🚀 go-pugleaf

On 3/16/2010 2:19 PM, John Navas wrote:
> F.C.C. Says Adoption of New Broadband Plan Is Vital
>
  [snippy]

John has finally found his niche - regurgitating old news.

Jonz

In article <hnousq$4b1$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Jonz <no.one@ishome.com> 
wrote:

> On 3/16/2010 2:19 PM, John Navas wrote:
> > F.C.C. Says Adoption of New Broadband Plan Is Vital
> >
>   [snippy]
> 
> John has finally found his niche - regurgitating old news.

Some years ago.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On Mar 16, 3:57 pm, Jonz <no....@ishome.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2010 2:19 PM, John Navas wrote:> F.C.C. Says Adoption of New Broadband Plan Is Vital
>
>   [snippy]
>
> John has finally found his niche - regurgitating old news.
>
> Jonz



I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for it.  Serves
me, more or less. Far more informative than the spam on this group.

Cheers,
Steve

On 17/03/2010 14:43, seaweedsl wrote:
> On Mar 16, 3:57 pm, Jonz<no....@ishome.com>  wrote:
>> On 3/16/2010 2:19 PM, John Navas wrote:>  F.C.C. Says Adoption of New Broadband Plan Is Vital
>>
>>    [snippy]
>>
>> John has finally found his niche - regurgitating old news.
>>
>> Jonz
>
>
>
> I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for it.  Serves
> me, more or less. Far more informative than the spam on this group.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
This from M.J.Copps applies to a lot of countries and not just the US.
"But an increase of technology does not by itself guarantee a more 
informed citizenry. A 2009 study indicates that, as a country, we now 
consume in excess of 1.3 trillion hours of media per year. Yet the 
production and distribution of essential news and information content 
has never been more in doubt. The same hyper-speculation and 
consolidation that wreaked such havoc on so much of our economy began 
early with media, and the destruction was compounded by the almost 
complete dismantlement of public interest oversight of our broadcast 
stations, decimating news, newsrooms and news media. A new Pew Research 
Center report shows a 50 per cent decline in network news reporting
and editing capacity since the 1980s and a 30 per cent drop for 
newspapers since 2000. The pink slips that have replaced pay stubs for 
so many thousands of beat journalists and the evaporating state of 
watchdog journalism have left us, to be frank, on a starvation diet when 
it comes to nourishing our democratic dialogue. A serving of America�s 
daily news and information is about 500 calories short of
a healthy meal. Opinion should feed on facts, not on more opinion�and 
right now, neither our traditional nor our new media is supplying the 
nourishment we need to maintain the health of the body politic. If we 
don�t tread carefully we will have a society with plenty of fat-filled 
chatter but not enough of the protein of facts, terabytes of opinion but 
an empty cup of investigatory journalism to tell us what�s really going 
on, information aplenty about celebrities and weather but a famine of 
real local, national and international news. And this is not just about 
the future�it�s about the present,too."
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296889A1.pdf>

"US broadband seeks ISP speed stickers"
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/17/national_broadband_plan_one/>

On 18/03/2010 06:13, John Higdon wrote:
> In article
> <7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
>   Roy<aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org>  wrote:
>
>> Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing
>> multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no
>> wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.
>
> That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? I
> live in San Jose. What are my choices? 6Mb Sonic? 6Mb Speakeasy? (Cuz I
> live near the CO, I can get these; others aren't so fortunate.) Whoopee.
> If I didn't live exactly where I do, there are wireless business
> services I could get (but not here). And none of these are cheap.
>
> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous
> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.
>
If you wish to check for wireless licences and spectrum allocation the 
FCC have produced a "Spectrum Dashboard" which is in "beta" development.
"http://reboot.fcc.gov/reform/systems/spectrum-dashboard"

DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

>Croatia - 21,829 sq. miles - 4.492 million
>Serbia -  34,116 sq. miles - 7.350 million
>Czech  -  49,007 sq. miles - 10.427 million
>USA - 3,537,441 sq. miles - 281.421 million


The USA is also far richer than any of those other countries.

On 3/17/2010 5:34 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> seaweedsl<seaweedsteve@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for it.  Serves
>> me, more or less. Far more informative than the spam on this group.
>
> This is true, especially since the FCC's plan is back in the news as of a
> couple days ago.  For a country that brags about being first in everything,
> we're actually behind Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic in Internet
> infrastructure.
>

Last time I checked they were somewhat smaller and much more densly 
populated countries.

And they don't have the interesting issues of extensive urban sprawl 
where lots of folks decided they didn't want to have neighbors so they 
moved "out to the country" building homes on widely spaced lots. I 
really have no interest in paying for their lifestyle. If broadband 
costs an extra $50/month because of the costs to service such properties 
they need to pay for it.

