Global financial meltdown #2

[Shryke]

First, you don't need national free wireless broadband to do that. What you'd be talking about is targeted subsidies for those limited areas that won't ever get service otherwise. Of course, seeing as how access is expanding constantly, it's tough to identify those areas.

Second, why bother? Let's say we have a community of 15 people who live in a place without wireless broadband. Why should we invest hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars so they can have wireless broadband? I don't get the economic value to the nation as a whole to extend free wireless broadband to every square inch of national territory. Shit, there are places that still don't have electricity, and rightfully so.

I'd agree with a more targeted program.

Although a larger issue imo is leaving key infrastructure in private hands.

And why don't you see any economic benefit to ubiquitous internet access? Shit, it's one of those things where there are many uses and benefits that haven't yet been thought of. Just like with the internet itself.

[TrueMetis]

Apparently in FLOW's world people don't buy shit over the internet. Nor do internet providers fuck over their clients by capping speeds, limiting the amount of memory use, or any of the other underhanded techniques they use to squeeze extra money out of people. I should be getting about 4 times the internet speed I get, and yet my internet is still better than most peoples.

And FLOW it always funny when a cracked article calls you out on you bullshit. My link

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I've never understood two things about high speed rail:

1. we have a massively bigger and more desperate need for more rail within urban spaces, not between urban spaces. California should be investing 30 billion in a subway network for los angeles (it'd buy about 6 lines and 30 years if you built them one at a time or 10 lines in 10 years if you use economies of scale and build them at the same time) not in a fucking worthless high speed rail line that goes from san diego to disneyland (yes, really) to LA to Sacramento to San Jose to San Francisco

2. High speed rail is better because it's easier than traveling in an airport. I don't know if you've noticed but rail lines are vastly easier to blow up than an airplane and the united states is an ultra paranoid country that will impose intense security measures akin to an airport on it's only high speed rail line.

There's really no advantage to high speed rail other than the supposed green advantage, but that advantage will probably be offset for thirty or forty y years by the amount of carbon spent building the fucking boondoggle.

But why so many people on the left wing have a hardon for creating a slower, easier to blow up system of traveling between large cities instead of investing more in public rail within those cities I will never understand.

One possible advantage for high speed rail is that people are less afraid of small bombs since you won't be a few thousand feet in the air. This way, security can just be an x-ray to check for bombs in bags rather than a full body scan to catch the next underwear bomber. I have no actual idea how much more dangerous a small bomb is in an airplane than it is on a train, but I'd imagine there is some difference.

That said, I agree that a subway system would be more useful than a high speed line. Especially since the high speed line won't be that useful until there's a subway system.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The NY area should be absolutely ideal for this as a lot of big cities are within close reach, but you can look at a population density map of the US and get a pretty good idea of which areas could be suitable. Not perfect obviously, but it gives indicators that in those areas there is a bigger likelyhood of large to medium cities being within

There's already a fairly extensive rail system servicing the Greater New York metropolitan area.

[Lyanna Stark]

There's already a fairly extensive rail system servicing the Greater New York metropolitan area.

There were fairly extensive rail systems servicing most European countries as well before the fast trains, but if you have distances that you think are painful to drive, but sort of unecessary to grab a flight, those type of distances are ideal for fast trains. Distances that take maybe around 4-10 hrs to drive, or some such. With a proper speedy train, you can get there as fast, or almost as fast, as with a plane (at least considering the check-in time etc you have to spend at the airport) and you can work during the entire trip, if you choose.

As stated above, a fast track rail is not the end all be all solution, but it can be situationally very useful, if applied correctly. Same as with a metro. No need for a metro in a rural area either. Same asit's not clever to grab a fast train for a trip you expect will take 10 hrs plus on the train, in that case it's better to grab a flight. However, giving people and businesses the options and flexibility when it comes to transport is never a bad thing.

Also, fossil fuel prices are not going down any time soon, so fuel surcharges etc are most likely only going in one direction, and that direction is not down. Cheaper travel is in the interest of both businesses and normal people. I dunno about you, but I've never had an employer who thought it was a good idea to pay out of the nose for travel expenses.

[Zoë Sumra]

Apparently in FLOW's world people don't buy shit over the internet.

Or sell shit over the internet. The UK government's just announced money - insufficent money, but hey - for subsidising broadband infrastructure in rural areas: it's not just for Zynga players and avid gentlemans' literature viewers, but for countryside small businesses - many of which are right on the cusp of profitability - to allow their web access to improve, increasing their web sales and marketing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And why don't you see any economic benefit to ubiquitous internet access? Shit, it's one of those things where there are many uses and benefits that haven't yet been thought of. Just like with the internet itself.

