America's Not So Up to Speed

indiejade writes "According to The Broadband Life, the U.S. has quite a way to go before catching up to countries such as South Korea, Japan and even Canada when it comes to percentage of the population enjoying high-speed internet access. 'In 2000, the U.S. ranked third in Net users connecting at high-speed among the top-30 world economies. The next year it fell to fourth. Now it's 11th,' the article said." Commentary on this is also available at Foreign Affairs and The New York Times.

Comments

No kidding...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still downloading that Pam and Tommy Lee video that i started years ago....

Re:No kidding...

[stoanhart]

you're not missing much...

Not first post

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have got it but this connection is SO DAMN SLOW!

Re:Not first post

[TheoMurpse]

I think you should win some sort of "unlucky dumbass" award since you were first post.

Country size matters

[Rosyna]

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

Re:Country size matters

[Adult film producer]

Sure, its settled within a 100 miles of the u.s. border but that doesn't mean they're all stuffed into one corner of ontario or quebec. They live along a huge waterway & lakes, remember the St. Lawrence, Lake Ontario/Erie, etc ? Millions of people living from detroit to montreal.. this is not comparable Hong Kong or New York.

And then there's a few million people displaced into the prairie provinces that stretches thousands of miles.

Saying everybody lives within 100 miles of the u.s. border oversimplifies things a wee bit.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you dumb or just ignorant? Canada has 1/10th the population of the USA, but it is a huge country with an equal or better quality of life. As for where the people live, how does it matter if Canada's population is close to the US border or not? We don't get our high speed access from American companies, we get it from Canadian ones.

Re:Country size matters

[Jabolio]

While much of Canada's population does lie within 100 miles of the US border, that says nothing about why Canada's broadband infrastructure has been ahead of the States in recent years.

Where I'm from (Halifax, Nova Scotia), we've had residential broadband access in some form or another since as far back as 1995 or 1996. Much of rural Nova Scotia and PEI have broadband access. The greatest thing about it all is that the prices are relatively reasonable, around $40CAN per month, with varying degrees of speed/accessibility

On the other hand, there isn't a whole lot of "wasteland" to fill between towns, meaning that setting up so many additional connections will always yield a decent increase in subscriber base.

This kind of article shows up every now and then, doesn't it? Oh well. It's not Canada's fault that there's just SO MUCH MORE UNITED STATES to cover.

Re:Country size matters

[MarkRose]

the majority of Canadia's population is settled within 100 miles or so of the US border

Every time the topic of poor broadband availability in the US comes up, this fallacy is repeated. Yes, the majority of the Canadian population is near the US border, but broadband penetration goes much further. I live roughly 500 miles north of the US border, and a 5 hour drive from the nearest city of over 50,000 people -- yet I have my choice of broadband internet providers -- and at competitive prices. For $20/month Canadian (about $15 US), I get 170 KB down and 60 KB up (bytes not bits). The whole argument is bullocks.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialization of the economy matters as well. It's easy to jump up to the top of the list when you build the project on the backs of the taxpayers.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the majority of the United States population is within 100 miles of a coast. What's your point?

Re:Country size matters

[F13]

Why not, because it is not just a matter of geography and population spread. Its also a matter of technological development, economic wealth, and infrastructure.

While the point, which is often made, that the US should not be compared to such countries as Japan and South Korea is a valid point, comparing the US to China or India fails to recognise that the US should be far out in front of these countries based on technological and infrastructure development.

Re:Country size matters

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Comparing US to developing countries like India and China is ludicrous. The US has had development in IT for far longer than either of those two countries, and has had far more resources for far fewer people.

Broadband penetration is a matter of public interest, not geography. If there was a demand for it, it would be provided even in the remotest regions, especially in a country as developed as the US.

Re:Country size matters

[Rosyna]

Every time the topic of poor broadband availability in the US comes up, this fallacy is repeated. Yes, the majority of the Canadian population is near the US border, but broadband penetration goes much further.

Let's seriously compare the two countries here. Canadia has a population of about 32,805,041 (July 2005 estimations). The US has a population of about 295,734,134. The US population is over nine times larger than that of Canadia. So even 100% of Canadia's population had broadband access, it's still only be 11% of the US's population.

You're just dealing with much, much smaller populations here. Granted it is harder to wire Canadia than it is Japan even though Japan has a larger population.

Re:Country size matters

[Rosyna]

Always remember to ignore any typos I make while reading my posts. I'll kindly return the favor.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has 1/10th the population of the USA, but it is a huge country with an equal or better quality of life.

Chill with the Napolean complex. We know you have a smaller population - this is because your weather sucks, as you're no doubt aware.

And "quality of life" is in the eye of the beholder. Me, I like my Wal-Marts and SUV's and Taco Bells on every corner. I like the world living in terror of my leader, 'cuz he's freekin' crazy. I like this country. I've lived overseas, and I'm glad to be back.

Finally, keep in mind that this general rule: too much Internet makes you stupid. Having it all the time isn't necessarily a good thing.

Now can we get back to talking about geek issues?

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "Canadia" you speak of? (In Soviet Canadia, 120% of the population is within 100 furlongs of the Elbonian border!)

really, it's spelled Canada.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially when remembering that China dictates public interest, and heavily censors the internet and likely it's availability.

Re:Country size matters

[Cplus]

It's actually the great distances that are between major Canadian cities that causes Canada to be a leader in communications globally. One of the major things that we've had to do as a country is to enable communication and cultural solidarity across sparsely populated areas. Innovation in the communication sector is something that has always been an important issue to Canadians, and to the Canadian Government. The mandate of Industry Canada is to help make Canadians more productive and competitive in the knowledge-based economy. Broadband being cheap and everywhere is a bit part of that, and has been for a decade.

Re:Country size matters

[Pyrion]

Population, not necessarily country size.

Canada has a population of 32,507,874. The United States has a population of 293,027,571. South Korea has a population of 48,598,175. (All according to Google.) Anything that compares by percentage of population is going to be biased towards small populations.

According to the article, 73% of South Korea has broadband at home. That comes out to 36,448,631 people.

Certainly, broadband in the U.S. is growing. The OECD estimates the number of American broadband subscribers increased 32%, to 37 million, last year.

12% of the population of the United States (that 37 million) with broadband access is still more than the 73% of South Korea that has broadband, put into perspective.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

But the statistic is on what percentage of the population does or doesn't have broadband.

If 10 mil of Canadians have broadband, that's roughly 1/3 of the Canadian population based off the 32 mil figure. That is the statistic being compared to judge adoption. If the US only has 10% on broadband... ;)

Re:Country size matters

[CarlinWithers]

You're missing the point.

The US has more people? You're kidding, right? /end sarcasm

This is by percentage. What it means is that for some reason the US is adopting broadband SLOWER than other nations.

All it means is that there is something that is preventing the adoption. It may be something as simple as the price is too high. Or it could be more complex, such as a societal attitude among those who don't adopt that the internet is just hype.

Re:Country size matters

[Frankie70]

Why not compare it to Countries like India and China.


India is 1/3 the size of the USA.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

12% of the population of the United States (that 37 million) with broadband access is still more than the 73% of South Korea that has broadband, put into perspective.

I've read a lot of crap on this thread, but this beats it all. You want to use absolute numbers to put things into perspective!? Are you a complete idiot?

Re:Country size matters

[Gruuk]

Doesn't work either, since even many remote rural communities several hundred miles north from the border also have access to broadband. Not all of them do, but a majority of them have such access. So the "100 miles" limit doesn't come into play. Now, if you had said something like 500 miles, yes, your point would have merit, though it would be five times more than your initial estimate.

500 miles may not seem like much, but remember that Canada is very wide (about 3200 miles), and even the bigger islands off either coast boast broadband access to the great majority of their population, which means that almost all the population in that roughly 1.6 million square miles area does have access to a high-speed Internet connection. By the way, that's a larger area than all the countries of the European Union (EU, not Europe, the continent) put together and is larger than all countries except 6 of them (one of those being Canada, of course).

Couple all of that with a population of about 30 million in that specific surface area, you get a population density of 18.75 inhabitants/sq. mile. To give you an idea, the US has a population density of 79.36/sq. mile (or 7.3/km2 and 31/km2 respectively, 1sq mile = 2.56km2). So even with a much, much lower population density, broadband penetration is far greater.

Re:Country size matters

[derfy]

Finally, keep in mind that this general rule: too much Internet makes you stupid.

No I'm....doesn't!

Re:Country size matters

[xstonedogx]

The point the GP was making is that the US has a higher percentage of it's population living in sparsely populated regions. It's relatively easy for Canada to bring a higher percentage of it's population broadband because a higher percentage of those folks live (relatively speaking) right next door to each other.

If 5 million Canadians moved out into the prairies, the population density of Canada would not change. But it be a lot tougher to bring them broadband.

Re:Country size matters

[clambake]

Places with very large populations and a very large land mass. I think it'd be a little more fair than comparing it to countries with a high population density (the majority of Canadia's population is settled within 100 miles or so of the US border.

Ok, how about comare New York and, say Osaka... What do you see?

Re:Country size matters

[solios]

Jebus. I'm paying four times that for a hair less (150/40). :(

Of course, the Telecom Monopoly (Verizon) owns the pipe and is forced by gubment laws to share it with all comers, so my actual ISP fees are hiked by that, "service charges", TAXES TAXES TAXES, etc...

Oh, and Verizon is pretty gross. :|

Re:Country size matters

[Guppy06]

"Every time the topic of poor broadband availability in the US comes up, this fallacy is repeated."

And every time someone like you posts the "But we have connectivity X-thousand kms away from anything!" I have to say "Look at the picture!"

Canadians clump around cities. Period. It can't be compared to the contiguous 48, especially the US Midwest or South. Thanks to that, you only need to run a few long-distance legs to a major hub and then only worry about those tiny little hops from hub to end-user.

The reason you're connected even though you're a 5-hour drive from anywhere is because you're alone out there. All that was needed was that single long leg out to your community and the job was done.

You say that you're 5 hours away from a city with over 50,000 people in it. OK, how many towns of 5000 people are within 2.5 hours of you?

At this point I'm not an apologist to our broken method of running out public utilities here in the US, but I don't see how you can deny the lower per-capita cost to connect people in Canada.

Re:Country size matters

[EnronHaliburton2004]

You're just dealing with much, much smaller populations here

What's your point?

Population size does not matter. If a country has a larger or smaller population, you use more or less wireless APs.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus there's the fact that the US is basically divided into two countries: the advanced North, and the backwards-looking South.

I'm sure that the North is up there with the best in terms of connectivity, while the South is still using tin-cans and pieces of string.

Re:Country size matters

[pyrrhonist]

Where I'm from (Halifax, Nova Scotia), we've had residential broadband access in some form or another since as far back as 1995 or 1996.

Many of the large population centers in the U.S. have had residential broadband access since 1995 too.

On the other hand, there isn't a whole lot of "wasteland" to fill between towns, meaning that setting up so many additional connections will always yield a decent increase in subscriber base.

That's the problem. Everything ends up being relative, because of it. In the U.S. a large percentage of metropolitian areas have suburbs that extend hundreds of miles from the nearest city that fill up these wastelands. In other words, you have to wire millions of homes outwards from the city for hundreds of miles. This ends up not being cost effective even when there are literally thousands of customers who want broadband. The places that are easiest to wire with higher ability to pay are wired first, because that is cost effective. This means that millions of people don't have broadband.

Just for perspective, central New Jersey is directly in between New York City and and Philadelphia, two of the most populous areas in the U.S. New Jersey has a population of 10,000 people per square mile. However, there is still no broadband access to much of central, NJ. Why? Because it simply isn't cost effective to wire up a "small" subscriber base of 100,000 people.

Re:Country size matters

[Dark Nexus]

Yeah. If I recall correctly, Saskatchewan is (or at least used to be) the province with the highest percentage of the population with high-speed, and is one of the provinces with the lowest population density. I mean, the population of Toronto is several times that of the entirety of Saskatchewan.

Re:Country size matters

[Senjutsu]

the majority of Canadia's population is settled within 100 miles or so of the US border.

Three quarters of all Americans live within 80kms (49.7 miles) of the coast or great lakes. If having larger parts of the population in a small number of clumps was the over-riding factor here, the US broadband penetration would still be expected to be higher than it currently is.

Re:Country size matters

[Adult film producer]

You say that you're 5 hours away from a city with over 50,000 people in it. OK, how many towns of 5000 people are within 2.5 hours of you?

I'm not the person you were replying to but I know many small towns (Villages if you want to call them) that are wired. I can name 15 small towns with populations under 1000 that have broadband access up north (sitting hundreds of kilometers outside of the 401 corridor.)

Re:Country size matters

[Cplus]

I don't see how their could be a lower per capita cost for connecting people that are farther apart and less densely populated. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but it seems to me that smaller communities make for less money to be made by hooking them up to broadband. Running more cable costs more. Period.

The truth of the matter is that the Canadian government created the network infrastructure in Canada, rather than the corporations, who now use it to sell us our broadband and that's why it's cheaper to connect people here.

Re:Country size matters

[Dark Nexus]

You also have to consider both the size and number of companies doing the wiring. Bigger population generally means bigger and/or more numerous carriers.

Canada has (not counting small local ones that may or may not exist) 4 telcos (2 are only available in one province each), 3 cable companies, and maybe 2 or 3 independant DSL carriers. ALL DSL connectivity has to go through the equipment of the telcos and DSL carriers... a small local service can't afford to put their own DSL equipment into the Bell/Telus/SaskTel/MTS buildings, so instead rent the service at cost (IIRC it's at cost, at least), so can't expand beyond the main telco's service range. I wouldn't be suprised if the US has more telco's that act as DSL carriers than Canada has DSL and Cable internet carriers combined.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

My bad on the brain-spasm that caused me to type 'their' rather then 'there'.

Cheers,

Cplus

Re:Country size matters

[darkonc]

Urk:
If you compared the Americans who live within 100 Miles of the Canadian border to the Canadians who live within 100 miles of the US border, you'd probably get the same kinds of results.

The US is being very slackass about ensuring that it's citizens have access to broadband. The government has given effective monopolies on the infrastructure to large companies and not pushed them to supply brooadband to the people they serve.

I can go to places like Bowen Island (Pop. ~4000 and a 20 minute ferry ride from the mainland and still get a $45/month DSL connection (2Megabit down 600 kilobit up). Similarly for 100 mile house (about 100 miles from the middle of nowhere in the coastal mountains). I think that even Bella Coola (about another 100 miles from 100 Mile House) can get broadband.

Most Canadians may live within 100 miles of the US, but that doesn't mean everybody is -- or is close to a major city.... In the US, between Seattle and St. Paul, there's not a whole lot near the Canadian border.... (and some Americans think that North Dakota and Montana are still overrun by indians -- but that's another story) and there are still a good number of Canadians who live further north where -40 is regularly reached almost every winter.

Re:Country size matters

[Cplus]

You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally I'm quite glad to see things like this being done with our tax dollars. It's a very solid investment in the future of the nation as a whole.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has 80.3 percent urban population

Canada has 79.6 percent urban

People clump around cities, it's an industrialized nation thing.

As another note, here in Canada almost everyone has cable or satalite TV. We don't have the population density to get more then a couple of channels.

US stats - see p32

Canadian stats

Re:Country size matters

[Pyrion]

If a hypothetical island nation with the population of 10,000 were to have 90% of its people broadband-capable, would that be more or less of an accomplishment if, say, 20% of the United States were to have broadband connectivity?

Depends on the number of people we're talking about. 9,000 !> 58,600,000.

It's like those complaints over the US not donating so much of its GDP in foreign aid, yet its GDP is astronomically greater than most other nations'. Percentage doesn't mean jack.

Re:Country size matters

[Oinos]

Hey, a lot of Americans think North Dakota is part of Canada.

Re:Country size matters

[Fishead]

Um... no.

You could get highspeed internet in a large number of rural communities throughout central BC for quite a while. even my mother-in-law can get it and she lives in a town with a population of 300 and is 30km from another town in either direction. Not exactly dense population there.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

ditto for 'then' rather than 'than'.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

Still, though -- even though that formulation oversimplifies it a bit, it's not that much of an oversimplification. The statistic definitely means higher population density in those areas. The point is that it is highly unfair to compare high-density populations to lower-density populations.

Re:Country size matters

[Feztaa]

I have to say "Look at the picture!"

All this map proves is that Canadians are more conscious of light pollution... ;)

Re:Country size matters

[abigor]

Halifax is nowhere close to being a "large population centre". In 1995, the place wasn't much over six figures.

"Why? Because it simply isn't cost effective to wire up a "small" subscriber base of 100,000 people."

See above.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think per-capita costs have anything to do with it. I live in a major US city that was once in the top 5 most connected cities in the world (according to some 199X survey). My current broadband options are Cable (>$40/mo), the baby bell offering (cheaper, but 384k/128k...strange definition of broad) or thrid-party DSL (Speakeasy, Earthlink, AOL, etc...more expensive).

By all accounts, I live in one of the most densly populated parts of the country...millions of people in only a few hundred square miles. Yet I would kill for the GP's DSL option. The fact is that the monopolies in the US (bells and cable providers) have prevented us from having the kind of internet access that the rest of the world enjoys. There are exceptions...in a smaller city about 80 miles from here, a friend of mine gets a full 100 base-T fiber connection, unmetered for roughly what I pay for 1.5m/384k. But overall, even Americans in densly populated areas are still getting screwed.

Re:Country size matters

[1u3hr]

it simply isn't cost effective to wire up a "small" subscriber base of 100,000 people

I live in a village in rural Hong Kong (it's not all high rise) with a population of about 3000. We got broadband three or four years ago; 3M DSL. All they had to do was install the equipment at the local phone exchange, then we coul;d plug in our DSL modems.

As TFAs point out, the problem isn't that providing broadband is unprofitable; but that it will eat into the profits of the phone companies (by allowing IP telephony) and cable companies (by allowing downloading or streaming of video content). So they're delaying installing broadband as long as they can get away with it, while doing everything to block other providers using their circuits. Here the old phone monopoly company was forced to share its network, which led to several companies offering DSL at less than half their rate, along with IP phones and broadband TV.

Re:Country size matters

[pyrrhonist]

Halifax is nowhere close to being a "large population centre". In 1995, the place wasn't much over six figures.

Okay, poor choice of words. There were cities and large towns not classified as cities in the U.S. that had broadband in 1995/1996.

See above.

It's not how rural or isolated a place is. The issue is that there's "small" population centers near or even inside a huge population center that don't have broadband. For instance, Boston (population 589,281) definitely has broadband access, but outling suburbs and rural areas near Boston do not. These places aren't isolated at all - they're near a huge population center.

The problem is that when most of the large population center already has broadband, it isn't worth wiring the small population center. It isn't cost effective to wire up the additional "small" population center for a few thousand people that may or may not purchase broadband. It takes more money to replace all the old wiring, build additional support facilities, and add aditional staff than would be brought in by these few potential customers. In many cases, the additional support facilities are in place, but the providers still won't provide broadband access, because of difficulties with the last mile. In other words, the provider has to rewire thousands of communities and hundreds of thousands of homes, because the last few hundred feet of cable can't handle broadband. In cities, this isn't an issue, because businesses are close enough to homes that home users get the benefit of rewiring due to business demand. However it's different in the suburbs and rural areas where there isn't much commerce, the terrain is difficult, and most of the infrastructure needs to be replaced. There's a reason that brand new communities almost always get broadband first - new infrastructure.

Re:Country size matters

[dago]

Strange, I never saw someone making those claims and actually backing them with numbers.
I tried to search for urbanization levels and found the following numbers on this UN report

• Belgium : 97.3%
  
• South Korea : 82.5%
  
• Canada : 78.9%
  
• USA : 77.4%
  
• Norway : 75.0%
  
• Switzerland : 67.3%
  
• China : 36.7%
  
• India : 27.9%
  

except China & India, all the other listed countries have a better broadband penetration than USA (see here)

It seems that population density isn't the sole factor, as it is stated in the article.

Re:Country size matters

[pyrrhonist]

All they had to do was install the equipment at the local phone exchange, then we coul;d plug in our DSL modems.

You're lucky. In the U.S. they usually have to replace all the wire to the street. Sometimes they have to rewire an entire community of thousands of people that may be separated by more than a few kilometers. Furthermore, the phone company usually has to build one or more new CO's because the distance from these communities to the current CO are usually more than 6000m. Even at fifty bucks a month per subscriber, it still costs more to upgrade the infrastructure than would be provided by the few customers that would get broadband.

As TFAs point out, the problem isn't that providing broadband is unprofitable; but that it will eat into the profits of the phone companies (by allowing IP telephony) and cable companies (by allowing downloading or streaming of video content).

Phone and cable companies in the U.S. offer IP telephony packages, so the fear of VOIP eating into their profits is a myth. If anyone should be worried it's the VOIP providers.

So they're delaying installing broadband as long as they can get away with it, while doing everything to block other providers using their circuits.

The phone companies in the U.S. have been blocking CLECs using their circuits since before broadband. It's nothing new. They don't want to allow anyone else to use their infrastructure, simply because they spent millions of dollars to build that infrastructure.

The real problem is that the pricing war between the ILECs and RBOCs has lowered rates so much that the phone companies can't afford to build any more infrastructure. The last-mile infrastructure in the U.S. is in much need of improvement, but the cost of fixing it far outweighs what the phone companies are willing to pay for the meager revenue it would generate.

Re:Country size matters

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

Hi point is that in the US, there is much wider sprawl.
instead of having towns with 1000 residents in the
middle of now where, there will be house after house,
spread 1 km apart for hundreds of sq. km.

Dunno if the point is valid. I know people in rural
quebec, about 120 Km. from a major city, they are
in a village with a paper mill (two convenience stores,
a church, no gas station) they are about 30 km.
from a bigger town... oh what the heck... they are around here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.950575,-73.491 75 5&spn=0.047293,0.069008&t=k&hl=en

The little village with the mill is by the river, they are on
a farm house about a kilometer west of town. they have
broadband DSL, 3mbit down, 800 up, for around 22$ US a month. I dont think they are in any way unusual.

Re:Country size matters

[1u3hr]

>All they had to do was install the equipment at the local phone exchange, then we coul;d plug in our DSL modems.
You're lucky. In the U.S. they usually have to replace all the wire to the street.
Not luck, it comes if the infrastructure up to date. The former monopoly company (PCCW) still has most of the business, and they're doing lots of value-added services, even with telephony (voice mail, etc) so they needed a digital-ready network to support that. But the management went crazy during the dotcom boom and lost billions, so now they're hurting badly. They'll screw you if they can get away with it, fortunately they're forced to play nice with competing services.