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote in
news:higgy-72F5F2.19580717032010@news.announcetech.com: 

> In article
> <Xns9D3EC322CDCE6thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>, 
>  DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
> 
>> I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than
>> all three of those countries combined.
> 
> So, are you saying that the US has more people than it can
> handle? By that logic, we should have shortages of
> everything. Funny that we used to lead the world in quality
> and quantity of telephone service *per capita*. 

No, I'm not saying that, at all.


> Now, to justify our miserably inferior broadband
> availability (and on a per-capita basis, it IS worse than
> most third-world countries), you compare our infrastructure
> on an absolute basis with some of the poorest nations on
> earth. 

The three nations I mentioned, was only because someone else 
named them.

Also, they are not some of the poorest nations on Earth..GDP-
wise anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_
(nominal)

Serbia does show as the lowest of the 3 I mentioned, but even 
that is at a > 50 percentile......meaning more than half the 
countries of the world are considered 'poorer'.

Additionally, the 'absolute' comparison was nothing more than 
a comment made agaisnt the original comment.....

"......we're actually behind Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech 
Republic in Internet infrastructure."

Which is not detailed either. How are we behind ? What exactly 
does that statement mean ? (Both rhetorical.)
 

>> If 'your' country was smaller than West Virginia (Croatia)
>> it shouldn't be hard to have nearly everything covered by 
>> broadband. Hell, I deployed a wireless network that
>> covered nearly half the state of Iowa in 6 months (1/2 =
>> 23,138 sq. miles).
> 
> So what's up with the rest of the country? What's our
> problem?

Money. If there is no money to be made, no one does anything.

Doesn't everything come down to money ? (Rhetorical.)

In article 
<7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
 Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

> 20% of the South Korean population lives in Seoul and most people in 
> live in high rise apartment buildings.
> 
> Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing 
> multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no 
> wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.

Amen!  

You really have to see these tall, dense apartment blocks, running for 
mile after mile all through the country, to appreciate the population 
densities involved.

In article <higgy-4B9801.23133217032010@news.announcetech.com>,
 John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:

> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous 
> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.

Sorry, it's absolutely nothing like the densities in South Korea and 
similar places.

On 3/18/2010 8:44 AM, AES wrote:
> In article<higgy-4B9801.23133217032010@news.announcetech.com>,
>   John Higdon<higgy@kome.com>  wrote:
>
>> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous
>> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.
>
> Sorry, it's absolutely nothing like the densities in South Korea and
> similar places.


Seoul has a density of 44,000 people per square mile, San Jose is less 
than 6,000.  San Francisco is less than 7,000.  NYC is around 27,000.

In article <bPidncrTJ7axezzWnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
 Bob <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> 
> While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be 
> allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and 
> capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they should be 
> allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the fibre.

There are two sides to this problem:  Situations where companies (or 
other organizations) own dark fiber but aren't willing to lease it, but 
also situations where dark fiber is available for lease but prospective 
users aren't willing to lease, even for backhaul purposes.

We have a neighborhood where AT&T could install Uverse with some local 
trenching, then lease currently dark fiber owned by a municipal system 
to complete the connection to their central facility several miles away.

Sorry, says AT&T -- we won't go into any situation where we don't _own_ 
the entire fiber setup, all the way from the customer to our central 
facility.

Hmmm -- wonder why that's their policy?

On 18/03/2010 15:53, AES wrote:
> In article<bPidncrTJ7axezzWnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
>   Bob<bob@invalid.invalid>  wrote:
>
>>
>> While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be
>> allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and
>> capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they should be
>> allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the fibre.
>
> There are two sides to this problem:  Situations where companies (or
> other organizations) own dark fiber but aren't willing to lease it, but
> also situations where dark fiber is available for lease but prospective
> users aren't willing to lease, even for backhaul purposes.
>
> We have a neighborhood where AT&T could install Uverse with some local
> trenching, then lease currently dark fiber owned by a municipal system
> to complete the connection to their central facility several miles away.
>
> Sorry, says AT&T -- we won't go into any situation where we don't _own_
> the entire fiber setup, all the way from the customer to our central
> facility.
>
> Hmmm -- wonder why that's their policy?
"III. Even if the Checklist Permitted the Commission To Require Access 
to Dark Fiber or Line Sharing, It Would Not Be in the Public Interest To 
Do So.
AT&T also explained in its initial comments that, even if the Commission 
could read the competitive checklist to require access to dark fiber or 
line sharing, it should not do so. Mandatory unbundling provides a 
powerful disincentive for competitive LECs to invest in and
deploy their own facilities, thereby undermining the goal of the Act to 
�encourage the innovation and investment that come from facilities-based 
competition.�
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020396197>

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:13:32 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com>
wrote:

>That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*?

