What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Brain Training Can Make You Significantly Smarter view!
howlifeworks.com - How a "brain-training program" can help people significantly improve their mental sharpness
170 Comments
- Nitrodist88, on 07/12/2009, -9/+66The Internet is, by this point, a utility and it should be a public one at that.
- localzuk, on 07/12/2009, -1/+46Completely agree. Access to the internet is now as important as any other utility. The 'digital economy' is very much the future (well, it is also now too) so ensuring every area and every person within Europe can access it is important.
Also, to those of you who link 'Universal' with 'free', you'd be wrong in this case. This is a discussion regarding ensuring access is available, via private companies. - daPhoenix, on 07/12/2009, -4/+48Gabriel ,
You're from the States. What you think, doesn't ***** matter to us nor does your "Hey, I'm from the 'States, I can only copy paste such buzzwords like Liberal to try to "win" every argument' matter in the least. - jezsik, on 07/12/2009, -6/+42Broadband is the 21st century highway system. Where once it was critical to move goods, it's not critical to move information.
- reeds1999, on 07/12/2009, -3/+39No country should be allowed faster access than the US. It is unamerican and definitely socialism. Join the Republican party and stop this travesty now!
/s - theodenking, on 07/12/2009, -1/+35Also in Europe a 'liberal' is completely different to what it is in the US.
- localzuk, on 07/12/2009, -1/+32I take it you mean 'now' and not 'not'?
- localzuk, on 07/12/2009, -0/+25Because it is available. We pay private companies for our water, gas, electricity etc... but we would say we have universal access to those services.
There are quite large areas in the UK and Europe which don't have coverage for any form of modern internet access. This is what Lord Carter wants rid of. - beck5, on 07/12/2009, -0/+21For those who clearly haven't read the article or know anything about this report, or in fact seem to know not much about anything then this comment is dedicated to you.
Lord Carter headed the 'Digital Britain report', this covers areas like the internet, TV and any sort of digital communications (the hint is in the title). He has seen the British internet Infrastructure can be improved and that it is vital to the economy and communication hence why everyone should have access too it.
This seems very sensible to me, for many reasons..... - jezsik, on 07/12/2009, -0/+19(Slaps forehead). Yes, it's NOW critical to move information.
- beck5, on 07/12/2009, -0/+17Brilliant comment, please keep up the good work SirBruce
- theodenking, on 07/12/2009, -0/+17Lord Carter was given a Barony so the government could use the expertise he gained working in the communications industry in formulating policy. In other words, he earned it. That's why his opinion carries more weight than some yank with a false sense of entitlement and complete ignorance of other countries.
- mickstephenson, on 07/12/2009, -0/+14@drknockrz why? So people can change their comments so it looks as if fascist rhetoric got dugg up? If you have a comment rating system, you don't allow people to edit those comments whenever they like.
You have five minutes already isn't that enough? - daPhoenix, on 07/12/2009, -1/+14You, being from the States, should be pretty quiet when it comes to commenting about spending.
- theodenking, on 07/12/2009, -0/+11You must be talking about a different Europe. The one I live in is the wealthiest region in the world and has the same average level of unemployment as the United States.
- Countess666, on 07/12/2009, -1/+11"its funny how liberals think that at a certain point in time, something which is not a necessity should suddenly be universal and accessed by anyone."
funny, because that's exactly what happens with electric, gas, sewers, radio, tv and the road network. - Swivelstick, on 07/12/2009, -0/+10No it doesn't, it has a pageant show for the tourists daily and the occasional big party but the monarchy has very very little to do with the running of the UK or its colonies..
- theodenking, on 07/12/2009, -3/+13Lord Carter is not an aristocrat, certainly not royalty. He was appointed a Baron because he worked in the communications industry for years and the government wanted his expertise. That's where his authority comes from: it's called meritocracy. Please educate yourself on the modern Peerage before you start flapping your mouth about it.
- mrhahn, on 07/12/2009, -0/+9@FlyTrap "The Internet got to where it is (after the initial US government catalyst) because of private enterprise and not because of government subsidies and intervention."
