I'm fairly pro-market
This is the problem in a nutshell. Internet service is not provided by a free market. Government has create internet service provider utilities via cable and phone company competition restrictions. Only when we get real choice will the situation improve.
as a society we'd be better off to support only businesses that contribute back to our economy (i.e. American businesses).
Not true of the exporters and the manufacturers of exported goods. They gain by the prosperity of other nations.
Another anecdotal complaint...
In Cleveland, every network channel except the ABC affiliate is changing frequency. PBS is not broadcasting in digital yet, and the current NBC ATSC broadcast on channel 2 is poor.
Talk about confusion.
I wouldn't want to be the one answering the phones at the first station that turns off its analog signal voluntarily.
Which is another way of saying you can forget about that gradual transition part.
Oh please. Let me guess, you live in a desert area.
The US is in the bottom half by population density. http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctydensityh.htm
2/3 of people without broadband is meaningless. This is not the same population set as the people without access, because it includes all the people with access who choose not to get broadband.
The better question is, what percentage of people without broadband access want it?
Who is to say each request is for a different person? Perhaps the people the police are after are using multiple online identities.
It also wouldn't be surprising if the same identity requests were repeated.
A third possibility is a request for the identity of possible victims.
Finally, evidence collected is not always enough for an arrest, much less a conviction. This doesn't mean an investigation isn't warranted.
Not to say the information shouldn't come with a cost, but the hit miss ratio may not be nearly as bad as you think.
Disk crisis, please clean up!