Life In 19x19

I was rather startled this morning (2020-10-07) to read a BBC News story about President Trump's CV healthcare. Quoting American professors, the essential point being made was that, while America may have the best health care in the world, few Americans actually have access to it. And part of the reason for that, it seems, is that while America may the best computer technology in the world, relatively few Americans actually have access to it.

To be specific, the article said, "Nearly 55% of rural households do not have broadband internet access (compared to 35% in metros)." I do not know how that is measured, or whether it is accurate. And I can't say I trust the journalistic competence of the BBC as much as I used to, but it's still pretty good. So, accepting that statement as near enough true, I was shocked.

For comparison, the official UK governing body says 99.5% of UK properties have "decent" broadband access, and 95% have "superfast." Only 150,000 rural households lack any access. I believe the picture in Europe is similar.

Judging by go activities being talked about, say on internet forums, American go players are heavily focused on (even obsessed with) internet go, not just playing the game but promoting AGA activities such as the Redmond videos, the conclusion I draw is that an awful lot of Americans, even in metro areas, are missing out on access not just to health care and computer technology but to go.

Again I make the caveat that I don't know whether the figures are accurate, and I'm also aware that "rural" in America can mean much greater distances then in the UK or Europe. But, still, isn't this a bit alarming?

John Fairbairn wrote:
To be specific, the article said, "Nearly 55% of rural households do not have broadband internet access (compared to 35% in metros)." I do not know how that is measured, or whether it is accurate. And I can't say I trust the journalistic competence of the BBC as much as I used to, but it's still pretty good. So, accepting that statement as near enough true, I was shocked.

.........
Again I make the caveat that I don't know whether the figures are accurate, and I'm also aware that "rural" in America can mean much greater distances then in the UK or Europe. But, still, isn't this a bit alarming?

The rural parts of even our most densely populated states (I am in Massachusetts) might be less densely populated than the least densely populated parts of the UK. Where I am in MA there is no cell service (yes, I know of spots within a km where standing in a couple hundred square meters you can get ars). Up to two years ago we just had dial-up internet at 56Kbaud unless you had satellite access.

To give you an idea in nubers, the next town (township) west of me has a human density ~4/sq km. The density of deer thee probably higher than that of humans and deer don't use internet.

Capitalism.Gotta love it.
There is no money to be made by extending broadband into sparsely populated regions and there is no government funding to subsidize such development because, you know, government funding. IN fact, in many jurisdictions, internet companies have successfully lobbied to outlaw municipalities from developing their own systems-- where none exist -- and possibly disrupting their monopolies

This shortsighted, free market-based stupidity has turned out to be a huge problem with the covid closures of schools and working from home. Where there is no cell service or broadband, there is no online learning nor zoom meetings.

1990 population mapmore recent (maybe?)more recent (maybe?)

Some Loonatics should think about a baloon based solution

everyone has access to a cell phone. Even if you dont get service at home, you'll get it somewhere you go in your daily life.

A little bit of history.

I'm relying upon memory, so I may have some things wrong.

Theodore Vail, who was president of ATT in the early 20th century, a time when US anti-trust laws were enforced, foresaw a problem looming with ATT as a monopoly. To forestall regulation and possible break-up, he made a decision to treat ATT as a public utility. We see the effects of that decision today. Part of my phone bill goes to providing universal access for those who cannot afford it. It is hard to imagine our modern society without universal access. People can call the police, the ambulance, the fire department. (These days it is not too hard to imagine. Not too long ago in Tennessee a man who lived out in the county refused to subscribe to the nearby municipal fire department for $75 per year. When his house burned down, the fire department came, but only to protect his neighbor's house, who had subscribed. The man had $75 in hand, but the fire chief refused to take the money.)

As a monopoly, ATT was able to use charges for long distance service to subsidize local services, which it, as a utility, provided cheaply. This lasted until the 1980s, when ATT faced competitors for long distance service who did not also provide local service. ATT was broken up. The modern ATT is one of its parts which grew, merged with other parts, and took the name.

Despite the breakup of ATT, US anti-trust legislation had become almost toothless. Witness Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Walmart. This was a result of a judicial philosophy in the US that deemed monopolies and monopsonies to be OK as long as they kept prices low. (OC, without meaningful competition, how can you tell? ) The attempted breakup of Microsoft in the 1990s failed, as I understand it, because the Bush II administration, which came in in 2001, refused to go along. Even the Clinton administration had allowed mergers which arguably led to the recent financial crash and Not So Great Depression. I remember the ridiculous weight of US government regulation in the 1970s. But in our resultant anti-regulation zeal, we had, as a society, forgotten the lessons of the late 19th century which led to anti-trust laws in the first place.

During the Great Depression the US expanded electricity to rural areas throughout the country. The Hoover Dam was part of that project, as was the Tennessee Valley Authority, which provided hydroelectric power to rural areas and small towns. Both FDR and, earlier, Vail, sought to save capitalism by reining it in. With the fall of the Soviet Union, today capitalism has no enemies. Even China has become somewhat capitalistic, to its credit.

