Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Broadband Is The Secret To South Korea's Success

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the LPB dept.

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."

10 of 420 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    3. 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.
    4. 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?

  2. 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 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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?