Do you honestly think your government can make better choices for you, then you can make for yourself? Do you think government truly knows what your needs are, in order to spend your money wisely on your behalf?

I know you mean that in general, but for that specific case, say I want a 1 Mbps connection and live in an area where demand is not that high and thus telco companies aren't providing it, should I move, or fork out the cash together with probably a few others that want an admittedly not that fast connection, for the telco company so they provide the infrastructure? I rather have it that the companies are required to provide at least 1Mbps connections everywhere from the tax payers money and probably some of their own, and I don't have to fork out the cash up front with a few others in my area or move to a place with better infrastructure.

Well, if you live all your life in a city where everything is within walking distance, why should you have to pay taxes for road upkeep? Or what if you can't afford to have a car?
I think that companies that have a distribution network (like postal or telecommunication services) have a certain point where they can't be efficient financially and still at the same time have a sufficient cover for their users. If the latter is desired by a majority of the people, why not pay taxes for it?

Do you honestly think you can build the infrastructure yourself if you want broadband when its not available to you?

Here in the US its done through private enterprise. If you want it you pay for it.

Goverment does get its cut though through taxation and fees.

OMG EVIL SOCIALISM RUN!!!!!!!!!

Honestly its funny seeing the very responses in this topic. Enjoy paying hand over fist for current US broadband that much? Fact is the gov spends a huge amount of money in substities to help get those networks running so giant telecos can make money hand over fist. The same companies greatly against white space use that could give limited internet access to a great many people who can use it to find work and better themselves but noooooooooo thats teh evil socialism!

Do us all a favor and stay off the socialist US highway. Or socialist roads etc..

No it is not. There is no way in hell anyone short of a multi billionaire can afford to start a new backbone to compete with the current one. One partially paid for with teh evil socialism.

Makes sense to me on a basic level - many countries already have TV channels and TV broadcasting paid for by the government, why not the Internet networks? Certainly just as important a service.

Then again, I know nothing about the state of the Finnish economy, so I can't make an informed decision about this particular case. There could be a thousand things worthier of government money for all I know.

You just summed up the other side quite nicely:rotfl2:.

Empirical data over ideology, I say. But then again, I actually live in, and benefit from, a country with a socialist government, rather than getting my factoids from FAUX News, so I guess I do have a bit of an unfair advantage there.

An acquaintance of mine is a British veterinarian, and she was simply dumbstruck by the sheer amounts of transparent lies (well, transparent to her, as she was a medical professional) on universal health care the right has been flooding the channels with in the US lately. Apparently they've figured that loud noises, scare-mongering and name-calling would work better than facts.

Then again, I can hardly blame them for that either; it got them their war in Iraq.:cry:

That's the most hilarious part of the right-wing phobia of UHC - they're afraid they're going to have to pay more. Someone needs to tell them that the American State is currently the government in the world that spends the most money on its health care - and yet accomplishes little of what the Scandinavian nations and the UK gets done for far less.

I watched a documentary called Sick Around America some time back. It told the story of a girl who developed lupus, only to find that her insurance company dumped her (yes, in the US, for some strange reason, insurance companies can suddenly 'fire' you as a patient, meaning that even those with insurance aren't guaranteed coverage) and she couldn't afford treatment. She grew sicker and sicker until her life was finally in immediate danger, at which point the Government was legally obliged to cover her treatment, and ended up covering 600,000 USD worth of treatment - until she died anyway.

Had she been a poor slave of the United Scandinavian Socilist Republics, the evil Politburo's health insurance would've paid for her treatment while it was still economically manageable to do so - when she first contracted the disease.

But no, let's wait until she gets to the point of no return and we have to spend half a million dollars to stave off the inevitable. Otherwise we'd be socialists.

This is what happens when blind ideology gets in the way of rational thoughts, empiricism, and common sense.

That sounded awfully like ideology to me. Also looks like quite the strawman.


There exist nations in the third world in which there is little to no government money wasted on ambulances, fire trucks, roads, or police. You want a road to drive on, you pay for it. You want protection from fire, get a firm grip on those boot straps and start a charity. Police protection? Aw, c'mon, we all know the State can't be trusted with such things, rent yourself some private security guards and your neighbourhood will be home free. Not the State's fault you're poor.

Sounds like a dream come true for Sea Demon, August, Steamwake and their ilk. Strangely, I don't see any of them packing their stuff to move there.

But hey, there's good news down the road. Mr. Obama just axed the Government-run MissileCare system, and the F-22 Raptor. That's two less useless socialist things for the State to waste your stolen money on.

Now don't get me wrong. Socialism as a primary means of economy does not work. However the resistance to even the idea of money gained from companies to help the common good over here is beyond insane. You had idiots saying we ought to not give a SINGLE million to Bussard's fusion research even tho the payback would be of the most value in the history of man. (The first today is the Apollo program which was opposed by the deep religious right even tho it had an insane amount of spinoffs)

Why do you want broadband for everyone? Because internet connects people to good jobs. And it gives them a chance to do business and perhaps even gain a slighly bit of better education (Tho I guess some of these so called "Fiscal Conservatives" are just happy of a nation where almost 50 percent of high school students can't name the FIRST US President even tho he adorns the "green" they love so much)

Since even privately owned broadband service providers in America are considered public utilities it'd think it'd be rather easy for their respective state legislatures to require them to provide also service to the states rural areas,

What i'd like to know is if Finland also guarantees electrical service. After all broadband access is pretty much useless without it.

Also is this coverage total? I mean even to some peasant hut out in the boonies?

Everyone?

Eeeveryoooneee!

Love that scene. :DL

But anyway, this smacks of a political promise. To make clear for the foreignos, Finland has a right-wing government now that has been taking a lot of hits lately. The right-wingers and the center party are clinging to power by the skin of their teeth, I can imagine how they are thinking of 'carrots' they can chuck out there.

Come post-election time they will conveniently forget all about this just like in Sweden they forgot about going totally nuke-free by 2012 or something.

Ah yes. Just watched it for the umphteenth time the other day. Magnificiant performance from Oldman. :rock:

Aye, true that. Lots of crap being slinged on their faces the past few months.

Tho, even if this would be just an 'empty promise', there might be interest towards this in the future, depending how ppl will receive the 'Supermatrix' Finnet is planning;
http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/10/f...d_1084926.html

Dont know about Finland but here in Estonia we have 100% coverage of the entire country with wireless internet access. Had 4mbits in a swamp literaly in the middle of nowhere.

@Safe-Keeper

You certainly hit the nail on the head.

A very large segment of the American population has been manipulated into supporting an ideology which benefits a tiny fraction at the economic apex of our society at the expense of everyone else who isn't among that "elite."

Anyway, I remember finding an article which compared broadband around the world. For about $11 a month, in Stockholm you got something like 50 Mbs upload/100 Mbs d/l, while at the other end of the spectrum you got at like $130 a month 5 Mbs upload/15 Mbs d/l via Comcast in Shreveport, LA. Darn that evil, wasteful socialism!!!

It's pretty obvious that greed as a motivation doesn't always have the best results, e.g., the above, or private contracting in the Iraq war (i.e., Halliburton, KBR, et al.)