There are also isolated areas in the middle of cities where there's no
broadband.  They're easy to find.  Just look on the rooftops for
HughesNet or Wild Blue satellite dishes.  For example, right next to
UCSC, which has excellent connectivity, is the community of Cave Gulch
with about 40 residences straddling Empire Grade.  The fiber for AT&T
goes up Empire grade.  Comcast cable/fiber stops at the University.
So, there's no DSL and no cable.  I know of several other communities
with similar isolated areas of no broadband[1].  My guess is that the
numbers are not huge, but still significant.  Oddly, as the FCC keeps
waving the mantra of connectivity to RURAL areas, none of these
qualify as genuinely rural, and will therefore be served last.

It's most likely going to follow the model of rural electrification in
the 1950's.  The government subsidized the power companies to provide
power to unprofitable rural areas.  I expect the broadband plan to
degenerate into much the same thing.  Whether that will provide more
or better service is debatable, but it will certainly add some taxes
to the existing services, that can be either stolen or redirected,
such as the FCC's Universal Service Fund, E-Rate, and 911 PSAP
funding.

[1] My favorite irony is that some of the major fiber runs in SCZ
County go through farm areas, or along the coast, that have no
broadband service.  The DWDM fiber bundle goes right through these
areas (because Caltrans won't allow cable runs on the freeways).
<http://noc.ucsc.edu/CCBC/UCSC-CENIC%2011-13-08.pdf>
<http://noc.ucsc.edu/CCBC/att-map.html>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

<On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:29:44 -0700, Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

>Density is the difference.  Its easy to justify running fiber when the 
>line supports multiple households.

Tell that to those farmers that are leasing the right of way to AT&T
and Comcast, but can't get DSL or cable.  See map at:
<http://noc.ucsc.edu/CCBC/att-map.html>
Some of the fiber run in the Moss Landing area has no DSL service. The
part that does has it via UCSC/UCMB which lease some of the fiber.
Same problem between Santa Cruz and Davenport.  AT&T and Comcast fiber
go right by numerous homes and farms, but no service.   Running the
fiber and providing RT (remote terminal) pedestals are quite
different.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

"John Higdon" <higgy@kome.com> wrote in message news:higgy-4B9801.23133217032010@news.announcetech.com...
> That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? I 
> live in San Jose. What are my choices? 6Mb Sonic? 6Mb Speakeasy? (Cuz I 
> live near the CO, I can get these; others aren't so fortunate.) Whoopee. 
> If I didn't live exactly where I do, there are wireless business 
> services I could get (but not here). And none of these are cheap.
> 
> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous 
> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.

Even San Jose has nowhere near the population density of Seoul.

-- 
John Richards

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:52:39 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>"US broadband seeks ISP speed stickers"
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/17/national_broadband_plan_one/>

Federally managed SLA's (Service Level Agreements) for consumers?  

I can't wait for the tin foil hat crowd to suggest that they add a
warning label to the sticker.  "Exposure to RF might be hazardous to
your health".  Bring on the ammendments.  It probably won't happen,
but if it does, you probably won't recognize the final version.

Hmmm... they forgot about latency, MOS score, and suitability for
VoIP.  Yet, that's the justification for switching the Universal
Service Fund from POTS service to data service.

-- 
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com               jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com               AE6KS

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:20:02 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>"FCC Broadband Speed Tests Should Also Support Enforcement"
><http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/191430/fcc_broadband_speed_tests_should_also_support_enforcement.html>

A non-speeding ticket for surfing too slow?

Actually, that poses an interesting problem.  If the consumer doesn't
get their FCC mandated minimum allowable performance because of some
kind of upstream failure, can the consumers ISP pass the fines on to
the upstream providers?



-- 
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com               jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com               AE6KS

In article 
<5-ednQSdIMLp0T_WnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
 Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

> On 3/18/2010 8:44 AM, AES wrote:
> > In article<higgy-4B9801.23133217032010@news.announcetech.com>,
> >   John Higdon<higgy@kome.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous
> >> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.
> >
> > Sorry, it's absolutely nothing like the densities in South Korea and
> > similar places.
> 
> 
> Seoul has a density of 44,000 people per square mile, San Jose is less 
> than 6,000.  San Francisco is less than 7,000.  NYC is around 27,000.

So the "capitol of Silicon Valley", ground zero for high-tech, can't 
support anything resembling decent Internet connectivity? That's really 
rich! The prices we pay for such laughable connectivity are truly 
amazing.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article <Xns9D3F63E056CF3thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>,
 DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> Money. If there is no money to be made, no one does anything.
> 
> Doesn't everything come down to money ? (Rhetorical.)

