Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Cold, dark countries whipping US in broadband usage
arstechnica.com — New OECD numbers show the US still in 15th place when it comes to broadband subscriptions, but that's not a result of low population density. Could it be that it's just too warm and sunny here?
TalSiach- 851 diggs
- digg it
- webman77, on 05/22/2008, -13/+5OK, now I know why THIS site is such a slowpoke..
- pali23, on 05/22/2008, -8/+0China is leading the way wot most numbers now
- cowsgonemadd3, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Nothing like fast internet that everyone has but nobody can use but on "approved" sites....
- blackjack75, on 05/22/2008, -3/+31Note that broadband penetration doesn't mean we have higher speeds. I live in Switzerland and although I guess it's true a lot of people have broadband, as opposed to dialup, we've been lagging behind others in terms of speed for years. It's only getting better now but neighbouring France had 20mbits for 19 Euros when we still had to pay 50Euros for 3mbits. And don't get me started on Japan of course.
- ironwater, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2You're beating me. I'm in the US and I can only get 200Kbs on my 'high' speed.
- MrViklund, on 05/22/2008, -12/+7What do you mean cold dark countries? Education...
First exercise. Point out Sweden on a map. No? Too hard.- thcobbs, on 05/22/2008, -2/+4I may not be able to point out Sweden....
But I can easily point out an *****.
- thcobbs, on 05/22/2008, -2/+4I may not be able to point out Sweden....
- sexybobo, on 05/22/2008, -15/+27This is kinda flawed. Yes Canada has a low population density but the majority of Canadians live in larger cities. it is really easy to get broadband rolled out to 95% of your population if 94% of them live in 10 major cities.
Kinda like in japan they just have to have broadband running to tokyo for 1/4 their population to have access to it. It is not like the USA were the majority of people live in suburbs and they don't have to burry millions of miles of fiber to connect every one like they do in the US- kingmanic, on 05/22/2008, -1/+17You comparison is flawed as those major cities aren't denser then US cities. So what exactly is your point? Rolling out the ADSL 2.5 and higher speed cable in Edmonton, AB is no harder then spokane, WA.Rolling out Infrastructure in Toronto is just as hard and easy as LA. The point is the telecom monopolies in place in the US are content with the current situation and until there is demand for change, there will be no change.
You are suggesting that Canada is more urban then the US, check any stats on this Canada has virtually the same distribution of urban vs rural. (CA 77% urban vs US 75% urban vs Japan at 78%. Urban pop. Densities greater in the US and Japan). I think you are consuming the idea that 95% of the Canadian populace live within 100km of the US border with the idea that most of them live in cities. About 77% do, not 95%.- koenkai, on 05/22/2008, -3/+7Actually, kingmanic, I believe you might be missing the point. Maps do a good job of illustrating sexybobo's point. Take a look at the Canadian population density map (I'm using an old map, b/c that's the latest official Canadian govt. map I could find):
http://geodepot.statcan.ca/Diss/Maps/ThematicMaps/ ...
Note the *geographic area* in which population density is >1/km. Look at the land mass that encompasses. Now compare that to:
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/512popdn.pdf
(again, a somewhat old map, but it's from the official US Census site, so at least I know it should be accurate). Note the geographic area in which the population density is > 10/mile. We're talking half of the continental US and vast portions of the pacific coast of the US. That's significantly larger than the geographic area of pop. > 1/km in Canada. And that's the real point.
Clearly, looking at it from purely a geographic area/land mass perspective, the US requires a much more extensive infrastructure network in order to support its population and population dispersion. It's significantly less expensive to provide the infrastructure for Iceland (or Canada) when the geographic area to be covered is a fraction of what it would take for similar coverage in the US. Think about the miles (or kilometers) of fiber, alone, that would be required for good high speed networking (then add in the additional cost of extra POPs required, switching hubs, trunk lines for the backbones, etc.), and you'll soon understand that the whole article referenced here is somewhat bogus.
As noted in the article, the US is ranked 11th in terms of last-mile linked for fiber. I'd argue that's actually pretty good when you take into account the geographic area needed to accomplish that degree of penetration when considering the population dispersion...esp. since the geographic area to reach population densities > 10/mi. is significantly larger than what's required in Japan, Korea, etc.- FairDinkumMate, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1So what's your excuse for only being equal with Australia?
