If you're really going to be fair about it, you'd need to ask the same question for coal, natural gas, even wind and solar.
Nuclear is unusual in that like wind&solar, it's mostly direct cost, not indirect cost. The only reason the government is on the hook for Hanford is that it was a government site. Who typically pays decommissioning expenses for a nuclear plant? The owning company. It's part of the reason that the owners don't want to turn them off.
The AC is correct. This is mostly an economic crime, not one of addiction. Consider the organization: From a monthly fee of $15, the organization can afford to cover the $180 fine. Translation: Out of every 100 subscribers, the organization only expects about 7 to be caught each month. They take in $1500, pay out $1,440, and make $60 worth of profit. More realistically I'd expect only 5-7 hits each month.
Increase the penalties and more importantly the odds of being caught and it'd be possible to raise the cost of fair-jumping to the point that the cost of monthly insurance would exceed the $120 to just buy a monthly pass.
On a different topic; transit systems can be looked at a bit like the road in front of somebody's house. It's a diffused public benefit, much like roads. Maybe if they used properly/sales/income taxes within the city to pay for the transit, in order to encourage people to use it more. Even people who are rich enough to drive everywhere anyways can enjoy the benefits of lower traffic on the roads.
A: Grenades and fire support, for example.;) More seriously in a law enforcement context: Talking them down, assuming you even try, works more often than not. B: Criminals in the USA don't arm themselves to confront cops. They generally arm themselves to project force on their victims, or defend themselves against other criminals. As such, disarming cops isn't going to change criminal carry rates much at all.
Programs that HAVE worked is things like advertising* that carrying a gun while committing a crime will automatically add five years to the prison sentence. Targeting illegal guns also works.
You say that killing a cop is a terrible idea because you get 500 police with guns coming to get you, but if the patrolman doesn't have a gun he'll get shot because he's unarmed?
Never said that criminals don't make terrible choices. It works in England/Japan because so few criminals have guns. Here in the USA it'd result in the criminals having a force advantage(IE armed) over the cops too often.
It's more of: He has a gun so it's unlikely I'll be able to take him AND if I DO manage to take him 500+ of his buddies will be coming for me.'
Thing of it like error handling. You expect the main function to work, but want a backup just in case - though in this case which is the main function, 500 buddies or just being armed, is up in the air.
All the German and French police I saw when I was in Europe were armed. I initially had Japan on my list, but none of the sources I checked listed them.
Military training doesn't teach you how to carry on once shot. It's more 'find cover, treat wound' at that point.
As for UK police, as you say, it's not so much the shooting for the body first*, it's the firing when they so much as 'think' somebody MIGHT have a weapon. I object to this in the USA as well.
*NOT shooting for the body increases hazards for innocents due to misses, for example.
My take on it is more that if the police don't have guns- 'sweet, they can't stop me!'.
I know that the guns come out if the suspect is thought to be armed, but most criminals in the USA don't arm themselves because of the Cops being armed. Indeed, in MOST cases, criminals will promptly surrender, armed or not, rather than attempt to confront police. Why? The police officer is more likely to be wearing armor, have a weapon in better condition, be more accurate with it, and even if you manage to kill one officer, how will you kill the 500+ that will shortly be coming for you?
The police shot a knife in a man in eastern Helsinki Police had to use a firearm, a knife the man to subdue him at the Meri-Rastila. The police approached the man did not believe in käskytystä, when the police shot him in the leg.
Police received about 15 o'clock Ramsinniemi beach notification that there was seen a man holding a knife and a bloody woman. The patrol arrived, a man does not 'command in spite of puukostaan given up, but approached the police. Police shot a man leg below the knee. The man was hospitalized and is not a threat to life. Also, a woman was hospitalized. It will be addressed violent opposition to the official. Any other criminal types will be confirmed later.
My read of the situation - Police arrived to the scene of a man holding a knife on a woman, who was already bloodied. He refused to give up so they shot him below the knee.
