Slashdot Mirror

As of the '04 census:
Edmonton, AB 666,104
Red Deer, AB 75,923
Calgary, AB 933,495
Source: http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/ms/pdf/2004P op.pdf

The 2001 census (back to Wikipedia article now) recorded 30,007,094 in Canada.

Quick math shows those cities come out to be about 5.5% of the population.

Alberta is pretty damn empty compared to Southern Ontario/Quebec/BC. The cities you mentioned are not the norm.

Quick searching only found a 1976 version, but here's a population distribution map of Canada. Pay special attention to the Southern Ontario/Quebec region: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/5the dition/peopleandsociety/population/mcr4064

The majority of the Canadian population, about 60% is concentrated within a thin belt of land representing 2.2% of the land between Windsor, Ontario and Quebec City.

Canada might have a low population density overall, but that's because there are vast vast areas of sparse population. Most of their population is much more concentrated than America. It is significantly harder to provide all the infrastructure necessary for broadband in America than in most other countries.

Why not compare it to Countries like India and China. Places with very large populations and a very large land mass. I think it'd be a little more fair than comparing it to countries with a high population density (the majority of Canadia's population is settled within 100 miles or so of the US border

1. "100 miles or so of the US border..." In other words, most of Canada's population lives in a similar setting to their American cousins, just across the border. Here's a map. Here's an older, but more detailed map
2. Canada and the USA are both "rich" countries, with similar cultures. Most people in China and India do not have the average American's income or lifestyle.
3. The urban population density in Canada is only slightly greater than in the US, in other words... it is roughly the same.

Why not compare it to Countries like India and China. Places with very large populations and a very large land mass. I think it'd be a little more fair than comparing it to countries with a high population density (the majority of Canadia's population is settled within 100 miles or so of the US border

1. "100 miles or so of the US border..." In other words, most of Canada's population lives in a similar setting to their American cousins, just across the border. Here's a map. Here's an older, but more detailed map
2. Canada and the USA are both "rich" countries, with similar cultures. Most people in China and India do not have the average American's income or lifestyle.
3. The urban population density in Canada is only slightly greater than in the US, in other words... it is roughly the same.

Most of Korea is between the ages of 10-39 (http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/South-Korea n-demographics.html/) crappy link.

Compared to Canada which is somewhat evenly distributed and is hard to dissect, however since the even distribution one would assume the majority of the population is average adults with a family (http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsoc iety/age/age1996/can_graph.gif/image_view/)

AND America which is about the same as canada's distribtion...(http://www.censusscope.org/us/print _chart_age.html/

The results from this study are interesting, they are either flawed by census irregularity due to cultural differences or its just freakin strange.

That is because it is easy for Canada to piggy back on the US satellites. A satellite that covers the US will also cover a lot of Canada. Our common language makes it easy for us to share shows as well.

Except that we don't piggback on US satellites. For example, the Nimiq satellite that I get my signal from is owned by ExpressVu, my provider, and operated by Telesat. And last time I checked most Australians share that common language.

Canada even has HUGE as it is the population tends to cluster. I think Australia tends to be evenly spread out.

You'd be wrong again. Like Canada, Autralia's population is concentrated in several big cities.

Anyway, population density shouldn't matter. In Canada, Canadian TV networks buy the redistribution rights for American network programs an then air them here, broadcast over satellite, cable, whatever. We usually get to watch the shows at the same time as they are aired in the US, if not before. How come the Australian TV networks can't do the same thing?

The US has an similar band between Boston and Washington DC.

It doesn't stretch the truth much to say that everyone in Canada lives within a three hour drive of the U.S. border. But more significantly, perhaps, the Canadian population is concentrated in just four urban regions: the Golden Horseshoe in southern Ontario, (Niagara Falls-Hamilton-Toronto,) Montréal, British Columbia's Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island, and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. The Atlas of Canada

Less densely settled?
"The majority of the Canadian population, about 60% is concentrated within a thin belt of land representing 2.2% of the land between Windsor, Ontario and Quebec City."

