Slashdot Mirror
More Than 750 American Communities Have Built Their Own Internet Networks (vice.com)
Jason Koebler shares a report from Motherboard: According to a freshly updated map of community-owned networks, more than 750 communities across the United States have embraced operating their own broadband network, are served by local rural electric cooperatives, or have made at least some portion of a local fiber network publicly available. The map was created by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit that advocates for local economies. The Institute's latest update indicates that there's now 55 municipal networks serving 108 communities with a publicly owned fiber-to-the-home internet network. 76 communities now offer access to a locally owned cable network reaching most or all of the community, and more than 258 communities are now served by a rural electric cooperative. Many more communities could expand their local offerings according to the group's data. 197 communities already have some publicly owned fiber service available to parts of the community, while more than 120 communities have publicly-owned dark (unused) fiber available for use by local residences and local area businesses. The group's map also highlights which states have erected legislative barriers to hamper these local efforts and explains what these laws actually do.
Wow, what an incredibly shitty map.
We have great map tech available to anyone... and the article uses that.
Pitiful.
Your brain is a bear market.
Communists must always use the technologies developed by capitalists.
The Internet was created by the government, so it was the other way around in this case.
Instead of just using labels like "communist" and "capitalist", you should learn about evidence based reasoning. Look at the actual results. For most things, capitalism works better. For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.
For Internet service, people tend to be happier with municipal systems rather than private monopolies. So maybe that is a better way to go. What is important is the results.
that as some ort of socialism, but so few people see municipal roads as such. Yet both are there for a similar reason when market forces just do not work...
Communists must always use the technologies developed by capitalists. Because they are incapable of any new development, they are always several steps behind the non-communists.
I agree that capitalism does spur technological advancement faster than communism or mixed economic systems. However, there are a few points to consider:
1.) Profit isn't always the driver of technological advancement. Much tech we use today is based on research done for military ends such as nuclear power, the internet, GPS, digital imaging, canned food, the ambulance, microwave ovens, the interstate highway system, antibiotics even tampons/pads. Not all of these were developed by the military but we can thank the military for the fact they have extensive commercial use today. Entire industries exist based on these technologies.
2.) Capitalism seems very well suited to technological advancements but it is also very good at choking advancements when it threatens a large player's margins. Entrenched interests don't like uncertainty or shifting markets and they can and do stifle innovation and change when it is more profitable to maintain the status quo. Witness internet speeds in the US vs other less capitalistic countries. The differences cannot be explained entirely by geography and demographics as they still exist in densely populated areas.
For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.
You haven't seen a government-run health system, have you?
Example: in June, I had some nasty issue in the foot (some acute tendon swelling -- can't read the doctor's handwriting), it made walking so painful I had trouble going 100 meters to a shop. After a long time of waiting, I finally got admitted by a first-contact doctor, only whom could give me a referral to the actual doctor with an ability to heal me. For fucking February! So instead of using the system I fully paid for with my taxes, I went to a commercial doctor instead. The problem was fixed after just a few days of physical therapy. In the public system, waiting times for physical therapy are 18-24 months. Same for most specializations, including those life-saving like cardio (24 months).
But that was the "good old times". Since then, the health system pretty much collapsed. Currently, a doctor after studies, intership and a couple years of experience (so called "resident") earns $10800 yearly ($7800 after taxes). In the middle of Europe, in an EU country. No, I'm not confusing monthly vs annual wages -- these figures are per year.
For politicians, the health system is only a cost; the money can be better spent for something with a bigger chance of getting them votes or power. Thus, those of us who can afford a doctor have to pay twice, while the poor get fucked just the same.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
.. results in the same thing.
I took the time, to think it all through: A perfect communism, for example, would be the exact same market as healthy capitalist "free market". And a perfect capitalist market, would automatically be social thanks to the advantages of networking / teaming up / helping each other out. (Basically, if you help failing parts of your group over not too big valleys, you have made an investment and enjoy the benefits when they're on a mountain. And vice versa.)
The thing that completely conflicts though, funnily enough, is non-perfect capitalism and ... democracy.
And, just as funny: neocon values and religious values are also direct opposites. (Religion is all about being social, and helping those who suffer, and not being selfish.)
But of course, you can argue about whether "perfect" means in a practical sense, or in a theoretical one that is impossible to ever achieve in reality.
