Slashdot Mirror


Broadband Is The Secret To South Korea's Success

An anonymous reader writes "What makes South Korea so special in the world of high-speed Internet access? How can the U.S. and other countries learn from it? What separates South Korea from the rest is a clear agenda and execution process by the government. They wanted to be THE broadband capital of the world so bad, they never swayed from that goal. After the 1997 Asian financial crisis, South Korea was desperate for a savior. The government realized technology was going to restore the country's economic health so the entire country unified to push broadband penetration rates to the extreme."

420 comments

  1. Easy. by JavaLord · · Score: 4, Funny

    How can the U.S. and other countries learn from it?

    They must learn the technique of Zerg rush, and then everything else will fall in line.

    1. Re:Easy. by Epistax · · Score: 4, Funny

      I see your zerg rush and raise you a bunker with two marines and two firebats.
      -or-
      I see your 100 zerglings and raise you 5 zealots.

    2. Re:Easy. by CowsAnonymous · · Score: 1

      > They must learn the technique of Zerg rush, and then everything else will fall in line. I think that the US would be too big a map to efficiently use a zergling rush.

      --
      CowsAnonymous: We're here to help moo.
    3. Re:Easy. by korea · · Score: 1

      :| Your recycled internet humor doesn't amuse me. This can go in the "In Communist Russia" bin with "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of". I've personally never played Starcraft yet would bet that a large percentage of you (zerg rush commenters) have. One more for the road :|

      --

      --

      "pain is weakness leaving the body."
    4. Re:Easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, all your base belong to Zerg.

  2. imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...all the asian pr0n a guy (and his broadband connection) could handle...

    Sweeeeet...

  3. Average thread maturity falling...falling... by beef+curtains · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The government realized technology was going to restore the country's economic health so the entire country unified to push broadband penetration rates to the extreme." Broadband penetration is good stuff...but me, I'm a fan of broadband girl-on-girl.

    --
    Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
    1. Re:Average thread maturity falling...falling... by pHatidic · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just imagine what ultra-broadband Goatse would look like. You could see INSIDE the guys ass. Oh... Wait... Yeah.......

    2. Re:Average thread maturity falling...falling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would go for that, as long as neither woman turns turns out to be a robot with some nerd's brain in it.

    3. Re:Average thread maturity falling...falling... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I would go for that, as long as neither woman turns turns out to be a robot with some nerd's brain in it."

      Wait, when did we start caring about the brain connected to that pair of boobs?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Average thread maturity falling...falling... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Pft you kiddies are spoiled.

      I miss the good 'ol dialup days of ascii porn.

  4. Broadband Bush Speeches to Every Home! by mihal · · Score: 0, Funny

    That's what US needs.

    --
    Sig. No Sig.
  5. Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by MacGoldstein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But then again, he's also trying to get us to the moon and Mars.

    I think that Americans could benefit from a committee established to promote the complete adoption of a nationwide FTTP network or other such network to connect us at faster rates.

    Having broadband and a video cam, for instance, is no good for me, because my girlfriend has dial-up, thus limiting chat options. I blame lots of this on American capitalism, but perhaps if we get a Democratic congress again, this can be quelled.

    I recently saw a 1.5 Mbps line referred to as "shitty" by a Japanese blogger. In America, that's supposedly pretty fast for a consumer. We need to look to countries like S. Korea for inspiration, stop trying to milk money out of customers by capping uploads and such, and just modernize our damn nation.

    1. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      And how do you propose this be accomplished? How in the hell would a Democrat congress change anything?

    2. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by nojomofo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why is it the fault of "American Capitalism" that your girlfriend has a dialup line? Because somebody hasn't given her broadband for free? I consider myself liberal, but really, isn't it going a bit far to expect your government to buy you your damn broadband connection?

    3. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by EnnTeeDee · · Score: 1

      We need to look to countries like S. Korea for inspiration, stop trying to milk money out of customers by capping uploads and such, and just modernize our damn nation.

      Actually, South Korea seems to have done it by offering cash subsidies to telecoms. From the article:

      Most of the country's consumers were already served by the dominant carrier Korea Telecom, but the government encouraged competitors with a low-interest loan program for companies that built their own broadband facilities. The program offered $77 million in two years alone, with a particular focus on rural areas.

      That's $77 million for the whole country? You couldn't wire Peoria for broadband on that budget. Achieving comparable investment levels in the US would require Sagan-esque levels: billions and billions....

    4. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by DurendalMac · · Score: 2, Funny

      But broadband porno is a Constitutional right!

    5. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I think that Americans could benefit from a committee established

      Yes, that's exactly what we need. ANOTHER committee.

    6. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      i think the $ would be better spent on preventing another terror attack. or health care. or deposing some dictator such as Milosevic or Saddam. I also don't understand why you need to change congress just to talk to your girlfriend? Why not just...go see her in person?

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    7. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Having broadband and a video cam, for instance, is no good for me, because my girlfriend has dial-up, thus limiting chat options. I blame lots of this on American capitalism, but perhaps if we get a Democratic congress again, this can be quelled.
      Yes, I agree. Let's ensure that we've got nationwide broadband, and let's pay for it by raising taxes - even on the people who couldn't give two hoots about nationwide broadband.

      Personally, I really really want a giant rollercoaster theme park in my town, but we're too small to attract the attention of Big Business. I sure hope the Democrats regain power in this country so that I can have my theme park at your expense.

      Now, I agree that it would be *cool* to have nationwide broadband, and you know what, we're getting there. I pay $50 a month for DSL. $15 of that is for a bogus phone line that came bundled. So basically, I'm paying $35 for high speed internet. Is your girlfriend so broke that she can't cough up $35 a month for broadband? Probably not, I bet the real reason is that she doesn't care about the Internet as much as you do. So would you really force 3rd parties to pay for mandatory broadband through higher taxes merely because it is inconvient for you? If it really bothers you that much, why don't you pay the $35 a month for her Internet access, but leave me out of it!
    8. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think he means that the capitalists who control broadband see no profit in extending it to rural communities. (And there might not be. The cost of running the lines out there would be more than the market could sustain, even if everyone in the area signed up for it.)

      The point is that it's not subsidized. These subsidies would provide the money to cover the cost of extending it to smaller communities, so that more people could get it. I imagine this is what South Korea did. Granted, they have a lot less area to cover, but I don't think that it would be too hard for the US to have 98% of its people able to have access to a 3Mb connection, so long as the government made a big push for it.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    9. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by arieswind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      or deposing some dictator such as Milosevic or Saddam

      just what we need, another war to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at. how bout spending money somewhere that needs it.. like our failing school system? the school system where i live is so broke that they had to cut all bussing, after school programs, art, music, sports, and they are restricting the number of classes seniors can take because they have like a 10 million dollar deficit.. i know people (12th grade) who go to school for one class a day and then have to come home because the school will only let them take classes required for graduation

    10. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on how important communication is to the government- after all, they gave us the Pony Express, and later the US Postal Service, for pretty durn cheap.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    11. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are entitled to your opinion, however I disagree: I think if the money to "depose" Saddam had been spend on broadband subsidies both the US and Iraq would be better of now. Many American's would have better internet access and be less threatened by terrorism and many Iraqis would still be alive and be less threatened by terrorism.

    12. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by DrCash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, that's a bunch of hogwash! Congress and the President have little to do with the development of the Internet and Broadband (other than the fact that the US Department of Defense (and later Commerce) started the whole thing (sorry, it wasn't Al Gore).

      Development of the internet and the pace at which new developments take place, has more to do with the economy and the US Consumer (yes, that's you and me, not some schmuck in Washington). As much as we're led to believe to the contrary, the government has little control over the economy overall.

      Broadband will take over not because the R or the D in the white house wants it to take over - it will take over because of supply and demand. The more people that want it, the cheaper it will become. Just look at Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi is spreading like wildfire (no pun intended) - mainly because corporations and businesses see the benefits and are willing to pay for it. They also see the fact that by offering free (or even cheap) Wi-Fi in their retail establishments, they will drive customers into the store. Even smaller mom-and-pop restaurants and bars are seeing this, and deploying Wi-Fi in their establishments. The government isn't driving this at all - but they want you to believe they are, because that's how they win elections!

    13. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont live in an indpendent school district or if you do then your district cant handle the school. Meaning that the school is dependening on the state for money and that your school cant manage it's budget. Or if you live in a IDS then the local economy cant support the school. Either way its not up to the entire conutry to bail out every mismangeged project. Support yourself or move.

    14. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1

      People who home school usually get a better education than students who attend the most funded schools. Public or private.

      But that's not really the point. I can put education on my list or environmental pollution or global warming or a million other priorities that come first before ensuring that everyone has a subsidized access to high speed broadband

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    15. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Rostin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or instead of cable, they could use radio or BPL (yes, I know, boo, hiss, it messes up the ham radios). My parents live 15 miles from the nearest town and have something resembling broadband speeds through wireless. It isn't nearly as fast as the 2-3 Mbit/s that people in cities get on their cable modems and DSL lines, but it's a heck of a lot better than dialup.

      It's hard for me to understand the real incentive in govt subsidized broadband in the US, anyway. (I am of course open to suggestions.) All my parents do with their high speed connection is look at inane webpages a little faster and play javascript/flash games a little sooner than they did when they just had dialup.

    16. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That could be a second big factor between US and Asian broadband. One of the most important statistics in assessing the potential profitability of a cable type business (phone, video, internet, even a power company) is homes per mile of cable. Your costs of deploying and maintaining a mile of cable are pretty fixed, say annual costs are in the $500/mo range. If your "content" (phone network, cable channels, ISP costs, or powerplant costs) are 80% of final consumer price your money is made on bringing your portion of revenues above your cable costs. If one area (say South Korea or a US city) has a density of 1000 homes per mile (lots of apartments and stuff). That will be far more profitable than Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith who live 1/2 mile from each other (say 10 homes per mile). The only way it's profitable to provide "piped" services to these places is through subsidies (the Universal service fund, franchise agreements, etc). I'd be surprised if more that 75% of the US population was in an area that was profitable to serve without subsidies. One of the more unique things about the US is that we have a ton of space per person. While this had been a huge boon from about 1700 to 1970, it is a drawback so in the new world of networks.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    17. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by arieswind · · Score: 1

      its not just this district. other districts are having serious financial problems too.. and for your information, i do believe the government should be responsible for making sure that the public schools are properly funded

    18. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's about revitalizing rural communities and easing pressures on cities and suburs. Where would you rather live, a 1/4 acre lot with the neighbor's dog barking and traffic whizzing by, or 2 or 3 acres with fewer neighbors. I'd choose the latter, but only if I had broadband, because I need it for my job, to telecommute and transfer files back and forth.

      I guess it's hard for someone to understand if they haven't seen it. If you can, take a trip through the coal region of PA. All these little towns are dying because there is no industry, no hope of a job for anyone. All the young people have moved away. Broadband availability could help to bring companies into these regions (where the cost of living and of land are very, very low). This would bring these communities back to life, getting the people in them off of welfare and other government programs. Eventually, people won't need it. It's like running electricity or paved roads into a town; it's an economic improvement, instead of a handout.

      Contrary to what many 'pundits' think, people want to work and feel useful. Getting government handouts is what most people do to survive, but they don't want to live on it.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    19. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you ever think that maybe it's easier to deploy broadband service in South Korea since it's land size is about 1/4 of Colorado?

      Last thing US needs is more people sitting in front of the computer chatting or playing online games all day. If you get a Democratic congress, I foresee lawsuits against ISPs because "The Internet made me fat!".

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    20. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by gibbsjoh · · Score: 1

      or deposing some dictator such as
      Bush, maybe?

      --
      -- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
    21. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to assume your girlfriend does not have anything but dial-up access where she lives. Because otherwise you're saying that you want the government to pay for everyone's broadband access. And that would make you a commie!

    22. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      " how bout spending money somewhere that needs it.. like our failing school system?"

      How successful is any well funded school system going to be if there is fear of attack?

      My point isn't to promote war spending. Rather, you cannot safely go from one extreme to another. Balance.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    23. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason people are moving out of Pennsylvania is their stupid anti-porno censorship laws.
      Blame your fucking governor, or, better yet, vote him out of office this fall.

    24. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your girlfriend has had broadband and a webcam for a while, she just hasn't bothered telling you.

    25. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Even in some non-rural areas, it's impossible to get broadband when the local dial-up ISP has its hooks into the local government. I couldn't get cable internet because the neighboring county's dial-up ISP was community subsidized until they had successfully destroyed the market for dial-up internet access. Their prices went from $10 per month to $20 a month once their last competitor ducked out of the market.

      When my currect cable provider upgraded their infrastructure for digital cable and broadband internet, the neighboring county government stepped in and forbade them from offering internet access in their county for several years. This made offering the service in my area infeasible since I'm in the same coverage area as a large city in that county. It wasn't until their decision expired and the government had already been forced to cut their ties to the dial-up ISP or risk lawsuits for uncompetetive practices that broadband came into the area.

      If the government subsidized 2-3Mbit connections for all expecting to make it all back with subscription fees, they WILL attempt to squash any competition just like the neighboring county did when they had the dial-up market there cornered.

    26. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      These subsidies would provide the money to cover the cost ...

      But, just where the hell do you think the money comes from for these subsidies? The government can not give away anything it didn't steal from someone else (i.e., taxpayers), and then only after they filter it through 20 levels of bureaucracy to siphon off 70-90% of it.

      And what would be the point of having 98% penetration of broadband, when so many Americans can't deal with the level of internet they already have? Look at the large number of open relays and proxies in Korea... Much of that comes from ignorance of how to deal with BB that rivals our own. How many of us have a sibling, parent, grandparent, or other relative that thinks that everything on internet is real and true, for whom broadband access would just allow them to screw up quicker?

    27. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by tknn · · Score: 1

      I live in NYC and can't get anything much better. There are no density problems here, just a real lack of competition. If RoadRunner thinks I will stay for their crap the moment there is a real broadband option, they are sorely mistaken.

    28. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you say goverment do you mean that federal goverment should be responsible for schooling or do you mean you local goverment? If its the later, then my orignal statment hold true. If its to former than you need to understand that the federal goverment didn't make the states its the states that made the federal goverment. The indvidual state must run it's own buisness. If you don't like that state then guess what, you can either elect officals, run for office or move if. Welcome to little goverment that makes big goverment.

    29. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you from the middle east or massachewshits?

    30. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      In that case let me say that...

      If it's my fault as a Conservative that his girlfriend has a dialup Internet connection because I won't let my taxes be used to subsidize her Internet connection...

      That I am perfectly happy with that because I like being able to use my money to afford myself my own luxuries. Such as the GNU/Linux X-Box I use as my personal computer because I can't afford anything better.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    31. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      Who's to say that my tax dollars should subsidize ANYTHING? The gov't should take a few dollars from me as is possible. If that meant cutting most social services.. great. Let people fend for themselves. Subsidies is simply one step closer to socialism. If you want socialism, move to England and pay taxes to listen to the damn radio in your car. But for God's sake, don't have the gov't fronting the money so some farmer's wife can play Boggle and do crosswords online faster tahn 5 k/s.

    32. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by SimReg · · Score: 1

      I consider myself liberal, but really, isn't it going a bit far to expect your government to buy you your damn broadband connection?

      No.

    33. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Greedo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But aren't the lesser-educated more prone to hold fundamentalist beliefs (on both sides of the world)?

      So, an argument for education could also be seen as an argument to create more understanding and tolerance ... which would hopefully reduce the need for attacks (on both sides of the world).

      --
      Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
    34. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Rostin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's an interesting point.

      FWIW, I have seen it. I grew up on a farm (15 miles to the nearest small town, 60 to the nearest place you might consider a city), and since moving away, I've lived in a small city of 200k (where I went to college), another moderately sized city of 600k (where I did an internship 2 summers), and now I live in a small town of 12k (Not my first choice, but it's where I could get work after graduating).

      I can agree with you a little, because part of the reason I live in an apartment in town is broadband. I had the oppurtunity to move to the outskirts of town (just out of city limits) but didn't only because I didn't want to do the dialup thing.

      Anyway, from my point of view (as a young single person), there's a heck of a lot more keeping small towns down than just the lack of broadband. If you haven't lived out in the middle of nowhere as I have and (to a lesser extent) currently do, these are things you might not have considered:

      1. You can only buy the absolute necessities, usually. Even in my town which I assume is large compared to a "rural community", I can't buy fish unless its breaded and needs to be deep fried. There are no bookstores, coffee shops, or movie theaters. The only place to buy software for 50 miles is Walmart.

      2. There is a small hospital here (because the entire county is sparsely populated, there frankly isn't a better place for one). But the more rural the community, the farther away you are from medical care. My grandpa died of a heart attack 12 or so years ago and perhaps could have been saved if it hadn't taken a small eternity to get him to a doctor. Soon afterward, his widow moved into town after living on a farm her entire life.

      3. The culture is homogenized and philistine, not to mention frequently racist. What I wouldn't give to have regular face-to-face discussions with someone about something besides hunting, farming, or NASCAR.

      And Etc. Certainly there are benefits to living in small communities, or even miles from the nearest neighbor. Peace and quiet, big yard, friendly people (as long as you don't stand out too much). (After you've done it for a while, though, the quaintness starts to wear off... it isn't attractive to start with unless you are already world-weary. Your kids will probably hate you for it. They leave the small towns, remember?) But the thing is, broadband is just one more thing that people who choose to live like that have to choose to give up. That small towns and the rural lifestyle are drying up is unfortunate in a way, and govt subsidized broadband would help that situation out incrementally, but it's just scratching the surface. We can't offer everything to these people simply because we can't afford to.

      I would go so far as to say that even if we could, they wouldn't want it. Broadband, sure. But in the town near where I grew up, a large dairy and a pig processing plant almost went up (on separate occasions). The economic development commission wooed them, offered them huge low interest loans, but they ultimately decided not to build there, in part citing a lack of support from the community. People were up in arms. They wrote letters to the paper. It's been speculated that racism played no small part in all of this. What sort (or should I say, ethnicity) of people do you think would work in a pig processing plant in a small Texas town, after all?

    35. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Yeah money prevents terror attacks...
      Israel gets billions of US dollars in military and other aid and they still complain of "terror attacks".

      what are you smoking, I want some.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    36. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by I_Want_This_ID · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that we can sustain a viable, competitive economy by cutting most social service programs? What do you think happens when the 90% of the country that are have-nots doesn't have ANYTHING to fall back on? Last thing you want is 225 million people with nothing to lose and 25 million holding all the purse strings.

      That said, I also don't agree with subsidizing broadband penetration, but I DO agree with subsidizing research geared towards finding better, faster, more available communication systems. That way, everybody benefits and even those in the sticks will eventually have faster connections.

    37. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "So, an argument for education could also be seen as an argument to create more understanding and tolerance ... which would hopefully reduce the need for attacks (on both sides of the world)."

      Unfortunately, the big hole in that argument is that it would take years for any appreciable effect on our image, but we are expecting an attack any day now.

      I agree with you that in the long term it has a chance of working, but I doubt anybody'd go for it. Frankly, I think more exposure to the internet will help more than anything. If would-be terrorists were to make friends over here, it'd make them think twice.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    38. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Then you won't mind if we cut Oil subsidies or Stadium Subsidies.\

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    39. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Greedo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely. It isn't a short-term solution. But few of today's major problems have viable short-term solutions (education, poverty, the environment, oil, terrorism, etc.).

      Governments in general are short-sighted. Often, they can only see as far as the next election (even less if they are a minority government). And the media doesn't help foster any long-term thinking either, which means that Joe Newswatcher is always going to be pushing for results RIGHT NOW.

      Unfortunately, I don't understand your last point: Frankly, I think more exposure to the internet will help more than anything. If would-be terrorists were to make friends over here, it'd make them think twice. How would broadband-for-all help stop would-be terrorists? Keep in mind (to get back to the education thing) that someone with an evil bent will use the broadband for evil ... so without fostering the proper environment first, you just might be making things worse!

      --
      Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
    40. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Exactly....that is what was done with Electricity and Telephone when those technologies first arrived....otherwise, those services would be as spotty as DSL/Cable currently is....

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    41. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      It's more like 252 million have-nots and 28 million holding the purse strings =)

    42. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I don't think people that will hold their own people at gun-point and force members of that family to hop into a rigged car so someone with a remote detonator can blow up the "martyr" are going to give a shit if they might blow up their "friends".

    43. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but the price was cheap. The COST was not.

    44. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. Maybe they should bribe the Palestinians with billions of dollars to go live elsewhere or something.

      Rumsfield says the US spends about USD4 billion (3.9) on Iraq a month. 12 months = 36 billion. Spread over 9 million palestinians that's USD4000 per person (man, woman, child). For a family of 4 that's not bad household income actually. Most are probably fed up enough to leave - it's just they have no where to go - let them live in Montana or something.

      That's not including reconstruction costs. The US also spends USD1 billion on Afghanistan a month.

      Sure, some will still go bomb stuff/people, but y'know when your stomach is full, your family is happy and you're enjoying playing with the other kids and stuff, the motivation to strap on a bomb and actually blow yourself up has got be a lot lower. May still spout words of hate, but when it comes down to pushing the button, would you? Give them something to lose and they won't want to lose it.

      Right now, they can't work, they can't travel, can barely live, their friends and leaders are saying hate the Israelis, the Israelis are giving them lots of opportunities to justify the hatred.

      But tanks, guns and soldiers are probably more effective eh? (Personally I think it's as effective as giving a half dose of antibiotics to bacteria.)

      Call me cynical but maybe that's part of the plan - it's all part of setting the stage for something else later on.

      --
    45. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is apparent to me there is little competition in the broadband market in many parts of the US with the cable plant being a practical monopoly.

      Several actions could be taken to open these up:
      1. Cable plant owners should be forbidden from providing ISP services.
      Cable plant providers have an advantage over competition if they provide ISP services. Providing ISP services also encourages policies (such as no servers) to keep other ISP markets (webhosting) lucrative.
      2. Create a "National Backbone".
      This will allow for cheaper upstream access driving the broadband access rates down. There are already many state and national government fiber networks that exist and have low utilization. These could be tied together to create a "National Backbone" that would be cheap and flexible enough to allow the edge to be very competative. Other countries are doing this (S. Korea, Estonia, China) using subsidies or government owned companies. This is one reason the US is not even in the top 20 for broadband penetration and one reason these countries economies are performing very well.
      3. Deregualte more spectrum for public use.
      This will encourage more aggressive wireless development.
      4. Quit forcing telcos and ISPs to pay for phone tapping and carnivore like systems. This will reduce the end cost of telco services.

      I recently moved back to the US after 8 years. In that time the broadband situation seems to have not improved. Sure it is available in a couple more locations but the price seems to have gone up and the service possiblilites down (no servers, horrible terms of service, long contracts, low reliability). In the same time most of Europe has caught up and surpassed the US in prices for broadband and terms of service conditions (not sure about reliability).

      I do not see Bush moving in a positive direction with this. Powell (FCC Chairman) wants to allow more consolidation of cable plant providers (who are also ISPs) even though studies by several universities show this will be bad for consumers. I have heard no plans to provide a backbone or subsidise one or remove the tax burden on the telcos and ISPs. One positive is that I have heard Powell (FCC) has said that VOIP will not be regulated or taxed as telco service.

      My $.02

    46. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90% of the country are have-nots? Are you sure you are living in the U.S...? Most people don't ever have to go on welfare, and even many old people don't have to rely on social security as much today (since many of them stay employed and make more than social security allows for).

      Granted, I understand 1% of this country controls approximately 1/3 of all the income, but its still a good 40% or so that are counted in the middle class at least. They may not be hugely rich, but they certainly aren't scraping by either.

    47. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Trifthen · · Score: 1

      Or have video conferences with the grandkids they don't get to see very often. Remember that long-ago dream of video phones? Yeah, we could have that now if only we'd stop being such asses about broadband penetration.

