🚀 go-pugleaf

Kent T. wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Liberals are vermin wrote
>>> zeez <blinkingblyth...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Lil Abner <@Daisey.Mae> wrote

>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1352559/Canadians-forc...

>>>> I've always wondered why Canadians have it about as bad
>>>> as Austraiia when it comes to net access. Australia is phy$icaly
>>>> isolated so it somewhat understandable for them but Canada?

>>> Because the companies given huge sums by liberal
>>> (and democrat in the U.S.) governments

>> You've got that backwards, the Libs are the Repugs in the US, cretin.

>>> for infrastructure improvements pocketed the cash, did almost zero improvements

>> That is a pig ignorant like with the NextG network alone.

>>> and as a result, we fell from number #1 in the early 1990s

>> Pigs arse we ever were.

>>> to around #15 in-terms of internet infrastructure and cost.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
>> actually have a fucking clue about the most basic stats.

>> And Labor is planning to piss $50B against the wall themselves, anyway
>> when most already have a very decent net service and dont need that.

> Canada and Australia are similar in that they have
> a small population spread over a great expanse.

What I said in another of mine. And isnt strictly true anyway, most the
population is concentated in a small subset of the total area in both cases.

> It's a situation where the taxpayer should play an integral role.

And they did in Australia.

> Canada has ended up with monopolies for good reason.

Australia got rid of its monopoly.

> It was left to the stake holders to create the infrastructure to the tune of $billions,
> and the government did not underwrite the loans nor did it provide subsidies.

Thats true of Australia too, it was paid for by the phone
calls and line rent with the monopoly until it was binned.

> Unfortunatley, though doing it that way saved the taxpayer an
> fortune, it did not open the doors to competition due to how the
> stake holders paid for it in a small market where there simply
> wasn't a population big enough to invite competition to create
> multiple competitors with their own infrastructres.

Have fun explaining how come Australia did that anyway.

> And though I know it doesn't sound good.  In a situation like that,
> the only way to encourage competition is to make it like electricity.
> It should be metered so that those who use a lot, pay for a lot.

Not necessarily, its just one way of doing it, particularly when it
doesnt cost the provider a lot to provide it to the higher volume users.

> And those who don't use a lot, pay less.

And they do even in the US.

> Or, the government should be involved and create an infrastructure that will
> allow smaller competitors to be in the game, without relying on the monopoly.

Labor is in fact proposing to rip out the copper network so
you dont have any choice except the monopoly and wireless.

They are unlikely to get that past the ACCC.