aka, another myth where fat-assed, diseased, TV-watching Americans lie to themselves that America Is Number One
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148397
Tell me again why we should love Repug/conservative deregulation and how often we should kiss corporate asses for all the wonderful products they deliver.
I'll stop being anti-corporation when the Corporate-Americans stop being anti-Human-Americans.
Fail....
that's about $13.16 monthly per household, except they give a false sense of profit per household. they start with a number that includes commercial lines as well, which probably is more than half the amount. They probably make about $6.00 monthly per household in reality.
isn't it ironic that developed nations with a greater population density also have a greater broadband coverage? That simply boils down to logistics.
Someone wake me up when we aren't comparing apples with oranges.
You Fail
You Win at comparing apples and oranges.
Tell us in which US high-density metro areas (there are dozens of them), there is 100/100? or 50/50?
Most of America lives in metro areas. Most of America is a vast, unpopulated emptiness.
btw, there will apparently be a "digital divide" created within America as the Rural Broadband plan discussing "rural broadband" as 4/1 and metro broadband as
The US decided decades ago that telephone was a right, not a privilege, and ins uted the socialistic Universal Service Fund. With no increase in USF, many in DC expect rural telcos to provide chintzy 4/1.
Well, NY city has most beat at 27,532 people per square kilometer. However, most US cities are much less. LA is 8,205. Chicago - 12557, Houston - 3897, Phoenix - 2937, Philidelphia - 4405, San Antonio - 2808.
USA total is at 32 people per km2.
Lets look at Japan.... 337/km2:
Tokyo - 5847, Yokohama - 8335, Osaka - 11893, Nagoya - 6919, Sapporo - 1699, Kobe - 2768.
Netherlands at 400/km2:
Amsterdam - 4459, Rotterdam - 2850, The Hague - 5864, Utrecht - 3068, Eindhoven - 2407, Tilburg - 1723.
S. Korea at 491/km2:
Seoul - 17288, Busan - 4666, Incheon - 2810, Daegu - 2842, Daejeon - 2673, Gwanjiu - 2824.
Need I go on?
"Need I go on?"
Please don't. I, for one, know apples and oranges are not comparable.
and you skipped this:
"Tell us in which US high-density metro areas (there are dozens of them), there is 100/100? or 50/50?"
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-07-2010 at 02:32 PM.
WC,
The only thing is... seriously, our nation's fiber backbone sucks. Of course, getting permission to lay the fiber means that telecoms have to work with state/local agencies, but I seriously hope we can get some better speed in our networks. The Verizon FIOS program seems a good start.
Another problem, we have is being the first at such endeavors. Once the telephone lines are laid, it is less important to lay new stuff. Many other countries developed after new technologies became available. S. Korea for example had very few phone lines, cable, etc. in the 80's. Fiber was being installed to new points more routinely than we did as this carried on into the 90's. Our major infrastructure was built in the 50's. Things like this also make a difference.
Agreed. I remember reading somewhere that nuking Japan laid the way for them to build better infrastructure as well.
Commercial carriers seem content to let our network ride copper. I think the main issue is that telecoms received money from the government to build fiber, and haven't done as much as they said they would.
It's also hard to build a small networking company... a "small-scale" network is somewhat useless. (Not saying it's impossible; just that I imagine it probably requires alot of start up money/resources.)
Western Europe and Japan have been copper to home for decades (what else was there?), but they still went way ahead of USA when Internet exploded 15 years ago.
btw, even out in the country, switch-to-switch has been fiber in USA for a couple decades.
So America is broke, bankrupt, and can't afford to replace it's old comunications (or plumbing, or bridges, or sewers, or ) infrastructure?
Poor Old Backward America is The Can't-Do Country. That's the way the free market provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...onomic_miracle
Now, obviously I'm not saying they were installing fiber after WWII, but I'm not sure if their economic boom led the path for better communication backbones as well.
I'm aware of the economic boom Japan experienced, I'm just curious as to what evidence there is that the nukes were beneficial for their infrastructure. One presumes radiation is a significant hamper to rebuilding, but I haven't done a lot of research on the amounts that were present.