Speaking Hebrew but not English in Canada is a bit like being born and raised in Canada but only knowing French and not English. It happens, but it's actually statistically rare and it's really not viable to cater for the few people it effects.

Thrust me, between having the second biggest french speaking city in the world after Paris, and taking into account that 31% of canadian can speak both french and english, with the vast majority of these being in the eastern half of the country, you can probably figure out it's actually pretty freakin' viable. 17% of canadian don't even speak english because they simply don't need to. 82% of anglophones in quebec can also speak french.

I guess it's just hard for some people that watch TV shows where aliens from outer space speak english to grasp the concept of someone not speaking their language and living a life similar to theirs.

> Go ride a bike!

Especially if you live in Yellowknife.

That's not a map... That's a map.

The Canadian population is heavily concentrated in several cities that are all close to the US border. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Halifax. The "golden horshoe" area between Toronto and Niagra Falls has a very high population density. See this map for details.

The other thing that we have going for us is that most areas are serviced by one government-granted monopoly for phone service (DSL) and another for cable. So, in the cities, there was good infrastructure in place to build broadband services on.

However, we don't have any 10 or 100mbit fiber to the door, and access in rural areas is still abysmal but improving.

Most of it is empty. The rest of the population is crammed almost as tight as the other countries. "Neighbors to the North" is right; over half of their population lives fairly close to their southern border.

Shamelessly stolen reference link from someone else: Canada's Population Density Reading the caption reveals that 60% of their population lives in a tiny fraction of their land -- "a thin belt of land representing 2.2% of the land between Windsor, Ontario and Quebec City."

Canada being both geographically larger and far less densely populated then the US

But most of canada is a wasteland.

The US is just a lousy place to get broadband.

Perhaps. But you still must recognize that there is some truth to the idea of geographical differences playing a part in this mess.

For those that don't know, most of Canada has average population density of less than 1 person per sq. km.

Although the rest of your post is interesting, you are quite wrong with the population density number.

As per The Atlas of Canada, the population of Canada is 30,750,100 and the size of the country is 9,984,670. This results in an average density of 3.08 people per square kilometer or for the metrically challenged, 7.98 people per square mile.

An example of one extreme is, Nunavut has a population of 26,000 and covers an area of 2,000,000 square kilometers. Nunavut, therefore, has a density of 0.013 people per square kilometer. Or 76.9 square kilometers per person.

For those that don't know, most of Canada has average population density of less than 1 person per sq. km.

Although the rest of your post is interesting, you are quite wrong with the population density number.

As per The Atlas of Canada, the population of Canada is 30,750,100 and the size of the country is 9,984,670. This results in an average density of 3.08 people per square kilometer or for the metrically challenged, 7.98 people per square mile.

An example of one extreme is, Nunavut has a population of 26,000 and covers an area of 2,000,000 square kilometers. Nunavut, therefore, has a density of 0.013 people per square kilometer. Or 76.9 square kilometers per person.

Sincerely,
The American Geography Student who paid attention in class

To the arctic circle? Hrm... not quite. Actually, not even freaking close. Check it out.

http://atlas.gc.ca/rasterimages/english/maps/refer ence/national/canada_eng.jpg

Kananaskis is hardly in the middle of nowhere. It is near a major highway that will have thousands of cars driving passed it next weekend. The middle of nowhere is about 600k north of here (northern Saskatchewan, look up Black Lake or Stony Rapids on a map) and cell phones most certainly do not work from there. Neither does 911 for that matter.

Would Santa and his elves relocate to Central America? Christmas in Bermuda?

Santa would be at the true north pole.

BTW, I've heard people say that the true north pole is actually part of Canada as well. Maps such as this one show Canada's territory extending to the true north pole, but one might expect the infinitesimally small point to be divided between Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (Greenland). Is the true north pole really part of The True North Strong And Free?

Canadian Pop Density