Re:Country size matters

[ozmanjusri]

Percentage doesn't mean jack.

It's moments like this I wish Slashdot had a (score:-1, Dumb as a post) moderation.

Re:Country size matters

[SorcererX]

I live over 700 km from a town of 100+k people, my town having 40k people, and it is located above the artic circle, but still I can pick between ADSL upto 8 Mbit, ADSL 2+ upto 25 Mbit, G.SDSHL upto 4 Mbit (dual line), Cable upto 8 Mbit and so on.. all reasonably priced.

Re:Country size matters

[CastrTroy]

We accomplish this little trick by only having 30 million people in the second biggest country in the world. Russia still beats us. A large percentage of Canadians live in Rural areas. However, Cable has been rolled out everywhere, because if you don't live in a large city, then you don't get anything except CBC, and that's if your lucky. Plus the phone companies are used to dealing with servicing sparsely populated areas, and provide pretty good service to them.

Re:Country size matters

[CastrTroy]

It over simplifies it a lot, and actually makes it wrong. There's only 30 Million people in Canada, if we packed them the way Americans did, we'd all be in one state called california. With most of that being in Los Angeles. The fact that we have only 30 million people, allows our popluation to sit within 100km of the US border and still be sparsely populated. However, we do have less land to cover with wires and such, but there's also less of us to do the work.

Re:Country size matters

[CastrTroy]

The lines in Canada are just as old as the US. Maybe older. In Canada we've taken the initiative to replace them. In Canada most towns have it. I know some places that don't have it, but they are very low populated, and many of the residents who live in these areas could care less about broadband internet access.

Re:Country size matters

[CastrTroy]

lets say you have 1000 sq. KM. and the house are 1 km apart, giving 4 houses per square kilometer. you have 4000 houses over 1000 sq. KM. that's not cost effective to hook up to broadband.

Re:Country size matters

[pyrrhonist]

The lines in Canada are just as old as the US. Maybe older.

I bet you're right. Several years ago, there was an initiative to replace all the aging infrastructure in the U.S. Subsequently, pretty much everything was replaced except fot the all important last mile - the line to the customer premises was never updated.

In Canada we've taken the initiative to replace them.

I envy you, for that alone! The phone companies here certainly aren't going to take the initiative, and the Government pretty much can't tell them to do it.

In Canada most towns have it. I know some places that don't have it, but they are very low populated, and many of the residents who live in these areas could care less about broadband internet access.

Most towns here have it too. However, it is embarrasingly spotty! A house in the center of town may have it, but a house 5 miles away won't. There are also some suburbs of major metropolitan areas that don't have it either, while the rest of the city does. Horrible.

Re:Country size matters

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

I agree that that is the point being made. Unfortunately
the argument happens to be false.

houses in the US are not magically further apart than they are in Canada. We have rural areas, lots of them.

Rural areas do have telephone access, and telephone access line lengths are limited to a few kilometers from a bell central office, so rolling out DSL is not a matter of laying new cable.

The headend of a DSL link (a DSLAM) is now so common
and so cheap, that that is all that gets installed anyways. It is just use in analog mode until folks pay for activation, and
the line tuning.

Today, If you can have a phone, you can have DSL.
It is not a technical problem. I do not know what the right reason is for slow US adoption of broadband, but it is not a technical problem. It is not a 'justifying corporate investment problem'. Those explanations just do not wash.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the US does have to spend a bit more money on the military - to defend the US and Canada....

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

If 5 million Canadians moved out into the prairies, the population density of Canada would not change.

So you're saying that moving an diversity.htm that contains the largest population in Canada to the praries would not change the population density? Remember, Canada's population is only 30 million

Re:Country size matters

[CarpetShark]

The point the GP was making is that the US has a higher percentage of it's population living in sparsely populated regions.

Yes, things like that happen when one country owns 16% of the earth's surface. America is young though; maybe it'll break into smaller countries with different directions someday. Those red vs. blue maps spring to mind ;) Lots of new micronations springing up in sparse areas could be cool :)

Re:Country size matters

[arminw]

...And then there's a few million people displaced into the prairie provinces ...

I wonder what the broadband statistics would be for these widely dispersed communities? Germany is about the same size as Oregeon, has about 80 million people, but Oregon not yet 4 million. The cost per user is always higher for thinly populated areas. It took a long time and extensive government initiatives for the electric grid and telephones to be commonplace in rural areas and small communities. Capitalism is only interested in bottom line profits, not universal service to areas where no or only little profit can be made.

Re:Country size matters

[Curunir_wolf]

The real problem is that the pricing war between the ILECs and RBOCs has lowered rates so much that the phone companies can't afford to build any more infrastructure. The last-mile infrastructure in the U.S. is in much need of improvement, but the cost of fixing it far outweighs what the phone companies are willing to pay for the meager revenue it would generate.

I call bullshit. The real problem is that the shiftless bastards running the ILECs and RBOCs keep throwing money at congress to give them the kind of rules that allow them to maintain monopoly-level pricing and outrageous profit margins (for the stockholders of course). Witness the recent outlawing of government-sponsored broadband across Pennsylvania, and campaigns to stop it in other states.

The gist of it is that while competition works well in most markets, greed has utterly failed to produce results in the roll-out of broadband services. The fix for this is to build (or buy) infrastructure with taxpayer dollars and let everyone compete to offer services on it.

The only thing standing in the way of getting this fixed in the US is the phone company's mouth on the cock of congress.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you're connected even though you're a 5-hour drive from anywhere is because you're alone out there. All that was needed was that single long leg out to your community and the job was done.

Fucking heap of bullshit.

Now tell me why I can't get FIOS or any other fiber-to-the-home service in Houston, the 4th largest city in the country. Is it because no fiber has been run all the way out to our little community? Maybe its just because of that damn pesky inefficient government-run utility called verizon, if only they'd go away things would be better?

Re:Country size matters

[rob_squared]

Uhm, no, geography is very important, as is population density in cities/towns. Don't you wonder why party lines in rural areas in the US were used for so long? It's because it was cheaper for AT&T to set up. When the expected number of broadband users in rural areas surpasses the cost of implementation and maintenence, then you'll see Billy-Joe Jim-Bob get broadband.

Re:Country size matters

[MarkRose]

You say that you're 5 hours away from a city with over 50,000 people in it. OK, how many towns of 5000 people are within 2.5 hours of you?

None. There are a few with 3000 to 4000, none closer than 1.5 hours, and they all have broadband at similar service levels, too.

Also, the cost per capita is not lower. Wiring a city costs approximately the same, but running high-speed backbones to service relatively fewer people in remote areas raises the cost per customer.

Re:Country size matters

[BlueStraggler]

The population of the prairie provinces is almost exactly 5 million right now, most of it much more than 100 miles from the border. (Apparently there's not much draw toward North Dakota...) In fact, the largest city in the Canadian Prairies (Edmonton) is also the the most northern major city, and the furthest major city from the U.S. border.

Re:Country size matters

[Citizen of Earth]

There's only 30 Million people in Canada

Population estimate (Janurary 2005): 32,078,819.

Re:Country size matters

[mathmathrevolution]

The point the GP was making is that the US has a higher percentage of it's population living in sparsely populated regions.

Can you provide quantitative justification for your claim? I am skeptical because I know Canada has a large rural population.

Re:Country size matters

[arminw]

...Yes, the majority of the Canadian population is near the US border...

Maybe another reason there is better broadband in Canada is the fact that the whole country is frozen solid and snowed in for much of the year and people are stuck indoors (unless they happen to love winter sports) much more with nothing better to do than to surf the web or watch mostly the same inane TV shows we have here in the US. In more southern climes, especially in California, people spend more time outdoors. In California, being the cradle of the microchip, most people have high speed Internet access at work and may not be all that interested in paying for something at home they get for free at work. After all cheap dial-up is just fine for checking e-mail at home. Many employers allow their employees to dial into their network for free.

In California, which has as many or more people as Canada, a significant fraction may be stuck in one of those long daily traffic jams listening to their satelite radios or talking to someone on their cell phone. What can be said about California also applies to most of the spread out city-suburban communities of the south-western part of the USA.

Re:Country size matters

[yabos]

That still doesn't mean that we're stacked on top of each other. I live in a small town of 11000 people and I've had DSL for 2 years. When it was installed the population was less than 10000. This town is surrounded by FARMS.

Re:Country size matters

[yabos]

If it's not cost effective to wire up a town of 100000 people, explain why I have cable internet, DSL and wireless available in my town of 11000 and have had it since the population was lower than 10000. The next town over of 30000 has the same options as well.

Re:Country size matters

[shking]

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

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

Re:Country size matters

[shking]

OK, how many towns of 5000 people are within 2.5 hours of you?
None.

Reminds me of the time my Aunt from Detroit was driving up north with my family to Thompson, Manitoba (pop 14,000, 800km/500mi north of Winnipeg). At one point she asked my dad how far the next town was"

Dad: 100 miles
Aunt: No. It meant the next gas station... or house... or something like that
Dad:100 miles

Re:Country size matters

[Kyosuke77]

That's true, and in fact there are a number of up and coming wireless service providers setting up radio internet for outlying areas. It's a little more expensive for transmission equipment, but provides broadband for areas up to about a half-hour drive out of the city.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, well now it's dissection of the arguement by counterexample. I live in Alberta (Canada). It's a fairly big place (96% of the size of Texas, or 255,000 square miles or 660447 square kilometres, or 1 1/5 times as large as France). Not all of the population is within 100 miles. In fact, hardly any of the population (3.5 million) is within 100 miles of the U.S. Yet the Supernet Project (http://www.albertasupernet.ca/The+Project/) provides every town over 5000 people --there are 429 of them-- with fibre optic connected (155 Mb/s) internet. The U.S. has a much faster network in internet2 than the Canarie project here, but Supernet provides more 'small community' broadband than anywhere else (in the world). 'Even Canada' indeed!

Re:Country size matters

[mindstrm]

It does? What percentage would that be?

I seem to recall reading that the populations of the US, Canada, and N. Korea are all about 77% urbanized.. very very similar.

Re:Country size matters

[xstonedogx]

Being equally urbanized does not mean the population is evenly distributed over the land mass.

Re:Country size matters

[lloydtesterman]

That does not apply to the U.S., we don't have any kilometers.

Re:Country size matters

[pyrrhonist]

The real problem is that the shiftless bastards running the ILECs and RBOCs keep throwing money at congress to give them the kind of rules that allow them to maintain monopoly-level pricing and outrageous profit margins (for the stockholders of course).

Yes, that is definitely part of the problem, and it's been an issue since forever. I've worked for the phone company and for an comm equipment manufacturer, so I see additional issues that other people don't like to think about.

Witness the recent outlawing of government-sponsored broadband across Pennsylvania, and campaigns to stop it in other states.

The article never once mentions exactly which law it was that did that. Do you happen to know? I would be interested in exactly what the wording of this law is, because I find it hard to believe that it simple bans the local government from providing broadband access. It probably has to do with the local government giving the ISP prior notice before changing their infrastructure to one it manages itself. IIRC, there's already a law in place that says that the government has to give fair notice before switching its communications infrastructure to a different ISP. This is probably more of the same, and blown way out of proportion.

The only thing standing in the way of getting this fixed in the US is the phone company's mouth on the cock of congress.

Congressional cockmasters?

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Frozen climate? Matter of perspective, and taste I guess. If you consider WA and NY states to be frozen climates too than you'd be right - most Canadians live in the same temperate range as those two states. I've visited the southern states during the summer and found it way more uncomfortable than my own Ottawa winters so that I'd have to attribute to comfort level. As for being stuck inside with nothing to do, if I didn't know any better I'd probably agree with you for isolated communities on the prairies and the martimes. But fact is I've got relatives in those places and they stay way more active and have lots more hobbies than me and my own circles.

Sorry, but IMHO your generalizations are wrong. Canucks (like Aussies) tend to engage in more outdoor activities and everyone has fast net access at work too (and fewer companies acting all Big Brotherish). I think the simple reason more Canadians have broadband is because it's cheaper and there's usually a few providers in every community so it stays competitive. But I'd agree the US has more small town communities which could cause a problem.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot more indy DSL providers than 2 or 3 in Toronto alone. They use Bell facilities but offer competitive rates. There was a CRTC ruling a few years ago that obligated Bell Ontario to resell their infrastructure at cost. There's even a couple of indy phone companies here, but they're mostly vultures who charge $50/mnth to people who had their lines cut off. Yes, these resellers are limited to telco facilities but you can also choose cable (I know of 4 cable providers in Toronto) and wireless (google 'em - at least a dozen outfits). I've worked at Bell, AT&T/Allstream and am currently at Rogers doing WAN/telco shit. I have a lot of experience interacting with our peers south of the border and I can assure you that people in Ontario at least have more selection and choice than most Americans. The Northeast states seem to have pretty good selection, the Southern states the worst. IMO, the reason is because the US telcos are run as for-profit corporations and the Canadian ones more like public utilities. The CRTC does have its uses.

Re:Country size matters

[dajak]

I fail to see why population density or distribution should be linearly related to the feasibility of providing broadband in the first place.

Construction (and repairs) of infrastructure in densely populated areas is many times more expensive than in less populated areas. If you are wiring a very densely populated old inner city with streets one and a half car wide and virtually no sidewalks you will bring traffic to a virtual standstill for months or years and cause economic activity to move out of the city.

Most of the US population lives in areas with streets 4 to 8 cars wide. Even in Manhattan streets and sidewalks are pretty wide. I am pretty sure broadband investments per person are much lower than in South Korea, Belgium, or the Netherlands.

Estimates of the Netherlands government (385 inhabitants per sq/km; estimates of the RIVM) indicate that in the present situation each 1% growth of the population causes a 1% decrease in GDP because of extra stress on infrastructural investments.

On the other hand the number of potential customers is higher. Only when population densities are relatively low overall, like in the US and Canada, one would expect wiring to be more profitable in more densely populated areas.

Re:Country size matters

[Curunir_wolf]

The article never once mentions exactly which law it was that did that. Do you happen to know?

I couldn't find the link to the slashdot story specifically about the Pennsylvania bill - but, no, it's not overblown. Here is a muniwireless article about the bill (HB30) which really does ban municipalities in Pennsylvania from offering broadband to their citizens.

Re:Country size matters

[MtViewGuy]

In the U.S. a large percentage of metropolitian areas have suburbs that extend hundreds of miles from the nearest city that fill up these wastelands. In other words, you have to wire millions of homes outwards from the city for hundreds of miles.

Is it small wonder why there is so much interest in the USA for 802.16/802.20 WiMax wireless networking technology? Remember, because a single WiMax antenna tower array can handle thousands of users pretty much up to line of sight, this means even spread-out suburbs can get high-speed Internet access without the exorbitant expense of having to install and/or rebuild landline connections to handle DSL or cable broadband.

Re:Country size matters

[alan_dershowitz]

In a large number of places, the old phone monopolies you are referring to haven't upgraded their last mile phone lines in decades, or even longer. DSL won't even work on them. I wonder how much this affects broadband distribution in the USA.

That doesn't affect your argument about cost effectiveness, which seems true to me, but maybe does help explain why we don't have it so much ion the USA. Just conjecture.

Re:Country size matters

[dago]

Nope, it means population is concentrated into defined area which are also dense.

That those areas are evenly distributed all over or not doesn't concern broadband, but more backbone issues.

Re:Country size matters

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to live in the small town (650 people) of New Market, Indiana, USA, 2 years ago, the telco (SBC / Ameritech) hooked up Crawfordsville (5 Miles, Pop 15000), 1 year later they connected Darlington (13 Miles NE, Pop 850), This year they connected Ladoga (5 Miles ESE, Pop 1047).

I had called SBC customer service a number of times other three years to find out whether they were going to provide DSL to New Market, and amongst the "Sorry there is currently no timescale for which your town will be provided with DSL", a couple of times the Technical support responded with words to the effect of "your exchange has the equipment to deliver DSL at this time, all that is required is for a program to be run".

Geography is not that important if telcos can install the equipment to the small towns, but cannot be bothered to turn it on.

Re:Country size matters

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

Dont tell anyone, but 1.609 foreign kilometers are hiding
inside every good old American Mile. Like everything else
the foreign versions are smaller. Worse, I hear they
come from France! I guess youll have to call them
Freedometers then.

Re:Country size matters

[lloydtesterman]

Another reason to tighten the borders! Foreign kilometers sneaking in from Canada!

Re:Country size matters

[pyrrhonist]

Thanks for the info. The good news is that the bill didn't kill the network.

Re:Country size matters

[pyrrhonist]

If it's not cost effective to wire up a town of 100000 people, explain why I have cable internet, DSL and wireless available in my town of 11000 and have had it since the population was lower than 10000. The next town over of 30000 has the same options as well.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. My town of 36,000 supposedly has broadband too, however, there are hundreds of homes (even new homes) in my town without broadband access. These homes probably won't ever be wired, because it's just not cost effective to upgrade the lines.

Well then...

[parasonic]

Is technology really the end all, be all in America? In the world? Some people do have priorities. And hey, by the way, I am a comp e major, and I realize this.

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, bombing the shit out of the rest of the planet is the end all, be all in America. What the fuck is a comp e major anyway?

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

right, but if you had an asshole leader who gassed your family wouldn't you be a little pissed and want help from another country?

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what a CompE is and you are surfing slashdot? You have to be a liberal arts major. I'm thinking psychology, or possibly sociology

Ie been high speed for 11 years

[Anonymous Coward]

And I live in Nova Scotia. Crappy thing is, I used to pay 40 bucks a month for 7 Mbits down and now I pay 50 for 2.5 Mbits with PPPOE. Blah

Slow?

[jon855]

I ain;t complaining, I have a broadband from Comcast but although I would perfer to see broadband to drop in the prices of 20's and then I would believe that nearly everyone will have broadband as oppose to 56k in some areas.

Ok, here's the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how some people don't own a TV because they simply aren't that interested in watching it?

Well, some of us are the same way about high speed internet. Dialup gets you all that you really need. Applications like bittorrent are not really necessary (unless you're addicted to video pr0n).

Re:Ok, here's the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't own a TV because I have high speed internet.

Dialup does suck for some things.

Re:Ok, here's the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people like living on upaved, dirt roads
in the country. It's nice and quaint for some.
You can choose to live that way.

But the GOVERNMENT should be building interstate
highway systems. Right now, the government
has failed in its job. When Bush took office,
we were number 3 or 4 in the world with internet
connectivity. Now we're 11th.

The whole georgraphy argument is bunk. Sure,
the US is larger in size. But running cables
long distances is not the problem. It's
called "the last mile", or the last link from
the long hauls to the home owners. That has
to be done (primarily) by government policies
that foster competition, since monopolists have
no incentive to improve bandwidth. (In fact,
you only see high speed bw in cities with
competition from the old ISPs... coincidence?)

What would America be like if we didn't
build the interstate highway system in the
1950s (which spawned countless industries)?
Well, we'll find out, since the government
no longer promotes the creation of the
new information highways, and creates FCC
policies that favor monopolies (instead of
competition, growth, etc.)

Me, I'm learning Chinese. Half our foreign
debt is now held by China. It's the rise of
the Asian Century, facilitated by the
PeopleWhoDon'tGetIt (tm) in Washington.

Re:Ok, here's the deal

[lfrandom]

Come on, the government is not the entity to complain about regarding this. Private enterprise has failed to connect areas where it would be unprofitable. I don't blame them. Imagine it would cost $1 mil to wire up 100 people, that is a lot of money for a little benefit. This is made even more obvious by the simple fact that these people don't all want or need broadband.

Re:Ok, here's the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine it would cost $1 mil to wire up 100 people, that is a lot of money for a little benefit.

Wow. Or imagine that it'd cost $100 mils! That'd be $1 mil one connection! That cannot be financially profitable.

Now, imagine that it would cost $10.000 to wire 100 people. Or imagine that you could just draw numbers out of hat to support your opinion! Now there's business!

Re:Ok, here's the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope your not implying Bush is to blame for our current economic woes.
The problems of today have been compounding over several presidential terms. Do go blaming the Republicans because both parties are equally responsible. Ross Perot warned the public. He said after NAFTA and the opening of borders to free trade. It would siphon wealth.
also, It's not like we weren't already in finacial trouble at the time with a huge incured debt from arms build up.

"... and even Canada"?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Canadian, I find that particular statement vaguely offensive. It seems to imply that one should not expect Canadians to be technologically advanced.

Re:"... and even Canada"?

[Mahou]

i think it stems from the image of mounties still riding horses

Re:"... and even Canada"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's there because people know it is more expensive to provide broadband to a spread out population than a dense one, and Canada is big compaired to it's population.

Re:"... and even Canada"?

[Cplus]

Agreed.

Re:"... and even Canada"?

[Cplus]

Aye, but the government in Canada paid for the backbone to be put across the country. Different from the states where such things are done by corporate interests. A consortium of business, educational, and governmental interests worked on the project which brought about the world's first national optical Internet research and education network. This has blossomed into CA*net4, which is our current backbone.

Government interest in broadening communications abilities in Canada has always been viewed as culturally and economically important. A country laid out as we are couldn't possibly survive or thrive without such an interest. Canada paid a lot of attention to the establishment of the national telephone network, a great deal of funding is pumped into the cbc to guarantee that every community has access to it, and now .

Re:"... and even Canada"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, but the government in Canada paid for the backbone to be put across the country.

Actually, US did the same, and funded the Internet probably much more than currently Canada, when it was a research project. But then US privatized the backbones and much of the Internet, at the time people started commercial use (there are still very gov-funded high bandwidth academic backbones, ...).

Re:"... and even Canada"?

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

CA*net4s equivalent in the US is Abilene.

Re:"... and even Canada"?

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

Even Canada can string up digital phone lines, unbelievable. Heck Ill just go outside and feed the polar bears before I get on my skidoo to go hang out at the hole in the ice. Even Canada... that backward farming & lumber place where the cold breezes come from...

home of:

• Telesat is a pioneer in satellite communications. Created in 1969, the Company made history with the launch of Anik A1 in 1972 the worlds first commercial domestic communications satellite placed in geostationary orbit. (http://www.telesat.ca)
• Nortel -- pretty much world leaders in digital technology applied to telephony since it started. present in 150 countries. (http://www.nortel.com/corporate/corptime/index.ht ml )
• ATI, Matrox, Alias, Softimage, (this crowd knows who they are.)
• Bombardier -- biggest railcar manufacturer in the world. 3rd largest aircraft manufacturer after airbus & boeing.