My take on this is that: 1. The situation was fairly static. He wasn't moving. 2. The threat was deadly to the woman - they had to act 3. He was 'probably' blocking a body shot with the woman 4. There might have been enough time to get a 'designated shooter' in place, one capable of tighter shots. Or it could have been happenstance - the officer actually missed the body shot, but the lower leg was 'good enough'.
Again, I thank you for your response. I'm just going to dispute that this single incident can be taken as the Finnish police having a policy of shooting people in the leg to stop them. I can find incidents of US police shooting people in the leg, normally not deliberately... In the USA they likely would have resorted to Taser or even beanbag rounds.
Depends on the location. Some areas the police will be all over it.
You know what the sad thing is? Most criminals that steal things like bikes & laptops are serial thieves. Knocking one or two out of the trade can be enough to improve the local area's crime stats substantially.
I'd say there's no 'becoming', it's not like it's an emerging problem. The sick thing is, it'd probably be cheaper to simply put them on maintenance doses to manage the addiction. Heroin is dirt cheap if produced commercially.
I favor legalizing, taxing and regulating most 'recreational' drugs. Legalizing - not decriminalization. Much of the benefit I want is defunding organized crime. You can't do that without making production and distribution legal. Taxing - approximately the difference between how cheap it is to produce legally and street price. Tax more dangerous stuff a bit more, stuff that isn't as dangerous a bit less. Regulate - No under 18, true labeling, pharmacy grade production, etc...
Take some of the tax money and put it towards treatment centers and other remediation programs.
Do you happen to have a source on Finnish officers shooting 'to incapacitate'? Much less in the leg? Because my self-defense and military training is that a leg shot is both potentially fatal(big arteries there, fast bleedout) and not likely to be incapacitating(if you don't hit the artery they can still fight).
By my training 'Center of Mass' shots, IE to the chest, is both an easier shot to hit with, is more likely to actually incapacitate, and given prompt medical attention not actually all that more likely to be fatal.
I shoot to 'stop', not to 'wound' or 'kill'.
That being said, I'm all for officers using negotiation instead of gunfire were possible. But if that trigger has to be pulled, it needs to be pulled in the most effective manner possible.
but in most civilized countries police doesn't deem it necessary to carry guns to protect themselves from the rest of society.
Only if you define 'civilized' as 'most police don't carry guns'. Most police in Europe carry guns. Most police around the world carry guns. The UK and Norway don't get to dominate the stats.
I'm not saying that we don't have problems, I'd LOVE to reform our police and justice systems here in the USA, but routine carrying of arms isn't one of them. My view is if they can't be trusted with a weapon, they can't be trusted to be an officer.
First, 17 channels is the average. I'd only average 7. There are those that average more. Second - as you mention, it's a bit like a buffet - the more channels you offer the more people you can satisfy, but on average because the 17 channel figure is known it doesn't actually cost more, while the more channels you can offer the more customers you can satisfy. Well, so long as the market segment isn't saturated. Sales channels pay you to be broadcast, but they're not that popular.
So areas that have competition probably have to offer you higher value channels for less money. HBO is expensive, but it's also got TV I want to see. In a non-competitive area it might be priced high enough that I don't get it, but low enough in a competitive one that I do get a package with it.
Apple is certainly still around, it's just not crazy hot anymore. You could say it's reached saturation.
As for 'just a brand', not really. There's more to a brand than 'sexy'. Heck, even 'sexy' requires engineering and innovation.
And GM isn't going to be able to get a car as 'sexy and high rated' without lots and lots of engineering and innovation. The Tesla model S currently enjoys a HUGE advantage in performance and safety, as I said before. That's part of what's driving it's popularity. But it's currently a touch more popular than just those would dictate based on it's price, thus the brand premium.