Anecdote =/= data.
No one is claiming _all_ government run health care is better than private, nor that it's flawless. If you'd like to take the example of the collapsed health system that you've had problems with and show how it invalidates the claim that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less", I'd be interested.
I'd be even more interested if you could show that the failure of the healthcare system was because it was run by _a_ government, rather than being the result of being run by a government that was failing in other ways.
For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.
You haven't seen a government-run health system, have you?
Example: in June, I had some nasty issue in the foot (some acute tendon swelling -- can't read the doctor's handwriting), it made walking so painful I had trouble going 100 meters to a shop. After a long time of waiting, I finally got admitted by a first-contact doctor, only whom could give me a referral to the actual doctor with an ability to heal me. For fucking February! So instead of using the system I fully paid for with my taxes, I went to a commercial doctor instead. The problem was fixed after just a few days of physical therapy. In the public system, waiting times for physical therapy are 18-24 months. Same for most specializations, including those life-saving like cardio (24 months).
But that was the "good old times". Since then, the health system pretty much collapsed. Currently, a doctor after studies, intership and a couple years of experience (so called "resident") earns $10800 yearly ($7800 after taxes). In the middle of Europe, in an EU country. No, I'm not confusing monthly vs annual wages -- these figures are per year.
For politicians, the health system is only a cost; the money can be better spent for something with a bigger chance of getting them votes or power. Thus, those of us who can afford a doctor have to pay twice, while the poor get fucked just the same.
This times ten.
It's a dirty little secret that people in America keep getting lied to about. Everyone here who has even a halfway decent job gets private health insurance for themselves and their families.
NHS, great for emergency care, shite for anything else.
At least in Indiana, electric utilities built electric interurban railroads. They were outlawed during the great depression, and disappeared, probably because FDR and his cronies were investing in Aramco. Let's hope these are not outlawed.
And if 750 liberals jumped off a cliff would you do that too?
I assume you're referring to the British NHS. It's still better than the U.S. where your scenario would have the same result if you have reasonable health insurance. If you don't you'd be out thousands of dollars. At any rate, a better solution is what's going on in Germany and France.
ShanghaiBill makes an important point: there are some things the free-market does better, and there are some things that the government does better. People often forget that the public enables the private. Government built infrastructure keeps the economy going. Roads, utilities, and the banking system allow commerce to happen generally smoothly.
When it comes to health care, the government run systems of every other developed country provide better results at much lower cost than what we get in the U.S.
One final point. I do think this thread should be referring to communism. Instead, I think they mean socialism. Even then, you can have government run systems that do not use socialism. For example, England's single-payer health-care system is socialistic while Canada's single-payer system is not. Both get better results than the U.S. at much lower cost.
"show how it invalidates the claim that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less""
That's not how evidence works. You've got it backward.
Currently, a doctor after studies, intership and a couple years of experience (so called "resident") earns $10800 yearly ($7800 after taxes). In the middle of Europe, in an EU country. No, I'm not confusing monthly vs annual wages -- these figures are per year.
Well there's your problem right there; all of your doctors are homeless and starving to death. No wonder there is such a shortage.
Go to Europe if you want to see a government-run health care system that makes America look like retarded assholes catering to petulant directly-profit-driven Republican obstructionists - the truth.
This isn't about free market, or communism, or capitalism at all. It's about communities using their own resources for infrastructure and what *should be* a common utility. If things ran they way they should, the easements, right-of-ways, the utility poles, should be owned by the municipal governments and leased to those that can show they can sustain the rent, not damage other people's stuff, and be relied on when there's damage from storms, etc.
There are easements granted and right-of-ways that I as a property owner granted to utilities. Sadly, this was done by prior owners, who benefited from the fees. But then one of the utilities changed the nature of the easement, and low and behold, I could charge them once again.
Municipalities should control their infrastructure, not some lawyer for Verizon, AT&T, etc etc. This has zero to do with communism. It has to do with the most important common denominator for most people: community, not some hackneyed description of an obtuse financial model or governmental construct.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You haven't seen a government-run health system, have you?
Want some horror stories about other health systems?
Try my mother, almost died because none of the medical professionals after a heart surgery could notice she had an infection.
Try my mother's stories about being a nurse, and being told to launder her own scrubs at home. Or use "clinically acceptable" routines of using product from a single kit on multiple surgeries.