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    48. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, both were initially subsidized, just like broadband in S. Korea is heavily subsidized- so what?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    49. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by sinnfeiner1916 · · Score: 1

      this is not the Soviet Union. That is not the job of the government.

      --
      The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
    50. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like roads and power lines aren't the job of the government?

    51. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by goodydot · · Score: 1

      I agree it is only the choice of the girlfriend. What about other services (VOIP or cable TV content) that could be provided over high-speed lines? Lots of people who have little or no interest in high-speed internet would still use the connection for cable TV, and once the connections are widely available, more services requiring these connections would likely be persued. Now, I would imagine some companies can't afford to offer services because there aren't enough people with high-speed connections.

    52. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the big hole in that argument is that it would take years for any appreciable effect on our image, but we are expecting an attack any day now.

      OH, REALLY?

      I'll bet you BILLION DOLLARS that there will never be another 9/11 attack on the United States.

      Why?

      Because the one in 2001 had its desired effect of reducing the American public a bunch of simpering morons willing to be stripped of their liberties every time someone screams "Orange Alert!" and then fails to tell us, in even the vaguest terms, why there's an orange alert.

      Oh, but of course, that begs the question of who actually masterminded the attack and desired the effect of it.

      I'll leave that to you as a mental exercise.

    53. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or deposing some dictator such as
      Bush, maybe?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]

      Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29, @12:38PM (#9832837)
      are you from the middle east or massachewshits?


      No, he's a real American.

      He holds an opinion. One shared by a few million other real Americans.

      That George Bush and his administration...and most of Congress...a lying traitors to the Union who have used their ill-gotten power to stuff BILLIONS of dollars into the pockets of their friends, their families and the family of the man who supposedly masterminded the 2001 attacks.

      So, grow up, educate yourself, put down your penis and take your other hand off the pr0n-control 'thingie', come out of your parents' basement, look the fuck around and realize that the Republican Party LIES TO YOU, IT TELLS YOU THINGS ONLY A MORON CAN UNDERSTAND, IN FACT TO YOU, IT SIMPLY *IS* ANOTHER MORON. To the rest of us, real Americans who value our freedoms, rights and the ability to take care of our FAMILIES, IT IS THE BEAST!!!

    54. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Because the one in 2001 had its desired effect of reducing the American public a bunch of simpering morons willing to be stripped of their liberties every time someone screams "Orange Alert!" and then fails to tell us, in even the vaguest terms, why there's an orange alert."

      Actually, there's been a lot of resistance to the stripping of freedoms, and there's been apathy towards the alert system. You don't know what you're talking about here.

      "Oh, but of course, that begs the question of who actually masterminded the attack and desired the effect of it."

      Osama bin Laden. Desired effect? To turn the world against us. Actual outcome: Turned the world against him.

      "I'll leave that to you as a mental exercise."

      You need a few more pushups there. Heh.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    55. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      Everyone in Korea uses cyber-cafes. Consider that the population is like 75 urban as well. And the country is "slightly larger than Indiana" http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blcsouthkor ea.htm And by the way there are only 11 ISPs in South Korea. Do you want that?

    56. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      Eight years ago, you'd never even heard of the internet. DSL wasn't available in most cities until 2000.

    57. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      Osama bin Laden's family hates him, they disowned him years before anyone in America ever heard of him. Oh yeah, and he has like 59 siblings, and heaps more cousins and grand-nieces, etc. Nnot all of them share his beliefs. Those that do, keep quiet about it for fear of being disowned and inprisoned themselves. It's because if ignorant racists like yourself that the government was willing to evacuate honorable people whose only crime is that they happen to share his last name.

    58. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You really don't get out much do you?

      Maybe you should grab a car and drive around outside of your "comfort zone" a bit. Take some photo's, so you can compare them to what you're sucking up from the television.

    59. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sort (or should I say, ethnicity) of people do you think would work in a pig processing plant in a small Texas town, after all?

      To be fair, there are plenty of compelling reasons not to want a diary or pig factory besides racism. For one, massive amounts of excrement which tend to leach down and contaminate the groundwater after a while, especially with pig factory cesspools. There goes everyone's well water. For another, the massive stink for miles. Besides that, what is a town going to get in return for all those huge low-interest loans? A bunch of promising, high-income jobs?

      Really it will just further depress the area. If nothing is there, maybe something good will move in. On the other hand, if something is there but it's a massive hog operation, you can kiss any high-tech investment goodbye permanently.

    60. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How successful is any well funded school system going to be if there is fear of attack?

      Gee. I wonder if you get how the people of [Iraq/Iran/Yugoslavia/insert country harrased by the USA here] felt?!

      And don't give me that bullshit "but they're all better off now..tee-hee-hee". Your last stupid war cost one hundred BILLION dollars. You don't think that by spending a fraction of that, you might have had a result that didn't murder people from another country?

      Maybe if you'd bought everyone in Iraq 3mbit DSL they would have had/developed the resources to change the government on their own. And maybe if you Americans all got DSL you'd do the same!

    61. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by george929a · · Score: 1

      If you let the government give subsidies, how long do you think it will take before they start attaching strings to the money. I.E. We'll give you the money only if you filter content we find offensive. Seems far fetch? What about the conditions currently on healthcare money relating to family planning ( Reproductive Health Restrictions) or Stem Cell Research ( Scientists Call For Stem Cell Research).

    62. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My main question, was can't rural areas still be served by broadband via satalite? I never looked into such a solution myself but I know it exists. It may not be feasable for online gaming but it could be better than dialup.

      Anyways, I've lived in a community as small as 300 people in extremely remote places (jungles of south america), to smaller town usa with a population of 12k or so. I am pretty happy about leaving smalltown life...

    63. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in the town near where I grew up, a large dairy and a pig processing plant almost went up (on separate occasions). The economic development commission wooed them, offered them huge low interest loans, but they ultimately decided not to build there, in part citing a lack of support from the community. People were up in arms. They wrote letters to the paper. It's been speculated that racism played no small part in all of this. What sort (or should I say, ethnicity) of people do you think would work in a pig processing plant in a small Texas town, after all?

      I'd be against it too. Ever visited a large pig processing plant with the huge pools of pig crap?

      Sure, you say... "the government will keep them in line". Except that since said government has been bending over regularly during the wooing process, what makes you think they'll grow a backbone once the company moves in? (At which point, the government will bend over on demand to keep the company from moving back out.)

      I have a distinct distaste for "industrial" farming, even though it may bring me lower food prices. Unfortunately as it is, I feel the only long-term solution is going to be heavy regulation of the industry to force them to be environmentally friendly with healthy livestock management practices.

    64. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by harikiri · · Score: 1
      Last thing US needs is more people sitting in front of the computer chatting or playing online games all day. If you get a Democratic congress, I foresee lawsuits against ISPs because "The Internet made me fat!".

      I think that says a hell of a lot more about the US legal system than the risk of having greater broadband availability.

      --
      Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
    65. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by fcassia_at_gmail · · Score: 1
      I agree 100% with you. Yet, the small towns that are dying are the same places voting Republican, so I guess what you propose won't happen, and people will have to move away to get broadband.

      A nice article has been published in a recent Harper's magazine (April 2004), titled "Lie down for America - How the Republican Party Sows Ruin on the Great Plains". I wish it were online, but it's not.

      You can see tha mag cover anyway here: http://www.harpers.org/Newsstand200404.html

      Oh wait, it *is* online. Someone typed it up. Once again, Google saved my day:

      http://vax.area.com/marc/liedown.txt

    66. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1

      Thank God you don't know what it is like to live under a real dictator. For one thing....you won't have access to broadband.

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    67. Re:Bush is Pushing for Broadband too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how is the weather in Paris these days, Jacques? Gearing up for another 15,000 citizens dead from the heat, are we?

  6. Hehe, I've already got fatty broadband by DurendalMac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A 100Mbps fiber optic pipe, to be precise, and at my home in shitty Moses Lake, WA, no less. Our county is laying it all over the place. Wouldn't it be nice if everybody did this?

    1. Re:Hehe, I've already got fatty broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're thanking the taxpayers who are funding that project, especially the ones that don't have computers.

    2. Re:Hehe, I've already got fatty broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WA has a special initiative to drive broadband, particulary to drive biz.

      Plus, microsoft is a huge backer.

      Note: not a bash

  7. I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..government involvement was bad?! I am confused!

    1. Re:I thought.. by provolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's really quite simple.

      Government involvement is good when it does things that I want. It's bad when it does things I don't want.

      Government should protect my rights. Government should protect my right to infringe on your rights.

      Government should take your money to implement my agenda. Government shouldn't take my money to implement your agenda.

      Just follow these simple rules and "the slashdot position on government" is easy to understand.

    2. Re:I thought.. by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Your confusion is understandable. Government control is good on Tuesdays and Thursdays, bad on Mondays and Wednesdays, and Friday is for anarchists.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    3. Re:I thought.. by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's funny because it's true -Homer Simpson

      The slashdot position on government is same as the position on mass media, which is "Don't trust the mass media unless it has an article that I agree with. In that case, trust the media".

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    4. Re:I thought.. by ptbarnett · · Score: 1
      I wish I had mod points, as your post is one of the most deserving ones in this threads.

      When I read Slashdot, I try to remember this quote that is frequently misattributed to Winston Churchill:

      "If a man is not liberal in his youth, he has no heart. If not conservative when older, he has no brain".

      Eventually, most of the people posting to Slashdot will grow up. But they are unlikely to do so until the cold reality of big government slaps them in the face.

    5. Re:I thought.. by Lothar+0 · · Score: 1

      "the slashdot position on government" is easy to understand.

      I think that's the human position on government. The rub comes from who has the consistent power to make thy will the law.

      --
      "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
    6. Re:I thought.. by sckeener · · Score: 1

      Government involvement is good when it does things that I want. It's bad when it does things I don't want.

      Government should protect my rights. Government should protect my right to infringe on your rights.

      Government should take your money to implement my agenda. Government shouldn't take my money to implement your agenda.

      Just follow these simple rules and "the slashdot position on government" is easy to understand.


      I think you are describing the US political system and the US view of the UN.

      Of course I am biased because I live in the US. It could be happening else where.

      I wonder if it has to do with the growing population.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    7. Re:I thought.. by TheCyko1 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's better than "I only believe what the television tells me to believe".

      --
      This message was brought to you by the death of 30 brain cells.
  8. S. Korea is a world leader by ostiguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    in infected/rooted/wormed client pcs with lots of bandwidth.

    great.

    ostiguy saw some 3000+ intrusion detection system alerts from skorea over the past 36 hours

    1. Re:S. Korea is a world leader by roror · · Score: 1

      I hope you are not blaming the broadband for the situation.

    2. Re:S. Korea is a world leader by Mr+Europe · · Score: 1

      True. Never can ONE reason make a country the world leader by any measure...

    3. Re:S. Korea is a world leader by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      No, but it's akin to replacing all bicycles with motorcycles and realizing to late that there's a lot more pollution.

      "Ubiquitous broadband is a pipe dream" --Me at /.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  9. This says it alll by _PimpDaddy7_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many US executives and policy makers are quick to dismiss the disparity, noting correctly that South Korea's densely populated areas have made it easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely fast service to large numbers of people. But even with such geographic and demographic differences, the United States can learn some valuable lessons from South Korea's experience in jump-starting a broadband powerhouse.

    It would be a truly daunting and very expensive task to retro-fit the US with South Korean-like broadbrand. Especially with all the bureaucracy in telecommunications. The point is we should look to them and try to learn from their experiences and mistakes.

    1. Re:This says it alll by skarmor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the key point is that, ".. South Korea's densely populated areas have made it easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely fast service to large numbers of people."

      It really is a huge problem to provide high-speed access to people living in rural Montanna or in the mountains of Washington state.

      The problem isn't that the bureaucracy is slowing down the development. Rather, the problem is that the revenue that would be earned by installing 8mbit capacity nationwide cannot justify the cost.

    2. Re:This says it alll by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It really is a huge problem to provide high-speed access to people living in rural Montanna or in the mountains of Washington state.

      Only because of the legalized monopolies that we allow in this country. Sadly single companies control entire areas and they don't have any reason to put broadband in if there's no competition.

    3. Re:This says it alll by skarmor · · Score: 1

      Only because of the legalized monopolies that we allow in this country. Sadly single companies control entire areas and they don't have any reason to put broadband in if there's no competition.

      Actually most competitors have much less cash than the near-monopoly companies. They would be even less likely to spend the kind of money necessary to provide high speed in rural areas.

    4. Re:This says it alll by humphrm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was an equally daunting task to provide universal phone system coverage to those people in Montana and the mountains of Washington State in the mid-20th century.

      Looking at the revenue from one network drop at a Paradise, WA vs. the cost is the wrong way. That's why the FCC forced the phone company to install one there, and recover it's cost via a fee that was charged to all businesses for phone usage (and I think, probably still is).

      The same thing could be applied here, if the FCC could get its nose out of Howard Stern's butt for a moment and concentrate on what they should be doing, providing universal broadband.

      --
      -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    5. Re:This says it alll by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      How many people live there? While we couldn't justify the cost of getting everyone 8Mb, we could get 95% of the people 3Mb connections, which is a good start.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    6. Re:This says it alll by skarmor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was an equally daunting task to provide universal phone system coverage to those people in Montana and the mountains of Washington State in the mid-20th century.

      That's true. But once construction was complete the telcos essentially had a license to print money. They could easily sustain the expenditure of installing in remote areas becasue they could make so much damn money off teh system as a whole. Not to mention universal service charges.

      Right now the fear is that they will build the network and then be forced to co-locate, provide facilities for competitors. This will eat away at their profits - and make it less likely that they will spend the money...

    7. Re:This says it alll by skarmor · · Score: 1

      If the potential revenue justified the costs of installing 3mbit in rural communities then those commnuities would already have 3mbit - the telcos do like to make money...

    8. Re:This says it alll by Paulrothrock · · Score: 4, Insightful
      1) It's in our national interest to provide as many people with broadband as possible.
      2) Telcos don't see profit in getting broadband into rural areas
      3) Therefore, the government should subsidize broadband for rural communities.

      The only question is if you think statement 1 is true. Personally, I think that if more rural communities had broadband, people would be more willing to move out there for quality of life. I, for example, would love to build a home out in the country, but only if I get broadband. Without that, there's no way for me to telecommute.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    9. Re:This says it alll by nanoakron · · Score: 1

      Why does something need to generate revenue in order to justify its creation?

      This is the fundamental problem with a completely capitalistic view of the world - try injecting a little socialism and you may find that providing something people want and need *just for the sake of it* brings its own rewards (e.g. healthcare)

      -Nano.

    10. Re:This says it alll by sindarin2001 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is a huge problem to get broadband in rural Montana because of the sheer distance between places. Most of our "cities" (with a school of class A or higher) are towns compared to other states, and those are usually at least 120 miles apart (and that's following the interstate, there's a whole lot of places that you have to travel on nasty highways for 3 hours to get to). In between you have places such as Two Dot: nearly village sized that has a bar and a grocery store. The post office is inside the bar. That's it. And when you're 100 miles from anyplace reasonably large, in the middle of nowhere, stringing wire that will ensure a broadband connection is a very VERY costly endevore. The only thing right now that gets broadband to some rural areas is satellite.

    11. Re:This says it alll by mike_mgo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The same thing could be applied here, if the FCC could get its nose out of Howard Stern's butt for a moment and concentrate on what they should be doing, providing universal broadband.

      Why should this be something that the FCC should be doing? I can understand that universal phone service can be justified by access to emergancy services in even the most isolated communities. What comparable requirement does having broadband access serve that can't already be met by dial-up?

      Just skimming through the article, the main benefits touted were online gaming and video on demand. Online tutoring was also mentioned (though I don't see why broadband is required for this), but all of the economic boon was from the gaming and video (and the supporting equipment necessary). So their online gaming market is great, but should it really be governemnt policy to get Americans to spend twice as much on online gaming as they do now?

    12. Re:This says it alll by skarmor · · Score: 1

      That's a great strategy, and I'm on board with you. But I just don't see that kind of government spending happening anytime soon.

      And as for private development - well, as soon as there is profit to be had...

    13. Re:This says it alll by skarmor · · Score: 1

      Why does something need to generate revenue in order to justify its creation?

      Because telecommunications is an industry with the goal of making money.

      This is the fundamental problem with a completely capitalistic view of the world - try injecting a little socialism and you may find that providing something people want and need *just for the sake of it* brings its own rewards (e.g. healthcare)

      I'm with you - and as soon as the feds nationalize the communications industry we'll talk. Until then we have to consider costs, revenue and profits when we condier telecommunications develpoment.

    14. Re:This says it alll by cylcyl · · Score: 1

      I call BS on blaming everything on Montana and the lightly populated states. The densely populated states still account for the majority of the population (I think ~80% as of the 2000 census). Even in the densely populated areas, broadband is not necessarily available or adopted if available.

      Also, Korea is up to 25 (or was it 50) mbps, while the best consumer broadband is 10mbps. We're just behind. Period.

    15. Re:This says it alll by SashaMan · · Score: 1

      But then what about places like New York City or San Francisco? I don't know anyone living in these places that gets 8 megabits per second, but NYC has a population size and density comparable to Seoul. It's NOT the geography in these places that's limiting broadband adoption, but the regulatory problems.

    16. Re:This says it alll by skarmor · · Score: 1

      In these areas there are other reasons for the lack of development:

      1)The broadband companies already make a killing off of the service they provide so there is no incentive to upgrade

      The FCC attempted to solve this by encouraging competition which, in some areas has led to:

      2)Price wars that suck the profit out of the market. Companies that might want to upgrade their networks are afraid that they willn ot be able to recover the costs of doing so..

      OR

      3)Price fixing. The "competitors" collude with the near-monopolies such that the prices remain high and evryone makes money - an oligopoly. The problem here is one of incentive the same as situation 1..

      The FCC has to attempt to solve these problems with regulation - but that is not an easy task. It isn't so much "regulatory problems" but simply industry problems that constantly demand new regulation..

    17. Re:This says it alll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your point, but I'm not sure that phone cable and broadband are totally analogous. Laying phone cable to the Washington mountains generates income from the residents calling out, but also from other phone users calling those residents. There is an inward pressure as well as an outward pressure. This inward pressure doesn't have an equivilant in broadband terms, since I don't particularly mind if someone in an obscure location can't get broadband. If those people who already have broadband were to start exerting such pressure for expansion then it might happen more rapidly, but unfortunately I can't see that happening.

    18. Re:This says it alll by powermung · · Score: 1

      I was shocked and digusted when I found out that my uncle's small business in New York City could not get high speed Internet access, and his business really needs faster access. Sure, implementing nation-wide broadband access maybe difficult for country of our (US) size, but if even some people in New York City can't get it, I think there definitely is a problem. Why can't the people who live in greater metropolitan areas in the US enjoy the same level of access as the ones in rural South Korea?

    19. Re:This says it alll by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The densely populated states still account for the majority of the population

      Compared to South Korea, those states aren't "densely populated" at all. Only a few US cities reach that level of density.

      All of SK could fit within a day's drive of NYC- and it's population is twice what lives in the NY metropolitan area.

      It looks to me like ALL of SK's superiority in broadband can be attributed to compressed geography. (An additional effect of that compression makes broadband more useful to South Koreans: everyone speaking Korean, meaning most servers they'd care to reach, are within a 50ms roundtrip. None of the east-coast/west-coast speed division you get in the USA)

    20. Re:This says it alll by chrisopherpace · · Score: 1

      And then you have cities like Laurel, 8 mi outside of Billings, which can only get broadband through one shitty ISP, Cable MT. They have a total lockdown of Laurel (no DSL), and no one seems to want to offer service for Laurel. Laurel, BTW, is not *THAT* small of a town, maybe 10k or so.

    21. Re:This says it alll by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      I think one benefit is that it's sometimes cheaper for the consumer to get broadband and pay a single $30-40/month rather than $20+ for a second phone line and $20+ for an ISP. This is at least how it worked out for me and the move from dial-up to 1mbit cable. In the end, I believe even more than $20 was saved after dropping the dial-up line.

      I'm not familiar with DSL pricing, but I imagine the "consumer getting more for their dollar" is a huge factor.

    22. Re:This says it alll by BK425 · · Score: 1

      No, it' not a problem. Some people choose to live on acreage, breathe clean air and wake up to mountain views. Some people choose to live in cities with plays and clubs and slightly better access to some technology. That's not a problem, it's -choice-.
      (And if you don't tell anyone that the I90 corridor through the mountains of Washington is one of the west coasts highest east west concentrations of comm bandwidth then I won't either.)
      -BK425
      (looking for land in the North Bend-Preston area)

    23. Re:This says it alll by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Number 1 isn't the only question.

      It implies the question, "Should the government do everything that is in our national interest?" which, in turn, implies "Who decides what is in our national interest?"

      My answers are "no" and "an overwhelming majority" (or at least 2/3 of the states via the legislature or a special convention) respectively.

      Amazing the way the Constitution still applies in the face of radical technological progress. Too bad we have decided to turn our backs on it.

      -Peter

    24. Re:This says it alll by skarmor · · Score: 1

      We aren't talking about your choice of lifestyle - we're talking about the difficulty of deploying broadband in rural areas - and yeah, it is a problem.

      Oh and also - the Seattle suburbs along the I-90 don't qualify as rural. Have you ever tried to get service in truely rural Wshington? I thought not..

    25. Re:This says it alll by nezroy · · Score: 1

      You're thinking about traditional broadband uses -- things that are done with broadband because of the deployment pattern of broadband.

      Think about something far more interesting; for example, what if every singe person in that rural Montana community could get a regular yearly physical with a real physician sitting thousands of miles away. How much would this kind of regular preventative care provided without brick-and-mortar costs reduce insurance rates?

      Or what if that remote community could get a network-operated robotic medical/surgical unit. Instead of a risky eight hour life-flight to the nearest major urban center, a patient could get local surgery and care. This could be just as much a life-saver as the 9-1-1 phone call was for previous generations.

      Why don't we already have these kinds of things? Well, aside from all the other obvious technical challenges (all surmountable, given the incentive), one huge hurdle is simply, "why bother"? The only places that have the necessary broadband connections to support something like this are probably urban centers that already have perfectly good hospitals and clinics. It's a chicken and egg problem -- there are lots of potentially great uses for broadband outside of gaming that don't exist yet because the deployment pattern of broadband is not conducive to them.

      Or think of it this way -- what came first, the phone system or 9-1-1? The phone system didn't provide all these great benefits at first either -- all of the great benefits came about because the phone system was installed and people started thinking about ways to use it more effectively.

    26. Re:This says it alll by nikoliky · · Score: 1

      and recover it's cost via a fee that was charged to all businesses for phone usage (and I think, probably still is). There is a recovery fee we're still required to charge called a PICC (pixy). I don't know the history behind it, but that sounds reasonable. We charge $3.50 per line, and some companies I see charge as much as $10!

    27. Re:This says it alll by BK425 · · Score: 1

      Deploying broadband in rural areas IS about access for people in rural areas. You chose to frame it as a social policy and I chose to take a look at it from the individual perspective. Either way the point you ignored was that things like technology access and the other lifestyle factors I mentioned -are- lifestyle choices. And tradeoffs are a normal and good part of that (normal in both an individual and societal sense) If you'd like to disagree with that I think it could be an interesting discussion. But simply stating that it's not a lifestyle choice doesn't make it so.

