SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Researchers from the Group of Information Technology and Communications at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid have carried out a techno-economic assessment to define the most cost-efficient technology to supply 30 Megabit per second broadband to municipalities with less than 5000 inhabitants. By using this so-called "rocket model," the research group has found that LTE (a standard for wireless communication) is the most suitable technology to ensure the investment return of rural areas in Spain.
The new goals of Digital Agenda for Europe regarding fast and ultra-fast broadband have led to search for the best strategy to achieve them. However, there is not a general consensus about what is the best technology to achieve the aim of providing 30 Mbps broadband to 100% of population.
The difficulty in rural areas lies both in socio-demographic characteristics of the population (low population density, low average income, elderly residents and low digital literacy) and geographical characteristics. The geographical issues involve technical problems with major economic consequences.
There are two strategies to confront these difficulties: the development of fixed networks or using mobile networks. Spain chose the second option by linking the coverage obligations on operators that were licensees of two blocks. This obligation fell on Telefónica, Vodafone and Orange, which are bound to jointly provide 30 Mbps broadband to municipalities with less than 5000 inhabitants.
...
The study has shown that LTE technology is the most cost-effective solution for 75% to 98.5% of population, since it is not expected that VDSL technology covers that region. In addition, satellite broadband is recommended to cover the last 1.5% of population.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 24 2015, @04:58PM
Yes. When you're in an economic catastrophe caused by socialist economic policies, what you really need is one more socialist economic policy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday July 24 2015, @05:12PM
You're already paying them unemployment. Is it "socialist" to require them to work if they are able?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 24 2015, @06:56PM
Yeah, pretty much. Socialism is all about forcing you to work for the gain of others. We used to call that slavery.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2015, @11:37PM
You have described something that is not Socialism. [wikipedia.org]
...not that I would expect an old cold warrior to know the difference.
...and not to have swallowed a bunch of Cold War bullshit.
If it is actually Socialism, the workers make all the decisions via a very democratic process.
In a Socialist society, each individual's vote is equal to any other vote.
In a Socialist society, it is not possible to purchase an election.
In short, any top-down system with concentrations of wealth and power is the ANTITHESIS of Socialism.
Prof. Wolff's presentation for the week of July 1, 2015 [democracyatwork.info]
The professor also describes why a bottom-up structure is essential for successful human organization.
This is one of his best.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 25 2015, @12:15AM
Whether it is by the order of one or the order of millions, forcing someone to work for the benefit of someone else is slavery.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday July 25 2015, @08:38AM
We aren't talking about getting the military to round up these people and forcing them to work under threat of being shot.
It's "you get your benefit cheque in exchange for providing useful labor". No labor, no cheque.
Most of us are slaves, if this is the definition of slavery.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 25 2015, @11:43AM
Yes. Yes we are. And we will continue to be until we refuse to be anymore. The only proper and free way for a man to live is via voluntary exchange of value for value. This can't be done with most every government as anything they have to exchange, they first took by force.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday July 25 2015, @07:49PM
Well then, see you on the moon.
And stay on your side.
(Score: 1) by Pino P on Friday July 24 2015, @08:28PM
Requiring a long-term recipient of unemployment insurance benefits to volunteer part-time acts as an investment in the insured's skills until the insured can be employed again in the market.
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Friday July 24 2015, @06:50PM
Spanish rural areas have faced dire economic prospects for pretty much forever, including under a long 20th-century regime so anti-socialist that it began by executing many thousands of socialists. Certain developments in the overall Spanish economy might be fairly blamed on policies by socialist parties, but it's hard to blame socialism for every miserable Extremaduran or Andalusian town or village were broadband might be laid out.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 24 2015, @08:28PM
That's fair. Not everyone's problems are caused by socialism. My booty call bailing on me this weekend had nothing to do with either socialism or capitalism, for instance.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @12:00AM
"Socialist" should be in quotes there.
It should be noted that State Capitalism (linked in my comment above) is generally accepted as a stepping stone to a true Socialist society.
The thing is that not a single national gov't which has called itself "Socialist" or "Communist" has ever made it beyond the State Capitalism stage.
Someone always gets greedy for power.
Don't go blaming Socialism for the failures of Capitalism--no matter what form that Capitalism takes.
-- gewg_