Try going to the doctor, and being pandered to the latest pharmaceutical wonder that costs out the ass.
The fact is, you want to come to America? We'll get you fucked real good in the hospitals.
Communism and socialism work great -- ON PAPER. You mix actual humans into it? It becomes a shit-show of corruption.
Capitalism isn't much better, really. Ideally, everyone plays above-board, observes the Social Contract (i.e., doesn't intentionally fuck everyone over just for sake of profit), and society prospers. Unfortunately, much like the microbiome in your gut, things only work really work well when they stay in balance.
Sadly, capitalism here in these United States is grossly out of balance. Corporatism is a real Thing, they have too much power and sway in everything, especially our government (which should be above and immune to such things), and to make matters even worse we now have a sitting President (such as he is, LOL) that's working like the damned to take away what little control there still is over them.
How this pertains to the Internet, is Ajit Pai and his bald-faced pandering to corporate interests, and the American public be damned. Thus we have more and more municipalities looking to do an end-run around shitty corporations like Comcast/Xfinity and AT&T.
Fact of the matter is, the Internet is now too important and integrated into everything to call a 'boutique' or 'luxury' service; it must, sooner (preferable) or later, be deemed a public utility, with all that implies.
That's not how evidence works. You've got it backward.
In informal settings it's not unusual to reference relatively uncontested positions without providing evidence each time.
That the US has poorer outcomes per person per dollar is well known. Most other OECD countries have similar health outcomes for similar per person expenditure and have similar levels of government involvement in healthcare. Comparing the US to these countries supports the hypothesis that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less".
To the extent that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is accepted as true, then asking that an example that is offered that contradicts this be elaborated _is_ how evidence works.
If you don't consider that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is true or well supported, would you please say so so we can have a discussion around that. Picking points on form doesn't really add anything, here.
Why the fuck is this sitting at -1? It's a coward of a man/woman who mods down a reasonable thing without ever putting fingers to keys to even attempt disputing it with their own reasoning. I know we call anon posts "Anonymous Coward" and all of that, but those who would mod this down instead of discussing it are both Anonymous and Cowards in the truest sense.
So you don't have government run healthcare, but some hybrid public-private system. And you can't complain that the doctors are paid nothing but you have to pay twice. It's one or the other. In some hybrid public-private systems, the public-only version is intended as a last resort for the truly poor and unable to pay. I would also argue that you have no idea what it is like to live in the U.S. where a simple operation without health insurance can drive you into bankruptcy. I also expect that the amount you paid for your private care is beans compared to what that same thing costs in the U.S. You would probably think it was a joke if you were told the "full cost" that simple things like this draw in the U.S. Places will charge thousands of dollars for standard MRIs that in other countries cost a couple hundred at the "nice" facility.
It's a dirty little secret that people in America keep getting lied to about.
Americans hear a constant refrain decrying the horrors of Healthcare in foreign countries oppresed with sociaism. Are you saying this is a lie?
Best think hard about it.
You haven't seen a government-run health system, have you?
I live in a country with a government run health care system.
It is first class. Probably the best in the world.
What does the fact that your country and government are fucktards have to do with anything? Your country voted for your government. You made the bed you lay in.
This isn't about free market, or communism, or capitalism at all. It's about communities using their own resources for infrastructure and what *should be* a common utility.
What are you smoking? Nothing 'should' be anything. We live in a democracy. We chose what should and shouldn't be.
...have always been a lot more socialist than they'd like to admit. Once you remove the labels and just ask about principles and policies directly, most Americans exhibit quite strong socialist tendencies. This is one of many reasons why worker-owned and community-based businesses, which are inherently democratic, have always been popular and are getting more so as the government increasingly fails to protect its citizens from predatory corporations.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
The moment an ISP cites federal regulations and files a lawsuit to attempt to prevent a city government from "competing" (something which, by default, is not a contract violation or a property crime), they lose all credibility as "capitalists".
Also, if they do not have the cooperation of the government, then they'd have to either buy a lot more property or negotiate a lot more deals with landowners for conduits, utility poles, maintenance access, and, if they attempt to transmit across a wireless channel, they'd need a spectrum allocation with legal protections [so that they have some grounds to stand on if they want to shut down a kid with a jammer].