      Your "I thought not" jab at my knowledge of the I90 corridor is even more flippant and reflects badly on your security about your main point. In fact I've lived in that area and been a land owner there (and in the suburbs West of there) for more then 20 years. In the western foothills, Issaquah is a suburb, Preston is just inside the Urban Growth Management Boundary but still has an average parcel size over an acre and North bend is outside the UMB with 5+ acre avg parcels making it rural in every sense of the word. The reason I mentioned it is that Level3 and QWest both maintain huge Network Operating Centers there tied into the east west fiber lines near Snoqualmie (wich is also outside the UMB) and, since you asked, I have lived there and arranged wide pipe DSL to residences in North Bend and Snoqualmie. On the other hand your point in mentioning it... seems to have been to insult me. Better luck next time.

    28. Re:This says it alll by Skidge · · Score: 1

      Think about something far more interesting; for example, what if every singe person in that rural Montana community could get a regular yearly physical with a real physician sitting thousands of miles away.

      And then the big city doctor told me, "Please put the webcam down your pants, turn your head and cough."

    29. Re:This says it alll by Politicus · · Score: 1
      Why should this be something that the FCC should be doing? I can understand that universal phone service can be justified by access to emergancy services in even the most isolated communities. What comparable requirement does having broadband access serve that can't already be met by dial-up?
      If you are going to mimick what the Korean's did then there's really no alternative. The gov't did it. It's pretty much the same way that the US was electrified and hooked up with phone service. The question that could have been asked back then, would then be "why telephone when you can telegraph?"

      Sometimes you just can't beat well applied public funding.

      --
      Politicus
    30. Re:This says it alll by skarmor · · Score: 1

      If you'd like to disagree with that I think it could be an interesting discussion. But simply stating that it's not a lifestyle choice doesn't make it so.

      In all honesty I do disagree. I also disagree about how interesting that argument would be..

      Your "I thought not" jab at my knowledge of the I90 corridor is even more flippant and reflects badly on your security about your main point.

      But you *are* a suburbanite right? Issaquah is certainly a burb and North Bend and Snoqualmie are bedroom communities for Seattle. When I am talking about the difficulties of deploying broadband I'm not talking about those type of communities. I mean broadband in small towns in the Oakanogan or Wenatchee - nowhere near the city.

    31. Re:This says it alll by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't.

      The US could easily scale to much higher levels of bandwidth - at least for those that already have broadband. The main thing you'd need different from Korea is more cable, I'd imagine, due to distance. Other than that, I'd thinkthere'd be a lower entry standard set for the US 'high bandwidth' broadband, as there are less people, and thus non-cable infrastructure needed.

      Anyone else remember when pulling down 1MB/s wasn't uncommon in the early days of cable networks, with just as much upload bandwidth? Surely most of you can remember when there was at least synchronous bandwidth for upload and download. Now, everyone's capped at a pathetic 15KBps up or so, and roughly 150KBps down. I don't accept "but there isn't enough frequency space in the current systems for those rates anymore" unless you give me some sound (ie, factual and scientific) reason as to why not - bandwidth is cheap now, it wasn't then, and the various routing products are vastly more powerful than they were then.

      Note how "US executives and policy makers are quick to dismiss the disparity. There's more than one way to look at it. Given the trend in the US, I'm more apt to look at it as "yes, we'd rather have miniscule bandwidth and 40/month cable bills, than actually provide a competitive service - because, afterall, who's left to compete against us?" How is comcast able to provide nice bandwidth in Canada, hrm? They've got a much, much lower population density there, even if you don't count all the extremely rural/uninhabited areas.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    32. Re:This says it alll by Brianwa · · Score: 1

      The thing is, there are many areas at the edges of, and even inside, medium- to large-sized cities in Washington with no boradband and some have only ONE dialup provider with local numbers. For some people, its hard to get any internet access at all.

    33. Re:This says it alll by hankaholic · · Score: 1
      Only because of the legalized monopolies that we allow in this country. Sadly single companies control entire areas and they don't have any reason to put broadband in if there's no competition.
      And here I thought it was because it cost upwards of $50,000 to put in a CO combined with the fact that a CO can only provide those within a radius of a few miles with DSL service.

      That $50,000 price tag was quoted to me by one of the guys who maintains the equipment in the COs run by NPTC. If anyone has more accurate numbers, please reply.

      You cite lack of competition as a reason not to put in broadband. Legally, if one provider offers DSL they have to allow others to sell service over their network. This means that Verizon can't move in and install DSL huts in order to crush formerly monopolistic telcos, because Verizon would have to allow those telcos to offer DSL service via their equipment. Suddenly offering DSL is no longer much of a competitive advantage, since as soon as you offer DSL in an area, legally your competitors can too.

      Is it possible to provide service to people in rural "Montanna"? Sure! Would a profit be realized soon enough to justify the hefty cost of blanketing Montana with a grid of $50k pieces of equipment little brick huts every 4-6 miles? Let's see...

      Montana is about 630 miles by 280 miles. Assuming a grid of DSL huts spaced 6 miles apart, that's 105 by 46 2/3. Multiplying 105 and 46 2/3 gives us 4900 DSL huts required to cover all of Montana, rural or urban. At $50k a pop that ends up requiring $245 million for a service that doesn't exactly offer the highest profit margin. That's about $271 for each Montana resident. Assuming a profit margin of 50% on DSL service, every single Montana resident would have to subscribe to DSL service for at least a year in order to offset the costs of installing the huts. Time before realizing a profit of course increases as subscription rates fall below one line per person.

      Those greedy monopolist bastards! Those un-American, cruel, heartless capitalist fat cats! Oh, the shame that a fellow member of the human race might think that a publicly traded company might try to balance investment with expected profit and serve the very shareholders who own the company! I await the day when CEOs will see past profit and realize just how essential it is for old Toothless Zeke living in the quiet solitude of rural Montana to receive his porn and OS updates in glorious 768k, profit be damned!

      Of course, anyone with more accurate numbers is encouraged to respond.
      --
      Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
    34. Re:This says it alll by sindarin2001 · · Score: 1

      You said it all my friend (I originate from Laurel =) ).

    35. Re:This says it alll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've lived here for about a year or so, really like the small-town atmosphere, were it not for the ISP lack of options.

  10. Re:Does anyone know.. by sfraggle · · Score: 4, Funny

    I dont think its really fair to stereotype all Koreans as obsessive Starcraft players. Plenty of them obsess over other online games such as Warcraft and Diablo2 as well.

    --
    were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
  11. Re:May I be the first to say by Poeloq · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The soccer worldchampionship was a step forwards in the Korea-Japan relationship...

  12. Million Player MMORPGs by blueZhift · · Score: 1

    With such high broadband penetration, could it be that South Korea will be the home of the first million player MMORPG? Online gaming is very popular there, perhaps in part because of the high speeds available. Whereas just across the water in Japan, these games are not as popular and broadband is far less available. In the US right now we're stuck with all of this great infrastructure, but fall short in that last mile. Plus the US government isn't making a real commitment to make broadband a part of everyday life.

    It's too bad that we are lagging here in the US because just imagine what a richly information empowered citizenry could do...not to mention the games! :-)

    1. Re:Million Player MMORPGs by whitelines · · Score: 1

      During the time I lived in Asia there were two deaths in South Korea from over-gaming. People literally fell over due to dehydration and mild exposure from playing online games for a (massively) extended period of time...

      --
      /* TBD */
    2. Re:Million Player MMORPGs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why MMORPGs are popular in S. Korea is, traditional stand-alone-game makers (console game makers in Japan and US) are reluctant to release their games in S. Korea because of software piracy. As for software piracy, S. Korea is not at all better than China.

    3. Re:Million Player MMORPGs by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      Plus the US government isn't making a real commitment to make broadband a part of everyday life.

      I'm not sure it's the US Government's job / mandate to build high-speed gaming networks for the populous. But one thing is for sure, cable and internet infrastructure companies need to price their wares more competitively.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    4. Re:Million Player MMORPGs by foidulus · · Score: 1

      Why MMORPGs are popular in S. Korea is, traditional stand-alone-game makers (console game makers in Japan and US) are reluctant to release their games in S. Korea because of software piracy. As for software piracy, S. Korea is not at all better than China.
      Interestingly, piracy was the only way that South Koreans could experience anything remotely Japanese for a long time. Just this year Japanese cd's were finally allowed to be released legeally in South Korea.

    5. Re:Million Player MMORPGs by joeykiller · · Score: 1
      could it be that South Korea will be the home of the first million player MMORPG?
      According to this article one of the the massive multiplayer games, Lineage, has 3 million subscribers. That's one in twelve South Koreans! So I guess South Korea is already the home om the first million player massive multiplayer game.

      A conference I attended had South Korea as one of its topics. According to what was told there online gaming is very popular there, yes. But almost as popular was _watching_ the games.

      Apparently chatting and meeting people was very central to everything they did, so the "game arenas" was just another meeting place.

      Another strange thing for those of us with a little paranoia, is that in South Korea authentication and registration is done almost on every web site with full name and social security number! That means that if Slashdot had had an equivalent there, no one would be anonymous.

      This is the fact I find strangest. But I can see that it has it's strong points when it comes to shopping, preventing fraud, etc.
    6. Re:Million Player MMORPGs by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Falling short on the last mile indeed. Verizon has over 217,000 miles of fiber optic cable running through the state of West Virginia. I don't think most of it is even being utilized as yet.

    7. Re:Million Player MMORPGs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at Lineage 1, They already have Million+.

  13. A couple of factors are important here... by Eddy+Da+KillaBee · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Many US executives and policy makers are quick to dismiss the disparity, noting correctly that South Korea's densely populated areas have made it easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely fast service to large numbers of people.

    I think that the fact that South Korea is smaller in size than the US gives it an advantage of reaching that goal of theirs... On top of that, they might not have a bunch of communications giants (Cox Communications, Charter Communications, AOL-Time Warner, Sprint (DSL), Verizon (DSL) and Aldelphia, to name a few) fighting for customers left and right. When you have a fairly large country in size with a ton of providers offering different types of services at different prices it's harder to achieve a goal like "Broadband for Everyone".
    1. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by takochan · · Score: 4, Informative

      >I think that the fact that South Korea is smaller
      >in size than the US gives it an advantage.

      I don't think so. Canada is only one tenth the population of the US, and has a far lower per capita GDP than the US has (Canadian per capita GDP is the sama as Korea actually), yet Canada (and Korea) both still have far wider broadband deployments than the US.

      It has just not been important for the US govt that this get done, and to the telcos either, that are always too shortsighted. So now other countries have leaped ahead.

      There is no excuse for it really, rather than corporate and govt bungling. The US has by far the highest p/c GDP of any of these countries, and is certainly rich enough to pay for it if they wanted (heck, the money used in Iraq up to now would have paid for it a dozen times over...)

      So its not about density, or 'too expensive'.. Just the people in the power to make change don't care to do anything about it...

    2. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by aoikay · · Score: 2, Interesting
      When you have a fairly large country in size with a ton of providers offering different types of services at different prices it's harder to achieve a goal like "Broadband for Everyone"

      I have to disagree with you in this matter. I probably come from a different background (mideuropean country), but I always had the impression that a high rivalry for market creates a great opportunity for the customer. Think what could you do in a country that has the monopoly for all telecommunications...

    3. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by RealityProphet · · Score: 4, Insightful
      On top of that, they might not have a bunch of communications giants (Cox Communications, Charter Communications, AOL-Time Warner, Sprint (DSL), Verizon (DSL) and Aldelphia, to name a few) fighting for customers left and right. When you have a fairly large country in size with a ton of providers offering different types of services at different prices it's harder to achieve a goal like "Broadband for Everyone".

      No. Having a bunch of providers is exactly what will spur higher bandwidths and lower prices. It is called the free market system.

    4. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be better if well-off people pay $480/year for internet access to the big media companies? Or if we were all taxed $100/year or less and everyone would have access? If you look at college campuses, you pay a large fee up front, but you can use the wireless network and computers all you want. There is no monthly or hourly fee, and everyone has the ability to use it. The people who complain are the people who don't use it and still pay for it. But the technology would advance.

      With advances in wireless, It wouldn't be hard to setup a neighborhood access point, and get away with paying less money.

    5. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by goldspider · · Score: 1
      "The US has by far the highest p/c GDP of any of these countries, and is certainly rich enough to pay for it if they wanted"

      So what? What about the people who don't want or have no use for broadband Internet access? Why should the be forced to pay for a service they don't need?

      Ya see, that's the beauty of capitalism. You get to buy the stuff you want, and don't have to pay for things you don't need. It's sad that we're abandoning that philosophy in favor of a socialistic parental government.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    6. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      I think that it's more likely that the problem is in the communications giants themselves. They'll not roll out the serverices except to the most profitable areas.

      I live in a small town in Iowa and have had DSL at home longer than what its been available to people in all but the state's largest cities. This is because we have a local phone company that can and will roll out these kind of services.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    7. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by skarmor · · Score: 1

      But Canada has very dense population centers. Most of its citizens live in cities along the border with the US.

      So density really is the key..

    8. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't think so. Canada is only one tenth the population of the US, and has a far lower per capita GDP than the US has (Canadian per capita GDP is the sama as Korea actually), yet Canada (and Korea) both still have far wider broadband deployments than the US.

      Yes, because Canada is smaller which is what the original poster SAID. You forget Canadians are all huddled together in the lower regions (I guess so they can snuggle up to the USA. They just love us there, you know). Like, 97% of Canada is barren wasteland inhabited only by mastadons and saber tooth rabbits. I saw it on Ren & Stimpy so I know it's true.

      It has just not been important for the US govt that this get done, and to the telcos either, that are always too shortsighted. So now other countries have leaped ahead.

      No, because the other country's have less to do to modernize. Why is this so hard to accept over Byzantine corpo-governmental flim flam?

      There is no excuse for it really, rather than corporate and govt bungling. The US has by far the highest p/c GDP of any of these countries, and is certainly rich enough to pay for it if they wanted (heck, the money used in Iraq up to now would have paid for it a dozen times over...)

      Or a simple lack of market demand, which has been shown in poll after poll. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good ideo-rant.

      So its not about density, or 'too expensive'.. Just the people in the power to make change don't care to do anything about it...

      Well, no, it *is* about density and size, and about consumers not really giving a crap about it.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    9. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by pubjames · · Score: 1

      No. Having a bunch of providers is exactly what will spur higher bandwidths and lower prices. It is called the free market system.

      Yep, I mean that's why we have the internet in the first place, isn't it? It was created by free markets. The idea that government could create such a thing is laughable. Oh, hang on. Now I'm a bit confused...

    10. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by bliSSter138 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      tha's brilliant bumpkin....answer me this: why is it that those opposed to the war in iraq are having to pay for that?...your argument doesn't sound so thorogh from that angle does it...according to your original line of reasoning, what about the people who "don't want or have no use for" running water? "why should the be forced to pay for a service they don't need?"...

      imagine the people who could benefit from top-shelf broadband...doctors, biologist, teachers, colleges, etc. - just to name a a few...point here is, there is tons of fiber running through the US....we just don't get it b/c of the super-weak telecos...

      i am currently paying for 3Mb download with a paltry 128kbps upload, while my cable modem taps out at 10Mbps and i have Gb on my mobo...tell me why they telecos can't keep up with that...i know they have the bandwidth...even over their existing lines...but why should they open their pipes up any wider when peeps in the US are happy paying for the crumbs they're already getting...

      maybe you should check with your personal assistant before you talk in the future...don't be a moron...

      - bliSS

      --
      the only difference between a rut and a grave, are the dimensions
    11. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I guess so they can snuggle up to the USA. They just love us there, you know

      That is the bad part.
      But we chose you over the weather :)

      JK, of course.

    12. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ya see, that's the beauty of capitalism. You get to buy the stuff you want, and don't have to pay for things you don't need.

      Like healthcare.

    13. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Canada is only one tenth the population of the US,"

      ... which would mean something if Canada's population distribution was anything like the US. It isn't. While the US seems to have one of the most homogeneous population distributions on the globe, the vast majority of Canadians live within 200 km or so of the US border (try naming a major Canadian city that isn't) and then tend to clump around urban centers. You can play connect-the-dots with Edmonton, Red Deer and Calgary over in Alberta, while major US cities like Chicago and Houston are a little tough to pick out if you don't know where to look.

      One line 10 km long is cheaper to deploy than ten lines 1 km long.

    14. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Bombcar · · Score: 1


      I don't think so. Canada is only one tenth the population of the US, and has a far lower per capita GDP than the US has (Canadian per capita GDP is the sama as Korea actually), yet Canada (and Korea) both still have far wider broadband deployments than the US.


      Yeah, but "[r]oughly 80 percent of Canada's 31 million population resides within 100 miles of the U.S. border"

      and "40 percent of Canada's land is largely undeveloped."

      Almost every part of the United States is populated, though thinly. A significant percent of the US population is really rural. 82 million rural residents is almost 3 times the population of Canada, and near to a third of the US! Broadband to the cities is already available, it's the outlying towns that are hard to reach.

      See Rural Maps for more information

    15. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Grym · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Canada is only one tenth the population of the US, and has a far lower per capita GDP than the US has (Canadian per capita GDP is the sama as Korea actually), yet Canada (and Korea) both still have far wider broadband deployments than the US.

      You don't even think it's a factor? In terms of landmass, South Korea is approximately 1/4th the size of Utah. How could it NOT be a factor?

      So its not about density, or 'too expensive'.. Just the people in the power to make change don't care to do anything about it..

      You obviously haven't seen the trial that is getting broadband into a rural area (of which, South Korea has none). Trust me on this one, though, I have. You'd be amazed how difficult it is to run Fiber lines up a wooded mountain on the Appalachian, and even MORE amazed at how long it takes to get said lines serviced. Sure, with a wireless infrastructure, you can bounce access from tower to tower, but towers (and rented tower space) are insanely expensive. This fact lowers your already low profit margin for an area that might provide, AT BEST, 50 customers or so.

      As much as I'd like to blame smoking men and bureaucrats on this one, that's just not the case. Comparing broadband penetration within the US and Korea is like comparing apples and oranges.

      -Grym

    16. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by khendron · · Score: 1

      So what? I can get DSL service at my cottage, which sits on the edge of a lake in a largely undeveloped area in Ontario. (I wouldn't, I go to the cottage to get away from all that --but that's another topic.)

      --
      Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
    17. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      In theory, yes. It's a nice theory, and one that a lot of pseudo-intellectual geeks like to drown themselves in. But the reality is that it hasn't worked out. After the forced deregulation, all the companies that were supposed to be competing said "Oh! We're free to compete!" and then started collaborating to screw over the customer in the most efficient manner possible.

      Government needs to own or heavily regulate base infrastructure. This includes roads, power, water, and telecom.

    18. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      Actually, Canada's got really impressive broadband deployment. Even in sparsely-populated areas, like the praries or the east coast, broadband's near-universal. It's much more unusual to find someone without broadband than with it.

    19. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      That's only true if there are more than one or two *per area*. In most places this is not the case, resulting in a monopoly or small oligopoly situation. Regulation can help by mandating that lines be shared to other companies at reasonable prices, but there are flaws with this approach, and it can hardly be called a free market solution.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    20. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Chazmyrr · · Score: 1

      Government needs to own or heavily regulate base infrastructure. This includes roads, power, water, and telecom.

      This can be a double edged sword, but I agree on the whole. Government is more likely to improve infrastructure for the benefit of the people than a corporation is to cannibalize their existing monopoly.

    21. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Having a bunch of providers is exactly what will spur higher bandwidths and lower prices. It is called the free market system.

      And the 'free market' brought us the interstate highway system? The 'free market' had no incentive to do it. States had no resources to do it. It took an effort at the Federal level to get it done, and now people use it without even thinking about it. And it benefits everyone.

      Broadband access is the same thing. It will take a national effort, directed (like it or not) by the laws/policies that come out of Washington.

    22. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people didn't waste their money on things like broadband Internet access or satellite TV, they'd be able to afford at least minimal healthcare. That's about $150/month right there.

    23. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Dovregubbens+Hall · · Score: 1
      Uhm, let me get this straight. We have an example here of extreme broadband penetration. And we can have another example: Sweden. I think they are top 2...

      Then, on the other side, you have US. Which isn't that bad, but doesn't really make it to the top when it comes to broadband....

      In one case, you have had, and still has, a very high level of government involvement. In the other case, some say that you have a bunch of providers and a free market system.

      So, you'd think that you would want to learn from the case that has actually provided the best services, wouldn't you?

      You can talk about free market all you want, but the fact is: Either the free market didn't work, or it isn't a free market...

      (I'll be fair: I think it is mainly due to the lack of a free market, but then I also think that a working free market is as rare as a working communist state, allthough perhaps not as vulnerable to megalomaniacs).

      Refusing to take note of success stories and cite ideology instead is perhaps not such a good idea...

      If broadband really spurred growth in other parts of society is a different matter, though...

    24. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by netfool · · Score: 1
      WOW - look at the difference between North & South Korea.

      South Korea is lit up like a Christmas Tree, while North is almost completely black.

      --
      Left 4 Dead Gaming Group - http://www.l4dgg.com
    25. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by BK425 · · Score: 1

      "The government" doesn't build broadband links, it takes your money and pays it to other people to do that. You mentioned that the US has far higher GDP then canada and korea and part of the reason for that is that we allow MARKETS to determine the wider spread of goods and services rather "people in power". And that, my friend, is a good thing (tm).

    26. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

      As long as it is "free" and "market". Having bunch of huge corporations buying politicians from left and right in order to stop competition and preserve the status quo can only hinder any innovation, progress etc.

      Robert

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
    27. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      South Korea looks significantly less densely populated than the New England states and California coastline on that map. In fact it looks about the same on average as the entire Eastern half of the US. So what were the US executives and policy makers' excuses again?

    28. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget though that numerous communities for years in Canada that are nowhere close to the US border have had high-speed internet. The British Columbia government by the end of this year will have it so every official community in the province will have access. I know of communities with a few thousand people that have high-speed internet and it's still cheaper than what most Americans pay.

    29. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by mc6809e · · Score: 1

      As long as it is "free" and "market". Having bunch of huge corporations buying politicians from left and right in order to stop competition and preserve the status quo can only hinder any innovation, progress etc.

      It's usually corporations buyling LOCAL politicians.

      The more I learn about local government, the more I realize how much more power they have over our lives than the federal government.

      They tell you what and where and how you can conduct business. They can take away your property in the name of eminent domain to put in a Walmart.

      They determine where roads will go. They controll zoning. The police that come to help you or come for you answer to local government. You get on the wrong side of the mayor or police chief and you're screwed.

      And they limit who can provide high speed communications to you. Many local governments limit competition in the cable industry, for example.

    30. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by More+than+Pi · · Score: 1

      >the vast majority of Canadians live within 200 km or so of the US border (try naming a major Canadian city that isn't)

      Edmonton, Alberta and lesser cities - Fort MacMurray, Alberta and Cold Lake, Alberta. Very wired areas...

    31. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by bluGill · · Score: 2, Informative

      While not near the penetration of S.K., those areas of the US also have broadband in most areas. If you want it and live in a densly populated area you can get it.

      Look at the population density of North Dakota. I know someone who lives in a township (36 square miles) with a population of 95, and the next township over has only 17. (thats 2 square miles per person and some left over!) They are the ones without a good broadband option. they also only get 1 TV station, and then only on a good night. I think there is a radio station, but I've never heard them listen to it so I can't be sure. Do you have any good ideas for getting them broadband? They'd buy it, but only if it was affordable.

    32. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by kaoshin · · Score: 1
      This is probably because their big buildings are empty. They were built to show the power of their leaders, not to house their poverty stricken people.

      "When a man carries a gun all the time, the respect he thinks he's getting might really be fear. So I don't carry a gun because I don't want the people of Mayberry to fear a gun. I'd rather they respect me." -Andy Griffith

    33. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we usually install ten lines were only 2 are needed at the moment. Oops, now i'm giving away canaduck communications secret :)

    34. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Edmonton's counts, but the length of the list pretty much demonstrates the point. Just for the record, Calgary is also over 200km north of the border, but close enough to be iffy.

