Slashdot Mirror

Looks like pilot production should begin soon on a 90 nm. process similar to that used for current Athlon 64s and Opterons. No word in this article on initial clock speeds and power dissipation.

Anyone have additional info?

BTW, another article I hadn't seen linked claims that Cell will be relatively easy to program...seems that Sony learned from some of its PS2 mistakes. That contradicts a lot of the threads responding to the original article and this dupe.

his focus on promoting HDTV and digital communcations, deregualtion of the internet,etc. I suppose there is no point in giving him any credit in any of that since he is a republican. Since this is a tech site, check the Cnet article. I think that is more news for nerds.

his focus on promoting HDTV and digital communcations, deregualtion of the internet,etc. I suppose there is no point in giving him any credit in any of that since he is a republican. Since this is a tech site, check the Cnet article. I think that is more news for nerds.

The irony, of course, being that SIP has MORE THAN ONCE been suggested as a replacement open IM protocol...

Quoth the poster, "As we all know the final ruling will have ramifications on the tech world well beyond P2P."

I hate to break it to you, but the United States isn't the center of the universe, tech or otherwise. Yes, the crazy anti-P2P movement will likely have a horrible effect to US residents, but please. Don't generalize. :P

o Feb 13, 2004: File-swapping lawsuits loom in Canada
o Mar 31, 2004: Judge: File-swapping legal in Canada
o June 30, 2004: Canadian ISPs win on copyright ruling
o Dec 17, 2004: Judge tosses Canada's 'iPod tax'

Instead of bitching about all the American P2P laws, why don't you guys just move to Canada already? It seems like we've gotten it right. ;)

Quoth the poster, "As we all know the final ruling will have ramifications on the tech world well beyond P2P."

I hate to break it to you, but the United States isn't the center of the universe, tech or otherwise. Yes, the crazy anti-P2P movement will likely have a horrible effect to US residents, but please. Don't generalize. :P

o Feb 13, 2004: File-swapping lawsuits loom in Canada
o Mar 31, 2004: Judge: File-swapping legal in Canada
o June 30, 2004: Canadian ISPs win on copyright ruling
o Dec 17, 2004: Judge tosses Canada's 'iPod tax'

Instead of bitching about all the American P2P laws, why don't you guys just move to Canada already? It seems like we've gotten it right. ;)

Quoth the poster, "As we all know the final ruling will have ramifications on the tech world well beyond P2P."

I hate to break it to you, but the United States isn't the center of the universe, tech or otherwise. Yes, the crazy anti-P2P movement will likely have a horrible effect to US residents, but please. Don't generalize. :P

o Feb 13, 2004: File-swapping lawsuits loom in Canada
o Mar 31, 2004: Judge: File-swapping legal in Canada
o June 30, 2004: Canadian ISPs win on copyright ruling
o Dec 17, 2004: Judge tosses Canada's 'iPod tax'

Instead of bitching about all the American P2P laws, why don't you guys just move to Canada already? It seems like we've gotten it right. ;)

Quoth the poster, "As we all know the final ruling will have ramifications on the tech world well beyond P2P."

I hate to break it to you, but the United States isn't the center of the universe, tech or otherwise. Yes, the crazy anti-P2P movement will likely have a horrible effect to US residents, but please. Don't generalize. :P

o Feb 13, 2004: File-swapping lawsuits loom in Canada
o Mar 31, 2004: Judge: File-swapping legal in Canada
o June 30, 2004: Canadian ISPs win on copyright ruling
o Dec 17, 2004: Judge tosses Canada's 'iPod tax'

Instead of bitching about all the American P2P laws, why don't you guys just move to Canada already? It seems like we've gotten it right. ;)

This really came "full circle" a few years back in a bunch of lawsuits nicknamed "Sony vs Sony". See this cNet article for details.

(The gist of it: Sony Music, as a member of the RIAA was up against the Consumer Electronics Association, of which Sony Electronics is a member, as well as some companies which Sony is an investor...)

Dude, a toilet that ran Windows ALREADY made the front page of slashdot!!!

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/02/188215 &tid=109&tid=133
http://news.com.com/html/ne/msft_pop.html

I'm a web designer currently looking for a LCD monitor to use in a LCD/CRT combo. So far, the Samsung 213t looks to be the best bet in the sub-$1000s.

