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."

66 of 420 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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. 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 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?

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

      But broadband porno is a Constitutional right!

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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

    6. 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.
    7. 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!

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. 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?

    13. 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.
    14. 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?

    15. 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.
    16. 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.

      --
  4. 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?

  5. 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 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
  6. 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

  7. 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 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
    4. 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...

    5. 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.
    6. 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?

  8. 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!
  9. 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 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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".

  12. 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.

  13. 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.... ;)

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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]

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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
  20. 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 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.

  21. 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)

  22. 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.

  23. 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 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.

  24. 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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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...)

  27. 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.

  28. 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

  29. 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?
  30. 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..."
  31. 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