
" > your loss!
" 
" Government interference through various subsidies hides the true
" cost of providing such service. It boils down to a willingness by
" everyone to pay higher taxes in order to get more cradle-to-grave
" services. Most Americans are unwilling to pay higher taxes.

Regarding the government-subsidized infrastructure model, you have an
important point.  I add to it that I'd like to separate the good tax
expenditure from the bad, but that doing so isn't readily possible
with our current political officeholders, appointees, and departments,
though I think the system could withstand a complete replacement of
all the current political officeholders, appointees and departments
and still serve us fine if those replacements were good.  Once we get
that far, the theory of whether government OUGHT to becomes more
relevant, once it is actually ABLE to: ought the government mold
and/or fund certain types of infrastructure?  The pros are many, as
well as the cons, and I'd like to see at least some consideration of
it, even if it turns out it's a bad idea to actually DO it (I'm not
saying either way; I used to be pretty anti-government when it came to
investing in and/or molding the structure of communications, but now
I'm just sort of anti-government about it).

But my point is that as it is now, putting good money to bed would be
hard; most countries end up spending too much money to achieve such
goals.  We try to chart a good course somehow among the options.