I'm still not getting this. We pay many times what people in countries 
with *real* Internet service for laughably bad Internet service. Where 
is the hidden money coming from and going to?

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote in
news:higgy-420251.00031719032010@news.announcetech.com: 

> In article
> <Xns9D3F63E056CF3thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>, 
>  DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
> 
>> Money. If there is no money to be made, no one does
>> anything. 
>> 
>> Doesn't everything come down to money ? (Rhetorical.)
> 
> I'm still not getting this. We pay many times what people
> in countries with *real* Internet service for laughably bad
> Internet service. Where is the hidden money coming from and
> going to? 

'Real' internet service ?

Yeah, the 10 mbps d/l speeds I get aren't any better than 56k 
dial-up.

In article <Xns9D404E5D5B49Ethisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>,
 DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote in
> news:higgy-420251.00031719032010@news.announcetech.com: 
> 
> > In article
> > <Xns9D3F63E056CF3thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>, 
> >  DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
> > 
> >> Money. If there is no money to be made, no one does
> >> anything. 
> >> 
> >> Doesn't everything come down to money ? (Rhetorical.)
> > 
> > I'm still not getting this. We pay many times what people
> > in countries with *real* Internet service for laughably bad
> > Internet service. Where is the hidden money coming from and
> > going to? 
> 
> 'Real' internet service ?
> 
> Yeah, the 10 mbps d/l speeds I get aren't any better than 56k 
> dial-up.

Sure, and 20 years ago 9600 baud was considered good. So what? New 
technologies, like streaming IPTV, require more bandwidth. I sincerely 
doubt John's comments were a personal dig at your service (I'd love 
10Mbps; I'm still at a nominal 7Mbps).

Steve

-- 
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

In article <Xns9D404E5D5B49Ethisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>,
 DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> Yeah, the 10 mbps d/l speeds I get aren't any better than 56k 
> dial-up.

Where on earth do you get 10mbps speeds? But yes, it does pale compared 
to the 100 mbps that my friends in Japan get...and pay less for it.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 18/03/10 15:53, Roy wrote:


> Seoul has a density of 44,000 people per square mile, San Jose is less
> than 6,000. San Francisco is less than 7,000. NYC is around 27,000.

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!

-- 
  <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
  17:13:24 up 43 days, 17:17,  3 users,  load average: 0.05, 0.16, 0.12
  It is better to have been wasted and then sober
  than to never have been wasted at all

In article <ho0cho$1la$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
 alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 18/03/10 15:53, Roy wrote:
> 
> 
> > Seoul has a density of 44,000 people per square mile, San Jose is less
> > than 6,000. San Francisco is less than 7,000. NYC is around 27,000.
> 
> 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!

Iceland is very well connected. I never knew that Iceland was a highly 
dense country.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

"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.

-- 
John Richards

In article <ho0fot$ikt$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 "John Richards" <JR@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

We have too much of the Internet in this country handled by huge 
corporations that are also content providers. They have a vested 
interest in keeping consumer Internet access crippled. After all, they 
don't want people streaming in program material from competing content 
providers over *their* wires, as David Whitaker, former CEO of SBC put 
it.

It may be that "government interference" may be the only way we get 
anything at all at any kind of affordable price to the user. I'm not 
putting a lot of faith in Comcast or AT&T.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 3/19/2010 10:52 AM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<ho0cho$1la$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>   alexd<troffasky@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 18/03/10 15:53, Roy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Seoul has a density of 44,000 people per square mile, San Jose is less
>>> than 6,000. San Francisco is less than 7,000. NYC is around 27,000.
>>
>> 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!
>
> Iceland is very well connected. I never knew that Iceland was a highly
> dense country.
>

60% of the population lives in one city which occupies 300 square miles 
(think 30 by 10 miles).

The country is basically bankrupt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis

On 3/19/2010 10:33 AM, alexd wrote:
> On 18/03/10 15:53, Roy wrote:
>
>
>> Seoul has a density of 44,000 people per square mile, San Jose is less
>> than 6,000. San Francisco is less than 7,000. NYC is around 27,000.
>
> 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!
>

If you like cooperatives, start one.  Anyone can become a CLEC and start 
digging up the streets.  Nothing prevents this.

Just don't use any tax dollars.

On 3/19/2010 11:28 AM, John Richards 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.
>

People always seem to want the government to provide some great benefit 
as long as someone else pays for it.

In article 
<99udnUXbAcHPWz7WnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
 Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

> 60% of the population lives in one city which occupies 300 square miles 
> (think 30 by 10 miles).
> 
> The country is basically bankrupt

But they DO have Internet, unlike us.

