America Has worse internet speeds than Bulgaria

I think looking outside the U.S. for advice helps more often than it hurts.

We're behind a lot of our peers on things like public amenities.

 

Leaders in charging consumers more, definitely. In America, we have the freedom to go bankrupt from medical expenses.

 

There really isn't any competition so I don't see how you can say that deregulation would hurt it. There is only one cable internet provider for any given area because it is set up as a monopoly system. The only competition you get is from DSL which is not the same as cable internet and they are just as if not more expensive. If Time Warner and Comcast were allowed to compete with each other in the same areas instead of how it is now with each having different pieces of the pie then you would see prices drop. The cable companies keep raising the rates for one simple reason..........they know you have nowhere else to go. Get rid of the monopoly and you get rid of their stranglehold.

 

Leaders in charging consumers more...what? WTF are you talking about?

If you're blubbing about health care, there are several things that stand out:

1) Tort reform is needed. Half my family is in medicine. My grandfather used to pay a fortune in malpractice insurance because he felt he had to. His expertise was heart surgery; it was a high liability field, and the insurance was brutal due to the extremely expensive malpractice lawsuits that medicine is hit with.

2) We have far more options for care. They will cost more as a consequence.

3) Our regulation of the medical field is incredible. FDA, HIPAA, HHS - all blow up our costs compared to overseas.

4) You laud less expensive care overseas? Great: you're welcome to it. People, however, come here to have their lives saved.

[video=youtube;0PWgoSKxx84]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PWgoSKxx84[/video]
[video=youtube;EjaYDNYRl9E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaYDNYRl9E[/video]

 

You're in favor of less regulation but more "tort reform."

So, basically, what you're saying is that doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies should pay less in taxes and fees, but patients shouldn't have much of an ability to sue providers for malpractice.

Yeah, that sounds kind of shi##y.

 

You know why "regulation" and "tort reform" are separate words?

Because they're separate things.

That's because your comment is stupid, as is your understanding of the problem. There is no reduced ability to sue for malpractice. There is a reduced ability to collect ridiculous fees, so that the medical profession can stop ultra-layering redundant tests simply to CYA.

And that's just one aspect of the bloat that would be assisted. Like it or not: medicine is not a fool-proof field. There are things which will happen, and because there is risk does not mean that doctors should be drilled for accepting risk to administer treatment.

Your objections are short sighted and...liberal. Yes, I am repeating myself.

[video=youtube;EjaYDNYRl9E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaYDNYRl9E[/video]

 

If you actually believe in an open market, be consistent about it.

A truly free market position would end regulations as well as allowing suits to sue for however much the courts allow.

That's the only true free market position in this.

Clearly, you're more interested in the fate of doctors than patients.

 

Here you introduce the term 'open market'. Why? Because you now require adding terms and words to my argument due to the fact that you're failing to make a compelling case to defeat the argument that I DID offer.

Because - somewhere - I said that I do not believe in any rules or regulations at all. Yes. That's it.

Let me know when you're done jousting windmills, will you? I'll be over here with my original argument which didn't include any of the blather that you floated off to attack.

Clearly, you're not interested in debating what I actually said. When your argument decides to grow up, you let me know.

 

No rules...no regulations....like the old west huh? Just take what you want from whomever, and kill whomever you like that interferes with you. Interesting idea...for sure.

 

Don't be absurd. There are still laws and a judicial system to enforce them.

 

In a simialr way to how US HC insurance works - there if you live in state X, you cannot go to state y to buy insurance, this way the HC insurers ensure that they have less competition.

 

The WWW was invented by an Englishman, a dirty socialist! No thanks needed.

 

The reason socialist countries have higher speeds is because not as many people are on the internet. The internet is not something dictated as a need, and the workers don't make the wages needed to poses it. Anyone in America can afford the internet so long as they have a job and want to be on it. The proof is in the pudding. The world outnumbers Americans 20 to 1, yet Americans outnumber the world 10 to 1 as to being online. This is just more disingenuous reading of baseless statistics meant to support a dead in the water ideology.

 

What an insane bunch of garbage, Littered with nonsensical pop-politik right wing wank.

Oh where to start....

In 2011 Europe had 500M internet users, North America had 273M users. How could all these apparent "socialists" afford the internet?

In 2011 the US had approx. 15% higher internet penetration than Europe, but Europe still had a penetration of 63%.

But but but how do these socialists do it????