Yes
The Tories have ruined everything good.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't know much about community internet networks, but I notice that Q-Life where I live in The Dalles is listed. The touted success story is likely mostly true with Q-Life being important in bringing the Google data centers here, but the Internet service available here is about as bad and expensive as anywhere.
The Internet was created by the government, so it was the other way around in this case.
Instead of just using labels like "communist" and "capitalist", you should learn about evidence based reasoning. Look at the actual results. For most things, capitalism works better. For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.
For Internet service, people tend to be happier with municipal systems rather than private monopolies. So maybe that is a better way to go. What is important is the results.
I many parts of Europe both the healthcare and the network systems were either built and operated by the government or if they are privately owned and constructed there is heavy government oversight to assure equal access. Healthcare in Europe is cheaper than in the US and broadband access is also better and more widespread for the simple reason that if the service providers decide to divvy up the country into territories and maintain a gentleman's agreement not to trespass in each other's fiefdoms they get big fat fine so in effect they are forced to compete whether they want to or not. If left to their own devices they usually try to eliminate competition in one way or another which kind of belies the libertarian/free market fundamentalist idea that market forces are inherently competitive, they are not, they are inherently monopolistic.
Well said and well reasoned, are you sure you are a on slashdot?
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
What you are seeing is political bias by both groups:
The people supporting munincipal nets fear big businesses because of bad experiences with Time Warner, or AT&T, forgetting that they get good experiences with McDonalsd, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. They are missing the point that the problem is not really "business", but rather "monopoly".
The people fearing socialism fear local nets because they have seen big government overreach and lie on so many big programs over the decades. They are missing that the founders of the nation championed THIS sort of LOCAL activity as long as it was not compulsory; it's one of the most basic ideas of America and can be seen in Alexis de Tocqueville's famous 1836 book "Democracy in America".
The internet was NOT created by the government at some advocate for community networks assert; it was mostly a project distributed across people at universities and SPONSORED by DARPA. Getting help and funding from government is not the same thing as being created by government. That would be like saying Space-X was "created by the government". The argument, therefore, that the internet proves that socialism is great does not really apply here any more than it does for the interstate highway system (it has nothing to do with government ownership or control over the means of production).
These community networks are also NOT "communism" or even "socialism". As long as they are not using the force of law to keep private competitors out, are not forcing citizens to use the community network, are not banning groups of citizens from creating parallel netowrks, etc then this is just plain freedom of the sort our nation's founders would have loved. This is a problem being solved by the people of a community at the level of government closest to them and most-responsive to them: the local community. This is perfect Americanism in the 1700s style that Ben Franklin whi created the nation's first public hospital and fire department would recognize and embrace.
This is the exact remedy to slow/throttled/expensive internet access, NOT some phony federal "net neutrality" regulations that only affect the mega companies favored by one political party over the mega companies favored by the other party. The real problem for most end users on the internet is that so many are only able to get network connectivity from a single provider with a monopoly on customers in a community. When you have a monopoly, you get abuse of the customers - it's 100% predictable. When you have serious competition, you get lower prices and better products because the consumer can take his cash to the better vendor; it's a very basic economic principle.
I think he is using the example of the health care systems of some Eastern European countries as an argument against government health care. However, those countries have gone through a severe crisis after the end of communist rule and their health systems are severely underfunded. The result is that doctors working in public health care are underpaid while private health care works fine. However, what he forgets is that all of those countries had perfectly functionnal health care systems BEFORE collapse of comunism. The current situation is the result of the transition, the low wages, low income for the state and, consequently, inadequate funding of health care.
I happen to be from one of those countries and indeed, these issues are there. Private health care is much safer than anything public, if you happen to live throughout most of Eastern Europe.
However, take any Western European country (except the UK) and you will find that government funded health care is as good as it can be. This is reflected in life expectency statistics. For instance, France has one of the highest life expectancies after Japan (at least last time I checked). And, btw, Eastern European countries had a comparable life expectancy before the collapse of communism. Compare that to the life expectancy in the US ...
This isn't about free market, or communism, or capitalism at all. It's about communities using their own resources for infrastructure and what *should be* a common utility.
What are you smoking? Nothing 'should' be anything. We live in a democracy. We chose what should and shouldn't be.
We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy in the broader definition of the term and there is a profound difference between the two.