      But... lesser cities indeed. Cold Lake's got what, ten thousand people? They only have internet because the Gov't of Alberta has more money than it knows what to do with and funded Telus doing it, as I recall. Seriously, I don't even want to know how many communities of ten thousand plus people there are in the US.

    35. Re:A couple of factors are important here... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "The British Columbia government by the end of this year will have it so every official community in the province will have access. I know of communities with a few thousand people..."

      As I said in my previous post: "One line 10 km long is cheaper to deploy than ten lines 1 km long." They have broadband because the provincial government doesn't have to run multiple cables this way and that, they only need to send one wire into the heart of that population concentration.

      "Every official community," hm? What's the qualifier there? Someplace that just happens to have its own post office or postcode? Or must it have its own courthouse and municipal government?

  14. Money and stability by wayward · · Score: 1

    That's impressive. However, it seems like a country needs to have a reasonable amount of money and stability to make something like this work. For example, this probably wouldn't have been an option for North Korea.

    1. Re:Money and stability by Poeloq · · Score: 1

      "North Koreans would be shot for using the internet..." But even in North Korea they are now making "inter"net available - of course it is censored so much, you can basically only get Kim Yongs II personal webpage.

    2. Re:Money and stability by wayward · · Score: 1

      What, doesn't Kim Il Jong's personal page take care of all your information needs? I'm thinking of setting it to be my home page.

  15. And in other news... by d3m057h3n35 · · Score: 0

    North Korea's suffers attack of extreme jealousy at always being higher and more powerful than its brother but never getting praised, and nukes the hell out of its younger sibling. That'll show 'em! Secretly, North Korea regrets it afterwards and tries to make a truce.

  16. I never realized spam could be so lucrative! by yoghurt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Due to its large output of spam and its place as a relay station for cracker attacks, Korea is finding that it is in an intranet of its own. Non-responsiveness from (or non-existance of) admins and abuse desks in Korea is legendary. Thank you for korea.blackholes.us.

    --
    Yoghurt
    1. Re:I never realized spam could be so lucrative! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in South Korea. For every piece of Korean spam I get, I estimate I receive 50 times more English language spam that seems to be targeted at North American residents (although with some of the dictionary spam in can be tough to tell).

      The big problem here is not so much spam originating from Korea, as poor security practices. As to the non-responsiveness of admins from Korea, how would you respond to a complaint not in your native language? Oh wait I know...everyone is supposed to learn English.

      And as a personal note I'd like to give a big "f**k off" to the EV1 admins for blackholing Korea, as a result of that I lost access to two of my favorite websites.

    2. Re:I never realized spam could be so lucrative! by JuliusRV · · Score: 1

      For every piece of Korean spam I get, I estimate I receive 50 times more English language spam

      Weird, 90% of _my_ spam is in character sets other than latin, most of it Asian...

      Oh wait I know...everyone is supposed to learn English.

      Yes, everyone _should_ learn English, period. Opinion of a German.

    3. Re:I never realized spam could be so lucrative! by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      For every piece of Korean spam I get, I estimate I receive 50 times more English language spam that seems to be targeted at North American residents (although with some of the dictionary spam in can be tough to tell).

      Most of my spams are in English as well. You would be surprised, however, at how many of these English email spams are either relayed through insecure Korean mailservers or are advertising websites that are hosted through Korean ISPs (and have been for months because the ISP in question is openly tolerant of criminal activity).

      There's no reason to accept packets from Korea, their network is just one big cesspit (thanks in large part to Spamaro), though EV1 blocking Korea seems very much like the pot calling the kettle black.

  17. thats not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not possible for Koreans and Japanese to get along, if you have lived in both countires like myself you shall realise that the people are totally different, to the point where compatibility is impossible. To give you a sterotypical low down;

    japanese people: honourable and polite
    korean people: shovenistic, dirty, arrogant, and rude.

    enough said!

    1. Re:thats not possible by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      japanese people: honourable and polite
      korean people: shovenistic, dirty, arrogant, and rude.

      Americans are different from Koreans how? (In Japanese eyes) I mean we're talking about a culture that folds their dirty clothes! Ultimately money is the middle ground that can make friends out of polar opposites. Do you think American - Chinese relationships would be so good if they were just another USSR and had little to trade with us? The poor relationship between Japanese and Korean people are just an example that western civilization has no monopoly on racism.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    2. Re:thats not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and those black yakuza vehicles going around shouting, "Throw the barbarians out" are just so polite..... Or the web page the government set up to report suspicious foriegners, or the police that treat you like a criminal just because of your skin, or the landlords that will refuse to rent to foriegners. There are a lot of rude people in Japan. Most of them are quite polite(to your face anyway), but it's not a perfect society, there is no such thing, and saying so is about as ignorant as the Koreans calling the Japanese all bastards.
      There are rude people in every culture, just as there are polite people in every culture, I think you have a somewhat limited view of both...

    3. Re:thats not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh yes!
      japanese people: honourable and polite
      korean people: shovenistic, dirty, arrogant, and rude.
      What's wrong with you? A cute korean girl turned you down because you smell of rotten milk?

      You should've tried with a japanese girl,I hear they would sleep with anyone... especially the young ones. You see, all those electronic toys they keep buying need to be paid for, somehow!

    4. Re:thats not possible by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      I always thought it was because the Japanese army used Korean women as sex slaves during WWII.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    5. Re:thats not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgot a closing tag? "Preview" is your friend.

    6. Re:thats not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought it was because the japanese invaded korea, raped their natural resources, basically enslaved the people, and raped the women.

      Simplest terms...historically, there's a lot of bad blood between China, Korea and Japan. Only recently has a real effort been put forward to drop old grievances and move on. Many events, not just the world cup, have been organized in the recent past to promote the cooperation of all three countries.

    7. Re:thats not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and those black ... vehicles going around shouting, "Throw the barbarians out" are just so polite..... Or the web page the government set up to report suspicious foriegners, or the police that treat you like a criminal just because of your skin, or the landlords that will refuse to rent to foriegners. There are a lot of rude people in Japan.

      Japan? Oh I thought you were talking about the United States after 9/11!

    8. Re:thats not possible by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      Bleh I actually have two tags. One html code typo in about 100 comments? I think thats a pretty good accuracy.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    9. Re:thats not possible by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      Fuck, that makes two. :-( Oh the irony.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
  18. Not odd by fateswarm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not odd for South Korea to succeed on a goal it aims. But it's more than that. Some times a "goal" of south korean can be translated to obsession.

    It is no more than a year than discovery channel (or was it n.g chan? anyways) has done that show about the industrial revolution of south korea. It was discussing the obsession that country had to keep up with Japan and eventually it succeeded. The odd thing that obsession had come to that extreme that some workers were willing to give their lives for their country's economic wealth.

    They had that south korean director of contruction for a ship building company that said "That day the ship was going to deport, I had with me a sword. It was in case something went wrong. I'd perform harakiri".

    1. Re:Not odd by Otter · · Score: 1
      Not odd for South Korea to succeed on a goal it aims.

      Exactly. The real question is whether the anticipated economic gains resulted. Saying that "Broadband Is The Secret To South Korea's Success" is a bit redundant when waht they're succeeding at is broadband.

      The odd thing that obsession had come to that extreme that some workers were willing to give their lives for their country's economic wealth. They had that south korean director of contruction for a ship building company that said "That day the ship was going to deport, I had with me a sword. It was in case something went wrong. I'd perform harakiri".

      It's interesting how in North Korea, despite the complete lunacy of the system, you can see the same enthusiasm for regimentation and self-sacrifice for goals that you see in Japan and South Korea. They've just directed it towards insanity rather than industrialization. In Laos, by contrast, Communism proceeds at the same sleepy pace they had under monarchy and colonization.

  19. iProvo by lopati · · Score: 1

    Well maybe not in the US as a whole, but it is occuring in certain municipalities like Provo and Spokane.

  20. Install a crazy Dictator in the country north ... by o1d5ch001 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    1. Have a crazy dictator north of you that threatens to blow up everyone once a week. Stops and starts nuclear 'research' programs on a whim, and kidnaps people from nearby countries to make movies and pron for him.
    2. Install high speed bandwidth.
    3. Profit!!!

    --
    Q. What is Calvin's monster snowman called? A. The Torment Of Existence Weighed Against The Horror of Non Being
  21. Lineage had over a million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lineage had/has well over a million, some reports have said up to 4 million in the first edition, with Lineage 2 coming up fast.

  22. Put Wal-Mart on it... by solive1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wal-Mart would turn the broadband industry upside down. They'd do it cheaper than the others, and more "common" people in America would flock to the Wal-Mart name because of brand recognition. This alone would force the broadband companies to innovate.

    This could also be applied to the cell phone industry.

    1. Re:Put Wal-Mart on it... by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how could Wal-Mart maintain their low level of quality? They'd have to make the service reps lumbering mutants, make the connection speeds fluctuate, sell it to mulleted trailer trash, and require every customer to use one of those smell-boxes so they can broadcast their terrific stench with every connection.

    2. Re:Put Wal-Mart on it... by CowsAnonymous · · Score: 1
      > Yes, but how could Wal-Mart maintain their low level of quality? They'd have to make the service reps lumbering mutants, make the connection speeds fluctuate, sell it to mulleted trailer trash, and require every customer to use one of those smell-boxes so they can broadcast their terrific stench with every connection.

      Or they can just stick with their currently offered dial-up service, and call it "Broadband" with catchy commercials of animated objects making people laugh to distract those from realizing how slow it is.

      --
      CowsAnonymous: We're here to help moo.
    3. Re:Put Wal-Mart on it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wal-Mart would turn the broadband industry upside down.

      That would be a funny sight: A crew of middle-aged women wearing smiley-face buttons and bright blue vests that say "HOW MAY I HELP YOU?" on their backs operating a trench digger in your back yard.

      Come to think of it, with the way things are going maybe that outfit will soon become the American Mao suit.

    4. Re:Put Wal-Mart on it... by fallen1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they would want you to only use the Wal-Mart(c) Branded IE infested browser to surf the web with that contains spy-ware and tracks all your buying habits (most of which are redirected to www.wal-mart.com). They would use their market position (hey, anyone remember Microsoft??) to bully, cajole, buyout, and otherwise continue to dominate the market once they reached significant penetration rates.

      Wal-Mart save broadband? Yeah, right... Wal-Mart may be the leader in supplying low-cost shit to the masses but they do NOT have the interest of "the people" at heart. In my opinion, Wal-Mart will give rise to the anti-christ.

      --

      Dream as if you'll live forever.
      Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
      ~Anonymous~

    5. Re:Put Wal-Mart on it... by brufleth · · Score: 1

      And then all the techs and construction workers could be forced to live at the poverty line just like Wal-Mart's cachiers. http://niagarabuzz.com/article_447.shtml Then they wouldn't have enough money to buy a computer, much less the broadband they had helped to install. Then all the other broadband providers could be forced out of business causing people to lose their jobs or join the ever expanding Wal-Mart Broadband company and slip to the poverty line as well. It'll be justlike their retail stores.

    6. Re:Put Wal-Mart on it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, Tesco (which is roughly equivilant to Wal-Mart, although a little more upmarket perhaps) has entered the mobile phone market and seems to be doing rather well for itself. They've been functioning as an ISP for a long time too, and as you suggested, the brand recognition has helped them do quite well here too. I'm surprised Wal-Mart has not made any inroads on either market.

  23. UK by baker_tony · · Score: 0
    Yes, yes, The US and other misc. countries (like the rest of the world), come on Slashdot, get some foreign editors.

    Personally, I think the UK could be a fairly prime contender for Korea style broadband. High population density, not a large land mass... bring it on!

    1. Re:UK by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Funny
      Personally, I think the UK could be a fairly prime contender for Korea style broadband. High population density, not a large land mass... bring it on!

      * hollow laughter *

      With OFCOM and BT in charge of it, I'm amazed we've even got ADSL.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:UK by baker_tony · · Score: 0
      I agree, the level of service in the UK is abysmal for most things (just try getting your washing machine fixed within 6 weeks), like ADSL.

      But broadband in the UK is still far better than a lot of countries, as far as speed and price is concerned. Just look at good ol' New Zealand... poor bastards, won't be going back there to live until they sort that shit out. Expensive and slow, with capped international rates.

    3. Re:UK by thinkninja · · Score: 1

      But broadband in the UK is still far better than a lot of countries, as far as speed and price is concerned.

      And far worse than others, e.g. South Korea, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Holland, and the USA. I'm talking 100Mbit for the price that we pay for 2Mbit.

      Plus coverage isn't stellar either. My little village has only just had the exchange upgraded for DSL. Of course, I'm only able to get 512/256 due to attenuation (distance)....

      I share meringuoid's cynicism not just because of the way things are now but because of the way they were when the net was becoming mainstream in this country. Remember metered access? I do all to well. 1p/min to play Quake against someone in the next village soon added up to ungodly phone bills.

      BT were extremely reluctant to allow unmetered internet access because they were obviously making a mint the way things were. I have no idea what forced them into changing since I was living abroad when it happened but I bet they fought it tooth and nail.

      The only hope for 'Broadband Britain' that I see is are these pie in the sky wireless airships which are sometimes posted to /.. Otherwise, telecommunications will continue to be controlled by BT and thus second-rate at best.

      --
      "The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
  24. Could it be... by Bob-o-Matic! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. that nearly one-fourth of the RoK population lives in one metropolitan area?

    2. that all telco equipment was most likely installed well after 1953, whereas the US infrastructure is surely much older? ... Don't have time to finish this post... think about Korea Telecom... government runned telco...

    DSL rules in the RoK. No doubt about it. Although as I was leaving in March 2003, wireless was catching on.

    I for one miss my 6Mb/1Mb connection for about $35/month (no contract so it was more pricey).

    Also, it was interesting explaining to the techs that I needed to swap my internal (pci) ADSL modem for an external one so I could use linux. The techs had never seen linux, so I invited one over to show them. Maybe they were just blown away by a caucasian speaking their language fluently.... ;)

    1. Re:Could it be... by forgetful_ca · · Score: 1

      I doubt you were speaking it fluently enough to impress. I was watching a movie that had a short clip showing a 'korean' newscaster (S.W.A.T.) and my two from-korea friends looked at each and smiled condescendingly. "What?" I asked. "She's not korean" they replied, "Maybe her parents are". After having spent enough time to learn to read korean, I was unable to hear any difference.

    2. Re:Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      1. Most land of S. Korea is either covered by mountains or surrounded by oceans with bunch of islands; however they provide high speed connection to almost every single house in the nation.

      2. That's true; their equipment is much newer than US infrastructure, however they renovated/replaced most of the lines with fiber recently while the big Telco in US are fighting each other for their shitty service instead of upgrading their backbones. Also they spent far less money to contracture the new infrastructure cause they didn't pour/waste money in a stupid advertising to cover their poor connections.
      As matter of factor, most of Telco shares are owned by non Koreans, I believe over 50% investors are North Americans.

      In S. Korea, in fact, they have developed lots of Linux apples in '90s and 2000s. Unix and mainframes are dominant in business of S. Korea. If you don't know Unix, you can't get any professional IT job. You said you understand Korean, right? So why don't you check theses websites. http://kldp.org/ http://kr.hancom.com/ http://en.hancom.com/index.html http://www.wowlinux.com/
      I think, when you asked Linux, you probably talk with field techs who run cables to your home.

      Not sure which S. Korea you lived in, but I don't think you spent long enough time in S. Korea or you just wasted your life by drinking beers with stupid gang.

    3. Re:Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The standards Asians impose on other Asians -- especially people that have some ethnic relation to their culture -- are much higher than for White people.

      I live in China, and uttering two words in an intelligible manner will get you praise if you're caucasian. If you're Asian though, everyone will just look at you like you're a retard, no matter how well you speak the language, unless you have an obvious accent from a neighboring country (Japan, for example).

      That's because in much of Asia, there's really very little understanding of just how many people of Asian descent live in the west. In China, it's assumed that everyone in the US is white, except for the few conspicuous black athletes they see when they're watching basketball, and those are generally assumed to be a rather extreme minority. How wrong they are. It's a little bit better in Taiwan because of good relations with the US and the number of Taiwanese Americans.

      Anyway, this all unfortunately leads to a lot of language butchering white people living in Asia thinking they speak the language really well, when really the locals are just giving them face for trying.

      Isn't racism great?

    4. Re:Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey there, I am a foreigner in Korea
      who run linux also. You may not know
      it but you CAN connect linux via
      ADSL modem using roaring penguin's ppp0e
      program. At least it worked for me though
      I prefer to connect via hub/router cause
      it makes other unixes(NetBSD) easy to connect as
      well.

      The tech who came to install the appropriate
      KT Lan card spoke little English so
      the Korean I learned was handy.

    5. Re:Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There is a distinct class of technical droids who know nothing outside of Microsoft line of products. They're the high-school dropouts who learned computers from adult schools and other lowly institutions. Move up a notch, and everyone uses Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD and other more performance oriented OS. Linux is big over there. Check netcraft for the server sigs of the more larger sites, and you'll see Linux stamped on them.


      Still, even the lowly techs I've bossed around over there usually have heard of Linux. And they usually pronounce it correctly, which is more than what I can say about my American colleagues.


      I'm guessing (and I'm not trying to be an asshole) that you're hanging out with some seriously ignorant bumkins, which also explains why they were blown away by your speaking of Korean so fluently. If you're near the capital, on a given day you could find a high-school drop American serving in the military speaking surprisingly good Korean.


      But, although I've seen Koreans speaking English fluently (case in point: me), I've never seen a Caucasian speaking Korean fluently. You may think you are, but I seriously doubt it.

    6. Re:Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ? what do u mean by fluently?

      Would Robert Holly, Lee Han Woo and
      the or Gary Rector(who has lived in Korea more
      than 30 years) be considered "fluent"
      . All could probably pass
      the Korean proficency exam at the highest level
      and we won't even get into the KyoPos
      - some of whom are bilingual(are they Korean
      or American)

      So your statement is true only insofar
      as it applies to what you have never heard...

      I bet if I listened to u in conversation I
      could spot the Konglish coming out in a minute..

  25. government getting out of the way by suhlash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The high penetration rate of broadband into south korean homes is definitely a economic advantage and productivity enhancer. But I disagree with the argument that government must do more to help the penetration of broadband into homes. Government must do less - they need to get out of the way and regulate less so the market forces can be unleashed. The american broadband penetration is considerable less mainly because there is so much government involvement and regulation at every level from national to local. The south korean government did the companies that wanted to build and enable broadband a favor by streamlining their regulations and reducing the hurdles.

    1. Re:government getting out of the way by WaxParadigm · · Score: 1

      Nice to see someone here has a clue.

      I'm sure you'll get flamed plenty by those who simply lack common sense or refuse to see the reality that capitalism is better than socialism at delivering goods, services, and increasing the standard of living. We (USA) are still living off the benefits of capitalism but for some dumbass reason people want more and think that reverting (not *progressing*) to socialist solutions is the answer.

      Hint: The parent post has the real answer, and that is to let the market forces work (not subsidize, regulate, or socialize).

    2. Re:government getting out of the way by foidulus · · Score: 1

      2 words: Gilded age. Look it up sometime and come back to me. Grover Cleveland's Laissez-faire government was great, for about a few thousand people. For everyone else it sucked. You can scream your ideology as loud as you please, and call anything where the government intervenes socialism, but guess what, we tried your way, and it failed miserably. Calvin Coolidge tried it, and it failed miserably. Yes, I do think that the free market is a good idea, and that often government sometimes needs to keep it in check.
      Read about history sometimes, you'll find a common theme: when the government intervenes too much, disaster usually follows. When the government doesn't intervene at all, disaster usually follows.

    3. Re:government getting out of the way by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      The high penetration rate of broadband into south korean homes is definitely a economic advantage and productivity enhancer.

      Really? I find it just allows me to follow Slashdot more closely. :D

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    4. Re:government getting out of the way by guacamole · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think the government should regulate less EXCEPT when it comes to monopolies because I don't want to be stuck with PacBell as the only DSL provider in the area.

  26. Re:koreans & japanese get along by takochan · · Score: 1

    The younger generation in both countries get alongg just fine with each other (witness the World Cup soccer series, co hosted by both countries together, and the support each country gave to each other (particularly after the Japan team fell out of the elimination series).

    The older generation is a different story... but that will fade away over time as the younger generations in both countries take over..

    everything will be fine...

  27. Just goes to show... by petra13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that if a government decides to focus very hard on a particular goal there's a real possibility of their becoming dominant in that area. See also: US's determination to build the A-bomb in WWII, JFK's determination to win the space race, etc. and the effects that these had on related science/technology industries in the US at the time. The South Koreans decided that modernizing their telecommunications infrastructure was necessary to revitalize their economy, pursued the goal, and can now watch television over their internet connections.

    1. Re:Just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JFK's determination to win the space race

      You guys still think you won the space race?! :)

  28. Is by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    From the article:
    The [South Korean] government also spent $24 billion building a national high-speed backbone network linking government facilities and public institutions.

    The article makes it sound like the US is behind. But lets not forget that there was national high-speed network connecting the vast majority of all the US government facilities and public institutions way before there was any Internet in South Korea and that the US government spent orders of magnitudes more money funding ARPA and NSF going back to the late 1960's.

    1. Re:Is by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the question is not "what have you done for me?" but "what have you done for me lately?"

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
  29. Blog on broadband in Korea by inkdesign · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://urban.blogs.com/seoul/ Always found this blog interesting, seems the right time to pass it on. :0]

  30. Very interesting by curtisk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The United States considers itself the centre of technological innovation, yet South Korea has gone considerably further in making a mainstream reality out of the futuristic promises of bygone dot-com days.

    Thats because they don't have Comcast/Cablevision/TimeWarner controlling it, trying to cap bandwidth and milk every penny it can out of its users. I STFA (scanned..TFA), did it mention what this exceptional service costs over there? They talked about what the government put out to make this infastructure happen.. but what does Joe Blow have to pay to get it? LOL Their "so-so" connection in APARTMENTS are 8 times faster than the best we have...

    --

    Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

    1. Re:Very interesting by pubjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      The United States considers itself the centre of technological innovation

      Yes, the USA considers itself the centre of technological innovation, but that doesn't mean it is.

      Places like Japan, Northern Europe, and as this article discusses Korea, are ahead of the USA in many respects.

    2. Re:Very interesting by tealover · · Score: 1

      Broadband deployment has nothing to do with technological innovation. It's a matter of policy and infrastructure.

      What, you think the US doesn't have the technological ability to put down DSL lines?

      Please.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    3. Re:Very interesting by CoyoteGuy · · Score: 1

      What, you think the US doesn't have the technological ability to put down DSL lines? No, they can. They just can't do it right.

      --
      Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
    4. Re:Very interesting by VistaBoy · · Score: 1

      Well, in this case they are ahead of us in technological implementation, not innovation. All they did was plant cables that were already invented in order to use technology that was already invented.

  31. Government, Government, Government - NOT by WaxParadigm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm all for broadband, but I don't see the wisdom in doing it through government any more than I see wisdom in having the government provide food, shelter, charity, religion, education, employment, health care, etc. It might sound like a nice eutopia, but it's not sustainable without the competition introduced by a free and open market. The best example is our food. Food is THE necessity, even more than health care, etc. If the government provided it there would be little selection, less supply, and less quality.

    You might look to the government to (at the threat of inprisonment) take money from everyone else to pay for what you want or need, but I'd rather people have the option to pay for what they want and help others in the way they see most fit. Most sane/intelligent people see the former as theft, but it's obvious that some view it as a way of life.

    1. Re:Government, Government, Government - NOT by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      Yes, food is THE necessity. But the government provides subsidies to people who can't afford food. Is that wrong? Or should they depend on the kindness of strangers?

