Just the facts (Score 1)

Does anyone know what they are talking about? I've just read the article in question, and see nothing in it to say where exactly the imbalance lies. It sounds like someone is of the opinion that infrastructure costs should somehow be shared on a global scale. i.e. If your country has poor telecoms - upgrade, then insist that international users pick up the cost of the technology. It's a nice idea but haven't we already paid our share in the excessive prices we pay as the early adopters of the technology. I'm sure that Africa is being ripped of by Amercia on a daily basis. So is India, Pakistan, Afghanistan (controversial?) Bangladesh, Eastern Europe, Taiwan, Thailand, China, Indonesia etc. etc. Let's give them all telecoms services. Who cares who is right. In fact, why stop at telecoms, why not include energy costs like oil, gas even nuclear plants as global responsibilities. Then move on to transport rail and road networks - anyone who's travelled through India by road will know how poor such things are. Then again why stop at just primary services, why not extend social services so that unemployed everywhere regardless of race or country of origin are entitled to housing, food and medical care. In fact why not take the core doctrine of the American democratic system seriously. If all men are created equal and certain rights are held to be self-evident, how come this equality stops being self-evident once you cross the border into Mexico?