And it isn't just speed. All of my telephone service is self-provided 
VOIP, with IAX trunks to firms all over the country. With some notable 
(expensive) exceptions, every provider has its own phone service 
offering. They consider my activity to be competing with their own 
service. I discovered that trying to get VOIP to work over Comcast was 
nearly impossible (but theirs worked just fine...fancy that).

We need Internet connectivity provided by companies that are not in the 
content or network services business. That's why I'm beginning to 
believe that a government solution may be the only effective answer.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article 
<_6idne3WvqASWj7WnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
 Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

> If you like cooperatives, start one.  Anyone can become a CLEC and start 
> digging up the streets.  Nothing prevents this.
> 
> Just don't use any tax dollars.

I suggest, if you want some very interesting reading, that you check 
into the lobbying efforts of ILECs to make sure that CLECs get the short 
end of all regulatory sticks. For instance, reciprocal payments, a 
policy designed by the RBOCs to financially burden upstart CLEC had the 
policy blow up in their faces and found the money flowing in the reverse 
direction. AT&T's answer? Just don't pay. AT&T is big enough that it 
seems to be able to thumb its nose at everyone.

Yes, "anyone can become a CLEC" but what happens after that might be 
something you will want to investigate.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 18/03/2010 15:53, AES wrote:
> In article<bPidncrTJ7axezzWnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
>   Bob<bob@invalid.invalid>  wrote:
>
>>
>> While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be
>> allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and
>> capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they should be
>> allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the fibre.
>
> There are two sides to this problem:  Situations where companies (or
> other organizations) own dark fiber but aren't willing to lease it, but
> also situations where dark fiber is available for lease but prospective
> users aren't willing to lease, even for backhaul purposes.
>
> We have a neighborhood where AT&T could install Uverse with some local
> trenching, then lease currently dark fiber owned by a municipal system
> to complete the connection to their central facility several miles away.
>
> Sorry, says AT&T -- we won't go into any situation where we don't _own_
> the entire fiber setup, all the way from the customer to our central
> facility.
>
> Hmmm -- wonder why that's their policy?
Amsterdam's FTTH.
"The second decision was to build an open-access, passive fiber plant 
that would support multiple ISPs in competition. In practice this 
translates to:

     * Unbundled dark fiber access lines which can be rented 
individually by an ISP who wants to serve that particular customer
     * ISPs can get access to APOPs to install their line cards and 
related equipment, patch in their customer access line, and connect to 
their own backhaul network"
<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars/>

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote in
news:higgy-973BF2.10023619032010@news.announcetech.com: 

> In article
> <Xns9D404E5D5B49Ethisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>, 
>  DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, the 10 mbps d/l speeds I get aren't any better than
>> 56k dial-up.
> 
> Where on earth do you get 10mbps speeds? But yes, it does
> pale compared to the 100 mbps that my friends in Japan
> get...and pay less for it. 
> 

I get full saturation of 10 mbps d/l speeds from Time/Warner in 
a suburb of Buffalo, NY when using two d/l threads from 
Giganews. Using any more d/l threads is a waste, as more threads 
don't come down any faster.

This 10mbps from Giganews happens at any time of the day. There 
doesn't seem to be any other provider of anything that has the 
capability to send to me at that speed....or maybe more 
accurately, web pages are 'bursty' data, so it may be that fast, 
but for a very short time period. When d/l'g from Giganews, it 
is sustained at that level, for hours on end.

From home, when I do a bandwidth test from a T/W server, 'in 
network', the d/l results are usually over 20mbps. But real life 
is choked down to 10mbps.

In article 
<epmdnat677w8VT7WnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
 Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

> People always seem to want the government to provide some great benefit 
> as long as someone else pays for it.

I never said I wanted something for free. I just don't understand why if 
I want the same level of Internet service at home that my friends in 
other countries get, I have to become a CLEC or trench fiber optic 
circuits from MaeWest to my home. Sure, I could set up a microwave link 
from one of my clients and make an arrangement to get Internet from 
them...but that is hardly "easy availability of broadband".

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article <Xns9D4099418CB69thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>,
 DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> I get full saturation of 10 mbps d/l speeds from Time/Warner in 
> a suburb of Buffalo, NY when using two d/l threads from 
> Giganews. Using any more d/l threads is a waste, as more threads 
> don't come down any faster.

Aren't you fortunate? This is the Bay Area. Note the "ba" in the 
newsgroup name. We don't have such service here. We don't have anything 
close. Comcast advertises "15Mbps" connectivity, but what it really is 
amounts to this: you get 15Mbps burst speed for the first five to ten 
megabytes of a file download. After that, it drops to something like 
3Mbps. You have to read the fine print to find that out.