Not in England. The internet got to where it is here precisely BECAUSE of Government subsidies and intervention. British Telecom, formally the General Post Office, was a state-owned entity that was responsible for installing millions of phone lines. This meant that areas that would not have been considered profitable, and wouldn't have been touched by a private corporation, were able to get phone and internet access. - armo, on 07/12/2009, -0/+9Can someone please explain what Liberal means in America? I'd have thought someone like Milton Friedman would be a classic example of liberal economics and he was certainly against government control.
- localzuk, on 07/12/2009, -0/+9Cable is not widespread in the UK or Europe in general, it is far more common in the USA.
- devophl, on 07/12/2009, -0/+8The Internet in the U.S. is considered a luxury item rather than a necessity. This is especially true after the Internet backbone was handed over to private telecommunications companies in the early 90s. Access to the broadband Internet is still available to less than 50% of the population and that is unlikely to change in the near future. Add to this that those who have access to broadband pay the most for the least bandwidth of any industrialized country. Again, without government intervention, this is unlikely to change either. For a country that really pioneered the Internet, we have fallen woefully behind Europe and Asia in terms of its use and availability.
The US needs a government act like the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to bring broadband access to the entire country and then regulate broadband like a utility! If left to private industry, it will never happen. - localzuk, on 07/12/2009, -1/+9Evidence?
- Godlesswanderer, on 07/12/2009, -1/+9He's the Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting, so he's really the only person that should be requesting these kinds of things as he can get them done.
- localzuk, on 07/12/2009, -0/+8No, please read it again. That comma separates items in a list...
Proposed a) a new landline tax to fund universal broadband and b) a crackdown on internet piracy. - localzuk, on 07/12/2009, -0/+8A good portion of the UK still doesn't get 2Meg broadband...
- theodenking, on 07/12/2009, -0/+7@Presbyterian
Why would I take offence? Britain is a monarchy. Most Britons are proud of that fact. The constitutional monarchy is a focal point for national pride, a safeguard of tradition and historically it has allowed Britain to transform it's government from an autocracy to a parliamentary democracy without any significant periods of bloodshed or anarchy (which is in contrast to the rest of Europe, I think France is on it's fifth republic now for instance). We are today no less free, politically or personally, than your average presidential republic - and we got here peacefully, as did most of the other Commonwealth Realms. What is more, it is precisely because of our /constitutional/ monarchy that the philosophical bedrocks of modern democracy were by and large articulated by British thinkers. Why should we be ashamed of that heritage? - beck5, on 07/12/2009, -1/+8LORD Carter -> part of the House of LORDS -> headed the 'Digital Britain Report' -> extremely qualified to talk about digital Britain - > you SHUT UP
- Peynis, on 07/12/2009, -1/+8@gabriel: The internet is not a ***** necessity nowadays?
Yeah, believe that, until you finally get a real job or something. - GuacamoleSan, on 07/12/2009, -0/+7This thread is an all out digg brawl between Americans and the British. Gotta love a good brawl. Who will come out on top?
- Twinnie, on 07/12/2009, -0/+6I'm pretty sure they're talking about making sure that everyone has access to it and creating an internet infrastructure that can handle it.
- EarlOfLade, on 07/12/2009, -0/+6***** uneducated idiot!
If you had taken 2 minutes to actually read the damn article you would have noticed the part were it said that it would NOT result in any tax increase, but continue to jerk off that stupid brain of yours, moron! - localzuk, on 07/12/2009, -0/+6You still don't understand do you? The UK has turned around and said "we want everyone in the country to have access to the internet, we're going to give companies money to do this by taxing for it". They refused to actually do it as a government project, instead just providing greater incentives for private industry to do it.
Sometimes government doesn't mean 'bad' you know... - inactive, on 07/12/2009, -0/+6SirBruce: Prorogued parliament on the advice of the Canadian PM. That's basically the duty of the Queen and her representatives; to do as requested by the PM. On the other hand, PMs have a lot of power, but they cannot pass an Act of Parliament to create a dictatorship so long as there is a Monarchy to refuse to grant royal assent to such Acts. Arguably we could elect a President to perform the same function, but equating more freedom with more democracy is just plain wrong.
- brotherfranciz, on 07/12/2009, -1/+7@ Flytrap:
The problem with private enterprise is that their sole existence is to turn a profit, not provide good quality service and extensive coverage. This is why there tends to be the trend where the CBD gets excellent coverage and quality (as a huge margin of profit can be made), whereas the suburbs and rural areas get progressively worse with distance (relatively low demand so low profit or even deficit).