      Conversely, I don't agree with what the military is doing. Should I deduct that from my income tax? I mean, I should have the option to pay for what I want, right?

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    2. Re:Government, Government, Government - NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm all for broadband, but I don't see the wisdom in doing it through government any more than I see wisdom in having the government provide food, shelter, charity, religion, education, employment, health care, etc.

      Let's hope that you're never in a position to need assistance.

    3. Re:Government, Government, Government - NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      food, shelter, charity, religion, education, employment, health care

      Our 'government' already does provide these things or didn't you know that corporations and Christian organizations mostly comprise the US government?

      Government by federally recognized organizations, of federally recognized organizations and for federally recognized organizations.

      Individuals can just go straight to hell.

    4. Re:Government, Government, Government - NOT by WaxParadigm · · Score: 1

      I'm not about to tell you that you should deduct your share of military costs from your taxes, because that would quickly result in negative impacts on you (confiscation of your property, possibly jail time) and eventually through this cohersion you would be forced pay.

      You actually make my point quite well. Instead of all these things that *I* LIKE or *you* LIKE being provided by the government on everyone's back (willing or not), there should be a VERY LIMITED set of what the public accepts as things the government has the right to (by force) take money from individuals to distribute as it sees fit. It's probably the biggest thing overlooked in our constitution...but, then again, our founding fathers thought that we'd be able to keep the government in check through the active exercise of the first two amendments to our Constitution (not that our government follows the constitution any more, but that's another topic in itself).

      I would much rather depend on the kindness of straingers (and not-so-strangers) if I were in need than have the government *forcibly* take money from friends/family/strangers/anyone to give to me...especially when the government is so wasteful and ineffective with the money it collects for these and other purposes.

    5. Re:Government, Government, Government - NOT by elpapacito · · Score: 1

      Dude I think you are leaving one utopia (government does all) to join another utopia (free market does all).

      As a matter of fact there is no necessary implication between the presence of a unrestricted market and the presence of goods that 1. are necessary to live or 2. are appreciated and demanded by almost everyone in the population.

      In other words, one may have free market (really free market, based on strict respect of rules of competition) and have conditions which are _as bad_ as that offered by a totalitarian centralized economy runned by a government.

      That CAN happen when the competition isn't really unrestricted and when pre-conditions of the free market theory aren't met ; this outcome is the most likely to happen, as the pre-conditions set by free market theory are as well-defined as completely utopian.

      In my opinion, we shouldn't look at who's providing the goods, but at how the goods are actually invented and produced : we should concentrate on technological innovation, which is REAL engine behind the presence of today advanced goods and the possibility of producing loads of these goods to satisfy wider demands.

      In other words: it's not "market" or "government" providing us with the GOODS we want or need : it is technology at service of illuministic and democratic ideals and concepts like these of individual inalienable rights, human rights, individual freedom and cooperation to achieve common interests. It's the people actually thinking, inventing and producing things with the goal of making them avaiable in a sustainable way to the largest possible population.

  32. Broadband, Schmoadband by Gothmolly · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How is universal broadband access a panacea for anything, other than your pr0n habit? Does low-ping-time Counterstrike imply a superior culture? Does the type of Internet access that you have really matter? All these questions, and more, are germane if you're an AC propeller-head.

    To the rest of the world, the more important questions are things like:
    How does the existence of a wealthy, benevolent trading partner improve the economy of a small, threatened-on-nearly-all-sides country?
    How is the cultural work ethic shaped by having a million-man army of starving Communists sitting on your doorstep?
    What chilling effect on society stems from large levels of government interference and encroachment on personal liberty?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Broadband, Schmoadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... Does low-ping-time Counterstrike imply a superior culture?


      ...yes?
  33. Re:South Korea are terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    North Korea will extract a high price from South Korea and others who helped stage the premeditated allurement, abduction and terrorism of 400 innocent North Korean citizens

    A big round of applause for Dear Leader, ladies and gentlemen-- North Korea's First (and Only) broadband user!

  34. No, it would disappear in graft by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1

    Companies would deliver anything that they could call "broadband", take the money and run. Read about the scandals over the "Gore Tax" money to wire schools? It would be that, times a thousand.

    1. Re:No, it would disappear in graft by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      Companies would deliver anything that they could call "broadband", take the money and run. Read about the scandals over the "Gore Tax" money to wire schools? It would be that, times a thousand.

      Tack on a few more zeros to your multiplier.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  35. De-Regulate and get out of businesses way by dougnaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's what government can do to improve broadband adoption. Stop trying to regulate businesses, and don't have any "initiatives". Let the free market take us where we want to go. I don't think that long run any of our problems will be solved by government, especially broadband adoption. Sure the government can make us pay more for broadband while we think we're paying less, since 30% income tax, tax on food,clothes,medicine,cars,travel are all acceptable, but $75/month for broadband is outrageous. Please, give me 5-10% flat tax and I'll be happy to pay more for market delivered goods, oh and give to charity and the needy.

    --
    My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
    1. Re:De-Regulate and get out of businesses way by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      Why regulate when you can provide incentives? It will never be economically profitable to send broadband out to rural areas of the US. (Except satellite, which isn't really useful because of the latency times.) Maybe the government (that is, the people of the US) could see that providing broadband to rural areas is a good thing, and give incentives to companies that make it profitable to send broadband out there?

      And would you really give to charity and the needy? It's nice to say, but do you really do it? When those commercials with the starving kids come on, do you call up right away and 'adopt' as many as you can afford? Or do you ignore it and change the channel?

      What you're asking for is no less than unenforced communism. You want to trust people you've never seen who have no oversight and no reason to give anything to help you help other people.

      And stop complaining about taxes. In the 50s, the top income tax bracket was something like 90%. By cutting that, it's raised taxes on everyone else.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  36. now I know .... by maduro55 · · Score: 0

    why all of the people from the north are defecting\emigrating to the south. They need the connectivity and bandwidth. Who needs food when you can have p()rn!

  37. This says even more by hellfire · · Score: 1

    The Seoul government's clearly articulated vision for modernising the country's infrastructure stands in stark contrast to the regulatory morass that has stunted development in US telecommunications for several decades. South Korea's policy -- the cornerstone of a national technology initiative to help revive a devastated economy -- has created true broadband competition, which in turn has helped prices fall and speeds rise.

    Competition, Competition, Competition. In the 90's, dialup competition was fierce and now its easy to find $10 dialup services just about everywhere.

    Now, broadband is primarily in the hands of baby bells and the cable company who charge between $30 to $45 for broadband.

    I think you can give some of the success to the ease of installing the infrastructure, but if there was no competition, this would not nearly be the success it would be.

    The only way I see competition being restored in the near future in the US is by entrepeneurs setting up wireless internet access points which cover great distances. This will free us of wires which are controlled by state sponsored monopolies.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:This says even more by skarmor · · Score: 1

      Competition, Competition, Competition. In the 90's, dialup competition was fierce and now its easy to find $10 dialup services just about everywhere.

      Priced based competition, while good for the consumer in the short run, is bad for the indusrty and ultimately hurts the customer as well. While additional broadband competitors may drive the prices of broadband down to the point of being unprofitable, it is highly unlikely that they will stimulate expansion of high speed infrastructure.

      The is especially true for government mandated competitors who share facilities with the near-monopolies in order to provide a facade of competiton.

      The only competitors who could actually help develop the industry would have to be willing to spend billions of their own dollars before earning a cent. Then they could look forward to fighting a devastating price war with the near-monopolies.

      Any takers?

      I thought not...

    2. Re:This says even more by hellfire · · Score: 1

      Priced based competition, while good for the consumer in the short run, is bad for the indusrty and ultimately hurts the customer as well.

      You want a taker? You got a taker. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this statement. If this statement were true, the entire system of capitalism would have falled on its ass centuries ago and Adam Smith would have been flogged for being a fool.

      Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market. Capitalism is all about competition. Any and all competition is good for the market.

      The the ridiculousness of this statement is assuming that costs never go down and that companies will sell service or goods below cost and never expect to get it back. That's stupid. No company is going to sell goods below cost unless they had expected profit to come later. Otherwise the company is mismanaged. It's in a business's self interest not to do that so its not something that happens all that often unless the company is run by flying monkeys.

      Yes when one company goes out of business it hurts the industry because there is less competition, but in a highly competitive market with lots of companies this isn't usually a big problem. It's only a problem when you have 3 or 4 very big companies in an industry with high costs of entry.

      Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price. Once you hit rock bottom on costs, that's when you compete on service, but the broadband companies haven't nearly hit rock bottom yet.

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    3. Re:This says even more by skarmor · · Score: 1

      You want a taker? You got a taker. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this statement. If this statement were true, the entire system of capitalism would have falled on its ass centuries ago and Adam Smith would have been flogged for being a fool. Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market. Capitalism is all about competition. Any and all competition is good for the market.

      Someone needs to re-take economics 101. Predatory pricing and the resultant price wars are generally bad for the market...

      The the ridiculousness of this statement is assuming that costs never go down and that companies will sell service or goods below cost and never expect to get it back. That's stupid. No company is going to sell goods below cost unless they had expected profit to come later. Otherwise the company is mismanaged. It's in a business's self interest not to do that so its not something that happens all that often unless the company is run by flying monkeys.

      Companies will try to kill each off through price wars in order to recover a greater share of the market - this is long term good for them but bad for the market and the consumer. Obviously they will not sell services below costs without hope that they can recover the costs later..

      Yes when one company goes out of business it hurts the industry because there is less competition, but in a highly competitive market with lots of companies this isn't usually a big problem. It's only a problem when you have 3 or 4 very big companies in an industry with high costs of entry.

      Telecom companies are not like lemonade stands where the cost of market entry is low. It costs a shitload of money to enter the market as a competitor - consequently there are very few companies with the wherewithal to do so. Sadly these generally companies engage (illogically and all to frequently) in price-based competition in order to win market-share. The result is a price war which they ultimately lose with the result being their insolvency.

      After potential competitors see their predecessors go down in flames they aren't likely to take a shot themselves. Then we are stuck with the same monopolies that we have now..

      Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price

      The obvious answer here is that telecom companies aren't like Walmart. The cost of market entry is high, operating costs are high - companies already operate at high levels of efficiency and it is not possible to lower short-term enough to make a price war viable...

    4. Re:This says even more by hellfire · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to re-take economics 101. Predatory pricing and the resultant price wars are generally bad for the market...

      You are assuming that the pricing in South Korea is predatory. You are also assuming competing on price automatically means its predatory pricing. Neither myself nor the article said that or implied that. Predatory pricing is bad, competing on price is not. Someone needs to re-take logic 101.

      Companies will try to kill each off through price wars in order to recover a greater share of the market - this is long term good for them but bad for the market and the consumer. Obviously they will not sell services below costs without hope that they can recover the costs later..

      Again, assuming predatory pricing. Yes, companies do that. But we have no proof that there is a predatory price war going on here in South Korea (based soley on the article's information). All I said was that competition is good, even on price. Competitive prices does not automatically mean predatory pricing. Plus predatory pricing often happens when dealing with very very large companies that have a lot of capital. The more competition you have, the less likely this works because you can't steal enough market share from all your competitors and remain in business when you sell below cost.

      Telecom companies are not like lemonade stands where the cost of market entry is low. It costs a shitload of money to enter the market as a competitor - consequently there are very few companies with the wherewithal to do so. Sadly these generally companies engage (illogically and all to frequently) in price-based competition in order to win market-share. The result is a price war which they ultimately lose with the result being their insolvency.

      After potential competitors see their predecessors go down in flames they aren't likely to take a shot themselves. Then we are stuck with the same monopolies that we have now..

      AMERICAN Telecomm companies are not like lemonade stands. Yes you are correct about this. However, they have apparently established a framework in South Korea that doesn't tie the framework so tightly to the company, and competition can be healthy, and thus entry into the market can be done at a lower cost. This is what I am getting from the article, and this is what most people are calling for in the US. Untie the wires from the telecomm industry and competition will open dramatically. We've been trying to do that for years without a huge amount of success.

      Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price

      Again, I use the term competitive prices, and you turn it into talking about a price war.

      The bottom line is that when there is a lot of competition, prices go down. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply broadband should drop to $5 or $10 a month in 4 months. I'm just saying open up competition. We'll get better prices AND better service.

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    5. Re:This says even more by skarmor · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that the pricing in South Korea is predatory.

      No, actually I was referring to the US telecom market - since that's what we were discussing.

      Someone needs to re-take logic 101.

      And that someone is you ;)...

      All I said was that competition is good, even on price.

      Actually you said, "Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market." This is not really true. Pricing is one method of making a market non-competitive.

      Plus predatory pricing often happens when dealing with very very large companies that have a lot of capital.

      You mean like telecom companies?

      The more competition you have, the less likely this works because you can't steal enough market share from all your competitors and remain in business when you sell below cost.

      But the US has very few competitors and price wars actually work quite well for the near-monopolies.

      However, they have apparently established a framework in South Korea that doesn't tie the framework so tightly to the company, and competition can be healthy, and thus entry into the market can be done at a lower cost. This is what I am getting from the article, and this is what most people are calling for in the US. Untie the wires from the telecomm industry and competition will open dramatically. We've been trying to do that for years without a huge amount of success.

      But then we still have the problem of the huge cost of building the facilities. Obviously if the facilities were in place it would be easy to have service-based competition at reasonable prices - and everyone would be happy. But the problem is that some has to build those facilities. And whoever that is will want to be guaranteed huge returns to offset the enormous risk and expenditure that such a construction project would entail...

      Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price

      Walmart is nothing liek telecom companies. This is a bad analogy.

      Again, I use the term competitive prices, and you turn it into talking about a price war.

      That's because in the telecom industry "competitive pricing" inevitably and quickly devolves into price wars.

      The bottom line is that when there is a lot of competition, prices go down. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply broadband should drop to $5 or $10 a month in 4 months. I'm just saying open up competition. We'll get better prices AND better service.

      I agree. But broadband has to exist as a market before it can become competitive. So, someone is going to have to sink in a ton of money in order to deploy broadband on a wide scale. This company is going to have to be willing to allow competitors to use their networks in order to compete. How likely is that to happen?

      Exactly...

    6. Re:This says even more by hellfire · · Score: 1

      No, actually I was referring to the US telecom market - since that's what we were discussing.

      Okay, lets get one thing straight. My initial post said the US telecomm industry needed competition, in order to lower prices. You've jumped to the conclusion that this would lead to predatory pricing. How can you make this leap of logic? It doesn't HAVE to lead to predatory pricing. Competition could consist of finding a way to introduct more companies to the telecomm mix. Perhaps companies that use Wireless access points rather than phone or cable lines. This frees the need to use a network of land lines controlled by one company.

      And that someone is you ;)...

      Yeah, that's mature :P

      Actually you said, "Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market." This is not really true. Pricing is one method of making a market non-competitive.

      This is ridiculous. If companies don't differentiate themselves from other companies they don't compete. Competing on pricing is one way, and its a proven way that's not detrimental. If I run a company that cuts costs by about 10%, I can pass that savings to a customer, thus competing on price. You are confusing competing on price with predatory pricing. They are two different things and I've mentioned this 4 times, something you've avoided addressing.

      Take for example Vonage. I can buy a phone plan from them for $30. A similar plan from verizon on traditional lines is $80 all inclusive (taxes etc). Vonage's costs are lower because they use voice over IP and the service and quality is the same (at least in my opinion it is). THAT'S competiting on price and its non-predatory.

      But then we still have the problem of the huge cost of building the facilities. Obviously if the facilities were in place it would be easy to have service-based competition at reasonable prices - and everyone would be happy. But the problem is that some has to build those facilities. And whoever that is will want to be guaranteed huge returns to offset the enormous risk and expenditure that such a construction project would entail...

      While this might be true, its only an assumption with no facts. The fact is South Korea did it, so its possible. Your assuming that only a large company could attempt this, while it may be possible for a lot of much smaller companies to compete over areas and offer service in many different areas, thus freeing up the need to have one big huge conglomerate running half the country. The possibilities are endless.

      Plus we aren't arguing over the possibility of it happening and the costs of getting into this. I'm only arguing for the introduction of more competition. We'll worry about its possibility later, because its not impossible, and not necessarily improbably. If this argument were about surviving a black hole to sell internet service on the other side, well then maybe we should stop :)

      Walmart is nothing liek telecom companies. This is a bad analogy.

      I didn't say walmart was like a telecomm company. I said price based competition is common. In fact I used the word rampant. And AGAIN, price based competition is not necessarily predatory pricing. If I can do the same thing someone else can for less cost, I will lower my price to compete. That's all I'm saying.

      That's because in the telecom industry "competitive pricing" inevitably and quickly devolves into price wars.

      Because the current state of the industry needs to change! The current state of the industry LACKS competition. Predatory pricing at this level causes these problems. But introduce more companies with more competition and companies will be forced to find a way to lower costs and prices without resorting to predatory pricing.

      I agree. But broadband has to exist as a market before it can become competitive. So, someone is going to have to sink in a ton of money in order to

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    7. Re:This says even more by skarmor · · Score: 1

      Okay, lets get one thing straight. My initial post said the US telecomm industry needed competition, in order to lower prices. You've jumped to the conclusion that this would lead to predatory pricing. How can you make this leap of logic? It doesn't HAVE to lead to predatory pricing.

      I can make that "leap of logic" simply by understanding how semi-competitive markets- and especially the US telecom market works. No - in a competitive market competing on price does not necessarily lead to price wars. But in a semi-competetive market like telecom (where efficiency is high and opportunities for cost-cutting are minimal) competitive pricing leads to price wars.

      This is ridiculous. If companies don't differentiate themselves from other companies they don't compete. Competing on pricing is one way, and its a proven way that's not detrimental. If I run a company that cuts costs by about 10%, I can pass that savings to a customer, thus competing on price.

      Umm, I already addressed this at least once but I guess it bears repeating. US telecom companies are already operating at near maximum efficiency. The last great leap in efficiency was the transfer from switced copper netwroks to fibre and VOIP. Currently there is very little room left to reduce cost. Let me repeat - cost cannot be reduced And yet companies continue to compete on price- guess where that leads? That's right - price wars.

      Take for example Vonage. I can buy a phone plan from them for $30. A similar plan from verizon on traditional lines is $80 all inclusive (taxes etc). Vonage's costs are lower because they use voice over IP and the service and quality is the same (at least in my opinion it is). THAT'S competiting on price and its non-predatory.

      That's competing by skirting regulation and avoiding expensive regulatory requirements. The reason they can afford to offer service this cheap is because they do not consider themselves a telecom company - and they therefore do not meet expensive regulatory requirements. This savings is passed on to the consumer via lower prices. The truth is that Vonage will lose a retarded amount of money once the FCC starts treating them like an actual phone service. They will have to provide 911, battery backup and access for disabled consumers. The costs will force vonage to bring their prices in line . If vonage ever gets enough customers to be significant, and somehow ducks regulatory requirements, then we may see the big telcos price them out of existence - but I expect they won't survive that long.

      While this might be true, its only an assumption with no facts. The fact is South Korea did it, so its possible.

      The US is not like South Korea and for numerous reasons they are not directly comparable.

      Your assuming that only a large company could attempt this, while it may be possible for a lot of much smaller companies to compete over areas and offer service in many different areas, thus freeing up the need to have one big huge conglomerate running half the country.

      The only way this could happen is if the government breaks up the large telecom companies. As long as teh big companies are around it will be difficult to have real competition.

      As far as rural development - forget it. No small company can afford to put infrastructure in remote areas..

      And AGAIN, price based competition is not necessarily predatory pricing.

      Look I know that competing on price is not always bad. But generally - in the telecom industry - it is bad for everyone. I hope this is the last time I need to go over this..

      If I can do the same thing someone else can for less cost, I will lower my price to compete.

      That isn't what's happening in this market. Companies are saying, "Well we're screwed if we charge the same price as the near-monopolies. Let's charge less than cost for a while to get market share." Then the big companies respond a

    8. Re:This says even more by hellfire · · Score: 1

      Because the current state of the industry needs to change! The current state of the industry LACKS competition. Predatory pricing at this level causes these problems. But introduce more companies with more competition and companies will be forced to find a way to lower costs and prices without resorting to predatory pricing.

      Agreed. But as I have already said, there are few competitors with the wherewithal to enter the market. Certianly there are none that are willing to build infrastructure. So how do we create this competitive market? Regulation maybe, but maybe not. This is the big problem the FCC faces.

      I'm only arguing that it should happen. It probably won't, but if it does it will be a good thing.

      And we finally completely agree.


      Basically our problem in this discussion is that I'm arguing that it should happen, and you are arguing that it can't happen. See you point out that the way the industry is now, price wars erupt and cause problems. I already know that. All I ever wanted to say was the industry needs to be shaken up and changed. Maybe it can't happen because of the beauracracy, doesn't mean that it shouldn't.

      And I'm not comparing South Korea directly to the US. What you are saying is that because people suck, beauracracy sucks, and business sucks that the industry will not be able to change, but I'm saying BECAUSE people suck, beauracracy sucks, and business sucks, things should change. South Korea, for now, has overcome its problems. That's enough hope for me :)

      It's a classic catch 22 argument, I happen to be on the ever so slightly more optimistic side. I'm holding out for that miracle technology or miracle politician.

      I also disagree with you on the Vonage topic, because they offload the need for infrastructure onto the internet provider which is a major cost cutting feature. But that's another discussion. :)

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  38. Japan's Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The norm in Japan is much much faster then 8megabits/sec. The normal here is 30megabits/s down for about $45USD.

  39. Korean. by VC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. Everyone in korea speaks korean.

    2. Noone else speaks korean.

    3. Koreans are mainly interested in korean websites.

    Ergo, when they pay $5 USD a month for 4mb internet accesss, the ISP is betting on the fact that they wont hardly have to pay for any international traffic.

    1. Re:Korean. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where on earth/internet are you from? There's no ISP I know of charging for "international traffic," not in US or Korea.

    2. Re:Korean. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Informative

      AC says: There's no ISP I know of charging for "international traffic," not in US or Korea.

      Ok mediot... just because ISPs don't charge customers for international access doesn't mean they get it for free. They have to pay other ISPs to take their packets out of country. The price is rolled up into your final bill.

      Any ISP's businessplan must include an estimate of what percentage of packets can be served on it's own network, which go to neighboring national ISPs, and which need longer-haul routes. Packets from a US user will, on average, need to make many more hops between different ISPs. (I bet Korean packets only need to switch ISPs once, at the master hub in Seoul)

      For each of those hops, the ISP needs a payment agreement in place with each other.

    3. Re:Korean. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are not alot of English speakers there. However Korea's public education did a pretty good job of teaching english grammar in the past. Even if their public schools were not as good in teaching the spoken language, there may be more english capable web surfers in Korea then you know.

    4. Re:Korean. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Koreans are mainly interested in korean websites.

      Bah. I bet the Koreans like their pr0n in California Blonde just as much as the Japanese do.

    5. Re:Korean. by KjetilK · · Score: 1
      I don't know how Koreans think, but with Norwegians, it pretty much goes like this:
      1. Everyone in Norway speaks Norwegian
      2. No-one else speaks Norwegian, so that's only 4.5 million people
      3. the other 99.9% of the earth's population are pretty interesting too
      Ergo, we need huge pipes to the rest of the world...
      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    6. Re:Korean. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minna,

      This is your mother. I noticed you've been making inane comments on slashdot all day. Please get to work on your homework or I'll take away your computer.

      Love,
      Mom.

