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.
Yeah, SV is pretty expensive compared with middle-of-nowhere states, but it's definitely worth it.
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.
Chinese model is about denying large portions of free speech, such as political non-threatening free speech of political dissidents to improve social cohesion of their society. How is it hypocritical to criticize this aspect of Chinese society from European point of view?
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.
Get over it. Engine noise is a noxious emission, sign of imperfect design.
In Chattanooga, for example, the municipality originally charged $350 / month. When asked how they determined that rate, the chairman replied "because we can". No market studies, no break-even analysis, just screw over the citizens "because we can".
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.
You're factually mistaken about "in most parts". The fact is, by far the majority of Americans live in areas with franchise laws barring competition, by a large margin.
Nope. Not true. Check the FCC's report.
I'm not sure why you're struggling so hard to convince yourself you have to choose between the crap you have now and the kind of crap decisions we could expect from your lovely city council.
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.
You STILL haven't explained to me why you think it should be illegal for a company with low prices and high customer satisfaction ratings to come give you the same great service my neighbors and I enjoy.
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?
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?
Then there are sparsely populated areas where it simply makes no sense to build several competing networks.
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.