But there are some very good LCDs (according to reviews, at least) if it's worth the extra $$$ to you. Eizo has a couple of very good high end monitors, the FlexScan L885 is a 1600x1200 LCD that has gotten great reviews. This is a quote from the ZDNet review:

"The 20.1-inch Eizo FlexScan L885 LCD offers some of the best image quality and image-adjustment options we've seen in any monitor--LCD or CRT."

I'd love to see one of these, but it's out of my price range.

From here: "Trowbridge and Chicoine operated hubs in a file-sharing network that required members to share between 1GB (gigabyte) and 100GB of material, the equivalent of 250,000 songs, Attorney General John Ashcroft said when the raid was announced.

My Sony DSC 717 takes infrared photos. You can hear the "clunk" as it moves the IR hot mirror out of the way for "Night Shot" mode. It would be perfect for a low-cost scientific aerial mapping application (e.g., http://www.soils.wisc.edu/~wayne/aerial_photos/aer ials_2003_06_14/), replacing custom-built cameras worth thousands of dollars.

But, because somebody once took naughty pictures with a Sony Handicam (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-214389.html?legacy= cnet, Sony crippled the IR function. Now it only works at wide apertures and slow shutter speeds, leaving aerial IR pictures hopelessly overexposed (yes, I tried ND filters) and blurry (I can only slow to about 70 MPH or the nose rises, as do the passengers' gorges). A simple "don't do that" hack to the firmware would suffice. You *know* that the cripplage is only a couple of lines of code:

if (nightShot) {
honkExposure();
}

But, when asked formally and with the full references to the scientific research we were doing (the lead prof, BTW, is internationally renowned in the field, we ain't just grubby grad students looking to save a buck and peek at Auntie Bowdler's bra), Sony blew us off.

Open source firmware? You bet we'd go for it.

All those people who decry the inhuman working conditions at EA, it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Stop rewarding their deplorable labor practices with your dollars.

It isn't as if EA employees have no other choice than work there. EA isn't anything like where the 8 year olds in South East Bumfuckistan that made the clothes you wear. If EA so bad of a place to work then the employees might want to think about working somewhere else. A boycott of some won't quite cut it.

Easy! I read about this at Cnet and it looks like if you don't have a plugin it might be hard to implement.

And in a pathetic attempt to remain vaguely on-topic, check out this news. Dell's CEO, in an amazing display of delayed postnatal mental retardation, dismisses the iPod as a "fad". You know, like the Walkman was. We're left to assume that if a product only rakes in unbelievable craploads of cash for a mere 10-15 years, at the end of the day we should ask ourselves "was it worth it?" He then goes on to turn a blind eye to the possibilities Apple is making for itself with the Mac Mini. Check it yourself at http://news.com.com/Dells+Rollins+Unfazed+by+iPod% 2C+IBM/2008-1082_3-5540420.html?tag=nefd.ac before madly rushing to sell your stock in Dell.

Or how about being told by a guide that he can't help you, even though you're stuck in a wall, because it's against policy to assist players unless their problem is one of a few SOE-confirmed bugs.

As a former member of the EQ Guide Program under Verant, before the program was eviscerated by SOE, I can refute this assertion.

Determining that someone is stuck in a wall (such as the portcullises in Permafrost, people were always standing underneath those and getting pushed up into the space above them when they lowered) is incredibly easy. All you had to do was /goto the person in question, and then when you determined that you were stuck there along with them, you either /zoned back in and walked around to find them, or asked for the name of someone nearby to /goto. Then you just /summoned the stuck person, exchanged pleasantries, and were off.

A guide who didn't put even this minimal amount of effort into their work had no business being a guide.

Since then, SOE has indeed dismantled the Guide Program, and hasn't instituted volunteer CS in any of their newer games. Obviously, the old AOL wage lawsuit put the fear of The Man into the industry, because (to my knowledge) there aren't any games out now with volunteer CS. And to be perfectly honest, it has hurt the quality of these games tremendously.

of course solaris 8 and 9 didn't fare as well as Linux: you have to wait for Solaris 10 to get the magic open source effect on security;-)

I am pretty sure the NET act would only apply in forced ratio systems

if someone logs on to a file-trading network and shares even one MP3 file without permission in "expectation" that others will do the same, full criminal penalties kick in automatically.