Australia has 6% of the US population & about 80% of the US land mass
Pop density 2.7(Aus) vs 32.0(US) - bobothn, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1the small population for the most part lives in denser areas. Also they are have equal percent of the population with broadband but their internet is crappy ask any one from Australia.
- kingmanic, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2The maps imply nothing. They use two different scales, so if you notice the scales you might think that the dark areas of Canada are equal to that of the US but the dark areas on the Canada map are 50 people or more while the dark areas in the US map are 250 or more. Which means almost 1/2 of the US is as dense as the densest part of Canada. The urban vs rural ratio is identical which shoots the basis of your argument out from under you. so whats preventing LA or New York form having the same internet as Toronto? You further assume the network has to be homogeneous through out the US, which isn't the case anywhere. There is no excuse, the big telecoms are ripping you off.
- koenkai, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Ah, kingmanic, you again missed the point--and you just made mine for me. Yes. 1/2 the US is as dense as the densest part of Canada....meaning that the geographic area is significantly larger for the US. That, in turn, means the costs for creating that infrastructure is significantly more than for Canada...and thus you miss the point again: the reason for the lower #s is based on cost which is directly tied to geographic distribution. The urban/rural ratio is meaningless without the context of geographic dispersion. Take a look at it this way: if the urban/rural ratio were identical to say, Luxembourg, would it matter? No. Because it would be significantly cheaper to wire up Luxembourg due to its limited size. I do not assume the network is homogeneous--in fact, I know it is not. Which only increases costs, as you can't derive benefits of economies of scale that a smaller country/less geographically dispersed population would allow (one provider instead of multiple providers, simpler infrastructure, et al). That, too, only reiterates my point.
Oh. And I never said the big telecoms *weren't* ripping us off. Have no idea why you tossed that assertion in there...
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1So what's your excuse for only being equal with Australia?
- koenkai, on 05/22/2008, -3/+7Actually, kingmanic, I believe you might be missing the point. Maps do a good job of illustrating sexybobo's point. Take a look at the Canadian population density map (I'm using an old map, b/c that's the latest official Canadian govt. map I could find):
- brundlefly76, on 05/22/2008, -5/+2The idea that the authors have 'successfully debunked' the density theory is not proven - just lamely asserted.
Ask any ISP - bandwidth costs dollars, and the more bandwidth you need and further you have to pull it the more it costs - there is nothing about that reality that is debunked just because you can point to some smaller towns overseas that have broadband.
PS I have 25 Mbps symmetrical FTTH in the US. ;) - TaraTLC, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5I have family that lives on a farm 1.5 hours of Saskatoon, they have broadband. Smaller cities like Moosejaw (32k people), Prince Albert (34k) etc also have broadband.
My father works for a cable company in BC on Vancouver Island. They manage to get broadband to people who have houses way up in the mountains... - radiofrequency, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3That's an accurate assessment and fair conclusion, but you have to admit that broadband in the United States - even in big cities - is slower, asymmetrical, throttled for certain uses (filesharing).
It's not a matter of geography alone.
- kingmanic, on 05/22/2008, -1/+17You comparison is flawed as those major cities aren't denser then US cities. So what exactly is your point? Rolling out the ADSL 2.5 and higher speed cable in Edmonton, AB is no harder then spokane, WA.Rolling out Infrastructure in Toronto is just as hard and easy as LA. The point is the telecom monopolies in place in the US are content with the current situation and until there is demand for change, there will be no change.
- alanr19, on 05/22/2008, -13/+70The author seems shocked that the US isnt top. Like its their divine right or something.
- kingmanic, on 05/22/2008, -12/+23Since it was invented there, and the US is more affluent per capita you'd figure they'd have a better system.
- sockpuppets, on 05/22/2008, -18/+10The internet was invented at CERN, not the U.S.
- justinx0r, on 05/22/2008, -4/+26Nope. It was invented by the US. Look up ARPANET.
- CasinoJack, on 05/22/2008, -0/+24The 'Web' was invented at CERN while the Internet was invented in the USA - What we use today could not exist without the initial innovations of CERN or DARPA.
- bjornski, on 05/22/2008, -6/+8Or Al Gore, who helped push the initiatives.
- Theisos, on 05/22/2008, -3/+7The World Wide Web was invented at CERN.
- Typhoon2009, on 05/22/2008, -4/+10And sending packets was invented in the US. Without that, CERN wouldn't have had *****.
- headzoo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+7Clearly some people still think WWW == Internet.