> From home, when I do a bandwidth test from a T/W server, 'in 
> network', the d/l results are usually over 20mbps. But real life 
> is choked down to 10mbps.

I'm so happy for you. Be glad you don't live in Silicon Valley.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 3/19/2010 12:02 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article
> <_6idne3WvqASWj7WnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
>   Roy<aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org>  wrote:
>
>> If you like cooperatives, start one.  Anyone can become a CLEC and start
>> digging up the streets.  Nothing prevents this.
>>
>> Just don't use any tax dollars.
>
> I suggest, if you want some very interesting reading, that you check
> into the lobbying efforts of ILECs to make sure that CLECs get the short
> end of all regulatory sticks. For instance, reciprocal payments, a
> policy designed by the RBOCs to financially burden upstart CLEC had the
> policy blow up in their faces and found the money flowing in the reverse
> direction. AT&T's answer? Just don't pay. AT&T is big enough that it
> seems to be able to thumb its nose at everyone.
>
> Yes, "anyone can become a CLEC" but what happens after that might be
> something you will want to investigate.
>

I was a CLEC so I am familiar with the landscape.  We were going to do 
data only so things like reciprocal payments aren't applicable.  There 
was little in the way as long as you didn't try to use the phone 
company's resources.  As an example, renting pole space from PG&E was 
straight forward.

On 3/19/2010 12:03 PM, Bob wrote:
> On 18/03/2010 15:53, AES wrote:
>> In article<bPidncrTJ7axezzWnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
>> Bob<bob@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be
>>> allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and
>>> capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they should be
>>> allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the
>>> fibre.
>>
>> There are two sides to this problem: Situations where companies (or
>> other organizations) own dark fiber but aren't willing to lease it, but
>> also situations where dark fiber is available for lease but prospective
>> users aren't willing to lease, even for backhaul purposes.
>>
>> We have a neighborhood where AT&T could install Uverse with some local
>> trenching, then lease currently dark fiber owned by a municipal system
>> to complete the connection to their central facility several miles away.
>>
>> Sorry, says AT&T -- we won't go into any situation where we don't _own_
>> the entire fiber setup, all the way from the customer to our central
>> facility.
>>
>> Hmmm -- wonder why that's their policy?
> Amsterdam's FTTH.
> "The second decision was to build an open-access, passive fiber plant
> that would support multiple ISPs in competition. In practice this
> translates to:
>
> * Unbundled dark fiber access lines which can be rented individually by
> an ISP who wants to serve that particular customer
> * ISPs can get access to APOPs to install their line cards and related
> equipment, patch in their customer access line, and connect to their own
> backhaul network"
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars/>
>

Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Personal income tax in the Netherlands is 10% higher.

In article <4BA3D2B6.4060703@aa4re.ampr.org>,
 Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

> I was a CLEC so I am familiar with the landscape.  We were going to do 
> data only so things like reciprocal payments aren't applicable.  There 
> was little in the way as long as you didn't try to use the phone 
> company's resources.  As an example, renting pole space from PG&E was 
> straight forward.

My CLEC experience is on the telephone side. Nevertheless, even taking 
what you say at face value, starting a major company seems at least 
trivially more difficult than simply ordering the service, as those in 
other countries are able to do.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 19/03/2010 19:41, Roy wrote:
> On 3/19/2010 12:03 PM, Bob wrote:
>> On 18/03/2010 15:53, AES wrote:
>>> In article<bPidncrTJ7axezzWnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
>>> Bob<bob@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be
>>>> allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and
>>>> capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they
>>>> should be
>>>> allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the
>>>> fibre.
>>>
>>> There are two sides to this problem: Situations where companies (or
>>> other organizations) own dark fiber but aren't willing to lease it, but
>>> also situations where dark fiber is available for lease but prospective
>>> users aren't willing to lease, even for backhaul purposes.
>>>
>>> We have a neighborhood where AT&T could install Uverse with some local
>>> trenching, then lease currently dark fiber owned by a municipal system
>>> to complete the connection to their central facility several miles away.
>>>
>>> Sorry, says AT&T -- we won't go into any situation where we don't _own_
>>> the entire fiber setup, all the way from the customer to our central
>>> facility.
>>>
>>> Hmmm -- wonder why that's their policy?
>> Amsterdam's FTTH.
>> "The second decision was to build an open-access, passive fiber plant
>> that would support multiple ISPs in competition. In practice this
>> translates to:
>>
>> * Unbundled dark fiber access lines which can be rented individually by
>> an ISP who wants to serve that particular customer
>> * ISPs can get access to APOPs to install their line cards and related
>> equipment, patch in their customer access line, and connect to their own
>> backhaul network"
>> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars/>
>>
>>
>
> Check out
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
>
> Personal income tax in the Netherlands is 10% higher.
>
"Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes commented: �Business activities 
of public authorities in the liberalised electronic communications 
sector have to be analysed carefully because of the potentially 
distortive effect of any state aid on the business of private operators, 
especially in metropolitan areas. However, in this particular case, our 
investigation found that the municipality of Amsterdam invests on market 
terms and that several private parties make significant investments in 
the project."