    7. Re:Korean. by ya8282 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why mods gave you a point for being insightful; I thought of your post as humor. 1. Everyone in korea speaks korean. Other than many of the foreigners in Korea, including US Army and expats. 2. Noone else speaks korean. You probably got that impression from Rick Yune in Die Another Day. 3. Koreans are mainly interested in korean websites. But they are more open to reading foreign language websites than most US citizens are. Ergo, when they pay $5 USD a month for 4mb internet accesss Most internet access in Korea is $20+/month (my ADSL in Korea is ~$38/mo for approx 10mbit). Korea also has half the per capita income and a much more tail-heavy distribution of income, so using a straight currency conversion comparison does not work so well.

    8. Re:Korean. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Then explain to me why the cost of internet access is so high in the US in comparision? We've got most of the internet infrastructure over here - at least that's viewed by Americans, what with us being ignorant single-language speakers and all.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    9. Re:Korean. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure why mods gave you a point for being insightful;

      I agree it's not very insightful... those facts are old news. It's conventional wisdom in the ISP industry, at least.

      The geographical compactness of Korea is one of the main contributors to it's internet ubiquity.
      The fact that it's simply a dense country helps a lot, but then the fact that most Korean traffic stays in Korea is also important. It means that
      1. less long-haul international routing is needed, reducing infrastructure costs. VC made this point succinctly above.
      2. Round-trip-time for most packets is much less, improving the percieved performance and utility of the internet. More utility -> more demand -> more supply -> increased corporate efficiency and competition, a positive feedback loop


      But they are more open to reading foreign language websites than most US citizens are.

      That's a minor effect, if even true. The US has a larger number of expats from the rest of the world than does Korea (including a 10% permanent population that reads Spanish). But even pretending American residents only know English, that's the dominant language in points as far apart as Britain and Australia (you can't GET further apart). Plus, servers from Japan to Brazil to Germany use English as their default alternative language. Where do you find significant Korean servers, outside of SK itself?

      Anyway, HTTP is no longer the driving protocol in SK. TV, VoIP/video chat, and games outweigh it. Some of those uses depend more on latency than bandwidth- and latency cannot be (meaningfully) improved by infrastructure, only by physical proximity.

      The distance from Seoul to Pusan (300 km) is trivial compared to that between NYC and LA (4000 km). The smallness means that latency-dependent applications, from action games to videoconferencing, can be assured of getting the sub-50 ms ping needed to feel snappy. In the USA, it's a toss-up. Nobody in SK thinks "I'd better filter these game servers to somewhere on the East Coast to get a better ping"- it just doesn't matter.
    10. Re:Korean. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Norway is somewhat similar to South Korea, and that has produced related effects. There is broadband access of more than 25% now, more than most of Europe (but trailing Iceland, I think, which obviously is more like Korea than Norway is).

      But several of the factors that boosted Korea are less in Norway: Korea is only 300km across, Norway is 1000km (although I suppose the population rapidly thins out as you go much north of Trondheim). Norway has an open, drivable border to another country. That means the people there have a more international mindset- and it means that "pipes to the rest of the world" can go overland, not underwater. Norwegians know more English than Koreans (partly because of proximity to Europe & England, partly due to that border). Norway is in Europe, which is full of cool net servers; Korea is in SE Asia, which is mostly China, which has few attractive servers.

      One interesting factor that Korea and Norway share, but the USA lacks, is an unpleasant climate: Norway is cold and Korea is hot, but either way, people are more likely to spend time indoors.

    11. Re:Korean. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Then explain to me why the cost of internet access is so high in the US in comparision?

      I thought VC's bullet points made it pretty clear, but I answered that anyway. Basically:
      (1) "ignorant single-language speakers"? Yes, but that language is spoken officially on opposite ends of the globe, and is the secondary (internet fallback) language in almost every other country.
      (2) Even if USians only visit USian sites... even if they ignore Alaska+Hawaii and stay in the contiguous continent... the distance is still 20 times as far (Seattle -> Orlando vs Seoul -> Pusan). That 20x factor makes the infrastructure both more expensive, and slower.

    12. Re:Korean. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mostly right, but you need to look harder at that map. Korea isn't in SE Asia; Seoul is a few degrees north of Tokyo. It isn't all that hot, either; upper 80's (fahrenheit, because you sound like an American) in Seoul this week, which is comparable to most of the US this time of year.

    13. Re:Korean. by ya8282 · · Score: 1

      That's a minor effect, if even true. The US has a larger number of expats from the rest of the world than does Korea (including a 10% permanent population that reads Spanish)...Plus, servers from Japan to Brazil to Germany use English as their default alternative language. Where do you find significant Korean servers, outside of SK itself?

      Most Koreans can read English, though their speaking and writing skills are a bit underdeveloped. I never said anything about Korean being a standard language in other countries.

      As far as accessing US websites, Korea is probably not among the top few countries that accesses sites physically in the US, but a lot of business content published in English is mirrored in Korea.

      Although the frustration level of reading English is much lower than a native English speaker, I think most high school-educated Koreans can read a fair amount of English and understand it (unfortunately, not as well as Indians -- hence US companies do not often use Korea for outsourcing). It's a requirement of most public schools to learn English starting from elementary school.

      A lot of multiplayer fps games (in which latency is probably most important for playability) are not even popular in Korea (UT, Q3, etc). CS-CZ is an exception since that only became popular a couple months ago. What is interesting is that the most popular online game, Starcraft, has a huge tolerance for high latency.

      HTTP is no longer the driving protocol in SK. TV, VoIP/video chat, and games outweigh it.

      Isn't this true in the US? Doesn't spam + p2p traffic account for most of US internet traffic? How could HTTP traffic ever overtake that?

    14. Re:Korean. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about Korean being a standard language in other countries.

      You said they access foreign-language websites more than Americans do, which is quite irrelevant.
      (1) US Americans can view a foreign website without using a foreign language, because English IS the standard language in other countries.
      (2) Korea is smaller than many US states. A domestic packet in the USA can travel further than an international one from Korea.

      What is interesting is that the most popular online game, Starcraft, has a huge tolerance for high latency.

      No. Starcraft is low-bandwidth, but it still needs low latency (not as much as an FPS, of course). I think gosu players would be disturbed if their RTT was 400 ms.

      Doesn't spam + p2p traffic account for most of US internet traffic?

      True, p2p is a growing amount of all traffic- but some p2p systems use HTTP. And although spam is the single largest category of email, email itself is a minority. And even if email were a bigger user of total bandwith, that wouldn't matter, because there is probably no other protocol more resilient to bad latency. P2p users, as well, care about latency far less than total bandwidth.

  40. Secret of their success by Philageros · · Score: 0

    "push broadband penetration rates to the extreme."

    pr0n!

  41. You WIN!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely nailed it!

  42. The country's attributes help out too. by bogaboga · · Score: 1
    South Korea as a country has an attribute that helps out. This is Population Density. South Korea has one of the highest population densities in the world. This helps out because it then becomes easier provide services to people who are geographically near each other. The other thing is ambition. South Koreans, Chinese and Japanese have a great ambition to succeed. They will do whatever it takes. Contrast that with the US government policies which only cater for the big multi-nationals. No wonder the US is falling behind fast! No televisions or radios are being made in USA! Very soon, this terrible statistic will graduate to other high end goods. Koreans are not greedy too.

    Result: Research money will be channeled to those countries that have some infrastructure. It is already happening. I guess I am already off-topic. I lived in China for some time and realized that hacking and copying foreign superior goods is *cough* government *cough* funded!

    The other thing is that like the Japanese, Koreans are really loyal to their country and its industries. Even those in countries like Canada buy Korean goods. This channels cash back to the mother companies enabling them to do more research. At a college where I was, the Koreans and Japanese were importing food/water and stuff from their mother countries or buying FROM stores friendly to their countries. Americans cannot be that loyal...NEVER!

    1. Re:The country's attributes help out too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this whole "buy American" supports Americans is bullshit. they have laws which won't let these "American" companies move every single job to Mexico. they have 0 loyalty to Americans, i'm not sure why people should be loyal to them. And in the end if you support a weaker product you're just extending its life, not saving it.

      anyone who pays a premium to "support America" is a fool. get the best value for your money, because if they could charge you more, or move more jobs to the their world, they would. it's pretty sad that 100+ year old American companies have to be forced to hire Americans.

    2. Re:The country's attributes help out too. by flabbergast · · Score: 1

      The other thing is that like the Japanese, Koreans are really loyal to their country and its industries. Even those in countries like Canada buy Korean goods.

      This is more out of ignorance and familiarity. Do you know how high tariffs are on imported goods in korea? Buying a BMW 3series basically costs double. Why? To protect the local automakers because 5-10 years ago Hyundai, Kia (now owned by Hyundai), Daewoo (now owned by GM), and Ssangyong (gone) couldn't compete globally. So, these names are everywhere in Korea and are considered the best because they were the best in Korea. So, when someone emmigrates abroad they see Hyundai, Daewoo and its familiar and its the best because there was no local competition, eventhough those companies were/are getting killed by the competition abroad. But, that's mostly for cars. Samsung, LG seem to dominate the CDMA market for phones for instance.

      Further, they buy Korean stuff because (duh) its what's familiar. What's that you say? Why can't they eat mcd's like everyone else? Well, I know I enjoy kimchee-jigae and daeji bulgogi, and guess what? You can't go down to the local supermarket and pick-up kimchee. And I haven't met a supermarket butcher who can cut meat well enough to make good bul-gogi. Yes, some part is loyalty, but it seems more like familiarity.

  43. broadband != better by martin · · Score: 2

    Just look at the problem that have have from malware.

    One mydoom varient (or was it blaster, anyway) nearly knocked the whole country off the internet.

    technology without knowledge/education is a bad thing (tm)

  44. Re:Install a crazy Dictator in the country north . by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    I don't think you should talk about Canada like that.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  45. South Korean SPAM by dnahelix · · Score: 1

    South Korea's commitment to broadband might explain why I keep seeing addresses there when I do a WHOIS on the servers sending me SPAM. I've suggested to my ISP that they block ALL mail coming from South Korea.

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
    1. Re:South Korean SPAM by sunset · · Score: 1
      I've suggested to my ISP that they block ALL mail coming from South Korea.

      I expect plenty of mail admins already do that. I do, as 100.0000% of the mail I used to get from that country was spam. Perhaps South Korea is not so well connected to the rest of the world after all.

    2. Re:South Korean SPAM by Ashtead · · Score: 1

      And that makes legitimate E-mail from South Korea less than useful, when there is no way knowing whether it makes it through to the other end or not. I have been noticing this.

      --
      SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
  46. Re:Install a crazy Dictator in the country north . by morgdx · · Score: 0

    I think that's a different Korea you're thinking about there hick boy.

    Yeeha, dang them there forin'rrrs with them funny leaders and them kidernappin' ways.

    --
    http://jfin.org/jFin pure java open source financial library
  47. Geography a big hurdle for USA broadband. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be a truly daunting and very expensive task to retro-fit the US with South Korean-like broadbrand. Especially with all the bureaucracy in telecommunications. The point is we should look to them and try to learn from their experiences and mistakes.

    I think the biggest problems with trying to get broadband to the entire USA are:

    1. You have competing interests with the telco's and the cable companies.

    2. The sheer geography of the USA mitigates against wired broadband in rural areas.

    #2 is especially daunting, given the good number of US citizens that still live in rural areas.

    Here in the USA, universal broadband will probably arrive with WiMax and its related mobile version that can operate on a moving vehicle up to 155 mph (250 km/h). Essentially an extension of Wi-Fi, WiMax can support thousands of users per antenna, and the transfer speeds can be up to 54 megabits/second! (Though I think for capacity reasons, they'll probably cap it in real world use at around 10 mbps). The biggest advantage for WiMax is that it's vastly cheaper to put up antennas than to put up wired connections to every household and business, essentially eliminating the so-called last mile connection problem for broadband Internet access even in rural and mountainous areas.

    It's very likely that WiMax antennas will use the same towers now used for cellphone antennas, so infrastructure costs may not be as steep as some people think.

    1. Re:Geography a big hurdle for USA broadband. by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your dream, but there are large areas of the US without any cell phone coverage. Not just no digital, not even some old clunky analog tower for a hundred miles. Course nobody lives in those areas, but they still exist.

  48. right of way by ClarkEvans · · Score: 1

    Government should own the wires and heavily regulate who gets to maintain them (the actual installation and maintenance should be done by a private company). Then, the wires should be "rented" on a monthly basis, to the highest bidder, by those who want to offer services and the revenue used to continue maintenance and increase the level of coverage. There is a role for government, it is not a all-or-nothing approach. Companies, by themselves, without a legal infrastructure are amoral beasts.

    Why? Because putting in wires requires "right of way", that is, the right to put wires on my property (or on government property). Currently, governments give this "right" to a single company, forming a monopoly because they don't want to administer it; and then regulating the monopoly since monopolies do what they do -- raise prices in the absence of competition. Worse yet, the government usually raises bonds to "pay" these companies to build their monopoly, having the public shoulder all of the risk without opportunity for a return on investment (better wires, or reduced taxes). This is a cop-out. The government should own the "monopoly" and make everything else subject to competition.

  49. Smackdown for a Thirsday by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Having broadband and a video cam, for instance, is no good for me, because my girlfriend has dial-up, thus limiting chat options. I blame lots of this on American capitalism, but perhaps if we get a Democratic congress again, this can be quelled.

    If this is what passes for critical thinking these days, then I HOPE Bush gets us to the Moon, because that's where I want to live. And I'm not sure a quarter million miles of vacuum is enough to insulate such exotoxic bumblethink.

    So tell your bitch to step up to the plate and buy some broadband access. Why should my taxes support you and your bint's video masturbation sessions?

    I recently saw a 1.5 Mbps line referred to as "shitty" by a Japanese blogger.

    I once read a blog where a grown man admitted to liking Britney Spears' music. You can find many strange and grotesque things in blogs.

    So what was the context? Was he comparing it to his connection at work? Was he exaggerating the difference between 1.5Mbps and 3.0Mbps? You can't just toss out an isolated quips without context. Who are you? Michael Moore?

    In America, that's supposedly pretty fast for a consumer. We need to look to countries like S. Korea for inspiration, stop trying to milk money out of customers by capping uploads and such, and just modernize our damn nation.

    Yeah, the birthplace of the Internet is really existing in such a primitive state, isn't it, just because it's failing to meet some arbitrary metic you have a persoanl boner for? Why I was telling the local serfs the other day as we were out collecting filth for the solstice festival (with human sacrifice) just how backward our sad but proud nation was compared to the glory of the all them Other Lands. Then some Visigoths showed up and the conversation moved to other topics.

    The real problem, if it *is* a problem, is that many people don't give a tinker's cuss about broadband into their home. I know many professional people, quite a few in the high tech fields, who don't really care about multi-megabit home access. Most went for the lowest tier of cable and DSL primarily to free up the phone line.

    I know the ideo-filtration in your brain can never accept this, but it's capitalism that allows you to live your comfortable little life of video-conferenced skanks and happy Slashdot access.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Smackdown for a Thirsday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I consider 1.5mbit shitty. I've been at 10mbit for 4 years now. I have every right to say it's shitty compared to my 10mbit which I only pay $45 a month for.

    2. Re:Smackdown for a Thirsday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Bumblethink" is exactly correct, Mr. HarveyBirdman, as in your bumblethink. "Capitalism" is what has brought us such wonders as Enron, M$, SCO, etc. as the list goes on...As for the internet, thank God that TCP/IP is basically public domain and not "owned" by something like M$ or SCO or some other evil capitalist organization. And your depiction of Korea as a "primitive place?" ROTFL. I've lived in Korea (and Japan, etc.) and also had the misfortune to visit the USA. At least in those "primitive states", I didn't have to worry about some idiot pulling out a gun, with or without provocation, training, etc. And people wonder why Americans are considered arrogant, ignorant, etc. Americans would do well to keep their mouths closed, their ears and eyes open, and travel more, rather than blustering about in their usual arrogant, gun-at-the-hip, ego-mode-engaged blunderings.

    3. Re:Smackdown for a Thirsday by the_meager · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course in those other places you didn't have to worry about some idiot pulling a gun, but you really could do nothing but accept the way things were in a society. Let the government take all the money, property and rights from you that they'd like. It's kind of funny that people with similar thought processes talk about how low crime is in countries with no guns amongst the citizenry --- completely ignoring crimes committed by the government. And as far as capitalism goes, you ignorant sod, Enron, Microsoft, and SCO are examples of Corporations. If you had any sort of sense to you, and knew anything about economics and modern socio-economic history, you might have known that the modern corporation is an intentional government construct. It's called "Market Socialism". Here's a pipe. Come and smoke it.

      --
      Speckpot?
    4. Re:Smackdown for a Thirsday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the birthplace of the Internet is really existing in such a primitive state, isn't it, just because it's failing to meet some arbitrary metic you have a persoanl boner for? Why I was telling the local serfs the other day as we were out collecting filth for the solstice festival (with human sacrifice) just how backward our sad but proud nation was compared to the glory of the all them Other Lands. Then some Visigoths showed up and the conversation moved to other topics.

      I know the ideo-filtration in your brain can never accept this, but it's capitalism that allows you to live your comfortable little life of video-conferenced skanks and happy Slashdot access.


      No, it's hard work at a job or personally owned business that allows him to live his comfortable life.

      Capitalism is an idea...nothing more. There are other ideas, some better, some worse. Just because we have Capitalism doesn't mean it's the best idea or the only way.

      And you talk about faulty logic. For shame.

    5. Re:Smackdown for a Thirsday by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      No, it's hard work at a job or personally owned business that allows him to live his comfortable life.

      Yes, both given the oppurtunity to exist thanks to Capitalism. Remember to follow your logic *all* the way through, kids, or wind up looking like a jackass.

      Capitalism is an idea... nothing more.

      Wow! Thanks for newsflash, Mr. Cronkite.

      There are other ideas, some better,

      In theory.

      some worse.

      In practice.

      Just because we have Capitalism doesn't mean it's the best idea or the only way.

      So come up with something new. Toss the centralized economies into the dustbin of history where they belong and come up with something NEW! I'll listen to something fresh. Honestly.

      And you talk about faulty logic. For shame.

      Ah. You wound me, sir. Oh, no, wait, that "logic" was *your* strawmen. Never mind.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
  50. Re:koreans & japanese get along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of Korean "netizen" who are supposed to be young generation of S.Korea are ignorant and chauvinistic. In other words they are drones made by chauvinistic education of their grandparents (believe me, all major media in S.Korea run right-winger campaign, there's even a law to prohibit Japanese influence!). They often resort to "cyber-demo" (DoS attack) onto Japanese websites, using their fat connection. Not to mention their fat pipeline of spam mails.

  51. US hindered by cheap dial-up by mst76 · · Score: 1

    I don't know what the situation is in South Korea, but in Europe cable/dsl is much more attractive than dial-up, because dial-up is almost always paid by the second. In many parts of Europe, broadband is the only way to get flat-rate internet. In the US flat-rate is the norm for dial-up, so broadband is not such a big upgrade as it is in Europe.

  52. Re:Install a crazy Dictator in the country north . by arieswind · · Score: 1

    please note the significant difference between north and south korea:

    north = communist dictatorship, no individual rights
    south = technology hotspot, liberal, famous for their game players(at least in the gaming community)

  53. This should be modded... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...(Score: 5, kekekekekekekekeke)

    :-)

  54. OI! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm nicking that.
    new author "ME!"

    (i lurrrrves the interwub)

  55. We forgot one thing... by rabbit994 · · Score: 1

    SIZE OF COUNTRY, From the CIA World Fact Book: South Korea Land Size: 98,190 sq km Area - comparative: slightly larger than Indiana United States of America Land Size: 9,161,923 sq km Area - comparative: about half the size of Russia; about three-tenths the size of Africa; about half the size of South America (or slightly larger than Brazil); slightly larger than China; about two and a half times the size of Western Europe Difference in sizes: 9,063,733 sq KM Hmmm..... I think for 67 million dollars we could wire the entire state of Indiana with high speed.... It's not a simple as in United States is lagging because lack of will. I think it's a simple 93x the land space we have to do and it takes a little more time. You know, the whole time and money thing.

    1. Re:We forgot one thing... by Keruo · · Score: 1

      well, 93x land space, lets say 100x budget then..
      that would make 6700 billion dollars
      now since you brought up CIA fact book,
      GDP for USA is 10980 billion dollars
      South Korean government is investing half of their GDP for this project during 3 year period of time.
      If US government would invest even 20% of the budget for same purpose, that would stack up to 6600 billion, which is quite close to the rough estimated amount.
      If US government would want to step into hi-tech era and wire real broadband to every home, they could.
      Apparently people aren't demanding this enough to make things happen.

      --
      There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
  56. Broadband... whats it good for? by RoyalCheese · · Score: 1

    So.. Broadband.. really, does it NEED to be in every home such that governments have to encourage it with tax breaks, grants, implement it directly? Do we who have it mainly use it to download mp3s, mpegs, softwarz, play online games? Isn't it just a luxury for most of us? An overhyped luxury? A damaging luxury (the more we shop at online mega merchants likes of amaz*n, doesn't that make it harder for the local store in our home town to stay in business - result - empty storespace.. unemployed folks.. disenfranchised folk... desperate crims loitering around to steal that ipod off you so they can sell it to a fence...

    1. Re:Broadband... whats it good for? by gears5665 · · Score: 1

      As previously mentioned, compare broadband to the phone system.

      It becomes necessary to have 100 mb broadband to every home virtually free because of the communication improvements throughout the country.

      Being able to instant message anyone in my extended family about any idea that I want to turn into a business is a tremendous way to spur innovation. err. Find funding.

      Open up the lines of communcation and the benefits are exponential. That is why broadband to everyone is essential, because if only 2% of the people become 100x as productive or innovative the society/knowledge will expand in leaps and bounds.

    2. Re:Broadband... whats it good for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But.. does having broadband make people more productive? 100 times more productive? 1% more productive? With "just" a telephone network and modems.. we can already send email, look at websites, publish websites, post messages on bulletin boards. If we strive for "universal" broadband, are we spending an awful lot of money for few real benefits?

      Is it just that politicians don't want to be seen as luddites, and because we have keyboard heads telling them that we MUST have broadband or we'll fall behind in the techno race?

      How has Broadband Korea helped Korea's development? They can download video on demand, watch tv over the internet, instant video message each other? Has that helped them export more than they import? Or is it the manufacturing base that makes mp3 players, cars, ships, components.. Their universal broadband is not making them any richer, its something they can afford as a result of them having a succesful manufacturing economy.

  57. oh please... stop the anti-government horseshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the parent poster is a 'libertarian' nut who hasn't recognized that companies almost never do high-risk investments -- building a huge phone network is very very high risk, so high that only governments typically do it. In the US, because we are so afraid of government ownership, we have government pay for it (bonds, raise taxes, etc.) and then give the asset away to a company to monopolize it. Of course, when the monopoly we create starts to behave badly, we then must regulate it.

    The real solution is to recognize when government ownership is appropriate; hint: when it is a pure monopoly, usually distribution channels, but not content or manufacturing. And then open the channels up for fierce competition without regulation; the best will rise to the top. The problem with corporate ownership of infrastructure is that they have a vested interest _not_ to allow a competitive marketplace for services (if they can dictate content, they will).

    All you libertarians should seriously ask yourself when a government _is_ needed and when it isn't. Quit taking the position that government is never needed. In this case, since the cost/risk is so high and since lots of property rights must be negotiated, it is best done by government.

  58. Re:koreans & japanese get along by foidulus · · Score: 1

    Both are still trying to re-write history. Just this past weekend Koizumi met with Roh to discuss Japanese textbooks. The Japanese try to gloss over their colonization of Korea, and many Koreans try to convince the younger generation that the Japanese never learned their lesson and are still evil and would colonize Korea again if given the chance.

  59. Pushing for tarred roads too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it the fault of "American Capitalism" that your neighbour has a no road to thier farm? Because somebody hasn't given her tarmac for free? I consider myself liberal, but really, isn't it going a bit far to expect your government to build you your damn roads?