- mooseontheloose, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1
- Theisos, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2Sheesh. Everyone knows that Al Gore, an American, invented the internet.
- Theisos, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Did I really need /sarcasm? Or are Digg users that dumb?
- sockpuppets, on 05/22/2008, -18/+10The internet was invented at CERN, not the U.S.
- ligyron, on 05/22/2008, -11/+7Haven't you heard? America is the center of the universe
- radiofrequency, on 05/22/2008, -8/+1I have heard and you're right! America IS the center of the universe.
- ruddy, on 05/22/2008, -2/+8i used to go to bed thinking "thank god the US has the fastest internet"... i will never sleep the same again :(,,,
- Oppslagsverk, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2The article was not about bandwidth but coverage.
- philodygmn, on 05/22/2008, -2/+10No, he's mocking the US for getting flogged by its monopoly corporations despite having vastly more resources to plough into infrastructure than most of the rest of the world, likely including the countries ahead of us.
- bjornski, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3***** leadership! Look at those profits!
- armestar07, on 05/22/2008, -6/+2The author is from Israel :S
- bjornski, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2So?
- armestar07, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1So, why he is shocked?
*****!
- armestar07, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1So, why he is shocked?
- bjornski, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2So?
- kingmanic, on 05/22/2008, -12/+23Since it was invented there, and the US is more affluent per capita you'd figure they'd have a better system.
- BigManOnCampus, on 05/22/2008, -3/+16When you don't have a warm beach to go to, webcams of warm beaches with bikini bodies become your best use of free time.
- whiteknives, on 05/22/2008, -5/+13Because out of all those countries, the United States has the largest infrastructure to deal with. ISP's can't keep up because that's a hell of a lot of fiber to run. A lot of us are still waiting on FiOS.
- dark_helmet, on 05/22/2008, -1/+9It all depends on their definition of broadband. Canada is beating the US, and for the most part there is no FTTH in Canada, so waiting on FIOS is fairly irrelevant. Canada faces the same (if not worse) infrastructure complications than the US does. Canada has an even lower population density so there are fewer subscribers to foot the bill for the massive amounts of fiber. We also have a giant roadblock called the CRTC which is screwing everyone over in terms of blocking competition between cable companies for some reason.
- mswope, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4We also have a lot of entrenched Telcos which have local monopolies that are tacitly approved by the FCC. And, the FCC is something that other countries aren't stuck with either...
Why put in FTTH if it's easier to sue the cable companies or get the FCC or PUCs to tariff them to death. And, the cable companies seem like they *compete* to be the lowest, scum-sucking, bottom-feeders in the food chain. - mswope, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3Oh, and thanks to a post further down, I now know that the FCC defines "broadband" as 200kb/s.
- Chandon, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0What? Are you suggesting that the entire country needs to have broadband rolled out at the same time? That it's impossible to wire suburban Rhode Island without getting all of Montana at the same time? If so, that's absurd.
The telcos can partition their users however they want to, and they do so all the time - that's why some places have Verizon FiOS and others don't.
- Boing, on 05/22/2008, -5/+6The US has slow broadband? This is news. It has never been on Digg before...
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2That's not what the article says.
- Owwmykneecap, on 05/22/2008, -2/+3I would like to upgrading your internet service providings with our new internet service providings: the sewer internet providings for only £89.97 a month.
- ninxmz, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1What speed is it?
- Owwmykneecap, on 05/22/2008, -1/+242 megabythings
- ninxmz, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1What speed is it?
- Carl306, on 05/22/2008, -9/+4"Cold, dark countries whipping US in broadband usage"
Cold and
dark? Seems like these countries priorities should be along the likes of
keeping their citizens warm and in the light, not in how fast they can
download a video over the internet...- Cattywampus, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9I'd say that they ARE doing their job: making it so citizens can communicate with each other without going outside in the freezing cold.
- mattlohkamp, on 05/22/2008, -3/+0I'd much rather have fast internet then heat. (only sort of joking.)
- spaceddaisy, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3That'd be true if they actually were cold and dark places....
Okay so winters can be a little bit harsh, but trust me our heating systems have been fine for a long time, I can be warm in the light AND use fast internet, all at the same time :)- djchester, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Exactly! Why choose when you can have it all. :)
- Chandon, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Yea, because there's a serious problem in Northern Europe with people being able to heat and light their homes. Wait... that's false.
