While we're at it, can we put some extra fiber optic cables in the ground, and this time let the government own all of it?
* Sewer & water can be done in a piecemeal fashion, whereas fiber requires complicated & precise connections to make work. Not to mention, needs connection to the electrical grid.
* Sewer & water pipes are typically much deeper underground, not necessary for fiber which doesn't freeze.
* Running fiber along a pipe would be difficult, at best. Typically an underground pneumatic pipe trenching tool pulls flexible copper pipe behind it, for water or gas. Pulling fiber along with it on the outside gets complicated or requires some new type of pipe.
Even just laying conduit (layer 0?) would be an amazing public service.
I think the majority of people agrees there needs to be changes in things... but putting "government" in charge of the backbone of the internet? Would definitely not a change for the better.
Personally... I think there should be one of two rules: Companies can't own content AND infrastructure (IE: Comcast)... or a higher cost (taxes? fees?) for companies that do and/or don't have reasonable competition.
Now everyone (or almost everyone) in Switzerland can have fiber internet with gbit up and down.
It seems Swisscom owns some lines, but not all of it. Like some of Swisscom Internet goes on lines that is not owned by them.
I guess a lot of the households in the mountains and other large terrains do not have fiber.
If you look here: https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=nga&mobile=false&lang=en&bgL...
Plenty of households have >=100 Mbit/s Internet. This map pretty much covers the same area as "where most Swiss people live."
I pay $50 a month for the internet and two mobile contracts, with 4GB data each and unlimited texts/minutes, from BT.
TV is free (freeview, with hundreds of channels). You can pay for Sky or Virgin and get every channel ever, but why would you.
This anti-governmental prejudice is tiring. Governments are made of people - what makes you trust those people less than other people?
I love my country and for the most part trust the Government... but on the same token - you'd have to be blind not to see how inefficient they are compared to private organizations (IE: Post Office compared to FedEx. Private Hospitals compared to the VA.)
You'd also have to be blind to not see blatant growth and abuses of privileges. The ACA growing government meddling in healthcare. Snowden - and similar - releases showing abuses. Daily revelations about different groups abusing their privileges.
"Arguments like this" continue to be made because examples are PLENTIFUL of how inefficient, self serving and abusive large organizations get. The same can be said of Unions - which are great in some aspects... horrible in others.
In terms of private hospitals you’ve obviously never had to pay a bill from them. They engineer the system to maximize profits, which is different than getting people out the door as efficiently as possible.
Large institutions like the post office / va have problems. I’d argue large companies often have similar problems. But the distinction between what problems these orgs are solving and what private companies are solving is a very important distinction.
To say "companies" have blame and "government" doesn't?
That's... interesting...
And Government may have helped get the ball rolling but they didn't get us to where we are today alone - and if they were the only ones in charge, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Protecting citizens freedoms, roads, airports and ports, education for all, social safety net (medicaid and social security), supplying fuel, CDC, protecting the environment, 911, policing, science and research funding.
Massachusetts as a state would be in the top in the world right their with Finland, and that includes Boston http://blogs.wgbh.org/on-campus/2016/12/6/if-massachusetts-w...
Also our Universities are also the top educational system in the world. 7 of the top 10 Universities of the world are US institutions. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankin...
PS Rant, Why is that Conservatives and Libertarians like to make things look worst in America and they consider themselves the only patriotic ones?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-2....
> When federal dollars are included, just five states are spending less in their poorest districts than in their wealthiest. Nationwide, the average disparity drops from 15 percent to less than 2 percent.
These are all based on the public records, please consider why you stated that the funding is equal? Federal funding for education has also been less and less.
http://www.openpagov.org/education_revenue_and_expenses.asp
(My city) Allentown SD per student = $13,949
(Next town over) Sailisbury SD per student = $21,519
(Highest in the state) Lower Merion SD per student = $28,495
Screen Shot of Data:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pa-high-court-revives-scho...
"Here is ti challenge this statistics: Data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows that high-poverty school districts spent 15.6 percent less than those in the group with the least poverty.
In Pennsylvania, that difference was 33 percent"
Federal Funding title 1 for Inner City Schools funding per student is quite low, averaging about $500 to $600 a year. 50% of public schools qualify for federal money and the 14 billion works out to much less than most people believe. It amounts to a 5% increase in funding for some schools.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-federal-spending-on-d...
Here is the Heritage Foundations paper on how Inner City racial groups get more money and so there is no unequal funding problem based on race. This is just crazy statistics gymnastics. http://www.heritage.org/education/report/the-myth-racial-dis...
My point is not race it is socioeconomic disparity at the school district level and Heritage wants to say school in districts favor the poorer schools. Poorer schools in School District isn't the problem it is school districts getting under funded.
Funding isn't the answer but why should my daughter or son have 9 gym classes a year (School doesn't have a gym, nor a library room, and certainly no art class room) She also gets 9 art classes and 9 Music classes a year.
They also don't get recess due to funding problems for monitors. My daughter in kindergarten got no recces from August till January. Though she had 2 hours of reading and 2 hours of math per day. http://www.macon.com/news/local/article28555831.html
> When federal dollars are included, just five states are spending less in their poorest districts than in their wealthiest. Nationwide, the average disparity drops from 15 percent to less than 2 percent
Police? Baltimore is losing people left and right for decades now because they can't meet basic security needs. Again, this is basic competence.
Education? Are you kidding? Why is it that "good schools" is one of the top reasons to move to an area? It's because parents have little or no impact on schools and there's no accountability. If your local school is incompetent, then you can either move, homeschool, or somehow get your kids into private school. It's a disgrace.
Our Interstate System is what fueled out economy and is the main reason why our economy is the largest in the world. That was 100% Federally funded
> Police
Our crime rates are WAY Down over the past 40 years and probably is the lowest it has ever been. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/21/5-facts-abou...
Also my son gets pulled over for DWB (Driving While Black) about once a month. There are absolutely racist and abusive police but it is finally getting exposed.
> Education? Are you kidding?
Yes take out the cities andwe are top 10