Explicit barter is not required, legally an implicit expectation qualifies.

You really shouldn't be surprised to hear there are intentional bugs like this in the text of copyright law. Aren't you aware of the intentional bugs in the DMCA? That's what happens when industry lobbyists are litterally allowed to write up the law.

The only good thing about the NET act is that it is virtually never enforced. If it were, something like 20% of the entire population would be in prison and the country would collapse over night. Of course in the morning the other 80% would institute an immediate local regime change, chuckle.

-

I should also have included some relevant links to Internet based news sources bookmarked in Safari:

Slashdot of course.
CNN of course.
NYTimes for the writing and quality of reporting.
BBC for the big mainstream non American news perspective.
Kevin Sites for on the ground reporting in Iraq.
Dan Gillmor for news grassroots news.
CBS for financial info.
CNET for tech news.
Global Security for political defense news.
Google for a good news accumulator.
Cryptome because John manages to pull some pretty damned interesting articles out.
NPR of course. Don't forget to donate.
Reuters because they have the news.
Washington Post for beltway news.
Wall St. Journal for more financial news.
NPR Marketplace for more financial news.
CBS for mainstream US news.
Technocrat for real science oriented geek news, like Slashdot only with less noise.
Oh, yeah and
Macsurfer for a Macintosh community oriented news accumulator.

There are also alternatives for creating Flash content natively under Linux.

Why Apple picked KTHML over Gecko

The Editor's Choice award goes to AT&T's CallVantage service.

How ironic that telcos bitch and moan about VoIP, and offer that service at the same time...

wonder why a serious security breach in Gmail didn't make it to a Slashdot story... Even though it was fixed it was a pretty nasty hole for Gmail users, and unknown for how long it was open.

I've got a nit to pick. Several comments have claimed Microsoft's stock price is now "less than half" of the price it was when Balmer took over on January 13, 2000.

MSFT on 13-Jan-00: 47.80 (adjusted for dividends and splits)
MSFT on 13-Jan-05: 26.27
26.27 is 55% of 47.80

As for the bubble bursting:

NASDAQ on 13-Jan-00: 3957.21
NASDAQ on 13-Jan-00: 2070.56
2070.56 is 52% of 3957.21

Sources:

MSFT historical prices
NASDAQ historical prices

There. Nit is picked.

Actually, since he is a TIVO user, he does count. Tivo reports the viewing numbers of it's customers to Neilson. http://news.com.com/2110-1040-244505.html

Correction:
comment at cnet

The communism quote was from a CNet article . Not this article. It was previously discussed on Slashdot. There was also a discussion on boing-boing

http://news.com.com/Gates+taking+a+seat+in+your+de n/2008-1041_3-5514121-4.html?tag=st.next

In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed? No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.

And this debate will always be there. I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned--including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we've had the best intellectual-property system--there's no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they've got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.

Link to story, also found via google news search

e

Haha, so that's where Blepp's Briefcase went.

how soon before somebody hacks it and reverse engineers Google's Super Secret(tm) Pagerank algorithm?

That's probably what they are patenting the algorithms they use. This might be a good example in favour of patenting. Or is it not? I'm not entirely sure...

imagine how big the POSITIVE impact would have been if the Mac mini had remained a secret until Jobs' announcement.

ThinkSecret's reporting would have remained an indication of a rumor and nothing more if Apple legal hadn't taken the bone-headed step of suing them.

See here for example. Bad move, Apple legal. I hope Jobs wasn't behind this dimwittedness.

It's sad to know Apple is becoming a bunch of whiners. Even if I am going to be buying one of their Mac mini machines in the coming month.

Lest anybody think that the law being changed to make something illegal is a horrible calamity

No, that is not bad in itself. The problem is that the new copyright laws being passed are literally being written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry. Copyright was a bargain created for the public benefit, and it seems congress has entirely lost sight of that fact. The problem is that publishing industry is being allowed to buy itself some very bad, very broken, very self-serving laws.

disagree on the reading of 506

I've seen it from multiple sources. Here's the first one I Googled up:
C|Net "if someone logs on to a file-trading network and shares even one MP3 file without permission in 'expectation' that others will do the same, full criminal penalties kick in automatically."