- Terasiel, on 05/22/2008, -3/+32In my country of Kazakhstan, we google food so we know what we aren't going to be having tonight.
- TheGuruStud, on 05/22/2008, -3/+5I have a friend there, and they have like a literal one DSL line ROFL. And she's probably the only person that owns a comp (the rest would be school property). They ***** over a hole and barely have any running water anywhere.
So, lol, it is that bad over there.
And you know they're really in the dark b/c they absolutely love Americans.
- TheGuruStud, on 05/22/2008, -3/+5I have a friend there, and they have like a literal one DSL line ROFL. And she's probably the only person that owns a comp (the rest would be school property). They ***** over a hole and barely have any running water anywhere.
- TheGuruStud, on 05/22/2008, -3/+5Yep, speed is lame here. Even uncapped I can barely hit 20 Mb down and 3 up.
- brettmurf, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3What modem are you using to uncap with, and with what ISP?
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1God forbid my 16mbit with Charter.
- Whaines, on 05/22/2008, -8/+10Not that I'm trying to be a political activist or anything, I just thought it would be good to point out that Obama plans to fix our technology problems, including, "Deploy[ing] Next-Generation Broadband."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/- mswope, on 05/22/2008, -2/+5Not to be a realist or anything, but how is Barack going to "fix" our technology problems? He can, as the web site puts it, "encourage" things to happen. But he has and will have no legislative power to "fix" anything.
- TexMexMatt, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3So the president of USA can invade another country but not fix broadband?
- listrophy, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1While "fixing" broadband, he'll destroy NASA: Warning, PDF: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/PreK-12Educa ...
I linked to a PDF because the Obama site conveniently leaves out the nugget about "delaying the NASA Constellation program for five years" from HTML pages.
- mswope, on 05/22/2008, -2/+5Not to be a realist or anything, but how is Barack going to "fix" our technology problems? He can, as the web site puts it, "encourage" things to happen. But he has and will have no legislative power to "fix" anything.
- omenmedia, on 05/22/2008, -1/+6No, I think it's just that Danes and Dutchies really, really like pr0n.
- Dajestar, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2We do actually, we really do!
- AsylumAleikum, on 05/22/2008, -3/+3Cold, dark countries has a higher percentage of "typical white persons" than the U.S.
- bjornski, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3So, this is a race issue?
- schnikies79, on 05/22/2008, -4/+2Lets take a looksie here.
My nearest neighbor is 1/2 mile from me. His nearest neighbor is 1/2 mile away. Thats two homes in a 1 mile stretch. I will never have fiber. Thats not uncommon. If the stats I've read are correct (that ~70% live in an urban area), that leaves 90 million people that live in a rural area.
That being said, I do have dsl (1.5/384), which I'm quite content with.- zongamin, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Isn't that 3 homes?
- TexMexMatt, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5My friend in Sweden lives 1 mile from his neighbor and his neighbor is another mile away and they got fiber. How?
First the county subsidized it (and built their own fiber optic network) and then they all chipped in to dig down the fiber cables and used some vacation days to do it and now he has 100/100, VOIP and IPTV for 70 bucks a month. Didnt cost him that much to begin with. I think he invested a couple of thousands.
Now he have several ISPs to choose from so he probably could get something cheaper. The ISPs don't own the cable. The just supply the cable on the other end of it. Much cheaper for them since they don't have to spend money.
The value of his home has gone way up and there are more people willing to move there now thanks to this. This isn't the only place that they done this either.
If they can do it, shouldn't you be able to do it too? Or you just lazy bunch of redneck hicks? Or is it that you really honestly believe that Verizon are so eager to roll out FIOS to you and that the market will roll over when you flaunt the cash and beg you to spend your money so they can give you fiber? They will never do that. You want it, you dig. Build a fiber optic network with you neighbors and then you let the ISPs compete over who gets to rent it from you. But that is never going to happen either because Verizon and the other companies will spend lots money on your corrupt politicians and have them write a law forbidding you to build that so they dont have to compete with you. Dont say that wont happen because it already has.- Chandon, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Seriously. Deploying your own fiber in a rural area just isn't that hard.
- schnikies79, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1It's kinda hard here when every time you need to dig you have to blast because of the amount of rock we have in the area (southern indiana). The last time they put a water main through here, they had blast and jackhammer twice in my front yard alone and down the highway just a bit from my house they spent four days removing a boulder that was the size of a dump truck. When our house was built, we had to move it 18ft from where we wanted because of the rock in spot we picked prevented digging a basement. It's not always easy to dig.