    Because state investment in infrastructure benefits everyone, sometime even in simple dollar terms. Even when large companies cannot make a profit from it.

    1. Re: Pushing for tarred roads too... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Excellent!

      Starting with this weeks paycheck we'll be deducting $20USD as a "Infrastructure tax".

      The government will then use this money to lay fibre to everybodies house and give them a 40Mbit uplink!

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    2. Re: Pushing for tarred roads too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I consider myself liberal, but really, isn't it going a bit far to expect your government to build you your damn roads?
      Because state investment in infrastructure benefits everyone


      The government won't build a road going to any place some Joe decides to put a house. In fact, most major developers do have to build their own roads within the subdivision. It's all about benefits and costs: if a $200,000 road will let a dozen ranchers get their $1M herds to market, then the benefit outwieghs the cost.

      Remind me again what benefit to society your girlfriend's broadband provides...does it really justify laying $25,000 worth of cable and routers?
    3. Re: Pushing for tarred roads too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you could find more than a few people on this board who would object to that. $20 is pretty close to the minimum price you can get a connection for, and that's significantly better than what you'd be getting.

      I'd certainly pay that. Hell, I pay triple that for less.

    4. Re: Pushing for tarred roads too... by nojomofo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess that you place the dividing line between luxury and necessity in a different place than I do. I agree that roads, phone service, and similar utilities these days qualify as necessities. I just don't see that broadband does. Why is it actually necessary to have a connection faster than 56k?

      And I'm not going to buy the "so I can telecommute" argument. Many people have jobs that don't allow for telecommuting, and those who do have the option of living in populated areas with broadband available. These are lifestyle choices as far as I'm concerned, not matters that require government intervention.

    5. Re: Pushing for tarred roads too... by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      If I could get a telecommute job, I'd be perfectly happy to move to a remote area and pay $500/month for a T1. But of course, in most small towns you will have cable or DSL available for $50/month anyway.

  60. Of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There`s no doubt South Korea is home of lots of infected client pcs. Reasons?
    1. As you said, lots of bandwidth can make a lot of harm
    2. Now, I do not know if people notice, Windows is prevalent is South Korea and, IMHO, the language gap prevents South Korean sysadmins (or home users, for that matter) from knowing better and RTFAing.

    Of course this comment looks like yet-another-Windows-bashing-comment, but last time I saw, wasn't it South Korea the country that took the hardest hit from the last worm infection? This is enough proof for me.
    1. Re:Of course! by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      They took a hit because they have a huge number of PCs hooked up to broadband that can then infect other PCs at ridiculous speeds.

  61. Not restored, created by ThePolemarch · · Score: 1

    I think it's interesting to note here that technology hasn't just restored S. Korea's economy, it's essentially created a new one. S. Korea was an impoverished nation that has pulled itself up with an enthusiasm for the latest in everything tech-related. Hopefully other third world nations with the same structure of dense population can follow this model to gain some success in the global economy.

    --

    A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
    -Thomas Paine
  62. Re:Install a crazy Dictator in the country north . by bhima · · Score: 0, Troll

    Does this mean that broadband is coming to Mexico?

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  63. Not so... by Kenshin · · Score: 1
    Ya see, that's the beauty of capitalism. You get to buy the stuff you want, and don't have to pay for things you don't need.

    You get to buy what you want... as long as those providing it feel it's worthwhile to sell it to you. Otherwise, you're S-O-L.

    As for not having to pay for things you don't need... recall the huge cable/satellite tv fuss that comes up every so often. You know, having to subscribe to all kinds of channels you don't need just to get one you want...

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  64. Bush wouldn't know Broadband ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if it bit him in the ass.

  65. Interstate by Rassleholic · · Score: 1

    What the government needs to do is to set up broadband deployment like they did with the interstate highway system.

    --
    Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
    1. Re:Interstate by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Only problem with that is that the government would also want to regulate the broadband access like they did with the interstate highway system.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  66. I don't do commercial.... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ... air travel,none whatsoever any more, so why should I want an FAA?

    Oh wait, it helps me from all the stuff that gets shipped and by having planes not fall out of the sky on my head daily.

    Sometimes you can't "see" the benfits to you directly but it still helps. In koreas case, it helped the over all economy by helping business which is producers/consumers/service in the totality.

    I live rural, broadband would help me in a few ways if I could get it. I can get by with dialup, but it limits what I can do effectively from my location.

    The public roads are a good analogy, imagine what all the food would cost if every single road was a private toll road and the owners could charge whatever they wanted to charge? And if those toll roads were literally just a double rut trail? How much would your shipped in food cost you then if you lived in town? How much would construction lumber cost?

    Now I don't know if laying fiber or thicker copper everywhere would pay off in the long run, or if a better wireless scheme would be better. Most likely wireless for now, but in the long run fiber would be better I think.

  67. food = low-cost comdity / wires = high cost monply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this isn't insightful; it's a red herring
    logical fallacy

    food - I can grow in my backyard with minimal investment

    broadband - massive financial undertaking, especially since property "right of way" has to be negotiated for 1000's of property owners

    stop it with the anti-government bullshit, there is a time and a place for government and a time and a place for competitive marketplaces

  68. I'm here in Seoul for a month... by SalsaDot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm staying at an apartment here in Seoul. Applied for broadband Tuesday afternoon after I arrived - the apartment wasn't wired for cable.

    Guy rocks up with some cable, a cablemodem and a drill Wednesday morning.

    Installation: Ran a cable from the roof of the apartment down to the window. Cable just flops onto the floor (he used the drill for some cable clamps in the wall).

    Setup: Plug the cable modem into my laptop. DHCP on. Thats it. No login software, no caps. no smtp server, no home page. Just 2.5mbps download and 1.5mbps upload (in a test to the states that I did, during evening time).

    Price: We chose no contract because we're only here a month, so we had to pay installation. 44,000W for installation, 27000W for one month.

    Thats like $60USD for one month of broadband bliss (remember, including connection & installation).

    While I'm at it - their TV stations here (KBS, MBC) offer live streaming of their TV channels PLUS video on demand of just about all programs they air. Who needs a TIVO here! (you've got to have at least 100kbps connection to enjoy it).

    Alas you dont get very far if you dont speak Korean.

  69. And you know what improved trade means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...used schoolgirl underwear for cheaper!

  70. So what happens. by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 0
    OK, we spend a googolplex of simoleans to put a fat, glowing fiber pipe into the home of every Tom, Leroy, Jose, Abdul and Chang (hey, multiculturalism!) with enough bandwidth to download fifteen complete pr0n DVDs per second and, what...?

    Does Vinge's singuarity occur? Does the whole thing become artificially aware? Will some kid in Ulan Bator confer with some kid in Muncie and a grad student in New Dehli, and invent the nanoforge? Will my online bill paying take 4.2 minutes instead of 4.4 minutes? Will life seem happier and grander and just plain smell better?

    No, I'm not a Luddite (as the word is commonly misused), but neither do I advoicate tech for tech's sake beyond my own gadget fetish.

    Example: We keep pouring laptops into schools. Is that accomplishing anything? It's difficult to find any sort of tracking data that shows throwing computers at the education problem is any more effective than throwing more money. Yeah, you can email homework and automate a lot of stuff, but are test scores improving more than one standard deviation of the data noise?

    What I *can* find is polls that claim many people don't care about having broadband. I see this myself amongst the many tech professionals with whom I work. They really don't need that much bandwidth at home, and many only went to DSL or cable to free up the phone line.

    But, hey, I'm open minded (really!). Why is the expansion of broadband so important that we need to spend precious public funds to do it, and not just let the adoption grow at the pace the market desires?

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  71. if we had de-regulated AT&T any earlier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we would not have had Unix (they literally were forced to give it away for free since they were prevented from "extending" their monopoly) and the Internet (they were prevented from charging more for data over local telephone calls).

    A good legal/regulatory environment can actually _increase_ competition and enhance capitalism. Don't take either to extreme, it is a ballancing act; too much corporate control and we have fascism, too much government and we get communism; what we want is the middle ground.

  72. Re:May I be the first to say by Ignignot · · Score: 1

    Holy shit how did this get moderated as offtopic??? My post is about South Korea's success and how it is good for the United States. The story's topic is Broadband Is The Secret To South Korea's Success. Then I even threw in a stupid joke about how Korean players type in battlenet, which is broadband related.

    --
    I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
  73. Why is it the government's job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why on earth is it the [USA's] government's problem that you don't have broadband?! The government already takes so much money from us in taxes, and still spend more than they have...

  74. a bunch of providers is exactly what will spur by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Aaah, but we don't have 'a bunch of providers,' or at least not a bunch of providers in competition. We pretty much have a bunch of providers who have Balkanized the country into non-competitive fiefdoms. There is some competition between cable and DSL, in some areas, but that's about it. I guess CLECs haven't been completely driven out of business, but just give the FCC and ILECs a few more years.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  75. Music in Bars by sjb2016 · · Score: 1

    I spent a week in Korea last year visiting a friend. One of the best uses of broadband were the online music services. Every bar we went to had a computer hooked up to the sound system that gave you access to a massive amount of music. Plus, it was free (to the bar customer, I'm sure the service itself costs something). The cherry on top was that my friend was chummy with most of the barkeeps so we got to control the tunes. Very important for a music snob like myself. Beats the pants off juke boxes jammed with total prog rock crap.

  76. Re:koreans & japanese get along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Well, I might be a little biased (living in seoul and all), but... what about this? You see, rewriting textbooks is like a national sports in Japan.

    I guess it depends on which side of the border you land, but believe me, I have many japanese friends and they don't know fuck all about history... it is a bit scary.

  77. actually re-created... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the late 70's-80's South Korea was a manufacturing country. Then they got stuck in a rut in the 90's until about 97 when the financial crisi hit big and fucked over the macro-economic situation. After that they recreated themselves as a technology/manufacturing leader.

  78. teehee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *snicker*

    he said 'broadband penetration'...

  79. Bureaucracy and Planning vs. Capitalism by Featureless · · Score: 1

    But I'm glad you landed sqaure on one of laissez faire capitalism's many flaws

    The (immediate) benefit of many roads in rural Montana didn't justify their costs. Telephone service was unjustified by the economics of the rural community. Airports should never be built anywhere near them.

    While an objectivist would sit around waiting for the Market Fairy to wave her wand and create a utopia, money would go where the money already is. Capital will flee to New York City or Los Angeles or Denver or Atlanta, where it will build another few toll bridges or skyscrapers or tract housing developments. Poor and rural communities will stagnate and wither, while wealthy and urban communities will grow.

    This is a perfect metaphor for the general process of laissez faire, with its beaten-wife's-embrace of capitalism's tendency to reward those who need it the least, and abandon those who need it most. Or to put it another way, to sink into the prisoner's dillemma of modern pracitcal economics, and find the many expedient, deadly local maxima we know so well.

    Fortunately laissez faire capitalists have never had much power in this country, but unfortunately a few whiners have been along for the ride as we've extracted them from the 3rd world. Because government's not perfect, they would rather pay less taxes and live in the 3rd world. You first. The border is that way. You can spend your time at the plantation ruminating on your philosophy's reputation in all the wealthier nations of the world.

    When you build a road, we realized, people start driving on it. New opportunities, new profits. Not for an individual investor, and not this week, maybe not even this year. Heaven forfend. Now, what happens when you build a broadband line?

    1. Re:Bureaucracy and Planning vs. Capitalism by skarmor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      +1 Insightful

      I tend to agree with you - but I'm not sure how successful this would be in practice. What happens if you invest in the broadband lines and the promised resultant economic boom never comes?

      The Keynesian economic model suggests that putting people to work building projects that will stimulate economic growth is a good idea. However there have been many cases where the promised benefit never came while the corrupt contractors who are hired to do the work bleed society dry.

      (I'm thinking Boston's Big Dig, the construction of large domed stadiums, those "urban renewal" design communities that have faded into new ghettos...)

    2. Re:Bureaucracy and Planning vs. Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The interstate road system was built primarily for the military. It allows for easier transport of military vehicles if we had to fight a war within our borders. That we can also drive cars on it is just an extra benefit.

    3. Re:Bureaucracy and Planning vs. Capitalism by Featureless · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's exactly right. The waste of our hybrid socialist/capitalist society is bad news. It fails all the time. It's just a lot better than Laissez Faire. Of course, the more vigilant our citizens and the more participatory our democracy, the better our system works.

    4. Re:Bureaucracy and Planning vs. Capitalism by bjohnson · · Score: 1

      Good try...it was built "for the military" by a secretary of defense who just *happened* to be the chairman of GM. Gee...conflict of interest? I see no conflict...their interests meshed perfectly.

      The heavily subsidized interstate system lead to the wild success of using automotives and trucks for travel in this country, choking off more efficient, but unsubsidized modes of transport, primarily rail systems, which had always been forced to pay their way.

      This lead to the vastly increased adoption of automobiles by the american public and the consequent continuing dependence on foreign oil to the detriment of our national economy.

    5. Re:Bureaucracy and Planning vs. Capitalism by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Overall I agree, but you should be more careful with your examples. Considering Boston's big dig won't even be finished for a year or so yet it isn't fair to call it a failure yet.

  80. Re:koreans & japanese get along by foidulus · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, Japan won't be alone. The US is trying to remove all unflattering facts from our history books as well. Most history books seem to make our founding fathers look like gods. They were brilliant men, but they also had flaws. I often thought that if people only knew what a womanizer Benjamin Franklin was, then they would have been much more lenient with Clinton. Instead, people acted like this was the first time any leader of this nation had ever had an affair, and that made him unfit to lead.
    Combine that with a general ignorance of history, and it is dangerous.
    In the word's of Owell: "Who controls the past, controls the future, who controls the present controls the past"

  81. Re:Install a crazy Dictator in the country north . by o1d5ch001 · · Score: 1

    Huh? South Korea is south of North Korea is it not? If you are going to insult me, at least be clear.

    --
    Q. What is Calvin's monster snowman called? A. The Torment Of Existence Weighed Against The Horror of Non Being
  82. The Internet was government created. by zymano · · Score: 1

    So why the hell are people buying the argument by the telco's that municipal broadband be outlawed.

    Comeon . Wakeup people. The government always provides the most efficiencies for big projects. Highways,dams,and military are examples.

    As for Bush pushing broadband , it's pure lip-service , all talk ,no action . Don't believe it.

  83. Can't escape this fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Korea is not a nice place. South is far better than north. Far far far far far far better.

    But fundamentally, you've got a peninsula containing millions of crazy people who will fight to the death at the drop of a hat, who have bad food, bad weather, and have a real inferiority complex to the japanese.

    Can't imagine going there unless I was drafted.

  84. execution by ragnar · · Score: 1

    What separates South Korea from the rest is a clear agenda and execution process by the government.

    I hear that North Korea also has an agenda that includes execution.

    --
    -- Solaris Central - http://w
  85. Hmmmmm by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Broadband for dinner, that's good stuff

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  86. Weak case by f97tosc · · Score: 1

    So, a great deal of tax financed broadband investment made broadband penetration great. Not surprising.

    But this does hardly prove the case for strong government intervention. Is it really true that the investment paid off in economic terms, not only in terms of broadband penetration? Are Korean companies ahead of American ones in terms of using IT profitably?

    No doubt many Korean citizens have enjoyed subsidized broadband services but how does that compare to the pleasure they would have gotten from spending the money freely?

    Tor

    1. Re:Weak case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seoul also subsidizes public transport, which runs pretty well for very cheap prices. South Korea also have a much lower tax rates than the United States. You could make the argument that South Korean citizens might be happier if they could spend the money the way they wanted in a free market system. But I can't help wonder if our own government is far more inefficient in using tax dollars to create infrastructure.

      I for one wouldn't mind paying lower taxes AND have better subway & broadband access. And while we are at it, please stop taxing me for war, "nation-building" of Iraq, crony social-welfare programs, kickback infested public construction programs, etc etc. We as a nation shuffles more cash into our "education" system, but consistently do worse than our neighbors.

      Sometimes throwing cash at the problems isn't the answer, it's more important to do things intelligently and more efficiently. South Korean government's support of broadband is yet another example of better governance. (even though they fail miserably on almost all other areas in comparison to the US government.)

      Remember, South Korean government also starting to support computer game developers with financial incentives as well as hosting international game competitions. Can you imagine what we could do if the United States actively supported the games industry? Oooooo....

  87. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's because the mods are idiots
    and your post ever ever ever so slightly spoke of the US in positive terms... that gets you moderated down around here

  88. Re:Does anyone know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am stationed in South Korea again. I can vouch for the fact that on any given day you go into an internet cafe an ungodly amount of south koreans will all be playing starcraft, warcraft or diablo......

    This is such a great country to live in....now if they could come up with a way to get rid the hideous monsoon seasons!!

  89. Explain Saskatchewan, then. by DeeKayWon · · Score: 1
    Here in Saskatchewan we've had residential DSL available since 1996. Yes, nineteen ninety six. Our total population is about a million, mostly over about a third of the province, putting the population density at about five per square kilometre in that area.

    So, how well are we covered for broadband? DSL is available in over two hundred communities. (sasktel.com -> Internet services -> High Speed Internet -> click on "communities" in the "High Speed Basic Internet" section. Direct linking to the list doesn't work.)

    The "density" argument still doesn't wash.

    1. Re:Explain Saskatchewan, then. by skarmor · · Score: 1

      Sasktel is a Crown Corporation. It was at all regulated by CRTC until 2000. Because there is still all kinds of government funding being pumped in to fund unproftiable programs (like high speed internet, access for the disabled), Sasktel is not directly comparable to the US or even the rest of Canada.

  90. hear hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the government intervenes too much, disaster usually follows. When the government doesn't intervene at all, disaster usually follows.

    Ballance is key

  91. It's not the federal government's job by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    Hey, can you tell me where in the constitution the federal government is permitted to get involved in K-12 education? Or for that matter, permitted to get involved in providing broadband for people out of a profitable area, just because 10 Mb/s gives geeks hard-ons?

    On the other hand, I'm damn sure international affairs, military or diplomatic, are one of the powers given to the federal government.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:It's not the federal government's job by arieswind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if a government can not even educate their youth, then they have no right to tell other countries and governments how to run their countries

    2. Re:It's not the federal government's job by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      That's a non sequitir if there ever was one. Go read the constitution as it places very specific limits on what the federal government can and cannot do.

      We can argue all day about how they're ignored, but the limitations on the feds are in the US constitution, they're strict, and they aren't permitted at all to have a say in local education.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:It's not the federal government's job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We can argue all day about how they're ignored, but the limitations on the feds are in the US constitution, they're strict, and they aren't permitted at all to have a say in local education.

      Uh huh. Brown v. Board.

    4. Re:It's not the federal government's job by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      As a side note, state and local governments do not try to tell other countries how to behave. They do, however, educate our children.

      Something tells me you're unfamiliar with the way things work in the US.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  92. Not so bad in the US, really... by Erwos · · Score: 1

    The US broadband situation has been improving rapidly over the past couple years, though. Now that DSL has matured some, cable and DSL providers are finally directly competing. At the moment, it's generally on bandwidth (1.5mb down for $40 a month is a HUGE improvement over the past few years), but it'll have to move to price sooner or later.

    If Verizon manages to pull off this FTTP thing (and there's a ton of demand for it in a lot of places, especially at $60 a month), you can probably expect competition to move us to a South Korean broadband situation pretty quickly. Without government subsidies, I doubt we'll ever see prices as low as in South Korea, but that's not really the biggest deal in the world.

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  93. Hey, we've got that too! by joemc91 · · Score: 1

    The local municipality for me, Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant, started laying a bunch of fiber to businesses and the home, just like yours did and offer the fiber at a much better price than say Comcast cable or Verizon DSL, the two other service providers in the area. Unfortunately, companies such as the aforementioned Comcast and Verizon didn't like this competition from local municipal owned/run ISP's and succesfully lobbied our state (MA, I still can't spell it) to ban this practice. A grandfather clause was included so TMLP is still expanding their fiber, but because of these anti-competitive laws no other cities can do this themselves.

    So the lesson is, even if you can increase bandwidth and make jobs in your town while offering better service and prices, it doesn't matter because the companies have the legislation by the balls.

  94. Korean SPAM by woodlander · · Score: 1

    So, is this how they bacame one of the biggest spammers in the world? Great achievement.

  95. Hey I can spout BS too by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Hey I can do bullshit too:

    The Secret to South Korea's success is
    1) Hard work. Not strange to have working hours from 8am to 9pm. In 1987, average working hours per week was about 54.
    2) National pride/patriotism - they buy Korean stuff. Makes it easier to develop local industries.
    3) The recent success is just a matter of "market correction". The economic crash was half justified, the other half was most likely overreaction from foreign investors - see below.

    The South Koreans invested a LOT in many capital intensive areas. They pumped lots of money in (much borrowed) and grew really fast.

    Say you buy a lot of houses, and you can actually afford to pay the loans on most of them, if the bank panics and calls in ALL the loans, you're pretty much screwed - you really don't have enough money to pay for EVERYTHING at once. That's why the crash. I believe they borrowed a lot in USD. So when the foreign investors panicked, the Korean money dropped in value, making the situation even worse[1].

    Now that greed has got back higher than fear, the money is flowing back in. Which is why they're doing better now.

    Note a side effect of the crash (a cynic might say an intentional effect of the crash) is that lots of stuff become cheap (companies go bankrupt etc), and foreign investors can buy up lots more stuff and thus extend their control over Korea. So while many foreign investors got screwed short term, overall they end up owning more of Korea.

    As for broadband:
    1) Korea is densely populated - easier to wire everything up.
    2) Koreans don't speak much English or other foreign languages. So the demand for international content may not be as high, thus international bandwidth costs may be lower. Thus even if you wire everyone up, they're not complaining so much about international connections being sucky.

    Enough bullshit. Don't believe everything you read. :)

    [1] That's why I believe my country (Malaysia) did the right thing (for Malaysia that is) but very unpopular thing of instituting capital controls and preventing money outflow. The IMF and most people said lots of unfriendly things when that happened, but later on they grudgingly accepted it wasn't such a bad idea after all. For years silly economists/finance ppl were saying Korea's recovery (and the other affected nations) was greater than Malaysia, but that's because Malaysia didn't go down as low. Thanks, but I'd rather not have recovery like that...

    --
    1. Re:Hey I can spout BS too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By no means I mean offense or insult to your country, but you also have to admit that Malaysia is a smaller economy than Korea---a nation that is more actively involved in international finance will have a bigger dips when there is international panic. Remember, during 1997 Phillippines was almost unscathed by the panic--because it was poorer and dealt even less in international commerce.

      Also, another result of currency controls of Malaysia is that Malaysians have a tougher time borrowing funds than South Koreans, as Malaysia has a worse credit rating. As awful as it is, it's probably better governance to kiss IMF arse than to stand up for principles--principles don't build highways, skyscrapers, semi-conductor fabs, etc etc.

      But this is /. and we should be talking about why we hate Bill Gates not about economics/finance.

  96. Smackdown for a Thursday, Part Deux by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1, Insightful
    "Bumblethink" is exactly correct, Mr. HarveyBirdman, as in your bumblethink. "Capitalism" is what has brought us such wonders as Enron, M$, SCO, etc. as the list goes on...

    Blah, blah, blah, Cleetus. I could list the dirty laundry of whatever system that makes you cream in your jeans. It's pointless, and the activity of empty-headed ideologues with no substance.

    As for the internet, thank God that TCP/IP is basically public domain and not "owned" by something like M$ or SCO or some other evil capitalist organization.

    *sigh* Another prissy fool who has no concept of what real evil is. Is it any wonder I want to move to the Moon. This is most of humanity, folks. If not now then in a very few years. Little singularities of monochromatic politics with worldviews composed entirely of lies and mythology. Go see I, Robot and replace the robots with people. That's the future.