That's a good point to have raised because it really goes to the heart of a ton of issues discussed around here.

When I'm talking about "economic benefit", I'm talking about the net benefit, including costs/opportunity costs. Sure, that group of 15 people will be better off with broadband access, just as the "Bridge to Nowhere" would have benefitted some people. The question is whether you could have gotten a better return by spending that money on something else.

[Iskaral Pust]

There's already a fairly extensive rail system servicing the Greater New York metropolitan area.

Are you kidding me?

There is one track that connects NJ suburban rail to Manhattan. Millions of commuters crawl through that bottleneck every day, and Chris Christie last year cancelled the work to build a new tunnel to expand the flow.

The entire system is creaking and antiquated. Trains crawl along and are frequently delayed or cancelled with massive knock-on effects to everyone around them.

The "high speed" Acela train that covers the Boston-NY-Philly-DC corridor is only slightly faster than the regular Amtrak trains. It's only real benefit is the relative space/comfort for business travelers with laptops.

The NY-area airports are the busiest in the nation, but direct rail access to the city is non-existant or too difficult to use. Newark airport has a direct train connection to Manhattan, but it's a suburban commuter train. Good luck getting a seat on that, never mind room for your luggage, during rush hour. And it's very infrequent outside of rush hour. You can take the subway to Jamaica and then transfer to another train to get to JFK, but that's so unwieldy that very few use it. I've heard of some multi-legged route to LaGuardia, but I've never seen any mention of it at the airport nor know or anyone who has used it.

That is one area that is ripe for a big improvement in rail services, and it already has a population that is willing to use them.

High speed rail between distant cities is pointless. The NE is pretty much the only corridor where it would be justified. Urban/suburban mass transit is worthwhile where-ever there would be critical mass of ridership -- no point in building these systems to run empty at a massive ongoing cost. But if they reduce time lost to congestion and reduce aggregate fuel usage, then it is worthwhile.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Apparently in FLOW's world people don't buy shit over the internet. Nor do internet providers fuck over their clients by capping speeds, limiting the amount of memory use, or any of the other underhanded techniques they use to squeeze extra money out of people. I should be getting about 4 times the internet speed I get, and yet my internet is still better than most peoples.

If internet access was free to provide, like air, that wouldn't be a problem. But the unpleasant reality that some people don't like to face is that it doesn't grow on trees.

Some people need to get some perspective. I graduated law school in 1993, and the internet was just starting to get commercialized, with everyone still wedded to (if they were lucky) a 1200 baud modem. Then the internet takes off and modem speeds jump. Broadband for civilian use really doesn't even get started until this past decade, and according to one of the articles you linked 90 percent of the population has access to it now. That is an extraordinarily fast rollout of a new technology -- much faster than electricity was brought to a comparable portion of the population.

But apparently, that progress isn't fast enough for you. You want your ultrafast, super-cheap downloading now, and you'll stamp your foot until you get it.

Providing high-speed internet access isn't cheap. It takes a lot of money to get it up and running, and even more to keep up with ever increasing demands. And that's one of the problems -- an extraordinary amount of bandwidth is taken up by usage that has no real economic benefit at all. People gaming, streaming movies, whatever. There's nothing wrong with doing that, but there's also no reason in the world why the government should subsidize such actions either.

And FLOW it always funny when a cracked article calls you out on you bullshit. My link

That guy doesn't need better broadband -- he needs a good hard punch to the face. He wants to live in a small town in the rural midwest, and telecommute to work. Hey, that's really nice if you can do it. But he's bitching because he would actually has to pay extra for broadband service. Gee, and if he did work closer to the city, I'll bet his apartment would be more expensive, etc. But no, he wants to live where he wants and force others to pay for the additional cost.

Oh, and he apparently moved out of the apartment where he did have broadband into one that didn't, without checking to see if high-speed internet was even available. That makes him a dumbshit in addition to being greedy. So he's not even complaining that high-speed internet isn't available in that area. He's complaining because it isn't available in his specific apartment, and dammit, someone has to do something about that!

Apparently, he thinks the government owes him a life where he can run a business without being responsible for normal business expenses. I mean, he could have rented an office, or lived closer to town (note that he has a friend who lives in the same area who does have it), but that's not good enough for him. For centuries, people have moved to find work. People routinely get transferred to other locations by their employer. You want to teach at college, you have to actually commute to that college. This guy wants to telecommute and have everyone else pick up the tab for his choice as to where to live. As I said, he needs a punch in the face.