-

Reading the article leads to references to court cases that led to this decision... U.S. v. Knotts and then in U.S. v. Karo established that police don't need court approval to track suspects through a crude radio beeper.

In 1999, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals invoked that logic when deciding that federal agents did not need a court order to slap a GPS tracker on a truck owned by a man suspected of growing marijuana. "In placing the electronic devices on the undercarriage of the Toyota 4Runner, the officers did not pry into a hidden or enclosed area, the court ruled, saying the bug did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures."

Do I need to point out that the 9th circuit is one of the more liberal and hence anti-"The Man" courts? Now the Washington Supreme court disagrees, but who wins in a case like this? Probably the Fed.

jason

• In a speech at the Wireless Communications Association in San Jose, Calif., Intel Executive Vice President Sean Maloney is expected to encourage commercial service providers and public agencies such as city governments and municipalities to work together in building out new broadband infrastructure.
  
  Intel has a keen interest in the proliferation of wireless broadband technology and industries using it; by early next year it plans to produce WiMax chips for networking equipment that carriers can use to sell high-speed Internet access to consumers. WiMax is a promising wireless broadband technology allowing data to be wirelessly transmitted across several miles at transfer rates of several megabits per second.
  
  "Sole responsibility, either from government or a single carrier, of a city's wireless network is not the best solution for growing the market," said a source familiar with the chipmaker's position in wireless broadband policy. "A sharing of responsibilities is what will encourage broadband adoption, and that will be a key point in Intel's policy proposal."
  
  Maloney will outline the company's high-level policy position and will speak out against efforts to ban municipally owned networks. In recent years, phone companies and cable providers have actively lobbied local and state governments to ban public agencies and municipalities from building their own communications networks. The commercial providers have been successful in some regions of the country.
  
  In some instances, commercial providers will be able to build networks and offer the best network choice to customers at affordable prices. But in other instances, such as low-income areas or rural locations, it might make more sense for a city or some other municipality to build the infrastructure.
  
  "We welcome Intel's position and strongly support collaboration between the public and private sectors," said Jim Baller, a principal attorney for the Baller Herbst Law Group and a leading expert on municipally owned networks.
  
  Intel's position is partly in response to strong lobbying by Verizon Communications that helped lead to the passage of a law in Pennsylvania that prohibits cities from offering Internet access to their residents for a fee. Verizon and other incumbent phone companies had urged legislators to ban municipally owned networks to prevent other cities from following the lead of Kutztown, a small college town near Allentown that set up its own telephone, Internet and TV system in 2002.
  
  Phone companies and cable providers argue that municipalities that build and own their communications networks have an unfair advantage because they are backed by public funds. They claim that the municipalities will drive them out of business by offering services at greatly reduced prices.
  
  On the other side, communities that want to build their own networks argue that they want broadband services now, and they are not willing to wait until it becomes economically feasible for commercial providers to build the infrastructure.

• In a speech at the Wireless Communications Association in San Jose, Calif., Intel Executive Vice President Sean Maloney is expected to encourage commercial service providers and public agencies such as city governments and municipalities to work together in building out new broadband infrastructure.
  
  Intel has a keen interest in the proliferation of wireless broadband technology and industries using it; by early next year it plans to produce WiMax chips for networking equipment that carriers can use to sell high-speed Internet access to consumers. WiMax is a promising wireless broadband technology allowing data to be wirelessly transmitted across several miles at transfer rates of several megabits per second.
  
  "Sole responsibility, either from government or a single carrier, of a city's wireless network is not the best solution for growing the market," said a source familiar with the chipmaker's position in wireless broadband policy. "A sharing of responsibilities is what will encourage broadband adoption, and that will be a key point in Intel's policy proposal."
  
  Maloney will outline the company's high-level policy position and will speak out against efforts to ban municipally owned networks. In recent years, phone companies and cable providers have actively lobbied local and state governments to ban public agencies and municipalities from building their own communications networks. The commercial providers have been successful in some regions of the country.
  