I don't see why the government shouldn't ensure that there is universal access to broadband, and it should be quite easy to achieve since they can utilise existing public infrastructure. The difference is that the government would ensure high quality and broad coverage at any cost. - boldfire, on 07/12/2009, -0/+5This report could see the roll out of Broadband to the extent of electricity, running water and roads in past decades. It could create thousands of jobs and put us on a competitive advantage over other countries in what we can do with digital technologies - especially in the creative industries. Here's to hoping the Conservatives don't ignore it when they, most likely, will come into power next year... but the fact they've been attacking it doesn't look promising.
- Frostek, on 07/12/2009, -0/+5This comment sounds good in theory until you realise that these people live in countries where gangs of nutballs with automatic weapons regularly raid villages for supplies and to murder, rape and burn.
And they're usually the countries own "army"! - dstz, on 07/12/2009, -1/+6"The Internet is, by this point, a utility and it should be a public one at that."
It seems to me that the "public utility" part should consist in ensuring, by all necessary means, that there is a strong competition between a large number of providers. - edd17, on 07/12/2009, -1/+6That's a nice new capital you have there mrkmrk, shame if it caught fire.
- localzuk, on 07/12/2009, -0/+5The tax he proposed is pathetic - 50p on every line. Which will bring in something like £150mill a year. When the actual job will cost about £2billion...
- ChileanGoD, on 07/12/2009, -1/+5Why are you correcting me on something I didn't imply. Smartass.
- ladyattis, on 07/12/2009, -0/+4Can we please have plutocrats try not to engineer the future? I mean are these the same screwballs that said we'd have robot servants and flying cars? If so, then please STFU!
- Myztry, on 07/12/2009, -1/+5Broadband infrastucture should be supplied by Governments much like other essential services like roads, water, sewerage, etc. The Government should fulfill that role that is essentially too big for private entities. Government must have a purpose other than consuming.
Now, the actual supply over this infrastructure should be privatized. Australia is fortunate that most of our utilities have separate infrastructure and service providers. Be it gas, electricity, telephony, etc then your service provider pays rental to the infrastructure provider on your behalf, and the service provider then delivers over that infrastructure and bills you.
It saves infrastructure duplication (which is very important in large yet sparse countries like Australia) while maintaining competition and redundancy. - rif42, on 07/12/2009, -0/+4It is several years ago since South Korea was the leading country in broadband. The top is Denmark 37.2% and Nederland 35.8%, South Korea is 32.0% (and US is at 25.8%). Most of EU is well below these levels. There are some quite some way to go before any country, EU or not, has universal broadband. I do applause the initiative.
OECD broadband stat, Dec 2008
http://www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband
Spreadsheet with per capita number
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/35/39574709.xls - NervousEnergy, on 07/12/2009, -1/+5I've been stuck on a 60kb/s connection for the past seven years. 2.1MB IS NOT SLOW! I would kill for something like that.
- Twinnie, on 07/12/2009, -1/+5RTFA. He was paid to write the report. Asking him only to make suggestions he can himself implement and fund would be a waste of ***** time.
- Myonosken, on 07/12/2009, -0/+4@speaker: Guess you read the Sun from your past Digg history. Funny that when the NHS is underfunded the government doesn't have enough money but when they propose a new tax they have too much.
- Myonosken, on 07/12/2009, -0/+4"It isn't exactly the 21st century over there in many aspects"
One of the richest areas in the world isn't 21st century? I'm guessing your dad lives in mainland, rural Europe? - edd17, on 07/12/2009, -0/+3wahh! Other countries have slightly different systems to us!
Since you're talking about the Queen of England I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't really have a clue about what you are talking about. The Governor General of Canada is chosen by the Prime Minister of Canada and approval is a formality, so I don't know how you are bringing monarchy into that argument.
Of course if you want to base your perception of freedom on some perceived insult of having a monarch instead of genuine political and civil liberties which actually have an effect on your life, then go ahead. Just don't be surprised when people don't think much of what you have to say. - mrkmrk, on 07/12/2009, -2/+5Who did ~230 years ago?
Zing! -
Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is