By the way, any difference in population density between Japan and Korea v. The U.S. and, say, Australia, that might account for the difficulties of high-speed access described in that article?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Your citation for proving that ubiquitous internet access doesn't need to happen is businesses that use the internet to deliver their product?

No, that's not the point. The point is that "pay to play" is the preferred route, because people who generate more economic benefit from an activity are going to be more willing to pay for it. That promotes the more efficient use of limited resources. The vast majority of businesses that need internet access are going to pay for it themselves. That's why so many businesses invest in those expensive T1 lines. They need that bandwidth, and are willing to pay for it themselves. Same with people who run businesses out of their homes.

Going to a government-sponsored mobile broadband system would be enormously expensive (and people would still whine incessantly about performance issues), and would benefit mostly free riders who are unwilling to pay for it on their own. And why should we do that?

This is like saying that there shouldn't be a highway transportation system in America because people might go to someone else's house on it, and that's not economical.

No, it's not, because pay to play is far more practical for bandwidth than it is for public roads and bridges. You have to have public financing of most roads and bridges. Or at least, we don't have anything that looks remotely like a successful model for doing it otherwise, other than limited toll roads and bridges. But we have the exact opposite with bandwidth. You can run lines directly to people's houses, or have mobile networks requiring a monthly fee, etc. There's no need for the government to do it with tax dollars.

The fact of the matter is that the wireless spectrum is a NATURAL RESOURCE. It is free to use it, just as it is free to breathe air. The gatekeepers would have you believe otherwise, however.

Oh. My mistake.

So what is that author complaining about? Heck, what is anyone complaining about? If it's all just free, like air, then he should just be able to stick his attenae or whatever out the window and surf away.

[Relic]

Oh. My mistake.

So what is that author complaining about? Heck, what is anyone complaining about? If it's all just free, like air, then he should just be able to stick his attenae or whatever out the window and surf away.

Boooo. Your crusty old man cynicism is really showing today Jeff.

[oldmanwavingstick] Why should it be free? if you want it work for it!! [/oldman]

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Boooo. Your crusty old man cynicism is really showing today Jeff.

[oldmanwavingstick] Why should it be free? if you want it work for it!! [/oldman]

Heh. That wouldn't be a bad emoticon. I'd wear that bitch out.

[karaddin]

And that's one of the problems -- an extraordinary amount of bandwidth is taken up by usage that has no real economic benefit at all. People gaming, streaming movies, whatever. There's nothing wrong with doing that, but there's also no reason in the world why the government should subsidize such actions either.

You realize that while the individuals gaming aren't businesses themselves, they are consumers of what is now a huge industry? Improvements to the internet improves the ability of that industry to sell it's product to it's consumers, something that they aren't themselves going to pay for.

Oh, and he apparently moved out of the apartment where he did have broadband into one that didn't, without checking to see if high-speed internet was even available. That makes him a dumbshit in addition to being greedy. So he's not even complaining that high-speed internet isn't available in that area. He's complaining because it isn't available in his specific apartment, and dammit, someone has to do something about that!

You obviously didn't read the article as the issue wasn't with that specific apartment, it was that the exchange for the entire area that apartment is in only has a limited number of available connections. Now maybe his previous apartment was in a different area, but it's entirely possible that the Internet provider in that area are just assholes and when you move from one place where you have a connection to another, rather than moving your connection, they disconnect it and give it to someone else and place you at the bottom of the queue. I had this happen to me in Australia and it was infuriating, and that was living in an inner city suburb of Sydney.

By the way, any difference in population density between Japan and Korea v. The U.S. and, say, Australia, that might account for the difficulties of high-speed access described in that article?

Yes this does make a difference, but the Australian government is currently in the process of rolling out a (admittedly controversial) National Broadband Network where the government will own the infrastructure (as in the fiber running to each home) and lease it to the ISPs who will then sell the service to the public. This is a model I strongly support, I don't think the service itself should be free but I think having the vital infrastructure government owned and available to any company which wishes to sell over it as it avoids the situation we had with the privatized telephone network.

[Zoë Sumra]

No, it's not, because pay to play is far more practical for bandwidth than it is for public roads and bridges. You have to have public financing of most roads and bridges. Or at least, we don't have anything that looks remotely like a successful model for doing it otherwise, other than limited toll roads and bridges. But we have the exact opposite with bandwidth. You can run lines directly to people's houses, or have mobile networks requiring a monthly fee, etc. There's no need for the government to do it with tax dollars.

