Oh I forgot I have to be very specific with Jon`C. For someone so smart, you sure do like to miss interpret the point. I'll use a lot of formatting so you don't get distracted.



Irrelevant: I never said the government didn't subsidize infrastructure, but what does that have to do with whether or not the government will start providing free wifi? Particularily since they already get to tax the companies on the profit they make charging us for internet. You think governments on a whole are going to think it a good choice to give up that tax income and at the same time front the entire cost of building the necessary infrastructure? The fact that they're already paying a portion of it through subsidization is irrelevant.

about half wrong:Specifically in your comment that "there's no business case for expanding infrastructure. None," and that "huge, publicly-traded corporations won't do it." First, if there was no case for expanding infrastructure, we wouldn't constantly hear on the tv the three major wireless providers talking about how they have the biggest or best network. The fact that they want us to care suggests that they care. Otherwise why would they spend all that money on advertising to try and convince us it's important. Further, a few quick google searches will show the tremendous amount of expansion T-Mobile specifically has done to make them a big contender in the US market. You want a strong business case? Here's two. 1) Competition with other companies. 2) Ability to reach more customers and therefore hold more accounts.

Sure wireless companies (and cable/telephone since you brought them up) accept subsidies for expansion. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have interest in expanding otherwise. If someone offered you $50 to scrape dog **** off your shoe wouldn't you take the money? Just cause you did wouldn't mean you didn't care about the dog **** in the first place.

Echoman: I was parodying baconfish's argument of: "no." and "yes." as if that was supposed to convince me.

Misinterpret. It's one word.

A lot, actually.

According to the CBO "the federal share of project costs exceeds 75 percent."

"Particularly."

The Sega Genesis is the first 16-bit console! Don't be stuck with that 8-bit Nintendo. Sega does what Nintendon't.

I can't remember where I heard this, but it takes about 10 years for your neighborhood's cable subscriptions to pay for the cost of hookup. In terms you don't understand, this is a form of "capital investment." The stock market (the only real market major corporations trade in) punishes capital investment.

Assuming you're correct, Comcast must really hate money because according to the FCC it would take a $350 billion bribe to convince Comcast to take on an additional 100 million subscribers. Note: You aren't correct. Not even a little.
Obama's stimulus package included $6 billion for broadband infrastructure development. Cable companies are laughing at it.

p.s.: This is the internet, not a typewriter. You're only supposed to put one space after a period.

The parts of Jon`C's post picking apart grammar and spelling are a bit random for this thread, no?

Yes. In fact, the only thing worse than a post that is only 40% on topic would be a post that is 0% on topic.

I love you too, Gebohq.

Aww! *hug*

Oops, you got distracted anyway. Why do I bother, I wonder?

Oh gee. thanks for clearing that up. It's a good thing I have you around to explain things.


Portion: a part of any whole, either separated from or integrated with it. (funny, there's nothing there requiring small percentages...)

I can't remember where I heard this, but usually you have to provide proof when you make statements like that... Oh wait, I heard it from you.

Assuming you're correct, all communication companies must hate money since they're in such a non-profit, black hole industry.

Obama's an idiot. What's your point?

Funny, the Modern Language Association seems not to have gotten the memo.
"...there is nothing wrong with using two spaces after concluding punctuation marks unless an instructor or editor requests that you do otherwise."

It's not even anything to do with America and Finland having different concepts of what a "right" is. There are natural rights, and then there are legal rights. Natural rights are universal and inalienable. Legal rights can be created, modified or destroyed. People who aren't aware of this distinction see "broadband is now a right" and freak out.

Haha, who added "Navy Economic Theory" to the tags?

I know the distinction, I just think the idea of the legal right to internet is silly. However, since this is more of the legal right to internet ACCESS should you get it, I guess it is less silly.

That's what I was getting at, people in the US not realizing the difference.

Uh, apparently they DID:

"Because it is increasingly common for papers and manuscripts to be prepared with a single space after all punctuation marks, this spacing is shown in the examples in the MLA Handbook and the MLA Style Manual."

Because you aren't very bright.

Backpedaling; you were obviously trying to imply that the government's share is smaller than the public sector's.

I think I'd know more about academic writing than you would.

Guess I just like banging my head against a wall.

Awesome. So it's allowed now to argue what you *wish* the other person was saying rather than what they actually said? I could have some fun with this.

What either of us knows about it is irrelevant. You tried to take a cheap stab at me, and I showed you how much of an idiot you were being, since what I was doing was completely acceptable.

Also, thanks for ignoring about half my post.. Guess you couldn't think of witty things to say about the rest of it.

Since you want to be argumentative, I'll paraphrase. They recognized the emerging practice of single spacing becoming more of a norm in publishing, but pointed out that it is acceptable to do either.

Nah, it's that trading statistics with the Rear Admiral's Personal Pistol Polisher is just about the most unproductive endeavor a man could engage in. If you haven't been able to figure it out so far, I don't see any point in continuing to try.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. Try it some time.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS![/stupid]

Keep in mind, too, that the idea of a "natural right" is pretty alien outside of the United States. From an outsider's perspective, there isn't anything inalienable about a right if they have to write it down and "promise" not to take it away. A natural right is natural: violating it would be impossible, or unthinkable. In a lot of ways Americans have the strangest rhetoric in the entire world. You'd never have to qualify a statement like this anywhere else.