For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.
You haven't seen a government-run health system, have you?
Not sure about the GP but what is obvious is you haven't.
Nice story, but in reality as a foreigner you are not permitted access to free medical services anywhere unless your nation has a reciprocal agreement.
Secondly, sounds like you were travelling without insurance in a foreign country and expecting the locals to pick up the tab. Entitlement much. For all the flaws with the UK's NHS has, I much prefer it over the US's private system. First and foremost, it's cheaper. The UK pays between US$4-5000 of taxpayer money per person on the NHS and thats the end of it. The US pays between $9-10,000 USD of taxpayer money and then you (or your employer) needs to fork out more on top of that. Secondly, if I have a minor ailment I can get a doctors appointment, they'll give me the tests and treatments I need, not the ones that make the most profit. If I have a major emergency, I can go to A&E, receive the care I need and not have to worry about a cent... let alone being turned away from A&E because I dont have the proper insurance (meaning my employer didn't give me the proper insurance). Finally, I'd hate to be reliant on my employer to provide something as essential as my health care, it gives the employer an enormous amount of power to restrict my movement and remuneration.
The NHS isn't perfect, but it's light years better than an all private system.
Currently, a doctor after studies, intership and a couple years of experience (so called "resident") earns $10800 yearly ($7800 after taxes). In the middle of Europe, in an EU country. No, I'm not confusing monthly vs annual wages -- these figures are per year.
Name the country. I guarantee you made this shit up or are deliberately omitting a fact that makes your scaremongering impotent.
I.E. You mentioned the middle of Europe, so we're probably talking former eastern bloc. Lets take Bulgaria for example, middle of Europe... Check. In the EU... Check. Average salary of a Bulgarian (Average, not minimum) is 400 Euro a month before tax so, 4800 Euro a year (US$5,920). A lot of Bulgarians will be earning less than that. A doctor earning US$10,800 will be earning almost twice the average wage.
Lets compare that to a US first year graduate MD. They get US$51,000 per year, the average salary in the US is $81,400. Seems its better to be a Bulgarian graduate than a US one.
So name the country, otherwise we all know you're full of shit.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
My town has a municipal ISP, run by our municipal power company. Our power rates are lower than the neighboring towns, which are served by commercial operators who have been asking for double-digit percent increases in power rates every year. In contrast, our power company gave everyone in town $20 off a bill last year because they had too much money in their operating fund. The service people live in town, and are very responsive to outages, we often have power back before other towns served by commercial operators.
On the ISP side, rates are pretty reasonable, and there's not the aggressive bundling that you see with Comcast, et. al. If you just want Internet you can get that, if you want Internet+Cable+Phone, you can get that, too. We have had speed upgrades but not cost upgrades. The service department only operates business hours, but we've not had an outage in 10+ years of living here, so I can't complain about reliability. When we did need service, they came at the appointed time, did their work, and were polite. So no complaints there.
The big downside is the common one for a lot of America, meaning that there is no competition. So if I wanted to get FIOS/XFinity/Comcast, or they could offer service at a lower cost, etc. I can't get it. So I'm locked in with no choice. But at least I am locked into a service that's provided for a reasonable cost, run by by neighbors, and delivered with high reliability.
I agree. Unfortunately, there are people who think the government can do no right and vice versa, and both sides bring in the ideology. I am pragmatist and favor whatever works best.
to call a 'boutique' or 'luxury' service;
But it's not about calling it a boutique or luxury service. It's about calling an ISP a telecommunications service provider or an information service provider and when you decide which one it is can determine whether the FCC can regulate ISPs under Title 2.
Part of the problem was that different ISPs were classified differently and had different rules apply to them. If you want to call it a public utility fine but shouldn't you make the rules consistent at the very least?
So you don't have government run healthcare, but some hybrid public-private system.
I do have government run healthcare. The private system is only because some people would rather pay than die.
And you can't complain that the doctors are paid nothing but you have to pay twice.
I do pay the full price for that "nothing", it's just the money going to pork rather than to the hospitals.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
light years better than an all private system.
Who has the highest life expectancy after a cancer diagnosis?