The truth is there are a lot of cable cutters. The basic subscription is only to get a break on Internet. DSL and basic phone service is the same thing. My home phone has no long distance plan at all. It is redundant and expensive compaired to my Cell or VOIP which include all of US and Canada as a local call.
I've effectively cut my cable several decades ago. Of course, I grew up in a non-cable house. Whenever I end up in a hotel/motel room I generally flip through the channels but end up on one of the 'how X is made' or dirty job type shows. Which I don't value at ~$50/month.
The report also found that the price increases weren't helped by competition — in fact, the prices rose faster where there were competing providers than in areas where the main provider had no effective competition."
True, but it notes right in the article that 'expanded cable' is basic + the most subscribed to package, and in areas with competition that the extra $3 buys you more service on average in competitive areas. IE if people get a better deal they're willing to buy more.
Unclear in the article would be the effects of FIOS service, which is even more tightly bundled with internet services than traditional cable.
The only real danger that I see is if he's so sucessful at compelling his automaker competition to electricity that if he sells batteries to them, they push antitrust regulation against him for being a vertically-integrated monopoly that's bad for their purchasing power. That's an awful long time down the road though.
I think it'd be a tough sell even a 'long time down the road' since most of the battery factory would actually be owned by Panasonic. Vertical integration isn't anything new for the major auto manufacturers - parts companies will often have manufacturing equipment across the street, sometimes even within the plant itself.
Once the system design settles down in a few years Tesla may decide to sell batteries, or more likely batteries + power system controllers + engines, to lots of other carmakers. And in turn decide that the component business is better than the 'car' business. Gundlach may ultimately be right, but he is most certainly way, way too early for that strategy change.
I think that a major difference is that right now the 'Tesla' brand name is seen as hot/premium. It's cool to be in a Tesla, much less driving one. As long as the company can keep that up it can enjoy a price premium even over it's performance and safety advantages.
Time it right Tesla could be bought out by one of the other auto manufacturers for tens of billions. But I don't think that Musk is ready to sell yet...
Similar to the Roadster, the Model S battery pack is filled with cylindrical lithium ion cells dubbed 18650s. Tesla does extensive testing of these cells at its headquarters, cycling them at different temperatures, trying different discharge rates, and even crushing them. The data Tesla collects gets used to refine the specifications sent to its suppliers, among them Panasonic and Samsung.
Despite Tesla Motors’ proven success with 18650-type Li-ion cells in its Model S, the industry’s best-known EV battery analyst isn’t betting that other automakers will adopt that form factor, which describes the cylindrical battery case’s 18 x 65 mm dimensions.
It's not a 'zillion cylinders', it's just over 7k, and 'wasted space' is instead used for the liquid coolant used to keep the batteries under temperature.
Around 7000 individual cells, coded NCR18650A by their supplier Panasonic, are used in each Model S pack. Rated at 3100 mAh, the cells are based on lithium nickel-cobalt aluminum (NCA) chemistry and feature a proprietary cathode geometry developed by Panasonic and Tesla. Last October the two companies announced a battery-cell supply agreement through December 2017 (Panasonic also owns shares of Tesla Motors) which will cover the launch of the Model X in late 2014 and subsequent Model E vehicles.
If Tesla's also producing cars, then they are far less likely to do business with them regardless of how good their batteries are.
Arguably just the opposite. Car companies share parts and technologies all the time, if anything also being a car maker gives them higher status/more legitimacy than simply attempting to sell parts.
Yes, but the ISP doesn't want you. They want you to go away. They want your parents. You moving to a provider with a higher cap is a good thing. (at least for now)
They don't actually want my parents over me, they use more internet than I do. I may download a lot, but my parents LOVE netflix and such and manage to rack up more download than me. I tend to download a 5GB game from steam and play it exclusively for 40+ hours.
Second, I didn't move to an ISP with a higher cap. I moved and couldn't get internet service from anybody WITHOUT a cap while paying more money for it to boot. It sucks.
