So they become even shittier _and_ more expensive? Seriously, I can't remember a single case where privatization of a shitty service caused it to become better (at least without prices going up 10x).

What? Are there any sanctions? Perhaps all major newspapers wrote articles condemning Latvia's actions?

Nope. These Nazi wannabes at most get silence from the official Europe, if not outright support. And yes, they really _are_ Nazi wannabes - there are official parades of Waffen SS veterans there (not joking, http://rt.com/news/latvia-demo... ). And just recently the official Latvia blocked a genocide exhibition in UNESCO: http://www.jta.org/2015/01/21/... because it might have damaged Latvia's image (Holodomor exhibition a couple of months earlier was welcomed). Very freedom-of-speechy, I know.

So yes, I think that Europe should shut the hell up and first fix its own affairs first. There's nothing worse than outright hypocrisy.

I lived in Mountain View and was paying $1500 for a 1-bedroom apartment in a nice (well insulated walls, washing machine, fast Internet) apartment complex, within 5 minute walk from a Caltrain station. I could have gotten a 2-bedroom apartment in the same complex for $2000.

Yeah, SV is pretty expensive compared with middle-of-nowhere states, but it's definitely worth it.

Ok, I'll bite.

I'm in that 'wealthy' category and being single I probably pay more taxes than a married couple with children. All of the taxes apply gradually, so there's no difference whether you earn $249999.99 or $250000.01. And my tax lawyer ($5000 for all the consultations and paperwork) helped me to optimize my tax by quite a bit. So in the end, my effective total tax rate (including state taxes) is a little bit less than 30%, this year it'll be close to 28% because I moved much of my income into capital gains.

Apparently, quite a lot. On the very same day when millions chanted "Je suis Charlie" on streets, several Russian TV channels were banned in Latvia. Because of their "one-sided" view on certain events.

So yeah, I'm starting to think that European insistence on the 'freedom of speech' works only one way.

Just imagine the same discussion 100 years ago: "But real horse enthusiasts think that the smell of horse manure is an integral part of the 'horse experience' and the attempts to emulate it by piling bullshit on the passenger seat are inferior to having a real live horse attached to your car".

Get over it. Engine noise is a noxious emission, sign of imperfect design.

And the place where I live gets Comcast cable or AT&T ADSL. I don't have any choice in that, and there is no franchise agreement at this time. So what's your advice?

YOU LIE! Initially Chattanooga were charged $50 for 50Mbit connection (it's $59 for 100Mbit now) to cover the price of the rollout. $350 was only charged for the premium 1G package because there literally were no precedents of 1G rollout in the US and they couldn't price it.

Nope. Not true. Check the FCC's report.

I'd go with the decision to build a municipally-owned infrastructure and then rent it to any ISP that would want to provide service. You can have a crappy 1Mbit connection with mandatory anal rape from your friendly nice multinational corporation.

No. The municipality had NO CHOICE but to give Comcast a franchise in exchange for network upgrade. I read the minutes in archives. It would have been great if other ISPs wanted to provide a competitive infrastructure but there were no takers.

You are definitely paid to be deliberately obtuse. I have NO OBJECTION at all to multiple ISPs providing a competitive high-class service. It's great when they are available. Yet in most parts of the country the situation is quite different, and it doesn't actually matter if there are ordnances forbidding cities to build municipal networks or franchise agreements. Somehow the US gets only the invisible middle finger of the market.

So far the best way forward is to build municipal fiber networks and then provide RAND access to commercial ISPs to provide services on top of the municipal fiber. Do you have any objections to that?

No, it's perfectly possible to build a fiber network in Oakland. There aren't many undertakers, though.

Comcast only has exclusive cable franchise that it got for network upgrade and which has expired 2 years ago. And you're incoherent, I want the CITY itself to build AND OWN a fiber network. It's NOT possible right now because of California regulations. Are you perhaps paid to not understand this?

In lots of places there is NOBODY competing with Comcast, except perhaps for crappy ASDL providers. Lots of such areas, I live in such a place in Oakland (ZIP 94619).

Then there are sparsely populated areas where it simply makes no sense to build several competing networks.

Are you sure you understand the proposal? It's meant to _allow_ municipalities to build and maintain their own fiber networks. It does not mandate that nor does it outlaw private ISPs.

My city provides municipal water, garbage collection and electricity. They are pretty good at that, when my new house needed a sewer and water hookups it took them only a week or so to do all the required work from their side. Governments (especially local ones) are pretty good at that sort of thing.

And let's face it, fiber networks are not a new technology anymore. Fiber laying, termination and maintenance are pretty simple so that municipalities can either do it themselves or they can easily find a contractor for that.

I know people involved in writing ACA. It was clearly understood that single-payer was out for Lieberman (who was in a pocket of insurance companies) and a handful of other DINOs. And since Republicans were stonewalling _anything_, single payer had to go.

Romans also had stagnated in a pre-industrial world. Hardly a role model.