Together with other shareholders, Amsterdam is investing in a company 
building a "fibre-to-the-home" broadband access network connecting 
37,000 households in Amsterdam. The total equity investment in the 
project is �18 million. The Amsterdam municipality owns one third of the 
shares, two private investors, ING Real Estate and Reggefibre together 
another third, while five housing corporations own the remaining third. 
The wholesale operator of the new fibre network was selected through a 
tender procedure and will provide open, non-discriminatory access to 
retail operators which offer TV, broadband and telephony services."
<http://www.citynet.nl/>

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote in
news:higgy-5FC0E6.12143119032010@news.announcetech.com: 

> In article
> <Xns9D4099418CB69thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>, 
>  DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
> 
>> I get full saturation of 10 mbps d/l speeds from
>> Time/Warner in a suburb of Buffalo, NY when using two d/l
>> threads from Giganews. Using any more d/l threads is a
>> waste, as more threads don't come down any faster.
> 
> Aren't you fortunate?
> This is the Bay Area. Note the "ba"
> in the newsgroup name. We don't have such service here. We
> don't have anything close. Comcast advertises "15Mbps"
> connectivity, but what it really is amounts to this: you
> get 15Mbps burst speed for the first five to ten megabytes
> of a file download. After that, it drops to something like 
> 3Mbps. You have to read the fine print to find that out.

Actually, the fine print calls that Powerboost, and it is 
supposed to about double your d/l bandwidth for the first x 
amount of the file, and then after that, drop down to your 
advertised/paid for speed. The page said if you have 6mb, 
you'll powerboost to 12, or 10 will powersboost to 20. Others 
also said the cable system there is antiquated and in need of 
rebuilding. 

>> From home, when I do a bandwidth test from a T/W server,
>> 'in network', the d/l results are usually over 20mbps. But
>> real life is choked down to 10mbps.
> 
> I'm so happy for you. Be glad you don't live in Silicon
> Valley.

Yeah, well.....high-speed internet does not an area make.

In article <Xns9D40BA85C1947thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>,
 DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> Yeah, well.....high-speed internet does not an area make.

Indeed. You get to live in a nice place AND get decent Internet! Getting 
first-world Internet probably wouldn't make this a better place to live 
in any significant way.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 3/19/2010 3:09 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article
> <epmdnat677w8VT7WnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
>   Roy<aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org>  wrote:
>
>> People always seem to want the government to provide some great benefit
>> as long as someone else pays for it.
>
> I never said I wanted something for free. I just don't understand why if
> I want the same level of Internet service at home that my friends in
> other countries get, I have to become a CLEC or trench fiber optic
> circuits from MaeWest to my home. Sure, I could set up a microwave link
> from one of my clients and make an arrangement to get Internet from
> them...but that is hardly "easy availability of broadband".
>

Because you are overlooking the main thing that differentiates us and 
practically everyone else. We have urban sprawl. It sounds like you may 
live some distance from existing plant. Would you be willing to pay for 
the excess cost to deliver service to widely spaced out homes as 
compared to homes that are sited like your friends in other countries?

In article <ho0uf2$cr2$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Because you are overlooking the main thing that differentiates us and 
> practically everyone else. We have urban sprawl. It sounds like you may 
> live some distance from existing plant. Would you be willing to pay for 
> the excess cost to deliver service to widely spaced out homes as 
> compared to homes that are sited like your friends in other countries?

If it were necessary, yes. I think living in the center of a city of one 
million population is hardly having an issue with "urban sprawl".

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote in
news:higgy-73B5F1.16045719032010@news.announcetech.com: 

> In article <ho0uf2$cr2$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Because you are overlooking the main thing that
>> differentiates us and practically everyone else. We have
>> urban sprawl. It sounds like you may live some distance
>> from existing plant. Would you be willing to pay for the
>> excess cost to deliver service to widely spaced out homes
>> as compared to homes that are sited like your friends in
>> other countries? 
> 
> If it were necessary, yes. I think living in the center of
> a city of one million population is hardly having an issue
> with "urban sprawl". 