Not all of these are in the greatest of health at the moment, and there are a lot of others that arent so easily recognizable or easily described. but sheesh even Canada just rubs my pet seal the wrong way.

Re:"... and even Canada"?

[Cplus]

Yep, that's the difference that I was pointing out. I figured I could spare everyone the ARPANET history.

Re:"... and even Canada"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the image of a mountie riding around in a Ford Crown Victoria pointing a radar gun at unsuspecting (speeding) motorists is somehow less romantic. Welcome to my world.

Not a fair comparision

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see which country uses more speed.

Re:Not a fair comparision

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not fair, America has so many more Windows boxes...

Re:Not a fair comparision

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see which country uses more speed.

The U.S. would STILL lose that one. Japan has the highest number of methamphetamine (ab)users in the world. Oh, wait, not THAT speed?

Fiber

[caryw]

We have so much dark fiber laid it's ridiculous.
In a big city or town in other countries most buildings have ethernet running throughout with one tap to a fiber backbone in the telephone closet. Here every office suite is expected to pay a premium for DSL. And you wonder why we're behind on the times, it's our marketing and poor policy machines at work.
Residential users are a little different, but very rarely do you hear of a homeowners association getting together and buying a fiber trunk or something.
--
NoVA Underground: Where Northern Virginia comes out to play

Re:Fiber

[kettch]

I watched a work crew dig a trench a couple miles down a local highway headed in my direction (w00t) and then I watched as they laid a pipe that was obviously a fiber conduit. The trench and conduit go a few miles down the highway and then stop. (not w00t) That was several years ago and they haven't done anything since.

I live in an area that is considered rural because it is isolated by terrain rather than distance from town. Hell, at night I can lights from houses on the ridge about a mile away and who live in "town" and who probably have all the broadband they can possible use.

My area is not even an option for any carrier of cable or DSL because there aren't enough people out there to justify the expense. I'm sure the minute one of the neighbors sells out to a subdivision there will be telco and cable trucks everywhere. Until then, I get 56k on a good day.

Re:Fiber

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones, but my fiber is lit up here in Sacramento, CA! Surewest has been great in providing the 10Mbps service to some areas here, although they still have a ways to go. But I have not had any problems, and it kicks DSL or Cable's ass any day of the week. Now whether they can survive against the behemoths of SBC or Comcast remains to be seen, but I am supporting them.

Re:Fiber

[arodland]

You and me both. I live in an area that is, again, just a couple miles from "town", but separated by mountainous terrain. There's no cable, because the cable co decided it wouldn't be worth the expense all those years ago. There's phoneline, but it can barely even carry 56k (usually it can't), let alone DSL, because someone spends all their money to have James Earl Jones tell me how great broadband is. Satellite and wireless are potential options, but both of those are greatly complicated by the abundance of leafy trees. And, satellite sucks. So here I am, a generally geeky guy, and I've got a connection that ranges from 33600bps on a good day to 14400 on a bad day. It's not because broadband is too expensive, or I think it wouldn't be worthwhile; it's simply not an option.

Re:Fiber

[rob_squared]

Sooo. If we used more *fiber*, we'd be *reglular* like other countries?

What about the midwest?

[TelJanin]

Just how do you plan to get broadband out to the middle of the country? It's much more profitable for ISPs to hit the coasts and large cities.

Re:What about the midwest?

[ksheff]

It's already in the middle of the county. My parents can get DSL in their little town in the middle of SD, they just don't want it. For what they do, dialup is fine.

Re:What about the midwest?

[kcb93x]

Yeah...well, lemme put it this way:

USWEST PROMISED US DSL.

Yes, for those of you remember our little survivor from Ma Bell all those years ago..gobbled up by qwest.

The DSL line has NOT MOVED IN 6 YEARS. It's been 1/2 mile south of us for that amount of time. Now we're finally hearing that we "can hope to have DSL by July" but I'm not putting much faith in that.

No, wireless links were and are too expensive - too many tall trees, and any towers we set up would become the tallest thing around.

Satellite's too expensive and too laggy.

Cable will never come here, housing isn't dense enough. (5 acre lots - some small developments now are being built on 1-3 acres)

Re:What about the midwest?

[jlehtira]

Gee, do they have telephone lines there? Why not use the same copper for dsl? Granted, copper quality might be a problem if it was made by the lowest bidder decades ago.

Re:What about the midwest?

[CastrTroy]

However most broadband companies in canada now offer highspeed lite service. 256 K connection for $20 a month. Can't really beat that. fast then a phone, and you don't tie up the phone.

US v. Canada

[pilot-programmer]

I live just south of the border so I get to see how two different countries do it on a regular basis. In Canada internet access seems to be treated like any other public utility, broadband is easy to access, and it is priced affordably.

Compare to this part of the US where companies charge around $50 per month for broadband and act like they are doing us a major favor by only charging double what I pay for phone service or water and sewage on a monthly basis.

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

"In Canada internet access seems to be treated like any other public utility, broadband is easy to access, and it is priced affordably."

Bollocks. I paid 72% of my gross in taxes last fiscal year. That is why we have $20 broadband and 'free' healthcare. It is not magic and fairies.

Re:US v. Canada

[Monkelectric]

Dont forget -- the lockin effect. Broadband usually costs round 50$ a month, but in reality its more like 100$ -- reason being -- you cant GET broadband in most cities without subscribing to other services. Our cable+internet bill weights in at about 120$/m -- 50ish a month for internet, 70$ a month for a modest subscription to cable.

Re:US v. Canada

[Cplus]

I'm pretty sure that very little, if any of your taxes went to helping out the communications sector. You have cheap broadband because that sector of industry is given tax breaks, and encouraged to thrive. This is not a bad thing, it's probably why you make so much money (just a guess).

You should seek out a decent accountant and get some advice on how to manage your finances so that you don't have to pay so much tax. There are ways of making as much as you do and not putting it all in the pot.

Re:US v. Canada

[Loco3KGT]

Well, access to the Internet isn't a public utility. Life without it is completely feasible. Life with just email is no big deal at all.

Re:US v. Canada

[dnixon112]

You know, life without telephones, roads, electricity is also completely feasible. That doesn't mean the government shouldn't fund these utilities for the good of the people.

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe everyone else is taking up the slack for special industry tax breaks.

Re:US v. Canada

[BewireNomali]

Bollocks. I paid 72% of my gross in taxes last fiscal year. That is why we have $20 broadband and 'free' healthcare. It is not magic and fairies.

sh*t, dude. that sucks. but the word bollocks always makes me laugh.

Re:US v. Canada

[Mortlath]

The difference I see is that so many people I know don't even want broadband. Most people I know that are older than 30 years old don't care for broadband. Dial-up suits their needs, or so they tell me.

It's not worth it for companies to provide internet to the one or two households who want it in a certain area.

I think that when people here in the US want broadband, they'll get it.

Re:US v. Canada

[Jedi Alec]

here in Holland it is in fact considered as such. We've already reached the point where broadband internet is named in the same breath as electricity, gas, water, cable-tv and telephone. And since pretty much every household has cable and a telephone line, they can pick between cable internet or some sort of DSL. Benefits of a small country I suppose(or us sitting right on top of the trans-atlantic link perhaps :P)

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Toronto. The prices are basically as you said. 48/mnth for Sympatico DSL, 34/mnth for phone, 59/mnth for Rogers digital cable. You can't get DSL without a phone line (though I found out from a csr that you can cancel it after getting the DSL activated) and I think it's the same with Rogers cable if you go the other route. There's another couple of DSL providers here that are a couple of bucks cheaper but I've used Sympatico for years... they haven't majorly pissed me off yet.

Shit... I hardly watch any tv and my apartment costs 1000/mnth. No fucking wonder I'm so broke.

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno, availability might change attitudes. Where I live it's cheap and easy to get, phone and cable companies offer deals like 3 months free when you move. After seeing how convenient it is to have it always on and the speed improvement they usually pony up the $30 subscription. But when I visit my parents almost everyone uses dialup and I find I can get websites s'okay, though I can't do my preferred method of opening 20 articles at once and immediately getting the content.

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. I paid 72% of my gross in taxes last fiscal year.

Yes, that's right. Same as in the other countries who have high broadband availability. The reason we have good connectivity is the high taxes.

Re:US v. Canada

[Cannucklehead]

72%???

How did you manage that? I make way over the national average wage and paid less than 30% in taxes.

The highest -marginal- tax rate combining federal and provincial taxes is just under 49%.

Your 72% claim sounds a bit bogus to me...

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how accurate 72% is, but you pay a lot more than just income tax. You also pay sales tax (~15% in many instances), property tax (either directly or through rent), gasoline tax, etc. Depending on how much of your income you manage to save, these taxes all add up to much more than 30%.

Re:US v. Canada

[Apathetic1]

Maybe I don't live in "most cities" but both of the places I've lived you get a $5-10/mo discount on cable Internet if you have cable TV. My parents have satellite TV and cable Internet and their Internet bill is still under $50/mo.

Re:US v. Canada

[Apathetic1]

One of the reasons broadband is cheap in Canada is because the CRTC (a bit like the FCC) has capped the price.

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, there's a reason economists don't count that shit - because it varies by where you live and what you buy. Those prices are referred to as "cost of living" and are different from citytocity provicetoprovince. Trying to add them all up into one big number is bogus and not terribly convincing to anyone who's taken ECO101.

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you manage that? I make way over the national average wage and paid less than 30% in taxes.

Given that income tax on poverty-level income is 29% and basic sales taxes are 14.5% (in BC) I would be really interested to know how you managed that.

I'm guessing that you are in the enviable position of being able to take full advantage of the various mechanisms for concentrating wealth (capital gains exemptions, business deductions, specific investment tax breaks etc.) but I still don't see how you can possibly get your cumulative taxes that low.

Just as an excercise, you should work your way through a "bottom line" calculation of the Federal and Provincial budget. Rather than taking CRA's word on what you are paying, look at the total budget and divide by total (national or provincial) income. That will give a much more accurate picture of how much government really costs.

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh?!? You must be a government PR man. NOT counting these things as taxes is totally bogus. Cost of living my ass... They're called T.A.X. for some fucking reason, that's because they are taxes. Oh and, first learn to spell ECON 101 before you get all high and mighty from the top of your horse of ignorance.

Re:US v. Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's one definition of "cost of living" (from Google) The average cost of the basic necessities of life, including food, shelter, and clothing.

Here's one definition of "tax." An enforced charge imposed on persons, property or income. Compulsory payment by a citizen to a unit of government.

Note that the classic definition of cost of living specifically excludes certain taxes but by not means all. As for the other taxes: economists certainly DO count that shit. They don't explain it to ECON101 students because, as you observe, it is a complex question: not all of the money collected (over 60% of the GDP) is wasted on administration, learjets and pork, a small fraction of the money collected is actually returned in the form of real goods and services (road, hospitals etc).

ALL infrastructure

[Ars-Fartsica]

How about the hole in the roof of the local school? How about the 50% of bridges the US govt says are in need of serious repair? How about the 50%+ of municipal sewer systems local govts say are in need of "major" overhauls? Roads? Same. Don't even mention the power grid.

I like broadband but its pretty far down on the list of critical infrastructure projects we have neglected to pursue war, enriching the upper class, and funding a global colonial regime.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[shreevatsa]

we have neglected to pursue war, enriching the upper class, and funding a global colonial regime
No, you haven't neglected to pursue any of these, you really have pursued war, etc. ;)

Re:ALL infrastructure

[luvirini]

The general problem facing any country in the world is the "how to keep up services in the new world"

Basically the goal of globalisation atleast seems to be to have other countries reach the that same status that US has reached, as written in the parent post.

The way things are moved to places with minimal corporate taxation will lead to things getting more and more harmonised at the given model.

Some countries try to buck the trend and many have been successfull sofar, but with the push coming, this seems to be getting harder.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[CarlinWithers]

I'm not trying to troll, but is money really this tight in the US? We're not rich in Canada, in fact our GDP per head is a few thousand lower than you guys. But we have money for broadband, and our public schools, roads, and bridges while underfunded aren't as bad as you are describing.

Is there really that little money left over for society once the corporations have had their fill? Do they really have that much power that they can shut down municipal WiFi like I've read in previous slashdot articles? I'd hate to be a commie, but maybe corporations should be taxed more so that some of the money goes back to society. Not all redistribution of wealth by the government is evil.

In fact what's so bad about governments reigning in corporations anyways? What was really bad about communism/socialism was the rights violations. Freedom is important, and a fundamental American value. It's important to me too. But you guys need to get to a point where freedom is restrained when it affects other people's rights. For example, large corporations making it difficult for you guys to get broadband internet.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

most of what the US Federal Govt spends is for social entitlements. Cut that by 10% and spend it on infrastructure and you probably couldn't find enough people to man the projects. But then again, none of this is new. The same concerns were around when Clinton was getting a BJ and nothing was done then. At least Bush is spending some money on new pipelines.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Stalyn]

As an incredibily wealthy billionaire who has made millions off the industrial-military complex that runs this country... who also happens to have a mansion in a remote location to avoid minorities, which lacks broadband access... I completey disagree with you. I'm just joking.. I have broadband access.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Ars-Fartsica]

I'm not trying to troll, but is money really this tight in the US?

No, there is plenty of money, we just don't spend it on things most Americans really want it spent on. For the cost of the Iraq war you could have demolished and rebuilt from the ground up, a significant portion of all of the school in the US. Or you could have paid for everyone's healthcare for one year (every US resident), or you could have wired most major cities for 100MB connections to the residence, or at least made a dent in the debt.

Americans pay taxes comparable to other market-based nations too, so the idea that they are saving the wealth is also wrong,

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Yotsuya]

And teaching kids to *read*:

The sentence breaks down as:
(I like broadband) but (its pretty far down on the (list of critical infrastructure projects we have neglected)) to (pursue war, enriching the upper class, and funding a global colonial regime).

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Ars-Fartsica]

Cut that by 10% and spend it on infrastructure and you probably couldn't find enough people to man the projects.

Thats right, because no one would quit quality jobs like those offered at Walmart or Wendy's to work on a construction project. Your assumption is that only the unemployed could be drawn upon, which is false.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

While Clinton was getting a BJ from ML, I was getting a BJ from Laura.... She really didn't know what to do with an average sized dick though... she just couldn't quit going on about how big it was.... It really wasn't very good head at all.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[shreevatsa]

Oh thanks, I get what the sentence means now, but no thanks to your bracketing. I just reread it and got it, but it might have been better as: I like broadband but it's pretty far down on (the list of critical infrastructure projects that we have neglected, in order to instead pursue (war,enriching the upper class, and funding a global colonial regime)).
I guess this is what was intended. Sorry :)

Re:ALL infrastructure

[coaxial]

I'm an American. I'll fill you in.

Yes. Our infrastructure is falling apart quite literally at the seams. Yes. The corporations have enough power to shutdown municiple WiFi ("It amounts to unfair government price controls, and government price controls are communist.") Yes. Education spending and educational standards are falling. Yes. The wage gap is getting larger. Yes. some care. No. Not enough are willing to do anything about it because they're distracted by gay marriage. Yes. America is moving full tilt to dismantle every socioeconomic safety net in the country, and effectively repeal the 20th century.

America's best days are behind it.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

US per student spending is much higher than Canada and frankly majority of the world.
US schools are much better equipped and housed than anywhere in the world.

Fuck , this whole nonsense about US about go broke is one big pile of shit.

So called US poor (as defined by Census) would be considered middle class in places like France or Italy.
Fucking cancer surival rates in US are higher than anywhere in the world and we are not talkin here about the rich cause these statistics are for all people diagnosed with this disease.

" For example, large corporations making it difficult for you guys to get broadband internet."

What the fuck are you talking about ?
Are you that stupid ?
What would be a point for a corporation to "make broadband hard to get " ?

Go check the motherfucking pricewatch.com and compare prices to European or Canadian and see what the true competion is all about.

On average people in USA make much more money then anywhere in the world and the fucking prices tend to be lower as well.
Fucking whining bitches like that guy who wrote the original are typical case of fucks who don't know how good they have.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Cplus]

I would reccomend that you read Atlas Shrugged.

Not only is it a great read, but it gives you an idea of the ideal that capitalism is when taken to extremes. It is, of course, a work of fiction, and shouldn't be taken as anything other than an idea of how things could be.

I agree with you and would have Canada be a more socialist Canada if that were possible currently. Sadly we're about to have a national election called and I don't see it happening.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Guppy06]

You've really opened a can of worms. In essence, you've just asked "What's wrong with the US?" and you'll get a million different answers. :)

At any rate, my own personal spin is that we've managed to break our federal model of government. For example...

"Is there really that little money left over for society once the corporations have had their fill? Do they really have that much power that they can shut down municipal WiFi like I've read in previous slashdot articles?"

The problem maybe isn't so much that the corporations have so much power in state government, but that local governments and municipalities have so little. Even if the people in a city or a county were so in agreement with each other as to form a big enough chunk of the population to sway state policy, often they're gerrymandered into different districts and into obscurity in the name of creating single-party districts. Ultimately, the places that set up MuniWiFi are stuck with working through their own bunch of lobbyists. Even if the private interests don't have as much weight, they are better organized.

The same can be said about state-national relations. State policies can be trumped by the FCC for any reason whatsoever, but the states are rarely given a real voice to defend themselves. States can try to lobby Congress one way or the other, but there's only so much money they can spend on lobbying efforts without raising the ire of state taxpayers (though now I'm curious about what would happen if a state actually hired some big-name Washington lobbyist...).

The lack of communication between layers also means a lack of coordination in policies, which also helps to explain why municipalities are pushing one way while states are pushing in the opposite direction. It's not just voters watching those "Save Texas Broadband!" commercials on TV but also state legislators. And there's little reason for the state governments to listen a little more closely to municipalities when they all claim to represent the same people.

At any rate, that's my biased $0.02.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot "the sky is falling" etc. etc.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's "peak oil"?

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is it a great read, but it gives you an idea of the ideal that capitalism is when taken to extremes.

I agree with you and would have Canada be a more socialist Canada if that were possible currently. Sadly we're about to have a national election called and I don't see it happening.

If you think Atlas Shrugged makes the case for socialism, you must have very bad reading comprehension.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. America is moving full tilt to dismantle every socioeconomic safety net in the country, and effectively repeal the 20th century.

Good. Let's hope America once again becomes a free nation, where leftist swine like you can no longer steal from us.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun getting your throat cut by thieves instead.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Your absolutely right. If you read the news, you would think the internet and the digital world is more important then the physical world LOL!! We suffer from "techno fetish". HEY!!
what about all the old stuff that we need that isn't new technology, things like sewage and roads.
Oh, I know this forum thinks its not cool to be a plumber, farmer, or road worker, or any of the assorted old jobs but being a code monkey is somehow more intelligent and elite. Well guess what! society needs competent people to do those jobs too.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Let's hope America once again becomes a free nation, where leftist swine like you can no longer steal from us.

my god, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. congratulations you scared me

Re:ALL infrastructure

[beeblebrox87]

Well stated, and I agree completely. So move. There are plenty of better places in the world to live than America, where living standards are higher, politics are more sane, and the overall culture is more tolerant and less ignorant. So leave America now. I left four years ago, and I certainly don't regret it.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it means that for him, government is SO inefficient that he can just keep his tax money and hire bodyguards instead of paying for municipal police and community improvement projects to reduce crime in the first place, build an entirely fireproof house so he would never need to have a fire department, hire the best tutors fulltime so he'd never need to have a school, and hire a doctor and surgeon so he'd never have to use a hospital. He'll also live in a plastic bubble so he never has to deal with the diseases of those less fortunate than him. And even after hiring all these people, he'd have spent less money than he would after taxes because he pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes a year thanks to those rightist swine spending hundreds of billions to raid random countri... oh wait, wrong rant... Those leftist swine stealing billions to make the country a better place for everyone who isn't a CEO.

The world could go to hell in a handbasket around him, but what would he care, he's got his altar of solid gold in the basement that he prays to and kisses every night before going to sleep.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[TheCaptain]

You know...I am not surprised to see this coming from someone with a *.edu address. There is so much leftist groupthink clogging up the academic scene right now, frankly it's no damned wonder the quality of education is down. I love the quip about educational spending too...standard lefty solution to all problems - throw money at it. (And generally, that means YOUR money...it's much easier to spend other people's money than your own, eh?) I love the automatic association of increased spending to fixed problems.

It's funny how you say things like "corporations have enough power to shut down municipal wifi" as if it is a scientific fact. Newsflash - they don't. They can try though...they might even succeed in a few places, but I am calling bullshit on your generalization.

Same things with lines like "America's best days are behind it". That is your fucking opinion. Don't state it like a fact, unless of course, you happen to have a crystal ball.

The whole goddamned post reeks of leftist arrogance, and frankly, I am done with it. It's damn sad that this type of thing is what gets modded up on slashdot.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

my god, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. congratulations you scared me

It's quite simple, really.

It means pussified girly-men like you will no longer be allowed to steal our money, property and liberty.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but if it wasn't for the war in Iraq, then what would have happened to FREEDOM?

FREEDOM is more important than broadband.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[lawpoop]

Interesting how your 'counter-argument' consists of nothing more than ad-hominem attacks, straw men, and factless assertions.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it means that for him, government is SO inefficient that he can just keep his tax money and hire bodyguards instead of paying for municipal police and community improvement projects to reduce crime in the first place, build an entirely fireproof house so he would never need to have a fire department, hire the best tutors fulltime so he'd never need to have a school, and hire a doctor and surgeon so he'd never have to use a hospital. He'll also live in a plastic bubble so he never has to deal with the diseases of those less fortunate than him. And even after hiring all these people, he'd have spent less money than he would after taxes because he pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes a year

You stupid fucktarded subhuman.

My guns protect me more than the local cops, I'll send my kids to private schools, pay for private health insurance and use private hospitals.

As for highways and fire departments, my total tax burden for those would be around $1,500 per year, and that's being generous. Add that to what I pay for private services, and that's still OVER AN ORDER OF BUTT FUCKING MAGNITUDE LESS than what I currently pay in taxes for leftist programs.

thanks to those rightist swine spending hundreds of billions to raid random countri... oh wait, wrong rant... Those leftist swine stealing billions to make the country a better place for everyone who isn't a CEO.

Yes, those hundreds of billions should be used for tax cuts, which is still less than the TRILLIONS spent on your disgusting socialist programs over the past few years.