  In some instances, commercial providers will be able to build networks and offer the best network choice to customers at affordable prices. But in other instances, such as low-income areas or rural locations, it might make more sense for a city or some other municipality to build the infrastructure.
  
  "We welcome Intel's position and strongly support collaboration between the public and private sectors," said Jim Baller, a principal attorney for the Baller Herbst Law Group and a leading expert on municipally owned networks.
  
  Intel's position is partly in response to strong lobbying by Verizon Communications that helped lead to the passage of a law in Pennsylvania that prohibits cities from offering Internet access to their residents for a fee. Verizon and other incumbent phone companies had urged legislators to ban municipally owned networks to prevent other cities from following the lead of Kutztown, a small college town near Allentown that set up its own telephone, Internet and TV system in 2002.
  
  Phone companies and cable providers argue that municipalities that build and own their communications networks have an unfair advantage because they are backed by public funds. They claim that the municipalities will drive them out of business by offering services at greatly reduced prices.
  
  On the other side, communities that want to build their own networks argue that they want broadband services now, and they are not willing to wait until it becomes economically feasible for commercial providers to build the infrastructure.

If we're speaking of flaws in graphics files, this one was of course not as bad since it wasn't limited to Windows, right? ;-)

The taped message is so common that many callers might assume that no one is ever listening, let alone taking notes. But they would be wrong.

We've been keeping our bathrooms locked at work out of fear of being sued by IBM.!

IBM to give free access to 500 patents
CNet
And others

Google serves more than 90 percent of searches.

So why is Microsoft a monopoly while Apple and Google are not?

Answer: They haven't been sued yet. Not that litigation will determine they are monopolies, since they would hopefully deal with anti-trust complaints more effectively than Microsoft did. But that's about the only difference.

I fail to see the problem.

For one thing, even Bill Gates thinks that copying Microsoft software is good, especially in China. He said so himself "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours." http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html?legacy=c net

But I must say that true criminalization of illegal copies of Microsoft software would be most interesting to observe. I wonder how many months Microsoft would survive it.

The laws of economics say that software like MS Office should actually be free, since its marginal cost of production is zero (that is the cost to make one extra copy). And indeed it is free for its lowest market segment because Microsoft is deliberately using so-called software piracy to occupy this market segment ... just to avoid that free software like OpenOffice.org takes that segment, before moving up to the other more profitable market segments (for which MS Office is actually sold, though at different prices depending on the market target).

Of course this economic law assumes that the market is competitive. ... I mean, not like communist countries.

Posting anonymously to avoid allegations of karma whoring... :-P

----

U.S. broadband A-OK

January 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

IT'S BECOME FASHIONABLE TO FRET about the purported need for a "national broadband policy," a concern typically accompanied by laments that the United States lags other nations in adopting speedy Internet connections.

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, recently complained that "the United States is ranked 11th in the world in broadband penetration!...When we find ourselves 11th in the world, something has gone dreadfully wrong. When Congress tells us to take immediate action to accelerate deployment, we have an obligation to do it."

One commentary piece published on CNET News.com last week worried that the United States is "falling behind" other countries in broadband connectivity. Another from last year offered "several recommendations that could help form a national broadband agenda" and touted South Korea as a "success" story.

[Image: High-speed providers by ZIP code]

But is the United States truly faring so poorly? A careful look at the numbers gives reason to be skeptical.

The now-traditional source of dismay about U.S. broadband adoption is a set of figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a kind of governmental think tank. The June 2004 figures say the United States has 11.2 broadband subscribers for every 100 inhabitants, in 11th place and far behind South Korea's 24.4-people-per-100 top ranking.

Those figures are misleading. South Korea is roughly 100,000 square kilometers, about the size of the state of Indiana, with a population clustered around large cities like Seoul. In those cities, Koreans tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's perfect for speedy VDSL lines--and boosts the nation in the OECD's rankings.

By contrast, the United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square kilometers--100 times the size of South Korea--with a population more evenly distributed between rural areas, towns and cities and far more likely to live in single-family homes. Geography and demographics explain why broadband will take longer to become available in the United States. Copps might as well complain that the more spread-out United States has fewer subway lines per capita and less smog too.