Like I said, I'm content with what I have. I have no need for FIOS.
- protodon, on 05/22/2008, -2/+7While it would be really great to have 100% broadband penetration in every corner of the US, I think we're doing damn good for a country of this size, population and standard of living. Not one country is the same as ours in those respects and therefore we cannot compare things like broadband availability and expect them to be equal in all countries.
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1I don't see what the big deal is, according to that graph, the US is not worse off than Germany or France, so what's the problem? This broadband penetration stuff is just getting old and ridiculous and really proves nothing but start flame wars about epenis size. In the mean time, since we're using silly graphs, lets use speedtest.net graph. Ooo, look it here, North America has faster speeds than Europe, it proves everything. It means my nets is better than yours!
Post flames below this line
================================= - Chandon, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Looking at it that way is idiotic. Try looking at it this way: Why can't Delaware or Massachussetts compete with Denmark or even South Korea in broadband availability?
Talking about the whole US at once is sort of like asking why they have such bad broadband penetration in "Europe".
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1I don't see what the big deal is, according to that graph, the US is not worse off than Germany or France, so what's the problem? This broadband penetration stuff is just getting old and ridiculous and really proves nothing but start flame wars about epenis size. In the mean time, since we're using silly graphs, lets use speedtest.net graph. Ooo, look it here, North America has faster speeds than Europe, it proves everything. It means my nets is better than yours!
- mecharabbit, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2Yeah...well...they probably don't play much frisbee golf in Iceland.
- bjornski, on 05/22/2008, -1/+8WE'RE NUMBER FIFTEEN! WE'RE NUMBER FIFTEEN!
GO USA!
Next up. Let's cheer our leadership in education and health care! - damnyooneek, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5blame it on the companies that are trying to milk the current technology to death before they have to upgrade
- mrzack, on 05/22/2008, -3/+8Internet in the US is crap. Cumcast have monopoly over some areas...so *****.
- ramsinks.com, on 05/22/2008, -4/+1Because somebody laid down a fat pipe and there is nobody around to use it?
- diggn_it, on 05/22/2008, -4/+2Maybe they wouldn't be so cold and dark if they spent more money on lights and heat and less money on fiberoptics!
I'M LOOKING AT YOU NORWAY! GET WITH THE PROGRAM!- mattlohkamp, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2Norway? More like snore-way.
- scamper22, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5what is this need for a national broadband strategy?
I'm Canadian and i don't know where the envy comes from. Our cell phone plans and data plans suck compared to the US. Out internet is certainly not cheaper.- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2That is blasphemy you speak of, in Canada, everything is better!
- wmt9, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1My cell phone costs me 33 cents a minute. Bell and rogers fail at internet.
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2That is blasphemy you speak of, in Canada, everything is better!
- Typhoon2009, on 05/22/2008, -3/+12$50 a month... 15Mbps down... 2Mbps up... thanks a lot Verizon. Really. ***** assholes.
- Lazydriver, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Try $50 a month and only getting 10Mbps down and 1mbps up... You're lucky, but then again, you've got FIOS. Oh: and it's really $60 if you don't have cable...
Coxsucker Communications:
We're ***** when it comes to torrents of ANY kind, legit or not, and we'll sell you out to the MAFIAA, but at least we're reliable!!!
(A good summary. Cox IS reliable, at least compared to this shoddy Sprint/Embarq DSL I'm using, rarely get disconnects with Coxsuckers, but with Embarq, it's common, like, 3-6 a day..) - deadlyfluvirus, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Charter Cable here, 16mbit down and 1mbit up, $44 a month. I'm being ripped off!
- jjb123, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Be happy you don't have comcast. $60 a month, 3Mbps down 512Kps up on a good day. ***** YOU COMCAST.
- Lazydriver, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Try $50 a month and only getting 10Mbps down and 1mbps up... You're lucky, but then again, you've got FIOS. Oh: and it's really $60 if you don't have cable...
- Neorio, on 05/22/2008, -4/+4I don't even pay for high speed, uncapped wireless here in my apartment building here in Japan.
(Go on, be jealous and mod me down. I'm telling the truth.)- Awspire, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4I bet you wash windshields for a living.
