21–30 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He said "on a per-head basis". On a per-head basis it's 5 times cheaper for Texas to lay fiber than for Finland (greatly simplifying, of course).
No. If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head. But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on average you're laying more fiber per person.
Example: In Norway we do our tax returns, apply for school, read up on information about your properties, etc. You basically have to have access to Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It costs as much to lay the fiber to one person as it does to 2000 in the same place, so a greater area is a disadvantage.
He said "on a per-head basis". On a per-head basis it's 5 times cheaper for Texas to lay fiber than for Finland (greatly simplifying, of course).
average finn is probably about 2 times richer than an average texan
Calling access to a consumer good a "right" really cheapens the concept. The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.
Have you read the article? >the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second." That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people. What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept? From my point of view, wat…
That's why I said access to a consumer good and nothing about who pays. That said, as far as I can tell, there isn't a western democracy that forbids their people from buying internet access. So if this doesn't have anything to do with assisting people to pay for it and they aren't banned from buying it themselves, what does it do?
In reality this does have to do with assisting them to pay for it, because mandating construction of broadband connections is just a roundabout way of helping pay for it.
>What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept? >From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)
This is exactly what I mean. You are comparing getting internet access to getting food and water. If you don't have food and water, you die. If you don't have internet access, then yes you don't have access to the best, most modern way to communicate. However, in a nation with free speech you have access to many other ways to express yourself. I'm sure resourceful people will find ways to exercise that right without mandating some telco run fiber to within 2km of their house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head. But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on average you're laying more fiber per person.
I think you misread. Texas is 5 times more dense than Finland, and hence should be cheaper per head to lay fiber.
Finland has vast, vast areas with no one. Texas has people thinly spread throughout.
You can cover only parts of Finland, because people only live in parts of Finland. You have to cover pretty much all of Texas.
So, once again, the size of Texas is a negative factor.
The so-called "average density" is not the key factor here, the amount of fiber you have to lay to reach everyone is.
Calling access to a consumer good a "right" really cheapens the concept. The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.
"The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press." So why can't that change if it's easy and cheap enough to do it for every citizen, seeing how it's so important for a person's freedom of speech?
A right to me is a powerful thing. It is something that the government or others cannot take from you, no matter what. Eg, free speech - no person or government can compel you to not express your opinion. Or, freedom of religion - no person or government can compel to believe in a certain deity.
Consider this, things are relatively good in the western world right now in a grand historic sense. So governments have the ability to bestow "rights" like access to broadband. But what if things get really bad financially and the government and telcos of the nation can no longer afford to maintain broadband access to all citizens? Suddenly the government is forced to revoke a right because it is broke. I contend that if that can happen, it probably wasn't a right in the first place. Now, free speech on the other hand is something that will never have to be revoked no matter the financial status of a nation. That to me is truly a right. It is the difference between promising a person a printing press and promising a person that he may print whatever he wants on his own printing press.
Well, we had expensive television network while Sweden spent the same money for better Internet connections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you misread. Texas is 5 times more dense than Finland, and hence should be cheaper per head to lay fiber.
But it's not. Finland has vast, vast areas with no one. Texas has people thinly spread throughout. You can cover only parts of Finland, because people only live in parts of Finland. You have to cover pretty much all of Texas. So, once again, the size of Texas is a negative factor. The so-called "average density" is not the key factor here, the amount of fiber you have to lay to reach everyone is.
Miles of roads in Texas: 152,054 miles Miles of roads in Finland: 65,617 miles ()
Population of Texas: 25,674,681 Population of Finland: 5,375,276
Linear population density of Texas: ~169 persons per miles of road Linear population density of Finland: ~82 persons per miles of road
Ergo, it is cheaper per head to provide wireline telecommunications services in Texas than in Finland, when building out to the whole population, as the linear population density is higher in Texas and most, if not all, permanent residences and business are accessible by road.
Sources: http://www.aaroads.com/texas/ http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/lokakuu_en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas
() This road mileage does not include private roads in Finland. Including these roads would further lower the linear population density of Finland, but these roads were excluded from the calculation as the majority of the private roads are access roads to non-permanent recidency second homes and timer or agriculture roads.
This cannot be implemented without violating property rights, so it's morally wrong. The state should protect people's rights, not take them away.