[Image: Global broadband subscribers

To be sure, complaints about U.S. lagging refer both to slow adoption of broadband and the slower broadband speeds available. It's true that South Korea and Japan may offer connections measured in the tens of megabits, but fiber connections are finally happening in the United States. By the way, if you've got complaints about the rollout speed, the best way to accelerate it would be to eliminate wacky go

Posting anonymously to avoid allegations of karma whoring... :-P

----

U.S. broadband A-OK

January 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

IT'S BECOME FASHIONABLE TO FRET about the purported need for a "national broadband policy," a concern typically accompanied by laments that the United States lags other nations in adopting speedy Internet connections.

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, recently complained that "the United States is ranked 11th in the world in broadband penetration!...When we find ourselves 11th in the world, something has gone dreadfully wrong. When Congress tells us to take immediate action to accelerate deployment, we have an obligation to do it."

One commentary piece published on CNET News.com last week worried that the United States is "falling behind" other countries in broadband connectivity. Another from last year offered "several recommendations that could help form a national broadband agenda" and touted South Korea as a "success" story.

[Image: High-speed providers by ZIP code]

But is the United States truly faring so poorly? A careful look at the numbers gives reason to be skeptical.

The now-traditional source of dismay about U.S. broadband adoption is a set of figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a kind of governmental think tank. The June 2004 figures say the United States has 11.2 broadband subscribers for every 100 inhabitants, in 11th place and far behind South Korea's 24.4-people-per-100 top ranking.

Those figures are misleading. South Korea is roughly 100,000 square kilometers, about the size of the state of Indiana, with a population clustered around large cities like Seoul. In those cities, Koreans tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's perfect for speedy VDSL lines--and boosts the nation in the OECD's rankings.

By contrast, the United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square kilometers--100 times the size of South Korea--with a population more evenly distributed between rural areas, towns and cities and far more likely to live in single-family homes. Geography and demographics explain why broadband will take longer to become available in the United States. Copps might as well complain that the more spread-out United States has fewer subway lines per capita and less smog too.

[Image: Global broadband subscribers

To be sure, complaints about U.S. lagging refer both to slow adoption of broadband and the slower broadband speeds available. It's true that South Korea and Japan may offer connections measured in the tens of megabits, but fiber connections are finally happening in the United States. By the way, if you've got complaints about the rollout speed, the best way to accelerate it would be to eliminate wacky go

Posting anonymously to avoid allegations of karma whoring... :-P

----

U.S. broadband A-OK

January 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

IT'S BECOME FASHIONABLE TO FRET about the purported need for a "national broadband policy," a concern typically accompanied by laments that the United States lags other nations in adopting speedy Internet connections.

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, recently complained that "the United States is ranked 11th in the world in broadband penetration!...When we find ourselves 11th in the world, something has gone dreadfully wrong. When Congress tells us to take immediate action to accelerate deployment, we have an obligation to do it."

One commentary piece published on CNET News.com last week worried that the United States is "falling behind" other countries in broadband connectivity. Another from last year offered "several recommendations that could help form a national broadband agenda" and touted South Korea as a "success" story.

[Image: High-speed providers by ZIP code]

But is the United States truly faring so poorly? A careful look at the numbers gives reason to be skeptical.

The now-traditional source of dismay about U.S. broadband adoption is a set of figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a kind of governmental think tank. The June 2004 figures say the United States has 11.2 broadband subscribers for every 100 inhabitants, in 11th place and far behind South Korea's 24.4-people-per-100 top ranking.

Those figures are misleading. South Korea is roughly 100,000 square kilometers, about the size of the state of Indiana, with a population clustered around large cities like Seoul. In those cities, Koreans tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's perfect for speedy VDSL lines--and boosts the nation in the OECD's rankings.

By contrast, the United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square kilometers--100 times the size of South Korea--with a population more evenly distributed between rural areas, towns and cities and far more likely to live in single-family homes. Geography and demographics explain why broadband will take longer to become available in the United States. Copps might as well complain that the more spread-out United States has fewer subway lines per capita and less smog too.

