Securing views Berg

It was not a popular opinion to question the hysteria and mass vaccination against swine flu. For the full health risks was evidently slightly larger than the flu at all, but against this it would be rushed a vaccine (without proper testing) which would then be plugged into each and every citizen. Does not feel at all difficult to paint a conspiracy scenario where the industry was laughing all the way to the bank.

I wrote (the text does not really clear on one of the sites but I revises history):

http://berg.to/blog/Lf

And what ends up in our lap? Well that is poorly tested vaccine, security was front and then injected with large numbers of people in our region, is found to have side effects. There is statistical evidence that the vaccinated have more aptitude for larkolepsi:

http://berg.to/blog/dY

So, what's the conclusion? The body is amazing. It solves most problems on her own. The more we are reminding us of the better of it and the body itself becomes resistant, no side effects. Of course I judge not look sick host and drugs - they also have their role, but what I am saying is that we will become sick and SHOULD actually get sick from time to time. It's like exercise - those who do not train to slacken and then has a body that is so unprepared to need medical help to protect himself. So when the next flu is on its way - running a game or go in any case a number of longer walks.

[Updated: fixed some typos and clarified the depreciation part]

As the swine flu hit, I've been able to stay home and have taken the time to follow the discussion on Open networks from Rosenbad. It was said very interesting and everyone seems to differ slightly but this is not the case. Just that the discussion is of course indicates that there are underlying conflicts.

Patrick Field current is normally clear and insightful in their educational preparation. Perhaps it lacks the connection to the examples from real life. Perhaps no one to where the dividing lines are. I'm not myself directly in this industry and therefore may not be the real instinctive feeling that the war at the front is when I look at this, but I think I understand a few different fronts;

# Integration of carriers and service, the one that pulls the cable to a property would purely business reasons for becoming a supplier to make sure you can not switch suppliers under this depreciation. As a customer wants to avoid lock-in and be able to change within a reasonable tid.Det is an inherent conflict between a provider intends to roll out the infrastructure, you want a bond that is as long as possible to the economic entry-level threshold for the customer should be low as possible, but economically, you want the capital costs covered as soon as possible. Depreciation is probably quite short compared to what is reasonable for an infrastructure that has a lifespan of several dozen years (here I make an assumption about particular fiber closest taklöst respect capacity seen over time, which in the same way as with our galvanizing lines blown them up in well over what you thought theoretically possible). Normal business calculations usually seldom able to hand over a few years - no more.

Cable TV operators are a bit of a villain here, it connects public housing states also exempt feet on the conditions for it to set up ADSL in nearby switching centers, the base could become too small.

The solution is that if you're willing to make an infrastructure investment in this way must be able to do it, but that term must be limited. I would suggest that 24-month period is the maximum for all types of subscriptions for IT services as fixed telephone, mobile phone, TV and internet. In the case of infrastructure, where the connection could not reasonably be had "written off" over a reasonable period, the supplier should also be able to demand a "ransom" in the form of book residual value.

The second potential culprit is the metropolitan area network that can not draw a line between what they wear and do what commercial actors should do; City Network can definitely establish open infrastructure, which can deliver a service from any ISP. Some metropolitan stepping in and becomes ISPs and it is in this case one does not step in the wrong guild and with public money in the pot to compete with commercial entities.

The solution here is to state and local government can deliver infrastructure but never deliver an ISP service.

# ISP provides an Internet service but also a number of VAS (Value Added Services). It is actively or passively to competing services not to work.

Imagine that you buy internet by Bredbandsbolaget but want to buy broadband from someone else. Brebandstelefonileverantören then sends an ATA box to you and you plug it in, but where does it stop. Bredbandsbolaget säljernämligen own voice and only ATA boxes as broadband company / telenor deliver works from Brebandsbolagets customer connections. This means that you have created a lock and a fundamentally unfair favoritism to its own telephone service. Or - there's no way for someone to take an informed decision about the value of Bredbandsbolaget service if not obvious, and it does not in any way at all as far as I can see. I did not know this when I became a customer of Bredbandsbolaget.

The solution must be to declare the commodity Internet service. All types of restrictions that the service is suffering from must be presented in a structured and clear way. Here, the industry has a major responsibility to find forms and structures, just as mobile operators did on what bandwidth they offer. It is perhaps also a logical development of broadband protocols to see which protocols and ports that are open.