Users paying for bandwidth is one thing, but there's no point having lots of users in a place - or even a small number of users in a place - if the infrastructure to let them buy that bandwidth isn't there. It's like asking why people in Knoydart don't drive to a city to find work - duh, there are no roads.

Subsidy for the infrastructure supporting broadband - or even other things: mobile phone access, TV access and the like - makes sense in terms of improving the working and consumption potential of the population affected when a private company refuses to create that infrastructure.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You realize that while the individuals gaming aren't businesses themselves, they are consumers of what is now a huge industry? Improvements to the internet improves the ability of that industry to sell it's product to it's consumers, something that they aren't themselves going to pay for.

Those are pure leisure goods. If leisure money isn't spent on those things, it'll be spent on something else. Why we should subsidize this particular form of leisure activity by providing taxpayer-financed free broadband is beyond me. And I say that as someone who does game online occasionally.

Yes this does make a difference, but the Australian government is currently in the process of rolling out a (admittedly controversial) National Broadband Network where the government will own the infrastructure (as in the fiber running to each home) and lease it to the ISPs who will then sell the service to the public. This is a model I strongly support, I don't think the service itself should be free but I think having the vital infrastructure government owned and available to any company which wishes to sell over it as it avoids the situation we had with the privatized telephone network.

I just read something about this today, and I think that project is expected to soak up 7% of Australia's entire government expenditures. So good luck with all that.

[Shryke]

Those are pure leisure goods. If leisure money isn't spent on those things, it'll be spent on something else. Why we should subsidize this particular form of leisure activity by providing taxpayer-financed free broadband is beyond me. And I say that as someone who does game online occasionally.

So you don't feel the internet has provided any growth to the economy? Are you fucking serious?

Sure they could spend their money elsewhere. But the question is will that money spent elsewhere lead to more growth or not. And the internet and connection to it has proved to be an enormous source of economic growth.

[TerraPrime]

Subsidy for the infrastructure supporting broadband - or even other things: mobile phone access, TV access and the like - makes sense in terms of improving the working and consumption potential of the population affected when a private company refuses to create that infrastructure.

The argument would go, I think, that if private companies refuse to provide the infrastructure, then it means that the market cannot support it. If the government forces the issue, it will distort the market and create unintended negative consequences down the road.

Disclaimer: I am not a free-market worshipper but I play on on the internet.

[karaddin]

Those are pure leisure goods. If leisure money isn't spent on those things, it'll be spent on something else. Why we should subsidize this particular form of leisure activity by providing taxpayer-financed free broadband is beyond me. And I say that as someone who does game online occasionally.

I never said it should be free, I said the infrastructure supporting it should be government owned, but that you still pay to access the service.

I just read something about this today, and I think that project is expected to soak up 7% of Australia's entire government expenditures. So good luck with all that.

It's been argued ad nauseam back home, unsurprisingly people in tech are behind it and conservatives oppose it. Time will tell how wise an investment it was, but at least it's an overhaul and upgrade of what will be one of the most important pieces of infrastructure for the future.

[Swordfish]

Look at a map. DC, NY, and Boston to name a few could make good use of high speed rail. To fly from one of those places to the other you spend almost as much time in the airport as in the air.

there's already a high speed rail connecting those cities, and it's basically no faster than the regular train. So that might not be the best example to use.

High speed rail between distant cities is pointless. The NE is pretty much the only corridor where it would be justified. Urban/suburban mass transit is worthwhile where-ever there would be critical mass of ridership -- no point in building these systems to run empty at a massive ongoing cost. But if they reduce time lost to congestion and reduce aggregate fuel usage, then it is worthwhile.

Isn't that kind of transportation kind of ill suited to high speed rail though? Those trains generally have to make a lot of stops, so how much time could something like that save over just modernizing/expanding existing systems?

I love mass transit. i ride it every day. i just don't get the fascination some people have with inter city High Speed rail as some kind of game changer(not directed at you IP).

[Shryke]

there's already a high speed rail connecting those cities, and it's basically no faster than the regular train. So that might not be the best example to use.

Is that beacuse of the way it's been set up or because of the idea itself though?

Isn't that kind of transportation kind of ill suited to high speed rail though? Those trains generally have to make a lot of stops, so how much time could something like that save over just modernizing/expanding existing systems?

I love mass transit. i ride it every day. i just don't get the fascination some people have with inter city High Speed rail as some kind of game changer(not directed at you IP).

High Speed rail is especially good for moving distances where the time spent on the train makes a better investment then time spent getting to and waiting at the airport. Or, basically, not super-long distances along transit corridors and between major urban areas. Basically, the NE US.

As for lots of stops, that's why you have multiple trains. Express and normal.