[Image: Global broadband subscribers

To be sure, complaints about U.S. lagging refer both to slow adoption of broadband and the slower broadband speeds available. It's true that South Korea and Japan may offer connections measured in the tens of megabits, but fiber connections are finally happening in the United States. By the way, if you've got complaints about the rollout speed, the best way to accelerate it would be to eliminate wacky go

Posting anonymously to avoid allegations of karma whoring... :-P

----

U.S. broadband A-OK

January 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

IT'S BECOME FASHIONABLE TO FRET about the purported need for a "national broadband policy," a concern typically accompanied by laments that the United States lags other nations in adopting speedy Internet connections.

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, recently complained that "the United States is ranked 11th in the world in broadband penetration!...When we find ourselves 11th in the world, something has gone dreadfully wrong. When Congress tells us to take immediate action to accelerate deployment, we have an obligation to do it."

One commentary piece published on CNET News.com last week worried that the United States is "falling behind" other countries in broadband connectivity. Another from last year offered "several recommendations that could help form a national broadband agenda" and touted South Korea as a "success" story.

[Image: High-speed providers by ZIP code]

But is the United States truly faring so poorly? A careful look at the numbers gives reason to be skeptical.

The now-traditional source of dismay about U.S. broadband adoption is a set of figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a kind of governmental think tank. The June 2004 figures say the United States has 11.2 broadband subscribers for every 100 inhabitants, in 11th place and far behind South Korea's 24.4-people-per-100 top ranking.

Those figures are misleading. South Korea is roughly 100,000 square kilometers, about the size of the state of Indiana, with a population clustered around large cities like Seoul. In those cities, Koreans tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's perfect for speedy VDSL lines--and boosts the nation in the OECD's rankings.

By contrast, the United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square kilometers--100 times the size of South Korea--with a population more evenly distributed between rural areas, towns and cities and far more likely to live in single-family homes. Geography and demographics explain why broadband will take longer to become available in the United States. Copps might as well complain that the more spread-out United States has fewer subway lines per capita and less smog too.

[Image: Global broadband subscribers

To be sure, complaints about U.S. lagging refer both to slow adoption of broadband and the slower broadband speeds available. It's true that South Korea and Japan may offer connections measured in the tens of megabits, but fiber connections are finally happening in the United States. By the way, if you've got complaints about the rollout speed, the best way to accelerate it would be to eliminate wacky go

Posting anonymously to avoid allegations of karma whoring... :-P

----

U.S. broadband A-OK

January 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

IT'S BECOME FASHIONABLE TO FRET about the purported need for a "national broadband policy," a concern typically accompanied by laments that the United States lags other nations in adopting speedy Internet connections.

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, recently complained that "the United States is ranked 11th in the world in broadband penetration!...When we find ourselves 11th in the world, something has gone dreadfully wrong. When Congress tells us to take immediate action to accelerate deployment, we have an obligation to do it."

One commentary piece published on CNET News.com last week worried that the United States is "falling behind" other countries in broadband connectivity. Another from last year offered "several recommendations that could help form a national broadband agenda" and touted South Korea as a "success" story.

[Image: High-speed providers by ZIP code]

But is the United States truly faring so poorly? A careful look at the numbers gives reason to be skeptical.

The now-traditional source of dismay about U.S. broadband adoption is a set of figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a kind of governmental think tank. The June 2004 figures say the United States has 11.2 broadband subscribers for every 100 inhabitants, in 11th place and far behind South Korea's 24.4-people-per-100 top ranking.

Those figures are misleading. South Korea is roughly 100,000 square kilometers, about the size of the state of Indiana, with a population clustered around large cities like Seoul. In those cities, Koreans tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's perfect for speedy VDSL lines--and boosts the nation in the OECD's rankings.

By contrast, the United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square kilometers--100 times the size of South Korea--with a population more evenly distributed between rural areas, towns and cities and far more likely to live in single-family homes. Geography and demographics explain why broadband will take longer to become available in the United States. Copps might as well complain that the more spread-out United States has fewer subway lines per capita and less smog too.