Health care and the police are in many ways the last line of defense. They are both expensive and not very efficient. If you have to use them chances are you did some wrong elsewhere. Good exerciser, walk-able cities, good nutrition and not smoking or drinking are far more effective at increasing life expectancy and decreasing infant mortality than the last 40% of the money we spend on health care*. Likewise, good education, social support, job opportunities and safe neighbourhoods are far more effective at reducing crime than a militarized police force. So comparing healthcare efficiency to things like life expectancy is very flawed
I have 5 kids, I've lived in the USA, I had Kaiser Permanente as my health care provider. Their spending per person in USD was about the same as Ontario, Canada spends per person in CAD. Their size and demographics were similar to Ontario not counting native Canadians. With Kaiser you get to see a doctor almost anytime, your wait to see a specialist is under an hour, tests are done right away and they tell you the results within hours. They covered most of prescriptions. There was no charge for parking, the parking lots weren't over flowing and doctors where not 2 hours late for your appointment. The doctors were on average more competent than my doctors in Canada, they appeared to be far better treated, had better tools and over half the ones I saw were born or educated in Canada.
In Ontario you may not even have a doctor. We have a huge shortage, likely because the good doctors say f*#k it and move to California. You have to pay for your prescriptions, hospitals are dirty bacteria infested shit holes (I worked in one) with expensive, crowded parking. MRI or a non life threatening procedure? 6 to 9 months. Test results - we will tell you in 2 weeks if it is positive, if it's negative or we screw up don't expect anything. Don't bother requesting to see a specialist for allergies, sports injuries, or skin conditions.
*Ontario spends 40% of it's health budget on the last 18 months of a persons life, so this spending does very little to increase live expectancy(the best you could argue is it extends it by 18 months, but it doesn't, and likely makes the last 18 months miserable). They spend another 40% on 5% of the patients - mostly premature babies, chronic ailments, mentally ill or mentally less responsible. I suspect politically it is impossible for a government not to spend money this way.
LOL if you asked the entire legion of users in this place that hate me they'd tell you a different story, one filled with me being an idiot, tinfoil-hat-wearer, dangerously paranoid, or some combination of all the above. Just because I'm not a bobble-headed yes-man who agrees with the 'group think'.
What I find interesting is that so many people see that as some ort [sic] of socialism, but so few people see municipal roads as such.
As you say, there is little difference. They are both fine when done privately, respecting people's rights, as in a community co-op, and wrong when they depend on force. The average municipality is close enough to a co-op anyway that if we just said "that's enough, we're not going to allow anyone to get away with using force anymore, no exceptions" they could reorganize as co-ops (with rent and voluntarily accepted terms of service instead of property taxes and ordinances) and carry on almost as they did before—entirely unlike the county, state or federal levels of government. Municipalities have less power in general and are not as quick to resort to force to get things done. It's still a problem, but as priorities go there are more urgent issues to be addressed elsewhere.
Yet both are there for a similar reason when market forces just do not work...
Assuming facts not in evidence. Communities do exist with privately-owned local roads: gated communities, private college campuses, industrial parks, even certain towns where local residents are responsible for the portion of the street fronting their property in much the same way that many communities handle sidewalks. There is no so-called "market failure" inherent in municipal roads demanding political intervention.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
The Internet was created by the government, so it was the other way around in this case.
The Internet you know owes way more to private development than to the government. Sure, the government was involved in the beginning, but don't give them too much credit—ARPANET was smaller than many modern company intranets and only linked a handful of military and educational institutions, with no expectation of expanding to serve the general public. It was the private commercial interests that developed it into a global telecommunications system benefitting billions of people every day.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
It isn't just infrastructure, industry "agreements" not to do X rarely work because the companies involved have a vested interest in cheating. Hence, we need a government agency to ride shotgun. Los Angeles smog during the 60's and 70's is a prime example, as are superfund cleanup sites and going after companies for the damage they caused. That doesn't mitigate the damage they did to people, but it's a start.
Anyone want to trust the airlines and not the FAA? Trusting the airlines means treating them like insurance companies, their bean counters will find the precise price point between an acceptable number of crashes and ticket prices to keep the airplanes full.
How much do you think the NHS stabilizes prices.
Cheap storage VM.
Anedcdote = raw data. It is a form of data, it just has unknown biases and is unactionable.
I don't know. But I can't imagine any way at all how that could give a misleading result.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Right. Because the cost of living in Ctstzeckjopolackia or Lavaturia is totally the same as in London or New York.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."