- Nodnarbs, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1When the hell is "America not #1, OMG!" no longer going to be enough for a headline. America isn't number one, who cares, I'm American, I don't care, I don't know anyone that does...who cares about this blather really, broadband is available to all that want it for the vast majority of us, we are lucky so what we're not #1 who gives a *****.
- Chandon, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3There's nothing "lucky" about having dog-slow internet connectivity, overpriced health care, and a quarter of your tax dollars spent bombing random brown people.
- Awspire, on 05/22/2008, -2/+5http://www.speedtest.net/result/274407723.png
Meh, 30 bucks a month with FIOS in NJ. I'm satisfied at the moment. What do I currently need 100mbps for? Is there some special content floating around that I'm unaware of? Youtube is just starting to dribble out highdef. I'll start bitching about my speed to my ISP when theres something worthy requiring an increase. I'm sure they'll accommodate, since its more business on their end. However, if you want faster speeds to transfer your nifty torrents, then prepare for a speed freeze. - ruddy, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4nothing like "getting whipped" at broadband usage... is that even a competition? in related news, Canada beat the living ***** ***** out of the US in maple syrup production.
- nastronomical, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2I have had broadband since 1998.
- metric7, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Those countries are a lot smaller than America.
- Dajestar, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Canada is smaller? Australia is al lot smaller?
- kestrel7e7, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Don't go to Australia if you like cheap internet.
- bradleyland, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1It's because we're outside chewing bubble gum and kicking ass.
- brianpeiris, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2Dugg, even though I'm in Canada.
I think ISPs and communications companies over here are slipping just as much.
Since we're America's hat, if they change the colour of their outfit, we've got to match. - orlyfactor, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1I get 30 down / 5 up for 60 bucks a month. Sucks to live in the states!
- MasterThief117, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3For such a relativly large and powerful country, our Internet is ***** sucky.
It is not the governments fault really, but more the ISP's such as Comcast (Concast) and Verizon and such.
Verizon is bragging how they released super high-speed FIOS, when in reality, it is as slow as *****.
My old friend who now lives in Spain gets a 100mbit connection for the same I pay for my 5mbit Verizon connection. It is ***** retarded. - jimbob007, on 05/22/2008, -1/+0Man this sucks i get 38Kb/s down and 38Kb/s up
what a rip - skyz, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4if only we (the usa) were actually better at everything (as it is hyped that we are) it would be really nice to live here but....we're not
- Dilz, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4Yup. It's pretty obvious if you've ever spent any time outside of the US. America is good at marketing - creating need for products that shouldn't exist like McMansions, Hummers, liposuction, and a bait-and-switch War on Trrr.
We have a single (perhaps) person to thank for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
- Dilz, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4Yup. It's pretty obvious if you've ever spent any time outside of the US. America is good at marketing - creating need for products that shouldn't exist like McMansions, Hummers, liposuction, and a bait-and-switch War on Trrr.
- drwho9437, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0The 4/5 countries with lower population densities that are ahead on penetration are all heavily socialized economies. Plus culturally similar, more than just cold-dark etc. The only real comparison is Canada. The US should be equal to Canada. Though I don't know the city/rural ratio of Canada, I do know a massive % of the population lives in the 'golden triangle' that might help a raw number like this.
- rasmasyean, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1It’s economics. Telecom isn’t going to wire “remote areas” unless they get a lot of subscribers. And even people in populated areas aren’t necessarily going to subscribe.
The average US citizen is “richer” than most other people. Hence, more can afford to do other things and many regard internet access not as critical to their lifestyle. You don’t need broadband to check email (if they have one) and maybe stocks and news, if even. Since they have more money, they don’t sit in front of computers for long periods of times doing high bandwidth activity like video etc. They go out and buy CD’s, DVD’s, even blu-ray. USA culture revolves a lot around consumerism as well. So people just go and shop and do something outdoors. Even if they don’t have real money to do this, they are rich in credit. That’s how USA works. Wall-Mart FTW!!!- shawnanigans, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2The average OECD citizen is "richer" than most other people. That's why this survey measures only them. It's not comparing the US with Rwanda (though Rwanda has cheaper data plans for cell phones), it's comparing it with Sweden, Switzerland and Norway which have higher GDP per capita than the US.
- rasmasyean, on 05/22/2008, -3/+1Where do you get that from? According to this,
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762380.html
Only Norway is bit higher in tearms of "USD equivalent".