[Image: Global broadband subscribers

To be sure, complaints about U.S. lagging refer both to slow adoption of broadband and the slower broadband speeds available. It's true that South Korea and Japan may offer connections measured in the tens of megabits, but fiber connections are finally happening in the United States. By the way, if you've got complaints about the rollout speed, the best way to accelerate it would be to eliminate wacky go

Posting anonymously to avoid allegations of karma whoring... :-P

----

U.S. broadband A-OK

January 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

IT'S BECOME FASHIONABLE TO FRET about the purported need for a "national broadband policy," a concern typically accompanied by laments that the United States lags other nations in adopting speedy Internet connections.

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, recently complained that "the United States is ranked 11th in the world in broadband penetration!...When we find ourselves 11th in the world, something has gone dreadfully wrong. When Congress tells us to take immediate action to accelerate deployment, we have an obligation to do it."

One commentary piece published on CNET News.com last week worried that the United States is "falling behind" other countries in broadband connectivity. Another from last year offered "several recommendations that could help form a national broadband agenda" and touted South Korea as a "success" story.

[Image: High-speed providers by ZIP code]

But is the United States truly faring so poorly? A careful look at the numbers gives reason to be skeptical.

The now-traditional source of dismay about U.S. broadband adoption is a set of figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a kind of governmental think tank. The June 2004 figures say the United States has 11.2 broadband subscribers for every 100 inhabitants, in 11th place and far behind South Korea's 24.4-people-per-100 top ranking.

Those figures are misleading. South Korea is roughly 100,000 square kilometers, about the size of the state of Indiana, with a population clustered around large cities like Seoul. In those cities, Koreans tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's perfect for speedy VDSL lines--and boosts the nation in the OECD's rankings.

By contrast, the United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square kilometers--100 times the size of South Korea--with a population more evenly distributed between rural areas, towns and cities and far more likely to live in single-family homes. Geography and demographics explain why broadband will take longer to become available in the United States. Copps might as well complain that the more spread-out United States has fewer subway lines per capita and less smog too.

[Image: Global broadband subscribers

To be sure, complaints about U.S. lagging refer both to slow adoption of broadband and the slower broadband speeds available. It's true that South Korea and Japan may offer connections measured in the tens of megabits, but fiber connections are finally happening in the United States. By the way, if you've got complaints about the rollout speed, the best way to accelerate it would be to eliminate wacky go

Posting anonymously to avoid allegations of karma whoring... :-P

----

U.S. broadband A-OK

January 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

IT'S BECOME FASHIONABLE TO FRET about the purported need for a "national broadband policy," a concern typically accompanied by laments that the United States lags other nations in adopting speedy Internet connections.

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, recently complained that "the United States is ranked 11th in the world in broadband penetration!...When we find ourselves 11th in the world, something has gone dreadfully wrong. When Congress tells us to take immediate action to accelerate deployment, we have an obligation to do it."

One commentary piece published on CNET News.com last week worried that the United States is "falling behind" other countries in broadband connectivity. Another from last year offered "several recommendations that could help form a national broadband agenda" and touted South Korea as a "success" story.

[Image: High-speed providers by ZIP code]

But is the United States truly faring so poorly? A careful look at the numbers gives reason to be skeptical.

The now-traditional source of dismay about U.S. broadband adoption is a set of figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a kind of governmental think tank. The June 2004 figures say the United States has 11.2 broadband subscribers for every 100 inhabitants, in 11th place and far behind South Korea's 24.4-people-per-100 top ranking.

Those figures are misleading. South Korea is roughly 100,000 square kilometers, about the size of the state of Indiana, with a population clustered around large cities like Seoul. In those cities, Koreans tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's perfect for speedy VDSL lines--and boosts the nation in the OECD's rankings.

By contrast, the United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square kilometers--100 times the size of South Korea--with a population more evenly distributed between rural areas, towns and cities and far more likely to live in single-family homes. Geography and demographics explain why broadband will take longer to become available in the United States. Copps might as well complain that the more spread-out United States has fewer subway lines per capita and less smog too.

[Image: Global broadband subscribers

To be sure, complaints about U.S. lagging refer both to slow adoption of broadband and the slower broadband speeds available. It's true that South Korea and Japan may offer connections measured in the tens of megabits, but fiber connections are finally happening in the United States. By the way, if you've got complaints about the rollout speed, the best way to accelerate it would be to eliminate wacky go