    And your depiction of Korea as a "primitive place?" ROTFL.

    Uh, no. I never called Korea a primitve place, you illiterate dumbass from the Fifth Circle Of Hell. If you're going to blast a load of ideological diarrhea over what I said, at least make it something I really said, toots. I impled that the original poster was calling the USA primitve because we needed to "modernize our nation", and then I had some fun with it. DO try to keep up with the key changes, Pogo.

    I've lived in Korea (and Japan, etc.)and also had the misfortune to visit the USA. At least in those "primitive states", I didn't have to worry about some idiot pulling out a gun, with or without provocation, training, etc.

    *snore* So stay away. We already have our fair share of stupid, ignorant ideological mental pygmies without you adding to their inane blather. But I guess that's the beauty of the internet, eh? You can take your mentally vacuous shit into the public discourse from anywhere in the world. I hope you remembered to wipe.

    Of course crime rates in South Korea and Japan have been rising for years, but, hey, who cares about facts in the mythological tapestry you call your perception of reality?

    And people wonder why Americans are considered arrogant, ignorant, etc. Americans would do well to keep their mouths closed, their ears and eyes open, and travel more, rather than blustering about in their usual arrogant, gun-at-the-hip, ego-mode-engaged blunderings.

    And here comes the bigotry and stereotyping. Typical. Sad. OK, here's another stereotype. Maybe we don't travel much because all we find out there is a lot of hypocritical, holier-than-thou uber-assholes living in homes of shattered glass who can't recognize prime bullshit when it's dropped in a steaming pile directly on their heads.

    I leave you with the words of a great American, Mark Twain:

    "Sir, you are a complte and utter dumbass of the lowest order. If you cared one whit about the destiny of the free nations of the planet Earth, you would do well to immediately log off your electro-computing device, make a quick and efficient trip to your kitchen, grab your sharpest cutting implement, and proceed to slit both wrists so that your life juices may fall to the floor and thus extinguish your useless existence, and save the public at large some small but measureable amount of blithering madness."

    Well, I'm paraphrasing heavily ;-) It was from the original author's note to Huck Finn. Wait... maybe it was Piers Anthony in his 207th Xanth novel. Hmmm...

    OK, I'm done with you.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Smackdown for a Thursday, Part Deux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *snore* So stay away. We already have our fair share of stupid, ignorant ideological mental pygmies without you adding to their inane blather.

      Wow. What's it like to be living proof of your own statements? Must be convenient.

    2. Re:Smackdown for a Thursday, Part Deux by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

      Well that was weak, AC. You have to do better than that to be worthy of a Birdman Smackdown. Keep trying.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
  97. Moral of the story by michaelepley · · Score: 1
    Competition is GOOD ("Most of the growth is tied to effective competition, which you don't see in a lot of places in the United States.").

    Note that government regulation sometimes helps competition, sometimes hurts. We have been doing a bad job of choosing when and what to regulate.

  98. Ragnarok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone?

  99. South Korea had a few things going for it... by moojin · · Score: 1

    South Korea had a few other things going for it to make it possible for broadband to florish there. The population density of Korea's major cities contributed to the ease in which broadband was made available. The rate in which new apartment buildings (with high speed internet access) are being built. I think somebody else mentioned it, but the high rate of competition and the customer service levels associated with it. The extreme popularity of network based games, message boards, chatting among the youth of Korea (and even for people in their 20s, 30s and 40s). It is definitely used as a primary communication medium.

    South Korea has very well defined cellular phone networks and I'm somewhat surprised that there are not more WiFi networks in Korea (but that may have changed, or be changing).

    Just a quick two cents worth...

    Andrew

    --
    Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
  100. Not really by zymano · · Score: 1

    So why the hell are people buying the argument by the telco's that municipal broadband be outlawed.

    Comeon . Wakeup people. The government always provides the most efficiencies for big projects. Highways,dams,and military are examples.

    As for Bush pushing broadband , it's pure lip-service , all talk ,no action . Don't believe it.

  101. There go the "Overrated" mods again! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Don't have any answers to the tough questions, do you? Just mod them away and continue to advocate blah blah blah. Fascists, the lot of you! Facists, I say!!!

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  102. Re:koreans & japanese get along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with Clinton was not that he had an affair with an intern, but that he committed perjury to deny an American citizen her day in court under a law that he signed himself. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and no one is supposed to be above the law. Doesn't always work, but as the chief law enforcement officer of the country he should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

  103. who cares? by wilgamesh · · Score: 1

    i saw some other oversized government projects mentioned in these posts, like Apollo project, Manhattan project, and the (now defunct) Superconducting Collider. these, and the citation of south korea as a paragon of broadband, sounds like an insinuation that if our government steps in, then the project of wiring the whole U.S. for broadband would be entirely possible. i think there are two points here which are very disputable.

    firstly, certainly the U.S. is not too shabbily connected for a country of its size and heterogeneity- it's not as if there's a crisis of any sort. so why would anyone want to push broadband penetration up any higher, except for to be able to announce to the rest of the world that we have the highest broadband penetrance? this sounds like a call for national glory, to show off our technological prowess- any time people ask for things like this, it's a suspicious project because it serves little benefit at an extremely high cost. the space shuttle etc has been attacked for these reasons. ask first, would i make the decision for all of us, that all of our lives would be better with faster internet?

    the second point i want to mention is to ask why people think that the best way to achieve broadband penetration is to install a DSL line or a cable line into every home? have new technologies not usurped old ones before? when the modem was invented, was there a call for the government to install a modem in every household? or when cable tv bought educational channels to the masses, did congress ask that every home be installed with a cable line? and if that did happen, do you think we'd be the laughingstock of the world? today's technology is tomorrow's old hat. who knows, maybe someone will develop some sort of medium range wifi that will make it super cheap to connect distant rural areas with high speed access, making broadband obsolete. this is a case where i think one might be pushing too hard for what is probably a non-optimal solution.

  104. Re:koreans & japanese get along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hey, I was just browsing around, I found one of them textbook examples here.

    Problem is (seems to be?) that because Japan is a strong country, anything they say or write is more likely to be taken for granted overseas. Korea can shout all they want, they wont be heard.

    For example, should I say east sea or sea of japan? Well, It's pretty much always been east sea. Korea and China use the term, but guess which one the rest of the world is using?

    There are also some diputed teritories and signs of american involvment in the dispute... (the bastards ;)

    Add to the history rewrite some fake archaeological discoveries and you end-up with Korean people being very angry not just about what Japan did but about what Japan is doing now.

    It really is fascinating to be living here in Korea. It is a country still strongly affected by its past history. For instance, they have programs on TV about people looking for their displaced relatives in kazakhstan or uzbekistan (Blame Stalin) and when you go to Ansan, the Koreans who returned from Sakhalin and live there speak better russian than I do...

    But from what you wrote, I guess you don't have to go very far to see signs of history being rewritten. In France, anybody who dares say concentration camps never existed or that gas was never used for killing Jews, ends-up in Prison. I don't like my country much but some things they do right. No use hiding behind some ammendment to try and spew crap: if you do, you know the risks...

  105. spam, spam, and more spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > What makes South Korea so special in the world of high-speed Internet access?

    The fact that they shit in everyones inbox as if there is not tomorrow. If I would have a saying in it, I would take way every electronic communication device from them and let them carve things in stone instead.

    A bunch of dammed incompetent arrogant motherfuckers. That makes them indeed special.

  106. Okay, hats off to South Korea, but... by mwood · · Score: 1

    ...*why* do they want to be the broadband capital of the world? What do they do with it that the rest of us don't? Because I haven't seen anything out there that needs to come to me any faster than my modem can handle.

  107. The Future is Already Here by nsda's_deviant · · Score: 1

    I was in Korea 2 years ago and when I read these Korea broadband-cellphone I can't help but think of William Gibson.

    "The future is already here -its just unevenly distributed."
    --William Gibson

    http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ id =811961

  108. This is SOOTH! by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Informative

    As an international school that often has a 4-5% S. Korean population, I can attest to this. Last year was the last straw. It's bad enough trying to configure a Korean student's machine to join our domain, but CLEANING it?!

    Adaware and Spybot are wonderful tools but they don't do jack for Korean spyware. The problem here is, we use a proxy and some of that garbage sits inbetween the Winsock interface and the network - effectively trying to bypass the proxy server.

    For instance, there was a girl complaining that she 'couldn't get on the Internet'. After some examination, I found that she had some sort of Winsock redirector installed. No virus checker, no spyware checker, NOTHING took care of it. After two hours I was able to dig it out, but it had three layers of protection - constantly trying to add itself back into the registry under aliased names... All of them Korean. FRUSTRATING!!!

    Sadly, I ended up telling returning international students that we will no longer be able to support their machines (READ: allow them on the network). For a simple 15% population I was spending 45% of my time to keep these machines going.

    I hated doing it, but thanks to inceased spyware and God knows what else, it's hard enough attempting to keep English-based machines clean, much less trying to troubleshoot a machine with a strange egg-based icon set and symbols I can't decipher.

    And yes, it's true. They think our 3 Mbit connection is WAY slow... ;)

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:This is SOOTH! by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      You spend 90% of your time with 10% of something. It applies to execution of lines of code, tech support, and a whole bunch of other things.

  109. Depends on intent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If broadband is to be classified solely as a luxury, then yes, having the government pay the bill is unreasonable. However, if "good" internet connectivity is classified as an essential service for the well-being of our state, national, and/or global society (spreading the wealth of human knowledge/products/communication/etc), then I would say it should be a mandate of our government to ensure a baseline level of service. It all depends on what we consider important for US citizens. Perhaps it's not as important as, say, universal healthcare, but I would argue that it is certainly more important than giving everyone an iPod. (some may disagree)

    We can weigh the factors of utility vs. gov't bugdet cost. Of course, this is what should be done in gov't bugeting anyway.

    LOLWTFGOVTBBQ!!1 We love our pork barrels...

  110. Water, Electricity, and Broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same could be said about any basic amenity. Do we need running water and electricity to survive?

    Nope. We've lived without it for a few thousand years.

    Does it make life a whole easier and more enjoyable?

    Yes. And quite a bit so.

    Not that people would die when their broad band goes out during a heatwave, but we should have high standards for broad band just as we do for water and electricty.

    Would you like brown water coming through your pipes or your electricty barley providing enough power to your house?

    Most likely not.

    It's really a matter of time though. Forcing a broad band upgrade in a shorter amount of time wouldn't be a bad thing though.

  111. But South Koreans Still Eats Their PETS !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Walk down any road in ROK land and you'll see a dog hanging from a bridge. Rabid? Nope, DINNER !

  112. Actual numbers by Animats · · Score: 1
    First off, the Nielsen/KRNIC figures for Internet penetration show 62% of the South Korean population using the Internet. The corresponding figure for the US is 69%. The highest value is Sweden, at 77%. Note that this is individuals, not households.

    Second, US broadband penetration, as a fraction of Internet users, passed 50% some time this month. It was at 49.48% last month. That number is climbing steadily at 10-15% per year. Within two years it will pass cable TV penetration, stuck at 66% for years. This number is projected to pass 80% in 2006. We don't need to do anything to encourage broadband; it's already happened.

    The US still has a huge population of dialup users. Remember, the US has flat-rate wireline local phone calls; most of the world charges per minute. So dialup is very cost-effective in the US. And 56Kb/s isn't bad for web surfing. 10% of users are still using modems slower than 56Kb/s. Around 4% are still at 14.4Kb/s, a number that's held steady for five years. So there's a small customer base that doesn't feel the need for speed at all. And a big customer base that doesn't want to pay $50 per month for broadband. Dial-up access starts, after all, under $5 per month.

    So there is no "broadband penetration problem". It's over.

    Where the US is behind is in bandwidth for "broadband" users. A sizable fraction of US broadband users have sub-megabit speeds, and very few have enough bandwidth for HDTV.

    1. Re:Actual numbers by ^_^x · · Score: 1

      That's impressive, but do you have current Korean broadband penetration statistics? The most recent credible study I could find was the 2002 Pyramid Research study which showed at the time that S.Korea had 55% BB penetration, leaving the US at 14%.

      Your last line is also a good point; what can really be considered broadband? Around here, you can get cable internet at a blazing 56kps, where the standard in S.Korea (at least a a while ago) was 2Mbps.

  113. Absolutely! by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

    And it's starting to happen. As soon as the FCC backed off their mandate that the telcos had to share their shiny new plant with competitors at regulated prices, SBC and Verizon said they'd build Fiber-to-the-Home (or the next thing to it). Now, whether they'll follow through will be interesting, but you get the point. If the telcos do follow through, the cable companies will be under pressure to up the bandwidth they allocate to Internet access. Someone new could come in and start wiring up neighborhoods. There are already lots of mon-and-pop wireless ISPs. Everyone build a network and let the Darwinian competition begin!

    But ENOUGH with the slap-a-different-marketing-layer-on-the-same-netwo rk-and-call-it-competition garbage! That's not going to get hardware built.

  114. It can't happen here? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    S. Korea is a command economy, state capitalism, where corporate economics are coordinated in state agencies. Strategizing to develop technology, by enhancing consumers' access to it and facilitating demand, is a corporate goal that recognizes corporate dependency on the people. There are tradeoffs in their state, some unacceptably fascist, but at least their people are valued as essential to economics. In the US, we're sinking into a bog of state capitalism, corporate welfare, that sacrifices American people to profit and protect the governing corporations. Maybe if S. Korea had an upper echelon of oil companies controlling its economy, they'd also have a depressed economy and global warfare over pipelines.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  115. thanks for setting me straight by juan2074 · · Score: 1
    Now I know that broadband is responsible for the state of South Korea's economy.

    I used to think a well-educated workforce, decent standard of living, reasonably-stable government, and export-oriented companies (including Hyundai, Samsung, and LG) helped much more.

    Just get broadband to everyone, and watch your economy grow. Go for it. Are you listening, Nigeria? Forget other infrastructure and government policies.

    (This message brought to you by the same people who think computers in schools will make our kids smarter. That has nothing to do with teachers, discipline, parental involvement, etc.)

  116. Uh... by The-Bus · · Score: 1

    Now, seriously, what are some of the benefits of having 10+ mbps in every home? "Real" benefits that politicians can get. Because I don't really see where the big benefit comes in, other than making all bandwidth cheaper.

    But that's just me. I would love for someone to list the reasons -- not to refute them, just to get an idea of what they are. I just think "more bandwidth" and see more open relays, quicker flash recipes for grandma, better video of the Mets game on ESPN.com, but I don't see any "real" benefit other than quality of life.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  117. Brown vs Board of Ed. by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    Like i said, we can argue all day about how the limitations placed on the feds by the constitution are ignored.

    Moreover, enforcing the 14th amendment as it applies to schools is a far cry from the feds running the schools, or having any direct or indirect responsibility for their day to day operation.

    Constitutional issues aside, serious federal involvement in local education would require a massive, mostly wasteful beuracracy. Just look at the Dept. of Education. It's such a waste of taxpayer money that even they admit they are useless.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Brown vs Board of Ed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Moreover, enforcing the 14th amendment as it applies to schools is a far cry from the feds running the schools, or having any direct or indirect responsibility for their day to day operation.

      Uh huh. No child will be left behind.

    2. Re:Brown vs Board of Ed. by beakburke · · Score: 1

      NCLB doesn't disprove parent's point, in fact it sorta makes it for him. If he isn't in favor of the department of education, what makes you think he supports NCLB?

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
  118. to the extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The government realized technology was going to restore the country's economic health so the entire country unified to push broadband penetration rates to the extreme.


    They then proceded to rock a mike like a vandal. At this stage, 90% of South Koreans are able to light up a stage and, if necessary, wax a chump like a candle.

  119. so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Okay, I'll admit I didn't RTFA... but I read this line with some amusement:

    "They wanted to be THE broadband capital of the world so bad, they never swayed from that goal."

    Kinda reminds me of what I've heard of Malaysia, where they've had a goal to build the biggest _________ in the world (sorry if that's an oversimplification).

    It might put you at the top of some list, but it isn't ipso facto worth doing.

  120. Re:koreans & japanese get along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with Clinton was not that he had an affair with an intern, but that he committed perjury to deny an American citizen her day in court under a law that he signed himself.

    Blah blah blah. Isn't it odd that an anonymous party paid for Paula to have her nosed fixed? Isn't it odd that Linda Tripp just happened to be around to hear Monica's sob stories and just happened to be well-connected to do something with them? Isn't it odd how much effort conservative Republicans put into what, in any Republican administration, would have been swept under the rug?

    I'm going to keep it simple and sweet.

    Conservatives and Republicans are traitors to the Union, they have conspired to unseat an American President, to fix an election, to defraud the American people of trillions of dollars for their buddies and to strip the American people of their rights and freedoms.

    Willie wouldn't go along with the program like a good little lapdog (GW) so they spanked him. Pure and simple.

    Grow some balls, read between the lines and wake up from your FOXNEWS-induced stupor. A freight train's comin' and you better get off the tracks.

  121. IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    Maybe the fact that South Korea has the highest IQ of any soverign nation has something to do with their success. It would seem so if the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" is correct about the correlation between average IQ of a nation and its per capita wealth generation capacity.

  122. Re:koreans & japanese get along by higon · · Score: 0

    Well, You're referring wrong site. It's Chinese site. You should be aware it has strong bias. In this world, only China and Korea are saying about it which doesn't seem to have any evidence so far.

    Having strong censorship, both two become stupidily unreliable on this subject. Opposing everything Japan does has been a political trend for DECADES in such countries. Because they could beg tons of money by saying it. Latest one is this, "Having made their history up based on Japanese textbook (since they don't have some of record to referr), and forcing Japan to rewrite its textbook.". Weird logic, isn't it. Politicians in these two countries don't want to admit their long-running lies to their people. I heard this from my friend in Japan. So this could have bias too. But actually China and Korea are not developed country with mature politics.

    If you'd like to get correct information, just read news in any countries but Chinese and Korean, (and Japanese for fairness).

  123. Re:koreans & japanese get along by higon · · Score: 0

    I agree with you. Interesting to see Korean view of the world.

    Problem is (seems to be?) that because Japan is a strong country, anything they say or write is more likely to be taken for granted overseas. Korea can shout all they want, they wont be heard.

    Problem would be Korea doesn't have any evidence to support their logic. Korea seems to want Japan to teach "Japan is/was such a evil" like Korean goverment teachs its own people now. Wow.

    About "Sea of Japan" issue, Read about this . this might be interesting, too.

  124. it's not just about governmental will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course, South Korea didn't have to deal with the inertia of 100 years of PSTN tech in the way..

    UK/USA/etc have a lot of old investment tied up in these networks. Also, we work in "free market" economies, where governments cannot take a hand (unless it's politically useful, or if one of their generously-donating friends happens to be in trouble..)

    Real broadband will not come until we (consumers) vote with our wallets to endorse new technologies in the sector, forcing the incumbent operators to shape up or ship out.

    A superb example of this is British Telecom's converting of local exchanges to ADSL provision:
    To begin, a very few exchanges in large population centres were enabled, and other exchanges would be converted as and when sufficient demand was demonstrated. To keep track of the demand, www.bt.com had a page where you could register your interest along with your postcode, and theoretically when any given area reached the trigger point, its exchange would be converted.
    All nice in theory, however, due to the UK Data Protection Act, BT's web arm was forbidden by law from making the information available to BT's industrial/infrastructure arm, and so the data just sat there, and exchange conversion was instead led by guesswork.

    Brillant, no?

  125. Cultural homogeneity by allrong · · Score: 1

    I agree especially with your point 3. I lived in a rural area for seven years in between residing in cities and now I feel uncomfortable returning there due to the monoculture that exists there. I like having a variety of people, ideas and cultures around me.

    I can see that my family, who still live in the country, have become somewhat ossified with their perspectives on the world outside their small community. That fear of change can lead to anger and persecution to those who want (or just are) different.

    --
    What is the inverse of the Matrix?
  126. The US pushed broadband in the 90's too by geekee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and the whole telecom sector went bankrupt because no one was willing to pay for it. Remember the internet bubble burst?

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  127. Re:koreans & japanese get along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every country has its own distorted history. Such a governmental web page (.go.jp) usually carries the most distorted ones.

    If you agree with that web page, it means your brain is distorted, like the most U.S. people who believe "Remember the Alamo!" is a symbol of U.S. patriotism.

  128. Space, Moon, Same Diff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's just that some don't realize there's more to conquering space than faking a moon landing... :P

  129. Re:koreans & japanese get along by higon · · Score: 0
    If you agree with that web page, it means your brain is distorted, like the most U.S. people who believe "Remember the Alamo!" is a symbol of U.S. patriotism.

    Yeah, "Remember BRABRA!" has always been there whenever we're in trouble.

    I know that the page could be distorted ones. I'm giving a counter-example since the poster has posted only *distorted* pages as reference ("chosun" and "hankokki" are both Korean and right-wing news site). I just want someone to notice there have been completely opposite opinions. I don't care which one is correct. Important thing is... we can have third perspective with them.

  130. Re: small-town blues by nusratt · · Score: 1

    1. I'm curious.
    "I live in a small town of 12k (Not my first choice, but it's where I could get work after graduating)."
    -- While in school, what kind of work did you hope to get after graduation?
    -- What job did you finally take (in that small TX town)?
    -- How willing were you to be geographically flexible?

    2. "homogenized and philistine...racist...hunting, farming, or NASCAR...farther away you are from medical care"
    If you don't mind the abstract CONCEPT of living in a small town, I *know* that there are small US towns which don't match your description. Are you being artifically restricted by family? GF? Parole officer?

  131. Re: small-town blues by Rostin · · Score: 1

    1.

    -- Didn't think of it too much. I wasn't really going to school to get a job. It was just kind of an extension of high school. I just picked something I thought I'd be interested in.

    -- I decline to say, because I'd really rather remain entirely anonymous. I'm sure I've mentioned it before in other posts if you are really that curious. I will say that it is in the field that I studied.

    -- My willingness to come here mostly against my wishes is an indication of how geographically flexible I willing to be. I also interviewed as far away as Chicago and Houston. The fact is, people in my field were having a really tough time finding jobs at the time. Ordinarilly around 90% of people graduating from my dept have jobs lined up before graduating. When I graduated, it was more like 50%. I interviewed with around a dozen companies, and went for four onsite interviews. This place is who offered me a job.

    2. I am being in a sense "artificially restricted" by two things. First, it's where I could find a job doing something related to my chosen field. Second, I feel duty-bound to spend at least two years here because my job (like the jobs of most professionals) is not something I picked up in two days. The company has invested time and money in me, and I feel like so long as conditions aren't intolerable (they are hardly that) I owe them a little in return. Moreover, the place where I work is small, so when I leave, it won't be a faceless corporation I'm slighting, but people I've gotten to know and like, who have to go through all the pain and trouble of finding someone new, waiting for him to make it to the top of the learning curve, etc.

    Anyway, I'm sure practically no towns in the US match my description, including this one. It was an exageration intended to make a point. Some place like Cambridge, Mass is certainly more culturally diverse and "refined" than the town where I live. That's definitely a consideration for someone who is considering moving to a small town.

  132. Re:Does anyone know.. by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    Well, since I can watch "OnGameNet," channel 31, and see starcraft all day, and every young man that I know (who speaks enough English to get the information) loves it, I believe that StarCraft beats WC CS, and D2 by a two-to-one margin.

    Of course that is all in jest, but I did just get broadband today, with 6MB down and 2 MB up for a measely 30K Won per month (?US$28?). Beats my Thailand 56K for about the same price. I'm torrenting FC3Test1 right now.

  133. NOMENCLATURE ALERT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Oh, but of course, that begs the question of who actually masterminded the attack and desired the effect of it.

    That's not "begging the question", asshat.