Rodents like you need to die.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the politicians spending $40 billion a year to eliminate poverty for the past 40 years? How many people have they pulled out of poverty? None. It's worse than ever. Let's tax the rich, and throw more money at the poor.

The truth is, you are a typical lefty, not willing to solve problems, but certainly willing to whine about the status quo. It's all George Bush's fault. Woe is me. You've been reading too many NY Times editorials.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Mr. Arbusto]

Yes. Our infrastructure is falling apart quite literally at the seams.

It is old, and needs repairing, but really, there is no way it is going to even be thought about until it is nearly broken, why fix it (there is no incentive and no need)

Yes. Education spending and educational standards are falling.

Huh? What? What country are you living in? Federally the Department of Education manages a budget of 71.5 billion. That doesn't include billions in congressional discretionary spending, State, County and local tax revenues. Truly spending can't be the issue.

No. Not enough are willing to do anything about it because they're distracted by gay marriage.

You forgot Guns in the "Guns and Gays" tactics. Though Democrats are planning on bringing up Shivo in the next round of federal elections, just as a heads up for social issues.

Yes. America is moving full tilt to dismantle every socioeconomic safety net in the country, and effectively repeal the 20th century.

GDP = C + I + G + NX, G=3.1+Trillion Dollars, NX isn't that big of a deal if C and I are large. I don't think the government is going to spend any less in my life time, unless it implodes.

America's best days are behind it.

Congrats, you are a pessimist. You know that studies have shown that people who are pessimistic have a higher probability of becoming senile when they grow old?

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean how most of slashdot's groupthink operates? Nice observation.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[HiThere]

Have you checked the immigration requirements?

Anyplace with a sane health-care system (to mention but one example) will demand tight constraints on who is allowed to immigrate. For obvious reasons.

I understand that in the Scandinavian countries, the main requirement is that you be fluent in the native language...but that, in itself, is a rather tight restriction if you live in most places. (Germany and Denmark, etc. are presumably exceptions in that it wouldn't be a tight constraint.)

In the early days of the Bush reign I felt this worth checking out. The answer was pretty much T.S. if you want to speak an English dialect. (Unless, that is, you have family connections to the country in question.)

Age is significant. If you are under 30 it's probably easier. But the world is full, and nobody really wants to take on any more passengers, or even crew.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[iwadasn]

Not quite true. The american tax rate (the average tax rate) is substantially less than in other industrialized nations. This is primarily due to the fact that we don't really tax the wealthy. Unearned income (dividends, stock gains, trust funds, you name it) are generally taxed at a much lower rate in the US than earned income (wages), and there are LOTS of loopholes that let people avoid even this minimal level of taxes.

For you and me, the tax rate is the same as elsewhere, but for the superwealthy, it's very, very low by comparison.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we'll hear about you on the 6 o'clock news some night.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[arminw]

...Not all redistribution of wealth by the government is evil...

Fine with me, as long as it is YOUR wealth they are redistributing, not mine. ...but maybe corporations should be taxed more...

Corporations are fictitious entities run and owned by real live people, just like you. These real people usually ARE taxed on the profits or salaries they get from the corporations. These real people are taxed when they make capital gains from the sale of shares in these corproations. In the end, it is always real people, not fictitious entities that pay real taxes, either directly or indirectly through higher prices for the products of these corporations. When the total tax burden of a society approaches or in some cases exceeds 50%, the incentive to work harder for more income is eliminated for many people. If a nation is likened to a business enterprise, then the total tax burden is like the overhead. When the overhead of a business gets too high, bankruptcy becomes a very real danger.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[netfool]

I'd just like to comment on this "Education spending and educational standards are falling.".

I was born and raised in Duluth, MN, I'm 26 now. My 9 year old nephew does (basic) algebra equations in school. This isn't because he's especially bright in math or anything, this is the standard for everyone going there.
When I was growing up here, you didn't even have the option of learning algebra until at least the 7th or 8th grade.

Have you seen these kids play basketball today? It's great. There's a single team with boy's and girls. Sex (or anything else) doesn't matter, I think they're learning it's just a matter of working together to complete a common task.
When I was younger, they spilt up the boys & girl.
They also play SO much harder. We never played like that, we just kind of screwed around & had fun.

Anyways, I admit I'm a bit nieve when it comes to international educational standards (or any for that matter), but these kids today, compared to what I experienced, it's rather impressive. They're learning a lot more, a lot earlier. I see the standards as rising.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[coaxial]

Well stated, and I agree completely. So move. There are plenty of better places in the world to live than America, where living standards are higher, politics are more sane, and the overall culture is more tolerant and less ignorant. So leave America now. I left four years ago, and I certainly don't regret it.

Some of us would rather fight than surrender.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[coaxial]

You know...I am not surprised to see this coming from someone with a *.edu address. There is so much leftist groupthink clogging up the academic scene right now, frankly it's no damned wonder the quality of education is down.

Yeah. Higher education just brainwashes young and impressionbable youths. It's no wonder conservatism was destroyed in 1952.

It's funny how you say things like "corporations have enough power to shut down municipal wifi" as if it is a scientific fact. Newsflash - they don't. They can try though...they might even succeed in a few places, but I am calling bullshit on your generalization.

It's still too early tell, but I'll bring drug reimportation from Canada as a parallel. Why is this outlawed? Oh yeah, it's price controls, and the drugs aren't safe even though they're all made in the exact same production plant.

The whole goddamned post reeks of leftist arrogance, and frankly, I am done with it. It's damn sad that this type of thing is what gets modded up on slashdot.

And all you're posts reek of troll

By the way, you can't be true Republican. You took the Lord's name in vain, and that's a sin. Well, maybe you've just backslid.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[coaxial]

Yes. America is moving full tilt to dismantle every socioeconomic safety net in the country, and effectively repeal the 20th century.

GDP = C + I + G + NX, G=3.1+Trillion Dollars, NX isn't that big of a deal if C and I are large. I don't think the government is going to spend any less in my life time, unless it implodes.

This was a reference to the recent push to dismantle Social Security[1] and the recent successful move to effectively eliminate bankruptcy protection for working class individuals, yet maintain the protection for the very wealthy.[2]

[1] Make no mistake. Those pushing for "private accounts" are the same ones who have a history of arguing that Social Security is socialist, and should not exist. Now they're arguing for "reform". Yeah. They have SS's best interest at heart.

[2] People's homes aren't even protected anymore, yet if you're rich enough, you can place your assets in an out of state "protection trust", and make them untouchable.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Worth observing that Bush changed the dividend tax rate to 0%. Yup, that's right: Bush and his friends pay virtually no taxes. In Bush's case, for example, he has to pay taxes on $75000/year minus deductions which (assuming dividend income is 8% of $15M net worth) works out to a whopping 1.17% of his total income. One of his suits probably costs the taxpayer more than he pays in taxes for a year.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[TheCaptain]

Yeah. Higher education just brainwashes young and impressionbable youths. It's no wonder conservatism was destroyed in 1952.

Can you point out where that was implied? I am critical of the current status of academia...not of education at any level. There is quite a big difference between those two things, in my mind.

It's still too early tell, but I'll bring drug reimportation from Canada as a parallel. Why is this outlawed? Oh yeah, it's price controls, and the drugs aren't safe even though they're all made in the exact same production plant.

Well fuck me...I'll admit their arguments against it are weak. I am sorry that so many people can not fit this one simple fact in their ittle heads: Not all people who are generally conservative and/or republican tow the party line.

As an inflamatory sidenote: That little piece of reality often proves shocking and horrifying to young lefties right when they come off of the college campuses. It's kinda like giving science lessons to fundamentalists.

And all you're posts reek of troll

By the way, you can't be true Republican. You took the Lord's name in vain, and that's a sin. Well, maybe you've just backslid.

Not really...the original reeked of troll. But then I looked at his website and felt redeemed. Leftist yammering and the line " I think I'll just stick around in academia for awhile". Gee...you don't farking say....

Oh well...anything to avoid leaving the bubble and dealing with reality, I guess.

As for the words I picked - again - I know the college leftist mind is very narrow, but not all conservatives and/or Republicans are fundamentalist Christians. Hell, some aren't even religeous. You know...I think more liberals struggle with that one than leftists though, to be fair.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[TheCaptain]

Interesting how your 'counter-argument' consists of nothing more than ad-hominem attacks, straw men, and factless assertions.

Interesting how your post automagically dismisses mine without even trying to make a 'counter-argument'...

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Mr. Arbusto]

[1] Make no mistake. Those pushing for "private accounts" are the same ones who have a history of arguing that Social Security is socialist, and should not exist. Now they're arguing for "reform". Yeah. They have SS's best interest at heart.

It is pretty Socialist, it is actually being defended by Socialist party. Here is an Idea, you for people to put ~15% of their income into an IRA type fund, the default is Federal Governemnt Treasure Bonds as a perchase. Seriously, SS is a government entitlement and in its current form is a load of bloaded shit and miss understandings of its purpose, oh and socialist. There is already several other welfare plans for truley poor people, but when someone works and ~15% of their income is taken as a tax (Not an IOU it is a tax) that sounds pretty socialist to me.

[2] People's homes aren't even protected anymore, yet if you're rich enough, you can place your assets in an out of state "protection trust", and make them untouchable

Did you notice who is in congress? Did you notice that americans spent and estimated 6.6 Billlion hours on income taxes. There is something horribly wrong with our tax system as a whole. There are huge businesses in exsistence because our tax code is complex and has lots of loopholes to place money in and take deductions. There is an entire department dedicated to writing and understanding our complex tax code. How about all income is taxed 15% or something like that (I haven't researched a suitble number) no deductions, no federal wire tax, energy tax, H&R Block, housing trust fund shelters, "Protection trusts" or better yet, national sales taxes paid for by the states (though sales taxes just like payroll taxes are very regressive but totally fair and hard to dodge)

To sum up: Social Securit is very Socialist, and wasn't ever ment to be in its current form. There is too much tax law, remove it, make it simple, spend less money figuring it out and more money making money and everyone is better off.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun getting your throat cut by thieves instead.

This is why people own guns.

Without a government around to protect murderous thieves, we can expect great drops in such crimes.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[lawpoop]

Yes, I am not making a counter argument. You deserve to be dissed for a lousy counter argument.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Cplus]

Actually I was reccomending it to the grandparent poster for a deeper understanding of how capitalism should/could work. If you read the first sentence that you quoted I explained exactly why I was reccomending it. The last sentence of my response, which you also quoted, was added incidentally and really had nothing to do with the book, but rather was a response to the general tone of the grandparent post.

Such as it is, I feel that one of us certainly does have a reading comprehension problem, though at the moment my only issue is that I'm responding to a snarky comment made by an AC.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[coaxial]

Yeah. Higher education just brainwashes young and impressionbable youths. It's no wonder conservatism was destroyed in 1952.

Can you point out where that was implied? I am critical of the current status of academia...not of education at any level. There is quite a big difference between those two things, in my mind

And nowhere did I imply that you were critical of education. I was countering your Horwitz-like notion that universities (as seen through the swipe at *.edu addresses) were nothing but dens of rampant liberalism that stomps out all conservitive ideas. If that was true. Conservatism would have died out quickly after the post-war boom in higher-education enrollment.

Not really...the original reeked of troll. But then I looked at his website and felt redeemed.

I thought the same thing of you, until I noticed that every post you've made is little more than diatribe against "leftist groupthink" and damn liberals. I've read more entertaining writing by Ann Coulter.

Leftist yammering and the line " I think I'll just stick around in academia for awhile". Gee...you don't farking say....

Oh well...anything to avoid leaving the bubble and dealing with reality, I guess.

Or being able to spend my time actually working on interesting problems of my own choosing, being able to come home at a decent time and see my family, being able to know I have a steady job in a sector that is going to last.

Oh yeah. And avoiding clinical depression brought on by 3 years of boredom. Some how working on other people's problems just isn't very interesting.

As for the words I picked - again - I know the college leftist mind is very narrow, but not all conservatives and/or Republicans are fundamentalist Christians. Hell, some aren't even religeous. You know...I think more liberals struggle with that one than leftists though, to be fair.

And your own party's rank-and-file refer to members like you as RINOs.

Of course the saddest people are gay Republicans. Nothing like being hated by the side you generally agree with.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[TheCaptain]

And your own party's rank-and-file refer to members like you as RINOs.

Of course the saddest people are gay Republicans. Nothing like being hated by the side you generally agree with.

Psst. Your ignorance is showing.

Where have I ever disclosed my current party affiliation here? "your own party"? Umm...I am a CONSERVATIVE. That does not imply that I am a republican or that I always vote republican (I don't), or that I have always voted republican (I haven't). Can you explain just how the holy-high fuck that makes me a RINO? If you can cram that into your narrow mind, you'll be that much closer to understanding other human beings who don't fit your convienient definitions. This is the second time you have asserted or implied that I am a Republican. (Wow...feels McCarthyish! Are you now, or have you ever been affiliated with the Republican Party?!)

There is nothing sad about gay republicans, either. Granted, I lean to the right, but I sure as heck don't hate them...actually , I know of very few republicans who hate them either. People on your side of the political fence have this apparent confusion between "philosophical differences" and "hatred". Believe it or not, I have more negative feelings towards Jerry Falwell than I do towards any given gay person.

As for the other matters, I am a software engineer. I come home at a decent time to see family and friends. (Although I admittedly put in extra hours a little more than I would like to at the moment.) My job is steady, and my sector seems rather solid. Actually, I am planning on part timing back in academia soon enough...over a quarter of my fellow employees here hold advanced degrees...they really push education in this particular company. Education is good...at least we can agree on that.

I am glad you've read more entertaining writing by Ann Coulter...that is what she does for a living. (Granted, she can be nutty sometimes, though I think she also makes some very good points other times.) I also do think the Liberals are right about this whole First Amendment thing, but man...they sure do get ugly about it when other people use it.

As for universities...they are kinda laughable in the current state. Look at the statistics for the political party affiliations of the professors. There is a severe problem there with respect to diversity of thought, IMHO. It's an old boys club of a different variety...and I don't think very highly of the whole tenure thing, either. You get idiots like Ward Churchill "educating" the youth.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[coaxial]

There is nothing sad about gay republicans, either. Granted, I lean to the right, but I sure as heck don't hate them...actually , I know of very few republicans who hate them either. People on your side of the political fence have this apparent confusion between "philosophical differences" and "hatred". Believe it or not, I have more negative feelings towards Jerry Falwell than I do towards any given gay person.

You should tell that to your leaders. They're beholden to the Christian Right. Even Frist is appearing in a Family Reasearch Council video stating in effect "If you're against a few judges, you're against God." That's absurd.


As for universities...they are kinda laughable in the current state. Look at the statistics for the political party affiliations of the professors. There is a severe problem there with respect to diversity of thought, IMHO. It's an old boys club of a different variety...

And there's a reverse "bias" if you look at buiness leaders. Different fields attract different people. What's your point?


and I don't think very highly of the whole tenure thing, either. You get idiots like Ward Churchill "educating" the youth.


Sure he said some stupid things, but it's more absurd to try and force him out. You know the whole "I disagree, but I defend your right to say it" thing. Tenure is designed to allow people to challenge the status quo without risk of retribution. That's a good thing.

Re:ALL infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Many Iraqi citizens would be FREE TO LIVE, as opposed to being shot up lumps of flesh.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget the unquestioned military might that the rest of the world cannot match. America truly is the mightiest and greatest nation ever.

Yes, but does it have Japanese schoolgirls?

wrong conclusions

[Dr Kool, PhD]

The reason the US lags behind these other nations in access to high speed internet is because more Americans don't want high speed internet access. The internet is more a part of the life of the average South Korean, so more South Koreans choose to buy high speed internet access.

The fact that more Americans don't want high speed internet access isn't a bad thing, it isn't a good thing either. It's just what makes the people of this country unique.

Re:wrong conclusions

[lifebouy]

Way to not say much. But I'll retort anyway. It's not that "more Americans don't want high speed internet access," but that noone wants to pay more than about $20 for it. For most people, it's simply not worth more than that. Apparently Moore's Law doesn't apply to internet access, or we'd be paying much less. The main reason municipal wifi is getting roadblocked is because that would drive high-speed internet prices way down, and ruin the oligopoly that currently strangles internet access. Bottom line.

Re:wrong conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet if if the internet was all abou monster truck races or NASCAR, it wouldn't matter what the cost was... everyone who voted for BUSH would have to have it!!!

Re:wrong conclusions

[gloth]

"Would you rather have this McDonalds cheeseburger meal, or may we invite you to this fine steak house for a meal of your choice?"

"Why, I'd like the cheeseburger, Sir! That makes me unique."

'nuff said...

Re:wrong conclusions

[kayen_telva]

you completely missed the gp's point and managed to be insulting in the process. then you end your offtopic reply with "bottom line" as if there is nothing more to discuss. let me guess, you voted for kerry. anyway, the point is there are tons of people who are just not that interested in anything more than dialup. the internet does not rule their lives, and checking email once a week is all they do.

Re:wrong conclusions

[IANAAC]

you completely missed the gp's point and managed to be insulting in the process.

Acually, I think you missed the point. And managed to insult the parent poster in the process as well.

20 bucks is about the going rate for dialup in the US. If people were offered a higher speed at the same price, they'd SURELY take it. And then they might discover that they could start to do other things with the available bandwidth, such as VoIP (in any of the myriad of forms available now) with their family who lives across the country - or in another country altogether.

People aren't going to try bandwidth-heavy apps until the bandwidth is made available to them.

Re:wrong conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, in other words, high speed access isnt worth paying a higher price than dial-up to many Americans. Its just not that important to read email at high speed. For pete sakes, go outside. Get some exercise. There is more to life than sitting in front a computer day and night.

You managed to say even less than the GP, and ironically, I said even less than you.

Re:wrong conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

"Would you rather have this McDonalds cheeseburger meal, or may we invite you to this fine steak house for a meal of your choice?"

"Why, I'd like the cheeseburger, Sir! That makes me unique."

'nuff said..

Until you get the bill for your steak dinner. I can have my cheeseburger and dial up for less than the cost of your steak dinner. And after the meal, my hunger will be just as satisfied as yours.

Re:wrong conclusions

[AaronGTurner]

"The reason the US lags behind these other nations in access to high speed internet is because more Americans don't want high speed internet access."

That's possible, but in last week's Economist (or might have been the week before) it showed that in terms of number of hours of use the average US household now uses the internet more than it watches TV. Whilst this is not the same as high demand for broadband it would suggest there might be an interest in it.

It could be that the price point is wrong to encourage more take up and that people are spending a long time on the internet because they are waiting for things to download over dialup!

Re:wrong conclusions

[kcbrown]

Apparently Moore's Law doesn't apply to internet access, or we'd be paying much less.

No, Moore's law doesn't apply to unregulated telephone and cable monopolies.

Re:wrong conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just what makes the people of this country unique.

Like herpes!

Re:wrong conclusions

[raju1kabir]

The fact that more Americans don't want high speed internet access isn't a bad thing, it isn't a good thing either. It's just what makes the people of this country unique.

Oh, so that's what makes the USA unique. I'd been wondering.

The internet is more a part of the life of the average South Korean, so more South Koreans choose to buy high speed internet access.

In every other country this has worked the other way around: where broadband uptake was low, it increased once the cost-performance ratio improved. In order for you to persuade anyone that this is different just in the USA, you'll have to offer more than just an unsupported assertion. I find it very hard to believe that there is some ancient cultural value of high-speed internet access that has passed down through the generations in Korea.

The fact is, broadband is now very expensive in the US compared to elsewhere, and the service is lousy, and so it isn't that attractive an option compared to just staying put with dialup. I work all over the world, mostly in poorish developing countries. Three or four years ago, my DSL in Washington DC was the envy of all I met. These days, other than the desperately poor countries in Africa, and the hopelessly messed up countries of Latin America, my DC Verizon DSL is at best middle-of-the-road. And I'm not even talking about rich countries like Japan and Singapore.

In my experience, communications services in Europe traditionally offer the least bang-for-the-buck and the most punitive usage-based charging of anywhere on the planet. But even my parents (who live in the Netherlands, are in their 60s/70s, and really only use the net for a daily email check and a bit of light web surfing, and have no inherent interest in high-speed anything) finally got DSL because they could get flat rate service for EUR14/month, which was less than they were spending on dialup + local phone time. When a communications service is cheaper in the Netherlands than in the USA, something is very seriously wrong in the USA.

Re:wrong conclusions

[m50d]

The reason is that gamers don't get respect in America like they do in SK. When was the last time you heard of a professional gamer in the US? Yet there are plenty in south korea. Being a good gamer who plays every day is seen as a good thing, not nerdishness like here. And it's gamers that drive broadband adoption.

Re:wrong conclusions

[lifebouy]

20 bucks is about the going rate for dialup in the US.

last I looked you could get it for $9.95, which is less than 20 bucks. It was 20 bucks a few years ago. SBC's rate for dialup is $10, as is Wal-Mart's butchered travesty they call dialup access. I'm sure you can find places that will charge you 20 bucks still. But it's not the "going rate."
The point is, we are getting gouged for broadband.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck technology, fuck the military.

Only in America will you be able to get college girls to do anything - ANYTHING - for you, in exchange for merely a T-shirt.

That is why I love my country and find it to be the greatest in the world.

Too US Centric

[NitsujTPU]

This story is too US centric, you insensitve clod!

Oh, wait, it is regarding the shortcomings of the United States.

I for one welcome our new America hating overlords (who post regularly to Slashdot).

Re:Too US Centric

[andreyw]

Constructive criticism is now "hate" for America?

Jorge Bush called. He is looking for a part time GOP lackey.

Yea mod me down as "Troll" or "Flamebait". I don't care. Truth hurts and you know it.

Re:Too US Centric

[NitsujTPU]

Nah, this particular story is not bad, I rather like it.

What I'm talking about is the number of posts that do tend to inform me that I am a hick, fat, lazy, and stupid, all because I live in the US.

It was intended to be a humorous poke at the fact that it seems that we are unable to speak about the United States, on Slashdot at least, in a positive light.

I'm a libertarian, and not particularly fond of Bush. I hated the "shut up and support the guy" regime that seemed to be in place a couple of years ago. That said, I'm nothing like that and kind of resent the idea that someone would think that I am.

Rather, I know that daily I log in, and see some asshole posting saying that I suck merely because I am from the United States. Slashdot has become quite... annoying. People advocating open source who run Windows, people posting to an American board about how much Americans suck. The best part is people weighing in on academic topics, saying that what is widely considered to be true in the field is, in fact, false, despite lacking the background knowledge to make such statements.