Not even remotely true. Only 1 country on earth has above 50% broadband coverage: Liechtenstein
There's a difference between offering internet service and people taking you up on it, and there's a reason I stuck scare quotes around 'everyone' because there will always be the occasional exception(and boy does it suck to be them sometimes). But if 90+% of the population can get an unmetered double-digit megabit connection for under $50/month, it's pretty universal.
Also, the wiki page isn't saying what you think it says. It's referring to "Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 2012", Dynamic Report, ITU ITC EYE, International Telecommunication Union. Retrieved on 29 June 2013."
IE Monaco has 45.5 wired broadband connections per 100 people. If you average 2 people per house, that's 91% availability. The USA averages 2.61 people per household, translating to 73% of people having broadband in the USA. This tracks pretty well with other sites.
It's expensive and difficult. Local municipalities could start doing it but they're going to have to buy back the franchise agreements they sold to the ISPs (what you call a monopoly)
Yep. It'll get better eventually, but we need to get the current set of technology ignorant congresscritters out of office. Call it 20 years before you get a supermajority that 'grew up' with computers.
Thus my third paragraph where I mention 'threaten these guys with competition that suddenly it's profitable to offer 100X the service at the same price'
I'm down with encouraging competition in this field. Hell, do the old thing where they're not allowed to merge if it eliminates competition. Regulate the heck out of them if it's not possible/practical to have multiple companies offering it. IE if they're the only player in an area they're not allowed to charge more for less service than an equivalent area that DOES have competition.
I know it's not a 'residential router', but $180 isn't that big of a price, is it? You'd need a second wireless router if you really want that, and configuration would take a bit more knowledge, but it'd be doable.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're really going to be fair about it, you'd need to ask the same question for coal, natural gas, even wind and solar.
Nuclear is unusual in that like wind&solar, it's mostly direct cost, not indirect cost. The only reason the government is on the hook for Hanford is that it was a government site. Who typically pays decommissioning expenses for a nuclear plant? The owning company. It's part of the reason that the owners don't want to turn them off.
Columbia Generating Station is a commercial nuclear plant.
Located approximately 16 miles away from Hanford; they're separate activities.
Unless you have some evidence that Columbia is responsible for an unusual amount of that pollution?
The AC is correct. This is mostly an economic crime, not one of addiction.
Consider the organization: From a monthly fee of $15, the organization can afford to cover the $180 fine.
Translation: Out of every 100 subscribers, the organization only expects about 7 to be caught each month. They take in $1500, pay out $1,440, and make $60 worth of profit. More realistically I'd expect only 5-7 hits each month.
Increase the penalties and more importantly the odds of being caught and it'd be possible to raise the cost of fair-jumping to the point that the cost of monthly insurance would exceed the $120 to just buy a monthly pass.
On a different topic; transit systems can be looked at a bit like the road in front of somebody's house. It's a diffused public benefit, much like roads. Maybe if they used properly/sales/income taxes within the city to pay for the transit, in order to encourage people to use it more. Even people who are rich enough to drive everywhere anyways can enjoy the benefits of lower traffic on the roads.
A: Grenades and fire support, for example. ;)
More seriously in a law enforcement context: Talking them down, assuming you even try, works more often than not.
B: Criminals in the USA don't arm themselves to confront cops. They generally arm themselves to project force on their victims, or defend themselves against other criminals. As such, disarming cops isn't going to change criminal carry rates much at all.
Programs that HAVE worked is things like advertising* that carrying a gun while committing a crime will automatically add five years to the prison sentence. Targeting illegal guns also works.
You say that killing a cop is a terrible idea because you get 500 police with guns coming to get you, but if the patrolman doesn't have a gun he'll get shot because he's unarmed?
Never said that criminals don't make terrible choices. It works in England/Japan because so few criminals have guns. Here in the USA it'd result in the criminals having a force advantage(IE armed) over the cops too often.