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

We have faster internet speeds, better roads, better rail, better levies etc... because we invest in services and have stronger competion. You method is simply running your country in the ground, because compnies take a short sighted view on profit NOW, screw tomorrow.

 

1st off, your "stats" include Russia and Turkey, hell, why not throw China in your European count as well?
2nd, there is a difference, as any user can tell you, between going on line via computer vs cell phone. Crappy cell phone internet being counted is a joke. Very limited in what one can or cannot do, and even then slow as hell. You might as well be counting cell phones when talking about cameras.

"There are only 3 kinds of lies: Lies, (*)(*)(*)(*) lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

 

That just makes the internet penetration statistic more (*)(*)(*)(*)ing of the USA! A penetration rate 15% being North America, when we include Russia - ex-communists!

Regarding mobile speeds, I can not only stream music from the cloud, I can stream films also. My mobile connection sounds faster than many US land connections!

Hell I've friends in the NL who've fibre coming directly to their house! Have you any idea how fast that it? Did you notice how it's only Americans on this thread complaining about their internet speed? The "socialists" in Europe are more than happy - that is the "proof of the pudding".

 

You know something, if it was as good as the post office was before the republicans burdened it with unrealistic retirement plans then I'd be more than happy to see that. The post office is not a bad comparison at all when you get down to it.

Look at it like this, with the wrong management, they can create an atmosphere where it will definitely fail. They planned it's failure to try and prove a false point. Why would the Republicans try to make something efficient, when they don't want it to succeed in any way shape or form?

As far as a HUD apartment go, many people are able to make use of them when they have no place else to go. Would you rather people be out on the streets? Think back to the hoovervilles of the 1920's and 1930's. The riots, the violence when people were at a point where they felt they had nothing else to live for.

And government doesn't always muck things up. Lets take some very good examples, like our Space Program of old when we sent men to the moon, how or about when the nation build out the national highway system? That was a challenge but it paid back dividends by allowing the free movement of goods across our nation. Or even our Military, it seems that the Republicans and conservatives who love to complain about the government put a great deal of faith in the government's ability to field a military force. If the government can build one of the strongest military forces in the world, then why the heck can't we build our own data infrastructure that will give the American people the best in the world as well?

Why does the government run the military, instead of just hiring mercenaries to do the same job?

Because we know that mercenaries can be bought by the highest bidder. We know that a man who's only loyalty is to his wallet will never fight as hard for his country as the guy who voluntarily joined the military and serves to defend it because it's his homeland.

The same comparison should start being applied to other aspects of our national infrastructure. Because we are allowing the mercenaries of the data communications age to run roughshod over the people of our country. Some of them are in our government in the guise of regulators who are bought and paid for by special interests, or the representatives and senators who appoint said regulators and who craft the laws that make the same sure to fail experiments.

The data communications industry is just one example of how extreme amounts of money are ruining America. The big media companies are another, along with the commodities brokers, wall street shills and big bankers.

We are becoming a nation of Mercenaries, with all the amount of loyalty that it brings with it, all only for the next dollar, no matter who gets stepped on.

 

Bulgaria are selling homes by the coast to other Europeans , having a heavily declining population Bulgaria needs those people to contribute in taxes , having a fast internet makes an area more attractive to potential buyers .

 

I'll debate your argument when you specify what regulations you'd like to lessen or end.

Perhaps, you have some growing of your own to do.

 

...

Together with a Belgian chap called Robert Cailliau...

 

Created by and completely owned by the corporate wealthy. There may as well not be any but, we have to have a way to enforce our Kleptocrisy, otherwise the poor people could get out of line.

 

And perfected and developed into what it is, in the US.

 

I made the argument I wanted to make. You invented an argument to complain about, and now you're trying to claim that you will not debate until you hear specifics.

You should have taken your own advice 4 posts ago instead of inventing an argument to attack.

 

.....and becoming available only to the highest bidder....

Walmart employees don't need the internet anyway so, no harm, no foul. Just mega profit for the privileged few.

 

The WWW is not "The Internet". It is the vehicle which allows us to navigate on "The Internet". If you don't understand that, allow Tim Berners-Lee to explain it to you.

The internet was developed by Leonard Kleinrock and an amalgam of his associates, who created ARPANET - which commercially became available as TeleNet.

Your 'chaps' invented HTML - and you also have no idea of Berners-Lee's political affiliation.

If you want a review of the development of the Internet, please review.