I'm kinda asking for a link to what you read.
Not so much the actual nuclear aspect (I'm pretty sure that wasn't beneficial at all) but that getting rid of their old infrastructure (by demolishing it with bombs, etc) allowed them to rebuild newer, better infrastructure.
I can't say that my knowledge in that area is very strong, and if someone counters me with evidence, I'll certainly concede the point.
Well, I think the obvious counter-argument is that the bombs only destroyed two out of many cities. What percentage infrastructure could the bombs really have destroyed?
I'm not sure I agree with your statement in any way or form, actually. Japan's unprecedented growth had a lot to do with American investment and a ingenious population working with the government, and their industrialization pre-WW2 set the mentality for that. Nuclear destruction, and contamination furthermore, only stifled their post-war efforts.
"Japan's unprecedented growth had a lot to do with ..."
.. a very high personal savings rate (making capital available), high-taxes, and govt-directed industrial policies with cooperation from corps and unions.
I'm pretty sure Germany and Holland (esp (the port of )Rotterdam) were much more destroyed than Japan.
Perhaps. *shrug* If I get the chance I'll try to look up some more info on it. (Again, I don't think contamination/nuclear fallout helped in any way, was more talking about the destruction of old infrastructure.)
I'll try to find some time to look up Germany's infrastructure as well.
But it didn't destroy much old infrastructure, unless you think the hundreds of thousands dead/contaminated are infrastructure that can be replaced easily.
Forgive me if my post is rather scathing, but I have never, ever heard of any argument for the nuke's contributing directly to Japan's rebuilding. They were an extreme hinderance, by all accounts.
Did the bombs play a major part in the Japanese's efforts at rebuilding, indirectly, since they realized there was no use for fighting, that it was time for peaceful industry and rebuilding? There's certainly an argument.
Last edited by z0sa; 10-07-2010 at 05:54 PM.
Why focus on the damage the two nuclear weapons did? We dropped enough ordinance on Japan to level the entire country. We fire bombed the out of their cities and carpet bombed them as well.
While LNG's premise was badly worded if you ignore the nuclear aspect is extremely plausible that destroying the existing infrastructure would lead to the development of newer more modern infrastructure.
That being said I have no idea if this is the case I just find it unnecessary to focus on nuclear weapons. No nukes were dropped in Europe but that really didn't matter considering the tonnage of conventional weapons dropped.
As for our FO backbone - its damn simple that the telecos won't spend the money to advance unless they absolutely have to because of their bottom line. That in and of itself is the only reason why our networks suck so bad. I'm not sure how fast wireless capabilities are growing because I'm not in that business but I'd imagine in the not too distant future it won't matter that much anyway.
Actually considering what 4g speeds are currently I believe this to be the absolute case.
A ground war + invasion was fought in Germany, on all fronts, and Allies bombed the out of it, including civilian populations. There was no ground war in Japan. There was bombing, of civilian populations, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The means justifies the ends.
Who TF drifted my thread off topic?
Why isn't anybody complaining ?
GFY Boutons.
As I said, it's a faulty premise. The nukes didn't do much damage to their infrastructure, though they killed and maimed a load of people. It's funny how you call something so clearly worded as "badly worded". He clearly says the nukes "laid the way" in rebuilding the country's infrastructure. They obviously didn't. Second, you don't seem to acknowledge that Japan was focused on industrializing years before the nukes; it was their intent that got in the way. Boutons is accurate about the importance of government and union cooperation, but he disingenuously ignores the amount of influence foreign (ie American) investors had in the country's reemergence. We occupied it for years, remember?
Last edited by z0sa; 10-08-2010 at 12:59 AM.
Where I live, I can't get DSL. The length of two wire is too much to carry the signal. Still, I kept a land line for almost 10 years after getting a cell phone. I dropped it like a hotcake when they raised caller ID by $5 monthly. I wonder how many other people dropped the phone company's service when they raised that rate and other. Still, no forecast of fiber where I am. I'm stuck with Comcast for my internet.
Ok. It wasn't nukes. It was conventional. The underlying and more important point had nothing to do with the type of ordinance used but rather that their infrastructure was destroyed in the war.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