It's more of:
He has a gun so it's unlikely I'll be able to take him AND if I DO manage to take him 500+ of his buddies will be coming for me.'
Thing of it like error handling. You expect the main function to work, but want a backup just in case - though in this case which is the main function, 500 buddies or just being armed, is up in the air.
All the German and French police I saw when I was in Europe were armed. I initially had Japan on my list, but none of the sources I checked listed them.
Military training doesn't teach you how to carry on once shot. It's more 'find cover, treat wound' at that point.
As for UK police, as you say, it's not so much the shooting for the body first*, it's the firing when they so much as 'think' somebody MIGHT have a weapon. I object to this in the USA as well.
*NOT shooting for the body increases hazards for innocents due to misses, for example.
My take on it is more that if the police don't have guns- 'sweet, they can't stop me!'.
I know that the guns come out if the suspect is thought to be armed, but most criminals in the USA don't arm themselves because of the Cops being armed. Indeed, in MOST cases, criminals will promptly surrender, armed or not, rather than attempt to confront police. Why? The police officer is more likely to be wearing armor, have a weapon in better condition, be more accurate with it, and even if you manage to kill one officer, how will you kill the 500+ that will shortly be coming for you?
Thank you for the citation. Google translation:
The police shot a knife in a man in eastern Helsinki
Police had to use a firearm, a knife the man to subdue him at the Meri-Rastila. The police approached the man did not believe in käskytystä, when the police shot him in the leg.
Police received about 15 o'clock Ramsinniemi beach notification that there was seen a man holding a knife and a bloody woman. The patrol arrived, a man does not 'command in spite of puukostaan given up, but approached the police. Police shot a man leg below the knee. The man was hospitalized and is not a threat to life. Also, a woman was hospitalized. It will be addressed violent opposition to the official. Any other criminal types will be confirmed later.
My read of the situation - Police arrived to the scene of a man holding a knife on a woman, who was already bloodied. He refused to give up so they shot him below the knee.
My take on this is that:
1. The situation was fairly static. He wasn't moving.
2. The threat was deadly to the woman - they had to act
3. He was 'probably' blocking a body shot with the woman
4. There might have been enough time to get a 'designated shooter' in place, one capable of tighter shots. Or it could have been happenstance - the officer actually missed the body shot, but the lower leg was 'good enough'.
Again, I thank you for your response. I'm just going to dispute that this single incident can be taken as the Finnish police having a policy of shooting people in the leg to stop them. I can find incidents of US police shooting people in the leg, normally not deliberately... In the USA they likely would have resorted to Taser or even beanbag rounds.
Depends on the location. Some areas the police will be all over it.
You know what the sad thing is? Most criminals that steal things like bikes & laptops are serial thieves. Knocking one or two out of the trade can be enough to improve the local area's crime stats substantially.
I'd say there's no 'becoming', it's not like it's an emerging problem. The sick thing is, it'd probably be cheaper to simply put them on maintenance doses to manage the addiction. Heroin is dirt cheap if produced commercially.
I favor legalizing, taxing and regulating most 'recreational' drugs.
Legalizing - not decriminalization. Much of the benefit I want is defunding organized crime. You can't do that without making production and distribution legal.
Taxing - approximately the difference between how cheap it is to produce legally and street price. Tax more dangerous stuff a bit more, stuff that isn't as dangerous a bit less.
Regulate - No under 18, true labeling, pharmacy grade production, etc...
Take some of the tax money and put it towards treatment centers and other remediation programs.
Do you happen to have a source on Finnish officers shooting 'to incapacitate'? Much less in the leg? Because my self-defense and military training is that a leg shot is both potentially fatal(big arteries there, fast bleedout) and not likely to be incapacitating(if you don't hit the artery they can still fight).
By my training 'Center of Mass' shots, IE to the chest, is both an easier shot to hit with, is more likely to actually incapacitate, and given prompt medical attention not actually all that more likely to be fatal.