Oh well.

Re:Too US Centric

[TheCaptain]

In this case, I believe the truth hurt enough to justify a counter attack.

That officially makes this really funny, IMHO.

Re:Too US Centric

[atom_pheer]

Hi, first of all, I'm from Northen Europe, and will try to find some positive things about America. Others can continue the list...

For one thing, I think you americans are quite funny! I just watched The Incredibles DVD by Disney/Pixar, which was really well done. Also, looking at my room, I can only find processors made by american companies (Zilog, Intel, AMD, ...). Putting so many transistors into so small space, I think you are very advanced.

That said, everybody is special, people are people, not nations!

Re:Too US Centric

[NitsujTPU]

Heh, thanks. You actually made my day.

Just me...

[Psionicist]

Reynolds, now a telecommunications analyst at the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD), an international body that researchers the state of world economies, says South Korea is a far different place today, with 73% of the population enjoying high-speed Net access at home.

Is it just me or do anyone else find it highly annoying when articles with statistics like these don't bother linking to any source material? I would like to know Swedens position for example. According to TFA 73% of South Koreas population has broadband. What's the figure for other countries?

Shame on you Yahoo Editor.

Re:Just me...

[Exxxodus]

I second that. After looking at www.oecd.org I find that the most recent statistics is http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2825_495 656_2496764_1_1_1_1,00.html
. And it is from 2003.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Nimrangul]

Uh, Japan and Canada consistantly both have a higher standard of living than the United States of America: Read all about it.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, one more important reason for high-speed internet...

>>Yes, but does it have Japanese schoolgirls?

I'm in South Korea now

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even know if there is an option to have dial up here....

I live in a very small town

[TykeClone]

And have had broadband longer than many in medium sized ciities!

My town has a population of about 600 and a locally owned telephone company. I've had broadband since early 2000. That is before cities 10 times (or more!) our size got it!

Re:I live in a very small town

[Anonymous Coward]

yea thats right, it was easier to upgrade the infrastructure of small towns then it was for large cities. So like cox internet started offering high speed internet access to my town of about 10,000 back in the late 90's.

Re:I live in a very small town

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats. I live in a town with 3,000 people and can't get anything but $50/mth low-speed DSL. 10 miles down the road, in a city with a different cable provider (Cox there; here it's Charter), you get twice as much bandwidth from cable or DSL, and at half the price. (Hell, Charter doesn't even carry friggin' Comedy Central.) But most people who are interested in broadband live just outside of the city, in white-flight communities too far to be suburbs, who don't mind paying a premium.

We didn't even get DSL here until two years ago, and the telecom offering it, CenturyTel, is considering abandoning it outside of cities because of a lack of interest. Meanwhile, Cox is considering selling off its operations in that city - and everywhere else in the state outside of New Orleans and maybe Baton Rouge - because cable television is not profitable enough.

Let me repeat that - cable television is not profitable enough here for Cox. Let that sink in. It explains a lot.

The difference is that you live in Iowa, the state in the midwest, and I live in Iowa, Louisiana, the town named after your state in the pits of the South. (Also coincidentally, the city in question, Lake Charles, is Sioux City's American sister city.) Here, iPods and TiVos are still exotic.

There are massive cultural differences between here and there. A disinterest in the Internet, and in tech in general, permeates through Louisiana, excepting New Orleans and possibly muni-service-seeking Lafayette. You can sell it in college towns, which are plentiful, but most offer broadband in campus housing. (Some, however, like my alma mater Northwestern St., still do not, unless you count the 5 kilobit-capped line to one dorm; the ones that do most likely have privatized housing, since the UL system can't afford to help campuses with infrastructure upgrades. The LSU system is a little better off.)

Get a CIS/CS degree in Louisiana, and where are you going to go? Arkansas to work for Wal-Mart, or Illinois for State Farm, or Texas for - well, take your pick. And the state government is more worried about bringing filmmakers to the state than they are about keeping tech workers in it. The administration in office now wants to expand broadband access, but they say it's not worth pursing until they find out why two-thirds of the state shows little to no interest in upgrading from dial-up, if they use the Internet at all. If it isn't petrol, agriculture, port and rail trade or tourism, the state isn't going to make a real effort.

The telecoms figured out that there's no Internet money to be had here long ago. When DirectWay is as "affordable" as DSL out of town and cable companies can't make money selling TV, broadband definately won't penetrate.

Although, it's worth noting that Lake Charles is usually in the top 10 markets for cell phone use. Insert months-old SNL joke about Mink not having landline phone service... NOW

But its not last mile capacity

[Ars-Fartsica]

Yes there is a huge amount of backbone fiber running all over flyover country, and no one really wants it, because it won't make your last mile connection any less crapful.

Re:But its not last mile capacity

[quarkscat]

Exactly so!

The bankrupt and failed telcos of the dot-bomb era (WorldCom, PSINet, Global Crossing, etcetera) cranked out a huge amount of "dark fiber" that is now being used to help off-shore out-source USA's IP and high tech jobs to China & India & elsewhere.

If the same resources had been used to build out the USA's fiber infrastructure (like FTTP) instead of "other places", the USA would be "numero uno" in percentage of broadband usage, unstead of 11th-going-on-50th. The regional "Baby Bells" were not interested then, and now it's pretty much too late -- the pool of cheap USA and foreign capital to fund such ambitious projects has been drying up.

The most critical and most expensive part of widespread broadband access is "the last mile". The USA has a regime in power that caters to the short term interests of their corporate owners/sponsers, whose financial goals are contrary to the longer term improvements in communications infrastructure that broadband access represents. Instead, we find both state and federal governments helping their corporate bretheren to monopolistically stake out municipal wireless markets that the telcos have otherwise shown no particular interest in, if only to lock out any possible future competition.

Re:But its not last mile capacity

[sessamoid]

No mod points today, but you'd get a +1 insightful if I had my mod points from yesterday.

Re:But its not last mile capacity

[arminw]

...whose financial goals are contrary to the longer term improvements in communications...

The goals are to make money, that's all. Until someone comes with a compelling application for broadband, there is not really much demand. Most people still use the ordinary telphone and even fax machines to communicate. In many other countries, telephone use has basically switched to wireless. The ordinary land phone line will do for most people's communication needs, including e-mail and getting useful info from the web. How much bandwidth is needed for a Google search? Just because broadband is AVAILABLE, still does not mean that anyone with POTS will pay extra for no perceived extra benefit. Businesses and educational institutions mostly have high speed access and the students and employees use that as needed. Most bandwidth, especially at educational places is used for entertainment downloads, music, much of it illegal. Download from iTunes at work or school, copy to iPod and take it home! No need to pay $25-$30/mo extra for that service at home. No need to have the hassle and extra expense of protecting the home computer from malware when it is only connected to the Internet for a short time to do e-mail or order something from Amazon or sell something on e-Bay. Broadband needs a killer app that will allow companies to make a lot of money.

Re:But its not last mile capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Knock the Bells all you want, but at least Verizon is doing something with FIOS, even if it's not available where I live! grrr

I don't see the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

... this internet thing won't be around forever, you know - who wants to invest all that money in a passing fad?

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for that link! It really puts things into perspective in this country of assholes who think they are better than everyone else.

Re:Country size matters When You Get It Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Large land mass?
Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world - Russia is still the largest after Lithuania/etc broke off.

Population Density

[tankenator]

While the obvious is well, obvious, it stands to reason that S. Korea has a pretty insane population density (supported by the assistance of U. S. Troops, or they would likely be under the thumb of a dictator by now btw.) The U. S., for all its faults (poor legislative knowledge base on things technical being one of them), has its population base stretched over much area, thus making broadband more expensive for the provider. Hence you see the attempt at WiMax et. al.--they realize that they can make money on those far from the wire if they could only reach them......

Re:Population Density

[clambake]

The U. S., for all its faults (poor legislative knowledge base on things technical being one of them), has its population base stretched over much area, thus making broadband more expensive for the provider. So, you're saying if I want to get 400Mbit fiber optic lines directly to my door for under $50 a month I need to go to a populous American city... New York maybe? Oh wait, that doesn't work, does it?

What's up with these "scare" articles?

[IntelliTubbie]

Geez, it seems you can't go 2 days without reading an article about how America is lagging behind 37 other countries on (insert random metric for technological progress). Won't somebody do something? Our children are falling behind!!!!

Now, I'm sure some of these things truly do deserve concern -- but this kind of scare tactic has been around since the early days of the Cold War, and probably long before that. Last time I checked, though, we haven't been conquered by the Soviets/Japanese/nation-du-jour -- sure, we may be worse at some things, and better at others, but things in general have hummed along pretty well for the last half-century.

Cheers,
IT

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Ars-Fartsica]

Disagree. Its refreshing to see these articles because it pokes holes in the endless stream of hyperbole that our system produces better outcomes, which most (I would assume over 90%) of Americans believe in some way.

Like with healthcare, Americans laughably continue to cling to the notion that their healthcare is better because they pay more (much more) for it.

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[clandestine_nova]

This articles exist because it's sort of an American ideal to be good at everything, and also because America has been a global superpower for a long time.

Moreover, the gist of this article doesn't mean that the U.S. is going to suddenly become irrelevant - it means that the U.S. isn't as technologically advanced in certain areas as other, seemingly weaker countries. And that the U.S. is falling behind, as well, which is certainly something to note.

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, I'm sure some of these things truly do deserve concern -- but this kind of scare tactic has been around since the early days of the Cold War,

And last time I checked, the Bush administration had demonstrated quite amply that the only way to motivate the average American to do or care about much of anything is to scare the bejeezus out of them...

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Move to Canada?

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, is is refreshing to see an idiot taking something for granted while claiming that others are idiots for doing the very same thing ...

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, our healthcare isn't better because we pay more, but it generally is better than in most countries.

We pay more because we are not so heavily subsidized by socialist healthcare government programs as in other countries.

We also pay more because of the insurance conspiracy that artificially keeps prices high (don't fear, I am wearing my tin foil hat), and federal regulations that keep medicines "safe".

But yes, we have top notch health care in the U.S. and no, its not because we, as Americans, pay more per office visit than the average Canadian or Norwegian. (I just pulled those two countries out of my ass, so don't get your panties in a bunch if you feel that health care is better there than in the U.S.)

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[UserGoogol]

The point of these articles shouldn't be "ZOMG WE'RE GOING TO GET TAKEN OVER BY COMMIES/JAPAN/WHATEVER" (even though a sensationalist press loves to cover that angle) but instead "Other countries are better than us at this thing. Why can't we get some of that action?"

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[magadass]

If you are implying that scaring the bejeezus out of them means killing 100's of thousands of innocent people, then yes your right that might catch some people awareness and let you take another look at things to see what needs to change.

Nice "Anonymous Coward" post btw.

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

100's of thousands?? Post your sources.

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Homology]

No, our healthcare isn't better because we pay more, but it generally is better than in most countries.

You sure pay more, but you don't in general have better health care when comparing to countries in Western Europe.

We pay more because we are not so heavily subsidized by socialist healthcare government programs as in other countries.

We pay for this with our taxes, even taxes for the rich.

We also pay more because of the insurance conspiracy that artificially keeps prices high (don't fear, I am wearing my tin foil hat), and federal regulations that keep medicines "safe".

Indeed, the US privatized health care is very costly. Seems more like a racketeer business.

But yes, we have top notch health care in the U.S. and no, its not because we, as Americans, pay more per office visit than the average Canadian or Norwegian. (I just pulled those two countries out of my ass, so don't get your panties in a bunch if you feel that health care is better there than in the U.S.)

You have top notch health care for the rich. US spends about three times more on health care than a Scandinavian country. But general health of the US population is not three times better.

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

This articles exist because it's sort of an American ideal to be good at everything, and also because America has been a global superpower for a long time.

No this article exists because US literally invented the Internet 40 years ago, and is now falling behind. The article points out also, that in most countries there are a deliberate effort from the governement to build an Internet infrastructure, but that the US has not (actually US *had* a deliberate effort, until the 1980s-1990s, after what the Internet elements got privatized).

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, I'm sure some of these things truly do deserve concern -- but this kind of scare tactic has been around since the early days of the Cold War, and probably long before that. Last time I checked, though, we haven't been conquered by the Soviets/Japanese/nation-du-jour -- sure, we may be worse at some things, and better at others, but things in general have hummed along pretty well for the last half-century.

It's partly a scare tactic, but it's also true. I'm an American that's been living abroad for the last 22 years, and while there is a lot I like about good ol' home, there are a LOT of shortcomings. Bad roads, bad plumbing, bad construction, over priced broadband, electricity problems in CA, and so on. Recently the only thing the U.S. is "No. 1" at is "No. 1 Public Enemy" in the rest of the world's eyes. Not a good thing. Most countries wouldn't bother to take over the U.S., but they will fight to keep the U.S. out. Not being No. 1 at everything is certainly fine, but if so, I wish people would stop THINKING we're so much better than everyone else, and thus we need to police the rest of the world...

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Ars-Fartsica]

Wrong again!

We pay more because we are not so heavily subsidized by socialist healthcare government programs

No! You pay more because you do socialize medicine - everyone's! For example you have no bulk buying power for drugs, so you cannot negotiate sweet deals like the Canadian govt for example, or even the US VA hospitals, so you end up getting ripped off on the drugs and as a result you are subsudizing the lower costs other people get. The same goes for health insurance. Your premiums cover those who overrun their quotient.

You don't honestly believe you are paying only for the care you receive do you? Amazing how little you know about your own system.

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There's a good argument to be made that we won the Cold War because Sputnik scared the hell out of us, and spurred us to pour enormous amounts of money into science and technology. To a large degree, we're still living off the fruits of the Cold War sci/tech boom; and there's no similar impetus around the corner to keep things going at the same pace. Which is a pity.

Re:What's up with these "scare" articles?

[rob_squared]

People love picking on America. America is the muscular jock that beat up everyone he didn't agree with in high school. Now that he's older, he pumps gas, weights 350 lbs, and is balding with a bad case of dandruff too. It's easier to kick you enemy when he's down.

easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

US can take over Canada, South Korea, and Japan. The new country will have a better ranking, I bet.

Re:easy solution

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

No, because youll destroy all the broadband infrastructure during the invasion, and if anyone defends themselves, some of your own, they you will have to go 500 trillion in dept to rebuild the countries you invaded, and the contracts will go to US companies who wil charge 200$/ month for broadband.

(p.s. last time Canada was at war with the US, we burned down Washington D.C.)

Re:I for one..

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, in Korea being watched over by an American ghost while playing Everquest is mainly for old people.

Three letters...

[ThyPiGuy]

A.O.L.

Bombay, London, Kuwait, Chicago...

[bayankaran]

I am connected to the web via a cell phone and a USB cable in Bombay. Infact I can be 'anywhere' in this country and get online. The network is generally reliable.

Costs for Rs.600 (about $15) per month with a 1GB download limit. Throughput is twice/thrice of a dialup.

Similar services in Chicago cost much much more with unwieldy annual plans.

Last October I found London had enough open WiFi spots. But that city has not even a single water fountain - wild Brits want you to buy stupid bottles of water for 1 bloody pound.

In Kuwait City airport - one of the big allies of US - there are two public telephones with warning signs - "These instruments are under constant surveillance..." - wild Arabs!!!

Decent dinner for three with a few drinks -
Bombay - $6-10
London - $45-50
Chicago - $20-25
Kuwait - ???

Re:Bombay, London, Kuwait, Chicago...

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you mean GPRS for your connection. I had unlimited GPRS for about $15/mo as an added option to my regular t-mobile voice plan to roam anywhere w/ GSM networks in the US (in addition to nationwide no long-distance, etc.). This is not high-speed though, neither in bandwidth (even w/ EDGE and 3G it is too little too late) nor in latency.

In London, as in most places, you can go into any alchohol-serving establishment and ask for water. They are required by law to serve water for free to hold their liquor license, as far as I know. Most people prefer bottled water, however. I never know how much that is vanity versus health smarts when I travel to a new place.

Re:Bombay, London, Kuwait, Chicago...

[Malc]

Is that at McDonalds? *Decent* dinner for 3 with booze will cost more than that in London and Chicago. Those prices you quoted might cover one. I haven't been to India, so I can't comment.

Re:Bombay, London, Kuwait, Chicago...

[Anonymous Coward]

Decent dinner for three with a few drinks -
Bombay - $6-10
London - $45-50
Chicago - $20-25
Kuwait - ???

A bit off topic, but these prices can't be right, can they? I live in Helsinki, Finland and a decent steak is around 20 euro. A "decent dinner for three with a few drinks" is maybe 150 euro. The cheapest possible pizza or kebab + a beer would be 10 euro; 30 euro or around US$40 for three. I thought London was expensive?

Re:Bombay, London, Kuwait, Chicago...

[bayankaran]

There are good restaurants (not the swanky yuppie joints, but working class ones) in the uptown area of Chicago where you can get a decent meal and a beer for about $10.

Same with London - you should move out of Picadilly and Trafalgar and other touristy spots for these rates. Try Kilburn.

Tips are extra!

Re:Bombay, London, Kuwait, Chicago...

[bayankaran]

You should move out of touristy places for these rates.

In South Bombay you will not get these rates. You have to move to the burbs - Borivli, Thane, Belapur etc.

In Chicago you have to go uptown - on Lawrence Aveneue or Devon.

In London try Kilburn.

You should avoid swanky yuppie STARFUCKY places for these rates and tips are not included.

Basically try working class neighborhoods in any city - rates and quality of food will be decent.

Re:Bombay, London, Kuwait, Chicago...

[bayankaran]

Good rate for T-Mobile - $15 per month is reasonable.

Good tip about London bars and drinking water. I dont believe in bottled water in Western countries - I think it is a waste!!!

might be a little off topic.....

[mangus_angus]

but I wonder if these other countries have city wide wifi like you see popping up here now. And if they do, do they have the ISP's trying to stomp this kind of thing out? I think these big companies are our major problem.

Re:might be a little off topic.....

[Roug]

Yes, some do. For instance the former soviet republic Estonia has wifi everywhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3603943.st m

(My Internet connection is a bit slow right now. I'm downloading a movie)

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on. What possible use could the United States have for a country whose most important exports are Dan Aykroyd and Bryan Adams? We don't annex those places, we send peacekeepers to clean up.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

yeh but we shouldn't try to defend shitty internet access, this isn't a 'whose country's dick is bigger'. we should be ashamed that people are still using dialup due to lack of affordable broadband

wrong conclusions-Bad Economy.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The reason the US lags behind these other nations in access to high speed internet is because more Americans don't want high speed internet access. The internet is more a part of the life of the average South Korean, so more South Koreans choose to buy high speed internet access."

More simputers for Americans!

Re:Who's to blame for this debacle?

[Anonymous Coward]

i blame yo momma!

The US has population density

[Ars-Fartsica]

Look at the northeast and the southwest. There is population density there but the broadband situation isn't that good overall..the fact that no one lives in flyover country has nothing to do with getting last mile broadband in densely populated areas.

Them is all COMMIE-NIST countries

[Cryofan]

dontcha know that cheap broadband aint for Americans? Only commie countries have cheap broadband! Otherwise, how are the megacorporations media empires gonna keep their god given monopolies. Now git back to Russia, you commienists!

Re:Them is all COMMIE-NIST countries

[Anonymous Coward]

No! we need dem commies from russia to show us how to drink the vodka! And whack stinky wannabe pinkos over the head with the vodka bottle! They show us how REAL monopolies work!

SPAM: Enlarge your country.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, wait, it is regarding the shortcomings of the United States."

We invented Viagra! What Shortcomings?

thank god for deregulation...

[sum.zero]

and laws against municipal wifi! ;P

sum.zero

Re:I for one..

[Stalyn]

And foreigners wonder why Americans hate them... their lack of sense for sarcasm!!!

Yes, but...

[n6kuy]

...in Korea, only old people use broadband for email....

So whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares if not everyone has broadband internet access, we dont NEED it! A very good portion of the people using the internet are over the age of *gasp* 50! I don't think they want to pay an extra $10-$40 more a month to look at the pretty pictures on the internet, heck if they even go online at all! There is a reason why Netzero and Netscape internet access for under $10.00 exist.

Re:So whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

This brings up the subject of Logan's Run. Everyone over the age of 30 needs to be given up to the "whatever it was" .. damn... basically uh killed.

Yes, keep your head in the sand ...

[JoeBuck]

... and then try to explain when countries like Brazil start passing us.

Re:Yes, keep your head in the sand ...

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Carnivale?

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's not all about affordable broadband anyway, it's more about availability. You see, monopolies don't do a damn thing unless you force them to, emerging technology forces them to, or the market forces them to. So far, the Bells have dragged their fuckin heels rolling out widespread dsl. If it weren't for cable companies eating them for lunch, we still wouldn't have dsl in 90% of the areas we do. Basically, this country is fucked up due to old handshake agreements and stupid corporate monopolies .

Broadband for all of B.C.

[The Real Nem]

I was just reading in the paper (Vancouver Sun) the other day that the B.C. provincial government plans to make broadband accessible to every community (defined as any area containing a school or hospital or other public building) in B.C. in the immediate future.

A quick look at some fun B.C. facts shows that B.C. is roughly four times larger than Great Britain (~950,000 km^2), has a population of 4.1 million people and comprises of 75% of the world's stone sheep population. So, with a population density of 4 people per square kilometre, I think it is safe to say that population density is not the limiting factor of broadband availability. The article also claimed that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 95% of B.C.'s population already has access to broadband (I hate to paraphrase something like that though).

Re:Broadband for all of B.C.

[kcbrown]

A quick look at some fun B.C. facts shows that B.C. is roughly four times larger than Great Britain (~950,000 km^2), has a population of 4.1 million people and comprises of 75% of the world's stone sheep population.

Hmm...I thought the United States had 75% of the world's stoned sheep population. How else do you explain the "we don't need none of them overblown 'rights' thangs, cuz we got our cable TV! I need another drag!" attitude you find so often in the U.S.?

Oh, you meant stone sheep. Nevermind, then.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[HillBilly]

Think again, the US is not that great.

The US is all talk and ego and with not that much punch when it comes to a lot of things.

Agreed

[Neuropol]

I think it's due, in part, to the rural nature of the US and it not being 100% totally wired for sound.

In a location such as where I am, we have dsl but it has to be the worst connection I've ever had in terms of stability. daily drops in the 20s and 30s. Random and sporadic. i think this is due to poor local equipement and local capacity for heavy usage. Who knows if the outer lying areas will ever have the luxury of more than a 2-300k up/down link for bandwidth.