In the US today, as bogiesan indicates, no monopoly wants to become a utility. Even the utilities don't want to be utilities. The electricity crisis in California early in this century, which resulted in rolling blackouts, was caused by manipulation of the grid by a few young men outside of California in order to extract temporary high prices.

The infrastructure for the internet in the US was developed by the department of defense (DARPANET). I got online in 1983. Back then the main expense of the internet was the phone bill. The breakup of ATT meant that if I could make a local call to the nearest internet node, I could get the long distance connection cheap. In the US this step was necessary for the later commercialization of the internet, by increasing the number of people online and providing customers for retailers. And users for Google.

As bogiesan also says, communities that have tried to provide internet access and broadband as utilities have been prevented by their state governments, who bow down to the monopolies, from doing so. Google has dipped its toe into building municipal infrastructure, by laying fiber connection in Kansas City. But not to the poorer areas of town. We're not a public utility, you know.

John Fairbairn wrote:I was rather startled this morning (2020-10-07) to read a BBC News story about President Trump's CV healthcare. Quoting American professors, the essential point being made was that, while America may have the best health care in the world, few Americans actually have access to it.

I think we have somewhere around the 20th best health care in the world. Unlike 40 years ago. People are going to Canada for drugs, Mexico for dentistry. Doctors travel once a year, maybe more often, to provide free clinics to parts of Appalachia, like going to third world countries. Infant mortality in the US is a disgrace.

This will quickly veer off-topic, but I believe what John said about health care is right. The US has very expensive, high quality health care coverage for those who can afford it. But on average, US citizens have mediocre health care, because it's too hard to outweigh the extreme impact of people who have near zero access. Similarly, affluent US primary and secondary schools are globally quite competitive, but the worst schools are truly awful, bringing down the average.

For broadband, I would like to see raw numbers, though. There's no guarantee that everyone involved uses the same terms.

bogiesan wrote:Capitalism.Gotta love it.
There is no money to be made by extending broadband into sparsely populated regions and there is no government funding to subsidize such development because, you know, government funding. IN fact, in many jurisdictions, internet companies have successfully lobbied to outlaw municipalities from developing their own systems-- where none exist -- and possibly disrupting their monopolies

This shortsighted, free market-based stupidity has turned out to be a huge problem with the covid closures of schools and working from home. Where there is no cell service or broadband, there is no online learning nor zoom meetings.

I thought there was plenty of money to be made by the big telcos for taking govt handouts for increasing access, and then not doing so, but keeping the money.

Where there is no cell service or broadband, there is no online learning nor zoom meetings

Lucky them, had the best time during lockdown not in front of a terminal, but in my garden with my family.

Ergo, lets provide everybody with gardens

John Fairbairn wrote:I was rather startled this morning (2020-10-07) to read a BBC News story about President Trump's CV healthcare. Quoting American professors, the essential point being made was that, while America may have the best health care in the world, few Americans actually have access to it. And part of the reason for that, it seems, is that while America may the best computer technology in the world, relatively few Americans actually have access to it.

I seem to be in the minority, but I have a different take on this.

- Trump has access to an experimental (monoclonal antibody?) drug. Emphasis on experimental. It is not reasonable to assume the pharmaceutical company would ask the president to enter into a drug trial like Joe Citizen, where he might be given the placebo. The president's motorcade also gets to run red lights when heading across town. Lots of perks.

- There's been some complaining about the "stupid free market", but it is my understanding that Pharma is over-regulated. Drugs that have been studied and approved in Europe have essentially had go through the approval process all over again in America before we deem it safe. Thousands of lives have been lost waiting for a drug everyone knew would eventually be approved (a second time) by our FDA.

- I agree that rural areas have lower quality broadband access, and lower quality healthcare. And I agree that a lack of broadband probably exacerbates health care disparities. But I don't understand the link to Trump getting an experimental drug.

Admins PLEASE MOVE THIS TO OFF TOPIC!
As should be expected the discussion here is not about Go.

Diverting things back to the original topic at hand...

Rural broadband access in both Canada and America is an ongoing issue. In Canada it is noted as the "digital divide", and successive governments have been making efforts to improve access. Subsidies for capital costs are common, and there is a new government program specifically to improve speeds in the high north, where even satellite access isn't available (no line of sight to geostationary orbits). Even close to large cities the available broadband can be poor--my in-laws live about a ten minute drive from Ottawa's high-tech core and can't get fast enough speeds to stream Netflix.

The other thing that is worth remembering is that the BBC's data may be relying on official government figures, which specify a minimum broadband speed to qualify. I think it's a minimum 25/10 connection in my area, which means that my 15/1 connection doesn't qualify even though I can play go just fine.

It's handy to remember that playing go doesn't actually require a broadband connection. Connecting to a go server doesn't require much data and speeds are less critical. Twenty years ago I'm sure many of us played go on dial-up connections without trouble. Who knows, maybe go might even become attractive to those with poor connections.