I shoot to 'stop', not to 'wound' or 'kill'.
That being said, I'm all for officers using negotiation instead of gunfire were possible. But if that trigger has to be pulled, it needs to be pulled in the most effective manner possible.
but in most civilized countries police doesn't deem it necessary to carry guns to protect themselves from the rest of society.
Only if you define 'civilized' as 'most police don't carry guns'. Most police in Europe carry guns. Most police around the world carry guns. The UK and Norway don't get to dominate the stats.
I'm not saying that we don't have problems, I'd LOVE to reform our police and justice systems here in the USA, but routine carrying of arms isn't one of them. My view is if they can't be trusted with a weapon, they can't be trusted to be an officer.
Hmmm...
First, 17 channels is the average. I'd only average 7. There are those that average more.
Second - as you mention, it's a bit like a buffet - the more channels you offer the more people you can satisfy, but on average because the 17 channel figure is known it doesn't actually cost more, while the more channels you can offer the more customers you can satisfy. Well, so long as the market segment isn't saturated. Sales channels pay you to be broadcast, but they're not that popular.
So areas that have competition probably have to offer you higher value channels for less money. HBO is expensive, but it's also got TV I want to see. In a non-competitive area it might be priced high enough that I don't get it, but low enough in a competitive one that I do get a package with it.
You have to be careful when considering averages.
Apple is certainly still around, it's just not crazy hot anymore. You could say it's reached saturation.
As for 'just a brand', not really. There's more to a brand than 'sexy'. Heck, even 'sexy' requires engineering and innovation.
And GM isn't going to be able to get a car as 'sexy and high rated' without lots and lots of engineering and innovation. The Tesla model S currently enjoys a HUGE advantage in performance and safety, as I said before. That's part of what's driving it's popularity. But it's currently a touch more popular than just those would dictate based on it's price, thus the brand premium.
The truth is there are a lot of cable cutters. The basic subscription is only to get a break on Internet. DSL and basic phone service is the same thing. My home phone has no long distance plan at all. It is redundant and expensive compaired to my Cell or VOIP which include all of US and Canada as a local call.
I've effectively cut my cable several decades ago. Of course, I grew up in a non-cable house. Whenever I end up in a hotel/motel room I generally flip through the channels but end up on one of the 'how X is made' or dirty job type shows. Which I don't value at ~$50/month.
The report also found that the price increases weren't helped by competition — in fact, the prices rose faster where there were competing providers than in areas where the main provider had no effective competition."
True, but it notes right in the article that 'expanded cable' is basic + the most subscribed to package, and in areas with competition that the extra $3 buys you more service on average in competitive areas. IE if people get a better deal they're willing to buy more.
Unclear in the article would be the effects of FIOS service, which is even more tightly bundled with internet services than traditional cable.
The only real danger that I see is if he's so sucessful at compelling his automaker competition to electricity that if he sells batteries to them, they push antitrust regulation against him for being a vertically-integrated monopoly that's bad for their purchasing power. That's an awful long time down the road though.
I think it'd be a tough sell even a 'long time down the road' since most of the battery factory would actually be owned by Panasonic. Vertical integration isn't anything new for the major auto manufacturers - parts companies will often have manufacturing equipment across the street, sometimes even within the plant itself.
Once the system design settles down in a few years Tesla may decide to sell batteries, or more likely batteries + power system controllers + engines, to lots of other carmakers. And in turn decide that the component business is better than the 'car' business. Gundlach may ultimately be right, but he is most certainly way, way too early for that strategy change.
I think that a major difference is that right now the 'Tesla' brand name is seen as hot/premium. It's cool to be in a Tesla, much less driving one. As long as the company can keep that up it can enjoy a price premium even over it's performance and safety advantages.
Time it right Tesla could be bought out by one of the other auto manufacturers for tens of billions. But I don't think that Musk is ready to sell yet...
Is CNET good enough for you?