If you look at the other contries that the US has been compared with, there are far more cetralized, dense populations being taken in to account. Per capita in Tokyo, I'm sure internet usage is way up, but if you get to the out lying regions I'm sure it dwindles greatly.

Korean-Starcraft joke

[Anonymous Coward]

But dude, have you seen them play Starcraft?

A few soldiers dying is worth it if you get to see 7 battlecruisers locked down in 7 seconds. Fucking brilliant.

Bureaucracy, pure and simple

[N5]

It's that simple. The cheapest I can get DSL in my area is roughly $45, and that's slow stuff that I wouldn't even want to try to game on. Cable is no better costing $50+ through comca$t, whom I don't trust. In many areas the choice is limited, so they charge like crazy.

What makes me the angriest is that our wonderful Pennsylvania state house voted against townships operating wireless networks. The telecoms even tried to get public support for it, bundling it with bills that would give stuff to schools, then having the audacity to make commercials urging them to call their representives to support it. They also gave verizon 6 billion to bring high speed more places. Verizon being true to their ma' bell heritage promply took the money and did nothing. So it's no wonder that Pa is 50th on the list (last time I saw it) for broadband. Our elected state leaders are so bad, they jam their voting buttons (no roll call) so they can take the day off and still get their wage, plus food and transportation costs.

Pennsylvania: First to vote with electric buttons (supposedly) yet still hasn't made it to the 21st century.

good grief

Re:Bureaucracy, pure and simple

[iwadasn]

How about this, don't live in the suburbs. I live in NYC, and I can get broadband for about $30/month, and it's relatively fast (1.5 M/bit each way, roughly, for pretty much any of the options), available everywhere, and has very low latency.

Live in the suburbs, die by the suburbs. The real problem with the US is that we subsidize soccer moms paving over the forests to ahve their white picket fences. Then people bitch because they can't get superfast internet access 1000 miles from nowhere, and they complain that gas costs too much money. Isn't it the responsibility of the city folk to pay for their 100 mile long power lines, phone lines, roads, and the cheap gas to run their SUVs?

Move somewhere decent, and you'll have excellent broadband. Many of the apartment buildings in NYC (like the one I'm in right now) just buy their own DS3, and merge their signal onto the cable going to every apartment. Works quite well, it's the new trend I think. Even if that doesn't work for you, we have at least two providers of DSL, and probably two more of cable. $30 will get you quite a lot of bandwidth around here, even though everything else is quite expensive.

Also, NYC is expensive, but the wages are huge. Travel anywhere, and even when they charge you the ripoff tourist rates, it'll be cheap by comparison. Make 4 times the pay, pay 4 times the bills, save 4 times the money, and get vacations for the same price, not a bad deal.

Re:Bureaucracy, pure and simple

[MtViewGuy]

I live in NYC, and I can get broadband for about $30/month, and it's relatively fast (1.5 M/bit each way, roughly, for pretty much any of the options), available everywhere, and has very low latency.

Of course, it does help that because New York City is the business center of the USA, you better have the best-quality Internet connections, no questions asked. Besides, NYC was one of the first cities to get large-scale fiber-optic connections, so the telecommunications infrastructure is modern enough to set up T-1/T-3, DSL and cable modem broadband rather easily.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[tsotha]

I read the article you linked. Basically it said the US has more people (on a percentage basis) below the poverty line, then scuttles the point by admitting the definition of "poverty line" is different between countries.

It goes on to say even though Americans are wealthier than people of other countries, somehow people with more wealth in America have a lower standard of living than people with less wealth in other countries because the distribution of wealth in the US is more uneven. That argument doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, does it?

I'm not saying Americans have a higher standard of living, but the wikipedia article you're referencing doesn't provide any support for its assertions.

I have a friend living in a veritable shoebox in Tokyo who is widely envied by his local acquaintances for the luxury of so much space. Here in the US your neighbors would call animal control if your doghouse was that small.

I have a friend in Canada who came to the US for a week so he could get his ACL fixed when the wait up North would be up to ten years. I wouldn't consider that to be an acceptable wait for knee reconstruction.

The point is "standard of living" is impossible to measure across societies, since different societies have different ideas of what's important.

The facts & figures

[rbrander]

This story seems to be nearly a dupe of yesterays. So I'll dupe the facts I looked up for that one:

Canada, the US, and Korea are all about equally urbanized.

US, 2000 census: 79.2% urban population
Canada 2001: 79.6% (statistics canada)
Korea, 2000: 77% urban

Even better, the McKinsey quarterly uses telco stats to compute the "reach" of broadband, that is to say, the percentage of total households that can be equipped with broadband if they choose to pay for it:

Korea: 95%
US: 89%
Canada: 87%

The houses that actually purchase broadband:

Korea: 54%
US: 13%
Canada: 25%

In short, it isn't for lack of ability to provide the broadband. It's the price offered to the consumer. It's cheaper in Canada and much cheaper in Korea.

NB: Disposable income is lower in Canada and much lower in Korea. But the prices for broadband are that much lower again.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.ht m

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-221-XIE / 2004002/tables/pdf/44_01.pdf

www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/South-Korean-pop- d ist.html

http://www.dalfarra.ch/nds/zusatzdokumente/2003_ 2_ sense_of_broadband.pdf

Re:The facts & figures

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Canada, the US, and Korea are all about equally urbanized.

US, 2000 census: 79.2% urban population
Canada 2001: 79.6% (statistics canada)
Korea, 2000: 77% urban

I don't think those can be compared exactly. The US Census Bureau and the Korean equivilant may have very different definitions of "Urban".

Many American "cities" are very large suburban sprawl. Korean urban areas are very different.

I have a hard time calling Houston a "city". There may be an urban core in there somewhere, but Houston is mostly a big suburban sprawl.

Re:The facts & figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now - don't confuse things with facts.

Re:The facts & figures

[DavidD_CA]

Could it also be a factor that in the US, calling a local number (from a home) is a free call? Whereas, in most other countries, you pay per minute even when calling a local number.

So, in the US, a dial-up account is about $20/mo regardless of usage. In other countries, you pay much more than that... probably far more than you would pay for a broadband connection.

So here, many people are content with dial-up at the lower rate and thus fewer investements are made to bring broadband to those people.

Re:The facts & figures

[magadass]

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

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

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

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

Re:The facts & figures

[njh]

Yes, instead they pay $20/mo for broadband instead :)

Re:The facts & figures

[AnimeFreak]

Canada has free local calling.

Re:The facts & figures

[Malc]

Ever been to Canada? Their cities are just as suburban and sprawling as those of their American brethren. Maybe the downtown cores of the three big cities are maybe a little more alive still...

Re:The facts & figures

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason broadband penetration is so high in Canada seems to be forgotten here. In 2000, the Gouvernement du Québec created a special fund to help it's citizens catch up with the other canadian provinces. Use of a computer at home was lower and Internet was not that popular in Québec. Yet, they gave us a 500$CDN instant rebate on a computer (with minimal specifications to meet) that you could buy at any shop (not turning this into communism of only one supplier).

They also gave an instant 80% (as I recall) rebate on your internet bill. This as made unlimited dial-up at 2,99$CDN/month and I remember having high speed Internet access for 12$CDN (back in 2000!). This really made it, the Internet was now available to everyone. When the program ended 3 or 4 years later, it had cost 500 M$CDN but it still had valuable results of pushing our society into the 21st Century.

It also ran some of us addicted to high speed Internet so we never disconnected after the end of the program. ;)

squidy (www.squidy.info)

Re:The facts & figures

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Their cities are just as suburban and sprawling as those of their American brethren.

I have been to Canada, and there is nothing which compares to the sprawl of the San Fernando Valley or Houston.

They have suburbs, sure, but even the suburbs are limited in their growth, and they usually have a definable urban core.

I'm not saying that all American cities are sprawl, and the cities that I love (Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, etc) have an central core.

Re:The facts & figures

[Anonymous Coward]

The urbanization statistics may be similar but this is an example where statistics can be misleading. How many big cities does SK have? Not very many. Canada? Again not very many, and 99% of the canadian population is packed within a short distance of the US border. The US population is concentrated on the coasts but there is also a very large amount of people in cities spread out all over the country. We are also probably more "suburban" than those countries.

Somebody is making money..

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be because the other nations have businesses which are more tightly integrated with their governments? Here, the telcos are all private with a fair share of corruption. We have fiber cable allll over the place, and the technology to get high last-mile data rates but the telcos are battling for the rights. I bet prices for broadband in those nations are less expensive as well.

Why does this matter so much?

[sien]

Why do people get so excited about this? A dial up net connection is fine for most people. You can still surf the net, do your banking and get email pretty much fine.

How much of net use is used for downloading entertainment and playing games?

Having a net connection is really important, but having much cheaper dial-up as opposed to broadband may not be that much of a gain.

This stat seems to get thrown up by people who are either in the broadband business and want concessions from government or are in the business of saying 'America is going downhill fast'.

Re:Why does this matter so much?

[BackInIraq]

The dial-up vs. broadband argument seems to depend whether you see net access as a form of entertainment or a tool. If all you need net access for is email and banking, dial-up is fine. But if you're using the net for finding new music, webcam chatting (talking about with family, not porn), multiplayer gaming, etc, it won't really work. And "surfing the web" (a term that has always annoyed me, personally) is much more enjoyable with broadband as well.

I think the reason people in the US haven't gravitated more to broadband is twofold: one, it is still too expensive here. Most areas have you paying anywhere from 30-40 a month (if not more), and that's assuming you get another service from the same company (local phone or cable). The lock-in effect there makes switching providers and comparison shopping a pain as well. Second, most Americans still prefer their entertainment to be pretty much one-directional. Sit in front of TV. Change channels until TV overlords put something on you want to watch. Vegetate. Repeat until bedtime.

Strangely, I think given more access to high-speed internet, most Americans would snap out of their TV induced daze long enough to realize what the hell is going on in the world around them. But that's an argument for a whole 'nother day.

Re:Why does this matter so much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, dial-up is good enough for content, but how are the advertisers supposed to stuff all the flash animations, banners, pop-ups, spam and trojans down a dial-up line?

Re:Why does this matter so much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever tried sucking down system upgrades on a dialup line? *If* you get it all the first time it can take as long as 8-12 hours.

(I've got nearly 200MB worth of system upgrades to download and after the third attempt I've wasted at least 6 waking hours and 10 sleeping hours and still don't have what I need)

Are all your applications up to date? Add an hour per application. (I've got half a dozen higher-end[/larger] apps needing updated but that's not likely to happen this month)

Even downloading a single mp3 can take half an hour or more. Sorry iTMS [/insert fav. music store], I can't afford to be offline for a day in order to get a single album.

Want to share content? Uploading is significantly worse than downloading for us dialup users..yay for broadband and all the functionality it hasn't brought us!

So, forget the internet for actually doing anything, all your bandwidth (haha) will get used to download security updates and the next service pack.

Dialup is perfectly suitable for most people alright.

Re:Why does this matter so much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a good answer that's not going to sound smartassed. I live in a city with excellent broadband penetration and have seen connectivity evolve from 300 baud modems to widespread broadband.

Broadband changes the way you do things. It greatly increases the resources available to you, it improves the way you can use your connectivity and it replaces traditional information services.

A 700MB ISO is a major chore to download over a dialup line. Even if everything goes perfectly, you are looking at 8 hours to get it. That means that useful tools and new technologies like Knoppix (1 CD) or Mandrake (3 CDs!) are effectively out of reach for dial up users. Large downloads like AVG, ZoneAlarm and service packs are do-able but still need to be run overnight. There's no such thing as a quick fix when the fix involves downloading software, drivers or patches over a slow line.

Right now I am running Skype, aMule, Thunderbird and Firefox concurrently. With a dialup connection, I could easily run any one of these at any given time but I wouldn't be able to be downloading election data, writing to you AND waiting for my friend to call all at once. When my friend does call, we'll be using Skype's chat facility to exchange URLs and small files while we talk. Again, possible but restricted with dialup.

I don't have a cable TV or newspaper subscription and I rarely listen to the radio. Why? Because my internet connection does all of those things better (with the exception of TV and that's really just a speed issue). The newspaper is incredibly slow: it was 4 days before the tsunami made my local paper! Having followed the news I've also noticed that news is carefully managed before it makes it to TV or the paper. On Google, you can actually watch a story break, evolve, get spun and then get suppressed. In the paper or on TV you will simply never hear about it. The only critical news I don't get from the internet is traffic. This is not because its not better or more accurate, just that its not in my car.

How should that affect national policy? Based just on the above, who would you rather hire for a research or technical position: a Canadian or an American?

MOD PARENT INFORMATIVE

[Anonymous Coward]

Very, very nice fact checking. I didn't check where you got the facts, but looks nice. :) That's some interesting information.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Korea and Japan were totally rebuilt in many places after wars destroyed everything. Infrastruture in the US is old. Even the stuff installed in new subdivisions is old tech. Korea and Japan didn't do that. Canada didn't build new stuff with old tech.

Most people are fine with dial up for what they do anyhow in the US. Me, screw that, having to use dial up on the rare occasion I have to just flat sucks. Before I bought this place and the place I am moving to I made sure I could get Cable broadband that works (not SBC ADSL or SDSL that is crappy and trouble plauged.) The Cable company give 3 mbt standard and will sell you 8 mbt for more a month. It's been down once in 5 years, my modem died, they replaced it next day.

If you rip all the infrastructure out and replace it you can deliver broadband everwhere thats built up damm near but delivering Broadband on 80 year old wires doesn't work too well. Forget the hugely overpriced wireless offerings, that doesn't even start to play well with me.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful. May I extrapolate this to suggest that countries or cities that have either had to rebuild infrastructure from scratch, or never had it in the firstplace hold a distinct advantage over those with legacy utilities to maintain and dovetail with emerging technologies. I recently visited my brother in Spain, he lives in the mountains far from any major cities and has a choice of 3 competitively priced carrieres. Spain and Portugal never had much of that old copper in the first place, until the mid 1970s they were both fairly 'poor' countries in the European spectrum. Almost everything in cities like Kualalumpa in Malasia is 'brand new', since this mighty metropolis simply did not exist before the 1960s. Internet there is as essential commodity infrastructure as water and electricity. In summary, old historical legacies are costly, places where they can start afresh with a comletely new technology end up offering very competitive services. Sometimes this is because of intrenched interests too, as big dinosaur monopolies emerge in developed countries it is their inertia that holds back the rollout of cheap new technology by competitors. You can see why easily... they have invested millions in the obsolete infrastructure that is being replaced, often years before they have recouiped the investment! Moral: the world is moving so fast there is no place for slow old companies, the future belongs to those that can adapt and are prepared to throw out all old models and regularly start anew with all the benefits of progress.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes on to say even though Americans are wealthier than people of other countries, somehow people with more wealth in America have a lower standard of living than people with less wealth in other countries because the distribution of wealth in the US is more uneven. That argument doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, does it?

Of course it does. If health-care is free, holidays are 4-6 weeks per year, education (including university) are free, and crime is lower, then the standard of living may well be higher while net wealth is lower.

The USA's median income (after tax) is not all that much higher than many other countries that have other (less tangible) benefits.

MOD PARENT DOWN...

[Anonymous Coward]

Applications like bittorrent aren't necessary unless you're into porn???

What kind of crap is that?

I can only assume you're going for a troll, because you certainly don't have any validity in your points. It's just a pity some mods are falling for it.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[YrWrstNtmr]

If health-care is free

Unless hospitals and doctors offices spring up out of the ground unbidden, unless doctors and nurses donate their time for free, unless drug R&D happens all by itself...health care is never 'free'.

It just doesn't show as a line item on your paystub.

Governement also

[nicolas.kassis]

Well there is also governement. We used to get vouchers (500$ cdn) to buy computers and broadband compagnies are subsidized a hole lot. Prices are dirt cheap in Quebec compared to what I payed for in Florida. (30$ for cable internet compared to 40$ for slow sprint dsl in florida)

Wow!

[Walker2323]

Even less than Canada?! But they're just a bunch of beer swilling eskimos! Actually, my ISP up here in the Great White North just upped the speeds of regular high-speed to 5 MBps, and for an extra $10 a month, they'll up it to a 7 MBps connection. Not bad, eh?

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

>White North just upped the speeds of regular high-speed to 5 MBps,
>and for an extra $10 a month, they'll up it to a 7 MBps connection.
>Not bad, eh?

and those are canadian $10 bills. something like $2 usa :) ...(okay, about $8.00)

Canada's population is roughly that of California

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put this in perspective.

Canada's population is about 32 million people,

The state of California's population is about 33 million people.

One country the size of one state.

The United States of America has FIFTY states.

'Nuff said.

SHUT UP

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Damn, this is getting annoying. Broadband penetration is lower in the US - WE GET IT. It's been discussed EXTENSIVELY on Slashdot.

There's no need for 500 articles about slow XP-SP2 adoption or an article every Black Tuesday about new Microsoft patches.

Report the story, then SHUT UP unless you have relevant new details. The linked article didn't say anything that anyone who has read Slashdot in the last year wouldn't already know.

It's like a dupe, but more annoying. You've beat the subject into the ground. Give it up.

Re:SHUT UP

[Flower]

But it got you to post and generate ~3 banner ad hits to get your rant out. Something's working.

Re:SHUT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

get a life and stop reading slashdot every hour of every day. Some of us miss articles because we get busy.

geopraphical area

[Nomadic_Z]

One thing I think people fail to realize is that in the US there is much more area to cover with broadband, than in Europe and Japan. The fact that America doesn't have the current infrastructure to maintain broadband in every rural area is not something that should be looked down upon yet. Now, if this is still the status quo in five years, then we can start discussing quicker implementation models, until then I guess be patient. (note: it took me 4 years of bugging various telcom. and ISPs before I was able to get cable in my area)

Re:geopraphical area

[raju1kabir]

One thing I think people fail to realize is that in the US there is much more area to cover with broadband, than in Europe and Japan.

I think their failure to fail to realize that is made clear by the many references to better-wired Canada, which has a similar urban/rural breakdown to the USA and is a far larger country.

until then I guess be patient

Why be patient? Why not try to make things better?

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if all this stuff is free, where does it come from? Or do you pay through the nose in higher taxes? You only think its free, or it might be free to you, because your income is so low you don't pay taxes. You should go right now and thank a wealthy taxpayer for providing these awsome services.

Verizon Fios

[Dejohn]

The U.S. is slowly starting to come around with certain commercial ventures, such as Verizon, installing fiber to the home. Thier particular service is currently available in certain markets for $50/month with 15Mbps down and 2Mbps up. Check out http://www.verizonfios.com/ for more info.

Re:Verizon Fios

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. is slowly starting to come around with certain commercial ventures, such as Verizon, installing fiber to the home. Thier particular service is currently available in certain markets for $50/month with 15Mbps down and 2Mbps up.

That's PATHETIC. 15Mbps down 2Mbps up??? That's slower than my ADSL in Tokyo. Hell, WHY THE FUCK do you have a different UP/DOWN speed on FIBER??? Just because ADSL works that way (for a reason!) it doesn't mean it should be that status quo... My Fiber gets 100Mbps, both ways (reality check showed 60Mbps minimum constant throughput). I probably pay LESS for my fiber than my mom pays for crappy ADSL in Colorado. Why in the world is Verizon offering AWEFULL fiber speeds at $50/month!? It probably wouldn't be half as bad if you could actually buy a service that did 500Kbps up/down 24/7 for $20/month. (Even that's expensive, but much more decent than expecting people to shell out $50/mo.) No wonder broadband adoption hasn't taken off in the U.S... it's way too freakin' expensive!

Re:Verizon Fios

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it required quite a lot more initial investment to lay that fibre in the first place.

Less caps next time please.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much punch? Tell that to Saddam and the Taliban.

Re:I for one..

[kayen_telva]

the link you posted does not have an image of a tank running over two girls

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[servognome]

The US is all talk and ego and with not that much punch when it comes to a lot of things.
No Europe is all talk, the US drops bombs (whether right or wrong).
Cross the US and things explode, cross the EU and they will pass legislation to officially say "we don't like what you did"
But seriously, too many times Europe or other nations bow down to US imposed rules. Copyright, patents, trade, etc. Sure the people may be vocal against policies, but the one universal truth is politicians can be bought.

Redundancy

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

In order for more competition, America needs redundancy in utilities. Dual power grids, dual telephone grids, dual cable systems in each munipality will let true competition begin!

Who will benefit? You will!

Re:I for one..

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a plush hello kitty laptop with an M16.

Re:I for one..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes rule under a crazed dictator is preferrable to a traffic accident

Americans also have alternatives

[Trepidity]

In a lot of countries, people pretty much have to buy broadband internet, because there is no alternative. The US has unlimited local calling and unlimited-use dialup internet, which is "good enough" for many people. Most other countries charge you per minute even for local phone calls.

Re:Americans also have alternatives

[AaronGTurner]

" The US has unlimited local calling and unlimited-use dialup internet,"

As do many other countries. You can get unlimited-use dialup plans in the UK, even unlimited local calling plans, and I would presume this is the case in more nations than just the UK and USA.

Re:Simputers

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is the internet anyways?

IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Man....we almost closed out the week without a "USA is a technological backwater compared to all these countries with a lower standard of living with far higher population density and enormous federal pork to build their broadband connections" story. Thank God we dodged that bullet!

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[EiZei]

FYI broadband connections are not subsidized in most countries, even ungodly socialist havens like Finland.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[RollingThunder]

Lower standard of living? Interesting assertion.

What's your prime metric? Percentage of encarcerated adults? Deaths due to firearms? Bankruptcy due to medical expenses?

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Ender's in use2]

Lower standard of living? Canada?

"For almost a decade (up to the year 2001), Canada was ranked number one among 175 countries in the United Nation's Quality of Life survey." - Vancouver Best City in the Americas (Third in world) - Mercer Human Resource Consulting

The U.N. currently ranks Canada third in quality of life, U.S. eighth.

Canada may not be as populous as the United States of America. It's definately not as powerful, either economically or militarily. But IMHO, it's a better county to live in. Its people are better educated, they live longer, and they have a smaller homeless population.

Canada is not perfect, but don't say it has a lower standard of living.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[S.O.B.]

The reason the article included Canada was to refute the claims of people like you.

"all these countries with a lower standard of living"

As others here have pointed out, that's just wrong.