This is why they debated about putting the Bill of Rights in the constitution at all. They thought the same way...they're natural, inalienable rights, so writing them down and "granting" them seems to imply that they aren't rights at all, but privileges. However, they decided to err on the side of caution and specifically list those rights anyway. Guess it still wasn't enough...However, part of the whole deal is that these rights ARE ours no matter what, and no one can take them away. And if the government tries to, then it is no longer our rightful government.

Pfft, Treguna Makoidees Trecorum Sadis Dee is more relevant.

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to tell people to go die in a debate.. but maybe I just missed that lesson in debate class because I was too busy polishing the Rear Admiral's pistol.

I'm also pretty sure it's supposed to get you banned, but then I guess you wouldn't be worried about things like that now would you?

Anyway, I'm going to give you a final opportunity to redeem yourself by asking my question again, since you glazed over it last time. lf you fail once more, it will provide further validation to my belief that you're a pathetic, useless waste of breathable oxygen, and I'll move on from this thread, once more convinced that your only purpose here is to further inflate your already gargantuan and completely unwarranted ego, in an environment where you don't have to worry about physical repercussions to your actions, such as getting the crap kicked out of you.

What does the government subsidizing infrastructure have to do with whether or not it would find any benefit to providing its citizens with free wifi? If you really are as amazing as you seem to think you are, you shouldn't find it difficult to answer.

So it's not okay to tell people to go die, but it's okay to kick the crap out of them?

And if I recall, Jon's pretty physically active. Don't be an idiot and assume everyone on the other side of the internet is a dweeb living in their parents' basement.

I'll answer your question as soon as you finish explaining why the FCC is wrong for saying it'd cost the government $350 billion to significantly expand cable infrastructure. Debate goes both ways, punchy.

Gah! You've ruined my debate about Hamburgers and Broadband! I am in fact interested in this debate about public wifi, so I'll keep the thread open. Sarn, it looks to me like you were the one who came in here super defensive so just calm down when you make your posts or ban. kthx

why the hell would a company expand on its own dime if the government has shown it will subsidize it? of course it does not make any business sense to pay for infrastructure expansion yourself when all you have to do is hold out for a while and the benevolent hand of government scoops you up and says "there there little business. don't fret, we've got this covered."

The scale of capital investment is more of the problem. You aren't a dick, so I'll give you some numbers.

Let's say you run a cable company. There's a small town with 200 homes. How can we calculate whether or not it's worthwhile for you to enter this market?

Let's put a lower bound on the cost: $5.05/ft for the trench, and $1.05/ft for the conduit and cable. Total: $6.10/ft.

(Speaking as someone who owns property in the country, has priced out trenches, and has professionally dealt with the sale of cable and conduit, I can promise you that this is a really low price. These prices are what you pay for Cousin Bubba to dig the trench and lay out BudgetCo brand water-soluble conduit. But that makes it a good lower bound, because the actual cost is guaranteed to be much higher.

Note, as well, that above-ground isn't much cheaper unless the terrain has a steep grade.)

Due to North American historical and geographical oddities, towns are roughly 20 miles apart. Grade school multiplication gives us a lower bound of about $644,000 for running the cable to the small town, assuming it's geographically proximate to a city that already has cable service through your company.

Given current market averages, 200 subscriptions will net you $100,000 in annual revenue. Assuming it's pure profit you won't recoup the initial investment for over 6 years. Any idiot can see it's a great revenue stream once the outlay is paid off, but in the meantime it's a nasty red mark on your quarterly earnings reports.

It gets better. Let's say there's a new 200-unit condominium complex opening up in one of your markets. The cost of hookup is basically zilch. How much are you willing to pay the landlord for a 10 year exclusive deal? Comcast's market rate is $45,000. They make that back in a quarter.

So you, Mr. CEO of a large cable company... what advantage is it to you, personally, to pursue infrastructure development? 6 years to pay off hooking up a new town? When your shareholders could be fellating you for milking established markets for maximum profit and no expense? It's hardly a long-term outlook, but that's the way the modern business world works.

ok... incredibly good argument, and i actually do see your point. however, looking around online (granted not always the most reliable source of information...) the average "small" town in the u.s. is still well over 1000 people. i would argue that if you really want to live in a place that is not large enough to support a cable market... then that's just kind of one of the things that go along with living somewhere that small. i am guessing that as long as there is a telephone line, then at least dial up is available.

I live on the outskirts of a town of less than 150 people... doesn't even really qualify as a town. The nearest official "town" is about 50 miles from here.

We have high speed internet.

I didn't even bother reading the whole debate, which seemed to turn from "blåblåblå" into "Your mother is making love with animals!"

Anyway, let's get back to the point. In finland, the government is funding Sonera, a cell phone/internet network provider which used to be completely owned by the government. Sonera is supposed to expand their infrastructure so, that at least 1mb/s mobile internet connection is available in every single household in the country. On the other side, they have started removing phone cables from houses in areas outside population centers. So basically, we finns are paying this from our tax money.

Ok, ok, this is something that i need to clear out.

The main reason for this right to internet access, is not silly at all, if you take a look at the numbers.

The size of finland is 338 424 km², out of which there's buildings covering only around 4% of the country. Only 5,3 million people living in the country. That makes around 15,5 people living per square kilometre. Above the arctic circle, the distance from a single household to even the nearest town, can be hundreds of kilometres. That's a lot if you need to go to for example bank etc. The long distances throughout the small country are the main reason for this whole internet right thing.

Kthx.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting the usefulness of the idea. Of course, it's extremely useful, especially for the reasons you state (believe me, I know, I understand rural-way-out-in-the-country problems). I was simply saying that saying it's a legal right that everyone have internet is sillier than making sure everyone is ABLE to get internet if they want it.