Similar to the Roadster, the Model S battery pack is filled with cylindrical lithium ion cells dubbed 18650s. Tesla does extensive testing of these cells at its headquarters, cycling them at different temperatures, trying different discharge rates, and even crushing them. The data Tesla collects gets used to refine the specifications sent to its suppliers, among them Panasonic and Samsung.
How about SAE International?
Despite Tesla Motors’ proven success with 18650-type Li-ion cells in its Model S, the industry’s best-known EV battery analyst isn’t betting that other automakers will adopt that form factor, which describes the cylindrical battery case’s 18 x 65 mm dimensions.
It's not a 'zillion cylinders', it's just over 7k, and 'wasted space' is instead used for the liquid coolant used to keep the batteries under temperature.
Around 7000 individual cells, coded NCR18650A by their supplier Panasonic, are used in each Model S pack. Rated at 3100 mAh, the cells are based on lithium nickel-cobalt aluminum (NCA) chemistry and feature a proprietary cathode geometry developed by Panasonic and Tesla. Last October the two companies announced a battery-cell supply agreement through December 2017 (Panasonic also owns shares of Tesla Motors) which will cover the launch of the Model X in late 2014 and subsequent Model E vehicles.
If Tesla's also producing cars, then they are far less likely to do business with them regardless of how good their batteries are.
Arguably just the opposite. Car companies share parts and technologies all the time, if anything also being a car maker gives them higher status/more legitimacy than simply attempting to sell parts.
Simply threatening them with competition isn't enough.
Didn't say that it was 'enough'. Said that even so much as a whiff of competition improves offerings substantially.
As for the rest of it, I mostly agree. What do you think a Cooperative neighborhood ISP would be but a public utility?
Yes, but the ISP doesn't want you. They want you to go away. They want your parents. You moving to a provider with a higher cap is a good thing. (at least for now)
They don't actually want my parents over me, they use more internet than I do. I may download a lot, but my parents LOVE netflix and such and manage to rack up more download than me. I tend to download a 5GB game from steam and play it exclusively for 40+ hours.
Second, I didn't move to an ISP with a higher cap. I moved and couldn't get internet service from anybody WITHOUT a cap while paying more money for it to boot. It sucks.
Not even remotely true. Only 1 country on earth has above 50% broadband coverage: Liechtenstein
There's a difference between offering internet service and people taking you up on it, and there's a reason I stuck scare quotes around 'everyone' because there will always be the occasional exception(and boy does it suck to be them sometimes). But if 90+% of the population can get an unmetered double-digit megabit connection for under $50/month, it's pretty universal.
Also, the wiki page isn't saying what you think it says. It's referring to "Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 2012", Dynamic Report, ITU ITC EYE, International Telecommunication Union. Retrieved on 29 June 2013."
IE Monaco has 45.5 wired broadband connections per 100 people. If you average 2 people per house, that's 91% availability.
The USA averages 2.61 people per household, translating to 73% of people having broadband in the USA. This tracks pretty well with other sites.
It's expensive and difficult. Local municipalities could start doing it but they're going to have to buy back the franchise agreements they sold to the ISPs (what you call a monopoly)
Yep. It'll get better eventually, but we need to get the current set of technology ignorant congresscritters out of office. Call it 20 years before you get a supermajority that 'grew up' with computers.
This assumes that there's actually competition.
Thus my third paragraph where I mention 'threaten these guys with competition that suddenly it's profitable to offer 100X the service at the same price'
I'm down with encouraging competition in this field. Hell, do the old thing where they're not allowed to merge if it eliminates competition. Regulate the heck out of them if it's not possible/practical to have multiple companies offering it. IE if they're the only player in an area they're not allowed to charge more for less service than an equivalent area that DOES have competition.
I know it's not a 'residential router', but $180 isn't that big of a price, is it? You'd need a second wireless router if you really want that, and configuration would take a bit more knowledge, but it'd be doable.