But even though it's higher, USD's are lower value and has less buying power outside USA. So when you convert to Euro, etc. it makes the US citizen even richer...in terms of purchasing power.- rasmasyean, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1To be clear...I mean pruchasing power within the USA.
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1He gets it from a magic number from his head that he made up.
- shawnanigans, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1From the World Bank, IMF, and CIA Factbook.
- rasmasyean, on 05/22/2008, -3/+1Where do you get that from? According to this,
- shawnanigans, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2The average OECD citizen is "richer" than most other people. That's why this survey measures only them. It's not comparing the US with Rwanda (though Rwanda has cheaper data plans for cell phones), it's comparing it with Sweden, Switzerland and Norway which have higher GDP per capita than the US.
- aznwild0, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8The difference is that Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Iceland all have most of the following: a good percentage of citizens going into higher education, a majority of their population in urban centers, a liberal population (relative to the US), low government corruption and a high Human Development Index. They all tend to be fairly social countries.
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/22/2008, -4/+1So going into higher education schools is the reason for a 1-2% difference in broadband penetration between the US and Canada? Your reasoning is quite flawed and retarded.
In the mean time, the US broadband penetration is hardly any different than that of the major European countries, being France, Germany and England. The difference being less than 1%. Yes it would be wonderful to have the broadband penetration to that of the Nordic countries or the Netherlands, but lets get back into reality here. The US has a huge number of broadband subscribers compared to the Nordic countries or most European countries and that is quite a feat to accomplish, including for China as well.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/dsl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
So does having more broadband users in the US mean that people in Europe are more stupid (according to Wikipedia) and your reasoning?
These broadband penetration debates are getting pretty ridiculous and is really an indicator of nothing but to spur up flamewars like these.
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/22/2008, -4/+1So going into higher education schools is the reason for a 1-2% difference in broadband penetration between the US and Canada? Your reasoning is quite flawed and retarded.
- Dilz, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Surewest 10Mbps in Sacramento FTW! Up to 50Mbps is available...
Big Media treats Internet throughput as a threat to their business model, as they should. THEY want be to the only broadcasters out there. If Joe Baggadonuts can broadcast a HQ Shoutcast stream to 50 people, they'll be cut out of the loop. Rest assured, MP@@ and RI@@ are fighting only to keep the debate on ownership of content, while NBC and others roll out delivery services like Hulu. Expect a "breakthrough" now that Big Media has F I N A L L Y developed services that can use bandwidth constructively (generation of revenue). The introduction of the Netflix streaming appliance is another example of this.
/tinfoil!
(Side note: I much prefer Hulu's 5-second "Reese's" commercials to the PAID alternatives.) - Papajohn56, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1do tell.
- reignbow, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4I remember a story two years back in a norwegian newspaper, highlighting a scandalous lack of broadband rollout in one of the rural counties in eastern Norway. This place, called Stor-Elvdal, has 2000+ square kilometers, under 3000 inhabitants, and only a shocking 30% of their homes had broadband. Local government was called to task on this ridiculous misgovernment, and I'm sure the crisis has been alleviated by now.
Seriously, WTF? - nowhereelse, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Seriously, USA people. You guys using the internet are the literate fraction of the US population. A lot of folks in middle America still point at passing cars. Why would they want broadband when they can wrestle cows?
- Oppslagsverk, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Cold? OK. Dark? Well in summer we have daylight almost 24/7. This is awfully off topic.
- gkiltz, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0Could it be because Canada and Russia are the only "Cold, Dark" countries that approach our physical size? Or because even Canada and Russia have the population distributed in such a way that they don't need to cover as much of their land area to reach 99% of their population?
Do you suppose there are practical reasons like these?
Yes, we're behind where we SHOULD be, and bureaucratic foot dragging is the biggest reason for that, but there ARE valid reasons why the postage-stamp countries are ahead of us! - joot2112, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1The population density argument is flawed. Overall, the average US population density may be higher than some of these countries with more broadband coverage, but that comes from averaging extremely dense areas with extremely sparse areas. There is no lack of broadband availability in the cities -- it's just still missing in the sticks.
- Vektuz, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1How about a graph of area vs broadband penetration? One of the big problems with getting broadband to everyone is area. the UK, Japan, etc, are generally a lot smaller, less cable to lay, less infrastructure to create.
It'd be interesting to see surface area vs broadband penetration rather than a meaningless stat like population density. -
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