"with far higher population density"

Have you been to Canada? Can you even find it on a map?
U.S.: 32.0 people/sq km
Canada: 3.6 people/sq km

And before you complain about it being in "sq km", I used population and areas stats from the CIA factbook which quoted area in "km".

"and enormous federal pork to build their broadband connections"

The federal government didn't kick in money to build our broadband services. It was done through regulation, existing infrastructure tax breaks and forced competition.

I'm glad most Americans aren't like you.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Stoutlimb]

" Its people are better educated, they live longer, and they have a smaller homeless population. "

I personally think that our low homeless population is due to our harsh winters. They provide a very strong incentive for people to live indoors.

And the hobos we have that do live outside in the winter are usually DAMN tough customers.

.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Citizen of Earth]

USA is a technological backwater compared to all these countries with a lower standard of living

80% of Canadians have a higher standard of living than 80% of Americans. Only when you factor in the Bill Gateses do you end up with the misleading conclusion that the average American is somehow better off.

with far higher population density

This statement is misleading in the opposite way, as Canada has 1/9th the population in a larger area. However, Canada is more highly urbanized and the population centers are laid out in a linear fashion rather than a sprawling 2-D grid, so Canada is less expensive to interconnect.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Citizen of Earth]

Lower standard of living? Interesting assertion. What's your prime metric?

Obviously he is using GDP purchasing power parity per capita, which is the technical definition of the term. According to the CIA World Factbook, the values are (in $US): USA=$37,800, Canada=$29,800, Japan=$28,200, South Korea=$17,800.

However, the US figure is misleading since the USA has the widest separation between rich and poor. The median American has a lower standard of living than the median Canadian.

And then there is the issue that goes hand-in-hand with Standard of Living which is "Quality of Life". (Money can't buy happiness, but it makes a good down-payment.) It is a tricky thing to measure, but Northern Europe and Canada always come out on top. The USA is held back by the poverty of a large portion of its population.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is most of Canada isn't populated, and all the people are crammed into a relatively small strip of land bordering the US, where they are more concentrated.

It's not that hard to figure out, you S.O.B. :)

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fewer Canadians with unwarranted snotty elitist attitudes, such as yours. Need I say more?

What do incarceration, death, or bankruptcy have to do with income per capita, BTW? Never mind that, eh, there's AMERICA BASHING to be done, you hosers!

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it was standard of living, not income per capita. The two are not the same nor are they necessarily more than marginally related.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez pal, it's not our fault you turned a great Republic over to profiteers and are watching your once great society get pissed into some kind of robocop/film noir future. It's not hard to feel elite with ACs like you around.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[S.O.B.]

Another coward heard from.

Even people in Iqaluit on Baffin Island just south of the Arctic circle can get 256K access for $60CDN/month.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Ender's in use2]

"I personally think that our low homeless population is due to our harsh winters."

We can see if this is a correct assumption by comparing the Canadian city of Vancover to the American city of New York. Vancouver has a milder climate than New York. It rarely snows, and flowers bloom all year.

The Vancouver metro area has a population of around 1.9 million. New York city has a population of around 8 million.

Vancouver has 500-1200 homeless people. New York has around 36,000 people using homeless shelters.

So New York city, with four times the population of Vancouver Metro and a colder climate than Vancouver Metro, has 30-72 homeless for every 1 homeless in Vancouver Metro. Factoring in the size difference, that's 7.5-18 times the per capita homeless rate.

One can therefore conclude that it's not the winters that keep Canada's homeless population low.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has a higher incarceration rate than Australia, Candada, or the UK.

The US has a lower violent crime rate than Australia, Canada, or England and Wales.

Hmm. Could it possibly be that the Neandethal practice of actually incarcerating criminals reduces rapes and robberies? That putting preadators behind bars is actually a good thing for quality of life for non-predators?

Nah. Sorry I ever considered such an anti-progressive notion. Free the felons!

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The U.S. has a much higher violent crime rate than Canada by far. Dipshit.

Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY!

[nevets]

New York is not a good example. I've once read that it is the most generous city on the Earth. The hobos there make more money than hobos anywhere else. I once saw some show on 20/20 or 60 minutes or one of those "news" programs, about a hobo that not only makes enough money to live on, but also once a year flies to Las Vegas, books a penthouse, and spends thousands of dollars gambling. This is all from what he earns panhandling.

I've often thought about quiting my job and panhandle in NY just to see if I can make more :-)

So, the reason that NY has so many panhandlers, is because it pays!

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Ironix]

I read what you wrote, but all I heard was "Me me me me me me me me me me me me me..." I am PROUD to sacrifice a higher portion of my income so that someone who has no income can get a heart transplant if needed and then go on to get a PhD without spending several hundred thousand dollars on tuition fees and hospital bills. After all, that someone could be me someday. Stop being such a selfish fuck.

Canadian exports?

[Anonymous Coward]

What possible use could the United States have for a country whose most important exports are Dan Aykroyd and Bryan Adams?

Canada is the largest supplier of gas to the United States. Look it up... or, of course, just don't use any gas.

Urban population

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking only for Canada, the population distribution is really not as evenly spread as in the US. Big cities are proportionally more dense. The urban population is *very* much more in transition. When a person moves, companies make it pretty competitive to get broadband.

Yeah... look at that picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Please draw for me the Canadian border based on those lights.

You can't, unless you already know where it is.

It sort of trails off well north of the border, but there's no sharp demarcation. Most of the canadian areas are lit exactly like the american ones. Alberta's much brighter than anywhere around it not because of high population or widely spread population but because energy is very cheap there.

What I see is a whole *bunch* of areas in Canada with only a few lights, and the Eastern half of the US lit so brightly it's practically solid light.

It definitely doesn't suddenly get clumpier at the Canadian border. Clumpier would mean it is easier to wire. Not having population in the yukon has nothing to do with it.

So... dense Eastern half of the US... how's your broadband? Not so good.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

It goes on to say even though Americans are wealthier than people of other countries, somehow people with more wealth in America have a lower standard of living than people with less wealth in other countries because the distribution of wealth in the US is more uneven. That argument doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, does it?

Umm, of course it does? Consider the basic economics of this:

1) There are a lot more people with wealth in America
2) Our wealth distribution system entails that people continue to maintain or increase that level of wealth, on average.
3) Many products and services in America are provided by Americans, and those that are not are heavily penalized (so that American businesses can compete).
4) Those providing the products and services to Americans must maintain higher prices to maintain the higher level of wealth (see 2).

In fact, this is obvious to anyone who thinks about it. I am by no means waelthy in America (by our wealth distribution system) -- but my wealth compared to, say, an average person from Pakistan, is pretty ridiculous.

And it's not a matter of exchange rates or currency, obviously. Australians make less money (all things equal) than Americans, but their goods and services cost less because of their distribution of wealth, so their economic system generates a higher standard of living (in terms of goods and products acquirable by the average person).

Now why would you think that wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny?

Re:I for one..

[Anonymous Coward]

So, accidents happen. I suppose no Korean driver has ever killed a pedestrian.

If I had my way, the American troops would come off the North/South Korean border and come home to protect our own. Let South Korea be overtaken by their northern neighbor. Ungrateful bastards.

Sure, the rest of the world hates America, but I can't wait for the day when Americans wake up and begin to hate the rest of the world. Lets see how you all get along with each other when we pull our troops back home.

I live in the middle of San Jose

[Anonymous Coward]

And my DSL speed is amazing 600Kbps that's Kilo bits per second. Oh yeah, did I mention that HP is down the block, and this is SUPPOSEDLY the high tech capital of the world.

UK broadband is $20-30 per month...

[Cato]

The UK has a highly deregulated telecoms market and pretty good broadband penetration figures, mainly through ADSL. You can now get ADSL from various ISPs for US $30 upwards (512K) with some 2 Mbps and 8 Mbps services (latter costs about $55). This covers 90% plus of population.

There is also local-loop unbundled (LLU) ADSL now, in which an ISP (Easynet/UK Online at present) puts its own kit in the telephone exchange (central office) - costs just $20 per month (£9.95), but since they are just starting to roll out, they only cover 40% or so of population.

ADSL prices are already competitive with all-you-can-eat dialup (people pay per minute for local calls here), and with LLU broadband may end up being cheaper than dialup.

The real solution for broadband to sparsely populated communities is WiMAX or similar non-line-of-sight technologies that are much cheaper to deploy than CDMA/UMTS type cellular networks. NLOS means that you can cover a large area with a single WiMAX tower, and that foliage growth in spring doesn't cut off the service you had installed in December.

WiFi also has a role, but is more of an in-fill or point to point for truly remote communities where you can hop via a point-to-point to link to somewhere that does have wired or WiMAX broadband. Satellite services are also available in the UK - more expensive but useful if you are truly in a remote area.

Despite the unregulated market, government is getting involved with limited subsidies for rural areas that would otherwise not get (reasonably priced) broadband at all. Mostly, however, this is driven by the incumbent telco's vision that they have to deploy ADSL to everyone in order to sell next-generation IP-based services such as VoIP, IP TV, etc. Google for 'BT 21CN' for more about how BT is ripping out the PSTN to replace it with an all-IP network.

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs to buy a DSL line when I can use any of my neighbors Wireless access points for free :p

Subscribership vs Availability

[CaptCovert]

Note here that the study isn't pure availability of broadband access, but who actually has it. Prices for such things being what they are in the US, it's not surprising that many other countries supersede us. You can't compete when there are countries that include, on a nationwide basis, high-speed internet access with basic phone service.

"and __even__ Canada"

[ignavus]

Now that should get the Canadians on side, eh?

I mean, it is not surprising that the US is behind South Korea and Japan - but who'd have imagined they were behind _Canada_ too? Gosh, that puts the US at the bottom of the barrel, doesn't it?

Excuses, Excuses...

[smokin_juan]

Every time one of these "US sucks at broadband" threads comes along there's the tired old argument that the United States is big and the people are spread all over... We just can't reach them all.
Pish-posh. In the months coming up to every war US'ians are heard saying, "yeah, we'll kick all their asses! Glass parking lot! We got teh tech!" But given a crack at wide broadband distribution the techies all cry, "wah, it's just too hard!"
Finally, after five years of rural broadband drought someone comes up with the simplistic idea of an antenna on a blimp. Whoa, geniuses they were. But wait... It was the Aussies that "invented" that. And as simple as the idea is and the area that it covers, five years after the idea WE STILL DON'T HAVE IT!

It could be done TOMORROW. You can make up your own excuses why it won't be.
I'll give you a start :
Regulation
Capital distribution

Personally, I live 10 minutes from the 11th larges city in the US and couldn't get broadband (aside from that high-latency high-dollar satellite crap) until 2003. If the people in this country keep giving our turds to every other country on earth hoping that they'll polish it to our expectations... well, once again, make up your own excuses.

Re:Excuses, Excuses...

[InsaneGeek]

One of the big benefits of the US is that the government has massive support for people starting their own business. If you think it's so easy, why don't you go ahead and start your own high-speed ISP for your area instead of relying on someone else, bitching that they haven't came to your area yet. You could have it *tomorrow* if you weren't waiting on someone else to do it for you. Putup or shutup is what I say.

Re:Excuses, Excuses...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use the term "USians". US is a friggin acronym, you can't use acronyms as the root of other words, it's just plain silly. They're called A.ME.RI.CANS.

Re:Excuses, Excuses...

[HiThere]

USians is probably better than the one I came up with, "UStatians". Americans refers to anyone living (or born on) one of the American continents (i.e., either North Americans or South Americans [unless you think I should distinguish Central Americans]).

There really ISN'T any good term denoting the residents of the US, because the US wasn't originally intended to be a country. It's like the EU in that sense. If Italy decided to withdraw from the EU, they would still be Europeans, so that is only an appropriate term for residents of the EU to the extent that it includes ALL & ONLY the countries in Europe. But the US doesn't include either Canada or Mexico, so American is an improper term. And there ISN'T any better!

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, It looks to me like the ggp was the post that was all about me me me me me. The gp mearly pointed out that somebody pays for the services, probably through taxes. They are not free. So, while you are apparently not a selfish fuck, you do appear to be an ignorant fuck.

But they compete

[grahamsz]

I live in a town of ~6000 in Colorado, and i have the choice of cable, dsl and fixed wireless. Yet other people nearby lack any choice.

I am in a developing area, but why would three companies choose to compete here, when there are plenty other similarly sized towns where they could have a monopoly.

As it stands i went for fixed wireless since its run by a local firm and they provide (so far) excellent service. Unlike comcast's army of monkies, their phone staff actually know about things like dns servers and latency.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Malc]

So the US rules through fear. That sounds very enlightened.

Re:Canada's population is roughly that of Californ

[Anonymous Coward]

No, apparently the US and TWO states. Broadband and dialup. Get back on topic.

And even Canada?

[DaveCBio]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? As far as tech goes Canada id right up there in most respects. We've had widespread use of debit cards for years now and it's only just catching on in the US.

Demand isn't always enough.

[cbreaker]

How do you create demand for something you simply cannot get?

A lot of people now a days DO demand high-speed internet access. And what they get in many cases is a 1.5Mbit/256Kbit connection via Cable, or DSL if you're in the city. Sure, I can say "I want more" but it's just not offered.

Some of it is user education - if people knew the potential in 100Mbit to the house connections, they might want it more. But what do the broadband companies care? They like the status-quo. They can get paid just as much now for low-tech gear that they could if they spent 40 billion dollars on new networks.

And if you're a residential customer in a rural area (and we're not talking about farm land here) you could be completely out of luck and stuck on dial-up.

I understand that the USA is a much larger land-mass then Japan, which this article seems to ignore. But, that's not what's currently stopping true high-speed Internet - it's the fact that there's absolutely no incentive to give people the access they want.

Our governments are SUPPOSED to help the people they govern, and in this case they really should provide the incentive that the market is unable, or unwilling to give. When that happens, and if broadband is still not offered en-masse, then we can talk about land-mass and crap like that.

Re:Demand isn't always enough.

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

You learn about it, and if it appeals to you, you have a demand for it. World peace is a demand everyone from Talib Kweli to Miss Congeniality has, yet no one's getting it.

If the demand is large enough, it will be offered, because there is someone out there who believes or knows of a way he can make money off it.

If the government and other institutions offered more services online, there would be a demand because of convenience. It may not push broadband penetration to 90%, but it will drum up support for more. After all, this is a consumer's world.

Re:Demand isn't always enough.

[arminw]

...here's absolutely no incentive to give people the access they want...

What IS the incentive for people to want high speed Internet? E-mail? Checking for info on Google? Buying a book from Amazon? All of these work perfectly fine on dial up for most people not reading /. posts. Someone living in the sticks of Canada may not have a Blockbuster video nearby and might want to download (mostly illegal) movies.

Broadband Internet needs a real killer app which CANNOT be done over cheap dial-up which is good enough for grandma to read her e-mail and possibly look at a photo of her latest grandchild. Even if movies were available legally for download, the average broadband connection is still too slow to download the content of the average DVD in any reasonable amount of time. With the new hi-def video and the up-coming 30-50+GB video disks, even the fastest existing DSL or cable services are way too slow. Other than video, I see no compelling reason for most ordinary people to want to pay extra in order to get their spam e-mail faster than they do now over dial-up.

Most people don't switch to a new way of doing things unless the new way is SIGNIFICANTLY better than what they are using now. The iPod and other portable music players are an example of a much better way of enjoying music than before, and that's the primary reason their use is skyrocketing. Having one's entire music collection in the shirt pocket is a VERY compelling incentive.

skewed

[sonictheboom]

income distribution have anything to do with it?

How can we win the war on terror

[gngulrajani]

while playing Counter Strike ??!?!

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. is that great. Everybody on the planet should bow down and thank their God that America is the one true superpower. If that role were held by any other country on the planet the oppression that ensued would be monumental. Thank God the world is ruled by a country whose people hold freedom near and dear to their heart and would die to protect it. Seriously, what other country would you rather have in that role?

*Even Canada!*

[blorg]

I don't mind the negative comparisons to Japan, South Korea, Denmark. But *Canada*! That really hurts.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Zymlink]

So, Proud boy, donate to charity. Just because *you* feel guilty about making more money than those who dont apply themselves doesn't give you the right to force me to spend my money on failed social programs. Take away the safety net, and you will remove lazyness and sloth from society. That is why America rules the land. The safety net is smaller than that in the average European country. Not suprising, Europeans are lazy and less productive. 6 weeks vacation! Jeeze what a bunch of lazy bastards you people are.

No wonder we Americans have to send our boys to fight and die to protect your borders from the evils of the world, yet we selfishly leave our own borders wide open for oportunity to all those who can sneak in. It's you socialists who think that everything should be free who are the selfish me me me crowd.

Fallacy of the single statistic.

[Spock the Baptist]

Population density is a useful metric for many things, but one must discriminate between global population density, and local population density. Using my home state of Texas as an example one finds that the global population density is 79.6 persons per square mile, but if one looks at the population density for my home county of Smith then the local density is 188.2 persons per square mile. Dallas County has a population density of 2,522.6 persons per square mile, and Brewster County has a population density of 1.4 persons per square mile. What is manifest here is that local population has a wide variance.

In physics one often uses the metrics of homogeneity isotropy and linearity, when dealing with various mediums. Let us consider the population density as the medium of interest. The question now becomes one of the homogeneity, isotropy, and linearity of the global population density.

Given the the size of the United States both in terms of both population, and geography it should come as no surprise that the global population density is not homogenous, nor isotropic, nor linear. That being said, it is the case that local population densities can be large, homogenous, isotropic, and linear. This is true for many parts of the Mid-West, and South. It is these situations that cause the problems with employing broad band in an economically efficient fashion.

If one has a county where the population density is low, but tightly clustered then the population density is both, non-homogenous, and non-isotropic. Providing the population center/s with broadband is then "cost effective," provide the total population of the center/s is of sufficient size.

Another county which has the same population density may however have a highly homogenous, and isotropic population density. In such a case the population is evenly scattered over the entire area of the county. Given that the population of the county is of sufficient size it will very well not be "cost effective" to provide that county with broadband.

One of the most prevalent fallacies that folks engage in is the 'fallacy of the single statistic.' No one statistic, nor metric gives an adequate description of a phenomenon. When an argument focuses on one statistic, or metric it is inevitable that a lot of verbiage is going to be wasted on fallacious argumentation.

In general one needs to examine 'size,' 'percentage,' 'distribution,' and 'variance' in making a statistical argument if one is to avoid spurious lines of debate.

Re:Fallacy of the single statistic.

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

Agree with your point. One number wont accurately describe a rational behind cost discrepancies. But the whole argument about country size of density is bogus. Reality is, the reason for the different rates of penetration is different government priorities. In other countries, citizens' access to information is considered of fundamental importance, and broadband is viewed as an enabler of reducing government costs by encouraging internet delivery, and spurring regional economic growth, by making folks closer to their markets.

Screw Broadband...

[greylingrover]

...We have other planets to destroy!

But seriously, I had a 6M line from SBC in the Bay Area - They actually discontinued that level of service (was $99/mo) and would only grandfather my service if I shelled out $150/mo. It makes me sick to think that some developing countries have 10-20 times the BW and pay under $50/mo - Haven't we stolen enough oil yet!?

Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy.

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

More relevant is the following link:

http://broadband.ic.gc.ca/pub/index.html?iin.lan g= en

Canadians believe in trying to smooth things out
a bit so that people are on as level a playing field
as possible, giving everybody a chance to succeed,
and for development to be spread out across
the country.

Americans (not all, probably not even most of the ones
on slashdot, but such a large number that it is a real problem) have a myopic fanaticism about cutting their taxes (to the point where their government can no longer provide even
basic services) and that awful neighbourhoods
are somehow natural. The leading cause
of personal bankrupcy in the US is getting sick.

Bad neighbourhoods happen because society
doesnt give a shit. Canada doesnt have any real slums
because we try to take care of everybody. Not
to the extreme point of communism but trying
to make sure people have a chance: free health care,
low cost education, low cost broadband, reasonable
social safety net.

The only people we do a pretty poor job with are
aboriginal peoples, because they live so far out
in the boonies that it is really hard to bring them
a reasonable standard of living, when it takes a 12-hour
plane ride to get them to the nearest hospital.

We try to level things out, were not fanatics about it,
but we do our level best.

Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy.

[jasonaedwards]

Bullshit. What about the aboriginal people who live in the cities? Have you seen the east end of Vancouver recently around Pigeon Park? Highest rate of HIV positive drug users in the world and so dangerous the police won't even do anything about it. That area is worse than any slum in the US I have seen.

Free health care? Sure, if you are willing to wait months for a service that I (and many others) am more than willing to pay for. Welfare system? The system that ensures no one tries to find a job because unless it pays 10 dollars an hour or more, you end up making more staying on welfare?

Yes, Canada is great for many things. But let's face it... for the taxes we pay, we should be getting a LOT more. Personally, I would rather pay a lot less tax and choose the services I want.

There is a middle ground somewhere between the two countries that is better than both systems.

Re:Negroes, not unions

[Anonymous Coward]

- Why's a nigger black?
- 'Cause he's full of shit.

- What is transparent and lies motionless at the side of the road?
- A nigger who someone beat the crap out of.

Saskatchewan on the front lines?

[themusicgod1]

Keep in mind that Sasktel is going putting fibre to the door of (at least near) everyone in saskatchewan, and has already started the switch to a VoIP system(my livingspace is all VoIP, no POTS)

of course

with their prices I still won't be able to afford dialup. but it's the thought that counts.

Re:US v. Canada ... funding != Tax break?

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

explain the difference between providing funding, and not collecting taxes. To me, the tax break is probably a bigger incentive because it involves far less paper work and haggling. If a tech company gets a 10 million dollar tax break, then that is probably equivalent to twice that mount if it were given in a grant.

In any event, there is more to it. Unlike the US, where the FCC has been apparently co-opted by telco and other media interests, in Canada, the CRTC does a lot of regulation. What Bell can charge is regulated. They have to ask for cost increases, and they have to be justified. Other companies (third party ISPs) appear at the hearings and argue Bells numbers, mostly downward, because they want low wholesale prices. So you have third party ISPs charging 30-50% less for broadband than Bell.

Broadband in the U.S.

[RealRav]

The vast majority of U.S. households have the ability to access broadband. They just choose otherwise. Most Americans aren't like the slashdot crowd and are happy with their dial-up. OF course, if they ever had fast access they'd never go back.

Just my two cents.

Re:Broadband in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of U.S. households have the ability to access broadband.