Back to the Comcast issue.......what you are seeing is a 
combination of 1) a commercial for-profit entity (Comcast) not 
spending money to upgrade what many have called an antiquated 
cable system in San Jose.....and 2) people accepting the fact 
that the service sucks, but still buying it anyway.

Where's the initiative for Comcast to improve anything, if 
people buy it anyway ?

Now if Comcast lost 50% of it's broadband subscribers, then it 
would have no choice but to improve.

On 3/24/2010 3:43 PM, DanS wrote:
> ...
>
> Back to the Comcast issue.......what you are seeing is a
> combination of 1) a commercial for-profit entity (Comcast) not
> spending money to upgrade what many have called an antiquated
> cable system in San Jose.....and 2) people accepting the fact
> that the service sucks, but still buying it anyway.
>
> Where's the initiative for Comcast to improve anything, if
> people buy it anyway ?
>
> Now if Comcast lost 50% of it's broadband subscribers, then it
> would have no choice but to improve.
>

Its the same reason most people run Windows :-)

In article <Xns9D45BE8C37205thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>,
 DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> Back to the Comcast issue.......what you are seeing is a 
> combination of 1) a commercial for-profit entity (Comcast) not 
> spending money to upgrade what many have called an antiquated 
> cable system in San Jose.....and 2) people accepting the fact 
> that the service sucks, but still buying it anyway.

There is a very simple reason for that: where are they going to go? 
AT&T? To many, that's no improvement. There is no point in wondering if 
the air is any good when that's all there is to breathe. 

> Where's the initiative for Comcast to improve anything, if 
> people buy it anyway ?
> 
> Now if Comcast lost 50% of it's broadband subscribers, then it 
> would have no choice but to improve.

You've actually nailed why broadband in this country sucks: no 
competition. Oh, there are plenty of providers, but they all operate in 
exclusive territories, which they can rape and pillage at will. 

There is another reason, of course: most Internet providers are also in 
the content and service business. They have a vested interest in keeping 
the Internet (at least as consumers see it) crippled. Make it like other 
countries enjoy, and they would have customers getting their 
entertainment from other providers. 

I recently had someone ask why Vonage was crap over Comcast, but 
Comcast's own (VOIP) phone service worked just fine. That is when I 
explained the principles of traffic management. "They can do that and 
get away with it?" Duh!

We'll never have robust Internet service in the US until providers are 
forced to divest themselves of their content enterprises, and until we 
get a lot more providers serving common areas.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

" We need Internet connectivity provided by companies that are not in
" the content or network services business.

I was considering just this point when I was thinking about the
benefit of satellite communications that XM Radio/Serius use.  I think
bottling up those satellites in content providers is a bad idea;
instead, selling their bandwidth on a cost-with-margin basis would be
much more useful to customers and to the providers, as far as I can
tell.  Instead of selling "XM Radio" or such, they could sell "x bits
per second at y latency with congestion z for $A", i.e., bandwidth,
delay, priority at some amount of money.  If you choose to transmit
porn to 22yos and get porn back from 22yos, or transmit pictures of
your 80yo grandmother, or to receive pictures of the map to get you to
your 80yo grandmother, or transmit financial transaction details and
receive financial transaction details, or transmit targeting data, or
receive music or talk audio or security video, or anything you want,
that's between you and your far end, and whether you want to engage a
3rd party content provider would also be up to you.  Otherwise, if you
are required to use a content provider, there's an impediment to using
the physical resources, and it will be harder to justify making
physical resources available, and furthermore, if the impediment is
that you are only allowed to use the physical resources in a narrowly
construed way, such as using a particular content (XM radio, for
instance), then you might not even be interested in the physical
resources any more; perhaps that image of an X-Ray you wanted isn't
being broadcast to you when you need it by that old gross drugged up
dying hippie in NYC who has a TV show.  No, that's useless: when you
want a picture of the X-Ray of Grandma, pictures of plastic boobs from
someone else at 4:30PM or whatever doesn't help you, when you're
diagnosing at 10AM.  That's closer to what we have now: less for less
at higher cost, rather than more for more at lower cast.

Why use satellites?  Why use anything at all?  They have particular
qualities, including availabilities and usefulnesses, which makes them
have particular values.

Why not use satellites?  Perhaps those qualities aren't what you need.
But, perhaps their qualities ARE what you need, but everyone who has
them doesn't do business with you, because they'd rather do business
with bad business models that exclude the people actually interested
in the productizable assets.

I'm using satellite as an example; use math symbols for most my words.
Fiber in an old oil pipe and under railroads is just as good an
analogy.

Generally, the ideas can be applied to LANs and WANs as well.  They're
more complex in those cases, but not by much.

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.