If you're using the proper definition of broadband (carrying more than one type of data, such as ADSL which carries both phone and computer signals) then you would be correct. But if you mean a "fast line" then you are quickly approaching extinction. The "broadband" offered (and often not offered) in the U.S. is pathetically slow compared to many other developed nations. (Sure, you can compare the U.S. to India and China, but are you sure you want to play in their sandbox?) Example: My fiberoptic line to my apartment in Tokyo is 100Mbps up and down.

They just choose otherwise. Most Americans aren't like the slashdot crowd and are happy with their dial-up.

With the choice of $50/mo for something like 2Mbps down, 512Kbps up, or within a few multiples of 2 of that, or $10 for dial-up, I too would be pretty damn happy with dial-up too.

OF course, if they ever had fast access they'd never go back.

If the price was right, I'm willing to bet most americans WOULD get high-speed internet. How many americans have cable TV? A lot more than those that have it in Japan, and I doubt the quality of Japanese public TV has anything to do with that.

south africa

[lycium]

i wonder where we are on the list...

Gasp!!!

[PhotoGuy]

even Canada...

Even CANADA? GASP!!! (*Slaps face with both hands in amazement...*)

Yes, we occasionally do stop squatting in the ditch stuffing berries up our noses, to surf the net. Sheeeeesh.

Re:Gasp!!!

[Idarubicin]

Yes, we occasionally do stop squatting in the ditch stuffing berries up our noses, to surf the net. Sheeeeesh.

Then we realize that we're doing something even more embarrassing: posting on Slashdot.

/me goes to look for some berries....

In Soviet Canada...

[Ender's in use2]

Broadband pays for you!

Ain't no 40$ for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the same sport, and funnily, my bill is well above 40$ for the most basic package (more like 60$). And as far as I'm concerned, Eastlink is the *ONLY* highspeed ISP around. Don't even try to say Aliant. Their DSL isn't available here, nor was it in any place I lived around town for the last 10 years. None of my friends, family or co-workers have it either. Availability is so ridiculously bad... I think they just don't want customers, so they don't offer the service. So we may have broadband (monopoly), but the service, speeds and price aren't as good as the other high speed ISPs I've had in other provinces. Also, Eastlink has BW caps and crippled newsgroups... Honestly, it's better than not having broadband at all, but it's nothing worth overly happy about.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish Australia was like America!
I still can't get ADSL!
I have to use crappy wireless broadband - 1Mbit but laggy as!

Now THAT's Funny!..

[Cryofan]

you are an unappreciated genius...

It's the fault of the government

[Targon]

One thing that other people havn't said yet is that the government here in the USA has been sitting around and not really doing anything to encourage the development of technology. In eastern Asia, the governments have been pushing to improve the availability of broadband and technology. In the USA, the government is pushing for things that will help George W. Bush in his war on the middle east.

When the .com crash hit, did government step in to see how they could help the companies that had a good product survive? How about all the people who lost their jobs and had to take retail sales jobs because the programming, IT, and support jobs disappeared when the company they worked for went out of business? After being out of work for over a year, it becomes VERY difficult for people to get back into the work force, and that's what happened to a LOT of people.

So now, the USA is falling behind. All the entry level support jobs are going to India and other countries. There hasn't been a huge surge of new companies starting up with new ideas to take the place of those who disappeared after the .com crash. And people wonder why this country is losing it's edge?

Why is broadband access so important?

[bdbolton]

Could some one please explain? I'm not talking about internet access but broadband specifically.

I've heard this statistic in one form or another for a while now. Is it "America just has to be better?" or is there something more important going on?

-Brian

Re:Why is broadband access so important?

[rfc1394]

Could some one please explain? I'm not talking about internet access but broadband specifically.

I've heard this statistic in one form or another for a while now. Is it "America just has to be better?" or is there something more important going on?

With the increased size of files and media being used over the Internet, broadband becomes important to be able to use the new and enhanced capacities of multimedia, File Sharing and P2P applications, and so on.

If all you are going to use the Internet for is to send mail and look at small, static web pages (and are willing to accept long download times to do so) then you do not need broadband, you can get by with a telephone connection at 53Kbps.

But if you prefer faster loading web pages (a web page generally takes about 3 seconds on my DSL connection, it can take anything from 12 to 45 seconds or longer on a phone line), and the ability to send (and receive) audio and/or video in real-time or near-real time, broadband is essential.

Oh, there are things you can do on a regular phone line and you might be able to get by with that. I ran an experiment using a webcam and some software to talk to a friend 2,000 miles away over a telephone line, and it did work. (I don't know how it looked, the other person did not have a camera, but having seen examples on TV of people connecting by webcam I figure the picture was choppy.)

A typical good quality video with sound uses about 10MB per minute (from my own work capturing video). MP3 compressed audio uses about 1MB per minute. If you wanted to watch a movie which you had downloaded, it would take about 12GB of space if it ran for 2 hours. On a 1MBps DSL line, it will take maybe 1 hour or so to download and you could conceivably watch it as streaming video. On a 53K phone line, it will take 99 1/4 hours.

If you can get broadband at 3Mbps, you can get live video at DVD quality streamed in real time, which means you could be sent a movie directly from a server and view it to your TV set, possibly in High Definition. No waiting for delivery of DVDs or having to wait for a movie to start, and if something like BitTorrent were used, a server would not need a huge amount of bandwidth as other receivers could send you pieces as they got them.

That is the reason broadband is so important, because with faster connections, we can develop new services and new technology to take advantage of them, just like faster processors allowed development of applications previously unavailable to personal computers.

Paul Robinson

Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy.

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

Canada isnt communism. We arent going to guarantee equality of results. If people get hooked on alcohol and drugs, all the money in the world is not going to help them. We do what we can, but this isnt some miraculous heaven on Earth, with angels at every street corner gently prying needles from addicts hands, with gentle consoling comfort.

I have been in bad neighborhoods in the US, in New Orleans, in Dallas, and In the East end of Montreal. People in East end Montreal are poor, but it bears no resemblance to the kind of squalor I saw in the US. Look at the crime rates. Look at the size of the bad neighborhoods, and there is just no comparison.

I have not been to the worst areas in the US... Have you? I havent, because as the locals will tell you, they arent safe to visit. I will take your word for it that there is such a place in Vancouver. In Quebec, I dont know of any such places, even though it is far poorer, on average, than BC.

As for taxes... You are living in a complete dreamworld. Services cost money. You want services, and an environment where you can feel safe, then it is going to cost you money. Canadian spend far less than other industrialized countries to provide services, we are actually doing really well.

You can follow the US model: cut taxes, and spend money you aren't allowed to raise. 500 trillion dollar annual federal deficit, On the US West Coast folks keep passing resolutions that eliminate methods for state and local governments to collect taxes. It is at the point where there is no way to pay for services. California is a complete financial basket case, Washington state has similar problems. This is similar effect to folks that don't want any power plants in their state, and then complain that electricity is expensive.

People don't think hard enough about their choices. If you choose to cut taxes, you will get less services. Sure, you need to audit what is going on, and make value for money evaluations, and tune things as you go, but the basics are there: no money, no services.

In comparison, the Canadian federal system and provices are running balanced budgets.

http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/taxpercentagegdp.htm

We have Sheila Fraser, and her counterparts in Provincial governments, independant auditors who picks apart federal expenditures, and whose only reason for being is to identify poor accounting practices, and a press that will gleefully tear into any spending scandal they can find. It's just fantasy to think that we can change a few decisions and cut taxes by any reasonable amount without massive social unrest.

The vast majority of money in government at all levels goes to providing services. The waste you hear about is what makes it to the press, the vast majority of the spending is done properly and conscientiously.

The real crime is that 30 years ago, in Trudeau's last reign, the economy went south, and nobody paid attention, throughout the Mulroney years the deficit grew and now it is this huge weight on the government.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/budget04/brief/briefe.htm

Look at expenditures. 156 Billion for programs, 36 for just keeping the debt level. What could we do with 36 Billion dollars a year? One hell of a lot, but we can't because a generation ago, people were idiots. Deficit spending is a horrible drag that is going to break something eventually. People like to hear about 'tax cuts' but what they should be doing is looking at what that means: service cuts now, and if that hampers our ability to pay down accumulated debt, then fewer services down the road too for our children, and ourselves in our old age. It is practically criminal to cut taxes, but politically necessary. We're still idiots.

Even Canada?

[Sj0]

The Canadian government decided quite a few years ago that it was going to try to make broadband available to 80% of Canadians or something like that.

This isn't a suprise. The free market is good, but not as good as pre-existing infastructure and a government mandate.

Re:Even Canada?

[gordguide]

... and they did so by looking at the regulatory framework and changing it to suit faster broadband penetration where applicable. They didn't buy anything, or give any money away, which if I read you right was what you're implying.

The only public money ever spent by Canadian Governments was the initiative to insure (stage 1) every Canadian School had a computer, (stage 2) every Canadian classroom had a computer, and (stage 3) every Canadian classroom had internet access. Stage 3 was completed a few years ago; there is not a single classroom in Canada, no matter where it is, that doesn't have net access and at least one computer). And education is properly funded by public money.

If there was no private provider, in some communities only the school had access. No money was spent to subsidize internet access anywhere, including the north. Internet access is provide by the 7 largest telecos, the 2 largest cable companies, the 2 sat providers, a couple of microwave providers, and hundreds of smaller for profit operations.

Are there regulatory impediments to better broadband penetration in the US? Find them and fix them.

Re:Even Canada?

[Sj0]

I've lived up north, and the broadband there was provided by the government years before Shaw saw fit to hook up our backwater little town. I'm sure my town isn't alone in this regard.

Re:Even Canada?

[akuma(x86)]

>> This isn't a suprise. The free market is good, but not as good as pre-existing infastructure and a government mandate

Government mandates eliminate choice and result in an inefficient allocation of capital. What about Canadians that don't give a shit about broadband - they have to pay anyways because of higher taxes. Let the market decide. Not some govt. bureaucrat. It's policies like this that made me leave Canada for the US about 9 years ago.

If people don't want broadband, then they should have the CHOICE not to fund it. Just as it is in the US.

Let's take a look at one measure of wealth - per capita GDP and compare Canada vs. the US:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ran ko rder/2004rank.html

Re:Even Canada?

[gordguide]

"Up North"? Where? There are no Federal programs to subsidize internet access. Did the town kick in some bucks or talk the province into it?

I live and work "up north" too. Some towns formed cooperatives for cable and internet, but they're locally funded.

Re:Even Canada?

[Sj0]

Comparing the US to Canada with a single number like that is ignorant. Despite of their proximity, there are two different cultures at work, as well as a variety of non-trivial factors to include when considering the wealth of either nation -- the Federal Government of Canada has had a balanced budget for the better part of a decade, for example.

Broadband is an infastructure which the market can't decide it wants -- Either someone brings it in or they don't get it. Geektown NWT, with 5000 people willing to pay for broadband won't have broadband just because they want it, they won't get it until it is provided. Furthermore, small private enterprise can't provide it unless the infastructure already exists. That's where things like these are useful.

The same was true when the interstate highway system was installed in the US half a century back. You could have millions clamouring for roads crossing the nation, but it wouldn't exist until someone made it. Luckily for America, the government stepped up to plate and funded the interstate highway system.

Re:Even Canada?

[akuma(x86)]

>> Comparing the US to Canada with a single number like that is ignorant

I grew up in Canada and have lived in the US for the past 9 years. I believe that I have a valid perspective on the situation and can comment qualitatively as well as quantitatively. If you believe that the average Canadian is wealthier or even on par with the average American, you are living in a fantasy world. By the way, as much as Canadians would like to think they are culturally distinct, the line is very thin. Per capital GDP is only one number, but it's an important one - it measures economic output. How about another economic metric like unemployment? Or net worth? Or income? Look these up on the web, and you'll see how relatively poor Canadians are vs. Americans.

>> the Federal Government of Canada has had a balanced budget for the better part of a decade

So what? That just says that the Canadian government is taxing too much. Perhaps the government should give back the surplus it has been running the past few years, so that the average Canadian can have more in his/her pocket to spend. Does having a balanced budget suddenly mean that Canadians can afford bigger houses and fancier cars? The government does not create wealth, the citizens do. The more control of capital that the citizens have, the better off the citizens are. Perhaps the Canadian govt. should look into *GASP* a deficit! Deficits are not all bad. Everybody that has a mortgage has a deficit. Sometimes, you need to borrow - sometimes, it's financially prudent because the opportunity cost of paying it ALL UP FRONT is too high vs. other uses of that money (like giving it back to the citizen to be more productive).

>> Broadband is an infastructure which the market can't decide it wants -- Either someone brings it in or they don't get it. Geektown NWT, with 5000 people willing to pay for broadband won't have broadband just because they want it, they won't get it until it is provided

So you're saying it's justified to redistribute wealth to appease the wishes of a group that does not have the financial means to attain their demands? You're saying it's ok to take money from someone that doesn't give a shit about broadband (money that this person made from his/her own productivity) and re-direct it? That is theft. It is immoral. It is wrong. It is also bad for the economy as it distorts demand, resulting in capital being allocated inefficiently. If you live in the NWT and you want broadband, you should have to pay the market price for it. If the is cost prohibitive to deliver broadband to the NWT, so be it! That's the market. Don't live in the NWT if you want cheaper broadband, or pay up!

>> The same was true when the interstate highway system was installed in the US half a century back

I believe that a private highway system would have been far more efficient. There is just too much economic incentive out there for private capital to invest in interstate highways. These would have been built by private enterprise in the absence of government and funded on a usage basis (like tolls). Look at the railways in the 1800s. They were for the most part private, and were built out by private enterprise.

Re:Even Canada?

[Sj0]

Ah, a "Conservative".

Sadly, your views are dangerous, selfish, and stupid.

Dangerous - The government paying back it's debts is not an indication of overtaxation, it's an indication that the populous was undertaxed for a period of time, which caused the government to have to take a debt. Your ideas that defecits are ok fly in the face of the fact that the majority of our taxes go to paying MAINTINENCE on the debt.

Selfish - This is pretty damned obvious. "Oh, they're overtaxing us! Waah!! They should give back that money instead of paying down the federal debt!"

Stupid - When you take out a mortgage, you pay it back, or you lose your house. They have a word for people who live in defecit as you'd advocate: Bankrupt. Eventually the house gets paid off, and that's what people like you completely fail to recognise.

Ignorant sods like you who think that the government doesn't follow the same basic rules as a household WILL end up destroying the nations you're most prominent in. It happened in Japan when the yen collapsed, it will happen in the USA when their house of cards collapses, and when that happens, you'll be too caught up in your philosophy to notice that our little country managed to be the only country to achieve real GDP growth in the 2001-2002 recession.

So you're saying it's justified to redistribute wealth to appease the wishes of a group that does not have the financial means to attain their demands?

Yes. We build hospitals in norther communities too. We also give money to college students, build roads for people who couldn't afford to build them on their own, and maintain police forces, fire departments, and democratic institutions, all with taxpayer dollars.

That is theft. It is immoral.

No, you stupid fucker, that's government, a social contract of sorts in which certain ventures are funded by taxpayer money, even though they won't help 100% of the people. I don't need hospitals or police or roads, seeing as I'm in the fittest shape of my life, I ride my bike or walk to most places(you don't need a big road for that, just a trail), and can defend myself against most people who would do me harm. Oddly enough, I can and do make use of subsidies on college education, because I'm a canadian citizen and it's available(in fact, it's mandatory -- International students pay 6 thousand dollars more per year in tuition than I do by default).

I believe that a private highway system would have been far more efficient.

America would not be the place it is today if the automotive industry hadn't been subsidized in this way. The automobile wouldn't have taken off as quickly, and several major developments in their culture never would have happened.

Re:Even Canada?

[akuma(x86)]

>> Ah, a "Conservative".

Actually, "Libertarian" is the word you're looking for. I don't buy into that Christian right garbage.

>> Dangerous - The government paying back it's debts is not an indication of overtaxation, it's an indication that the populous was undertaxed for a period of time, which caused the government to have to take a debt. Your ideas that defecits are ok fly in the face of the fact that the majority of our taxes go to paying MAINTINENCE on the debt.

Interest rates on govt. debt (particularly in the US) have been declining for the past 20 years. Therefore, why should we cut back debt? Lower interest rates imply that we should take on more debt. This is simple finance 101. If interest rates on treasuries rise - THEN we should cut back spending and reduce deficits. Interest rates reflect the risk others see in investing in a nation. Obviously the risk is low as rates have been decling for 20 years or so. Probably because the American population is the most productive, economically stable, wealthiest, largest economy in the world. There's a very good reason for that. There's also a reason why more than 1/2 of Canadian GDP is a result of trade with the US. You see, citizens are responsible for generating wealth and therfore generating tax revenue. Private interests are far more efficient than government interests with respect to growing capital. The more capital that is left to the private citizens, the faster it grows. Therefore, the more tax revenue the govt can pull in. Hence, the lower interest rates (an implicit representation of foreigner's trust in the ability of the US to grow). If the US started implementing European style socialism, you'd see rates skyrocket due to slower economic growth, and then we'd really be in trouble.

>> Selfish - This is pretty damned obvious. "Oh, they're overtaxing us! Waah!! They should give back that money instead of paying down the federal debt!"

The question you should be asking is - what is the most efficient way I can deploy money (capital). I can either give it to a central bureaucracy and trust it to invest. Or, I can let the market decide how to allocate capital. No one can argue that the market is more efficient. The central planners operate with limited information and therefore necissarly cannot allocate the capital in an efficient manner. The true meaning of freedom is to let the people decide what to do with their money - through supply and demand. Where do you think "demand" comes from? It is the collective wishes of the populace at large.

>> Stupid - When you take out a mortgage, you pay it back, or you lose your house. They have a word for people who live in defecit as you'd advocate: Bankrupt. Eventually the house gets paid off, and that's what people like you completely fail to recognise

Umm...then why are interest rates on US treasuries so low? Why have they been on a relentless 20 year downtrend? Are foreign investors (like Canadians) that pour trillions of dollars into the US treasury bond market stupid? They don't invest because they're our "buddies". They invest to make a profit. I'd say they're pretty damn happy with their investment and they continue to invest and drive bond prices higher and yields lower.

>> Yes. We build hospitals in norther communities too. We also give money to college students, build roads for people who couldn't afford to build them on their own, and maintain police forces, fire departments, and democratic institutions, all with taxpayer dollars.

I'm on the more radical (libertarian side), but perhaps a logical rethinking of the role of government is required. I'd recommend reading "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Nozick to give a logical justification for a minimalist state (one that does not include funding schools, hospitals etc... Only a military system and justice system for enforcement of laws that protect individual liberties). It will never happen in my lifetime, but I believe it is a b

Re:Even Canada?

[Sj0]

Do you never plan to return the money you borrow?

This is a fundamental flaw in many of these ideologies, your own ideas included. Oh yeah, borrow! Borrow until your hands bleed from signing so many cheques! Except that someday, YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY IT BACK.

Now is that time that Canadians are being forced to pay back the excesses of the 80's.

BY THE WAY, you decided to ask a stupid question which I had already answered. Let me reiterate the question and the answer.


Q:[...] why should we cut back debt?

A:[...]the majority of our taxes go to paying MAINTINENCE on the debt.

Seriously, you don't borrow money just because you can!!! You DO have to pay that money back someday, and the fact that the idea of not doing so is so popular is evidence that something is seriously wrong with the ideology you profess!!!

Once again, look at what happened to Japan when the bubble burst. Their economy is very much like the american economy, in that it's artificially inflated by debt. The only difference is that their bubble has already burst.

Re:Even Canada?

[akuma(x86)]

>> Seriously, you don't borrow money just because you can!!! You DO have to pay that money back someday, and the fact that the idea of not doing so is so popular is evidence that something is seriously wrong with the ideology you profess!!!

You're looking at absolute debt. The correct metric to look at is debt-to-GDP. If you get a large salary raise, you can move to bigger house - ie, take on more debt. Or, using your logic, trade down to a smaller house because I was irresponsible for borrowing for the first house in the first place - I need to "make up" for that wreckless borrowing.

Debt to GDP (ie - economic output/productivity) has been very stable. Guess what? when the economy grows due to the ingenuity and productivity of it's citizens, you can borrow more because your debt-to-equity is lowered - AND, on better terms (ie - lower interest rates).

>> Once again, look at what happened to Japan when the bubble burst. Their economy is very much like the american economy, in that it's artificially inflated by debt. The only difference is that their bubble has already burst

The Japanese bubble burst because of rampant asset inflation (example - the emperor's palace was worth more than the entire state of California). Their central bank was inept and still is to some extent. Price stability was not in their lexicon.

The US had an equity bubble already, but that was burst by the central bank taking rates to 6.5 percent in 2000. Problem solved. The US is nothing like Japan at all. We have sustainable business cycles and have had extremly robust economic growth for 200 years. We have competent central bankers. Again, there's a very good reason why the US is the largest, richest economy in the world, and has been for a good 150 years overtaking the British empire in the 1800s.

Re:Even Canada?

[Sj0]

Give me one good reason why borrowing money just because you can is a good idea.

Unlike loans, taxes have NO interest rate, NO maintinence fees, and do NOT have to be paid back.

Why do you so fervently believe that debt, in a society that can afford not to pay that extra overhead, is a good idea? Doesn't taking money from the future like that run counter to your ideals of smaller government?

Re:Even Canada?

[akuma(x86)]

>> Unlike loans, taxes have NO interest rate, NO maintinence fees, and do NOT have to be paid back.

Taxes redistribute wealth according to whatever the government wants. There is an opportunity cost to taxes. That is to say - what could I have done with the taxes if I had NOT sent it to the govt? In almost all cases, the citizen, privately deploying that money would be more productive than the government deploying that money.

>> Why do you so fervently believe that debt, in a society that can afford not to pay that extra overhead, is a good idea? Doesn't taking money from the future like that run counter to your ideals of smaller government?

By taking on more debt - you can REDUCE taxes with the same level of spending. Let the foreigners fund the govt. and let the citizens be more productive with the added capital. Growing the economy at a rate that is HIGHER than the interest rate means we come out ahead. See how that works? It's more productive to grow that capital privately - so take on debt to capture that advantage.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. That's why I left Canada and you still choose to live there.

Enjoy your high income taxes, your GST, your bloated and anti-capitalist government regulations, your smaller pay checks, your higher unemployment, your iPod tax, your 25% download tariff, your 15% webcast tariff, your 10% gamer tariff, your digital media tariff, your government-imposed limited media choices, your government imposed limited financial institutions and of course, your complete and total dependence on the prosperity and security of your far more productive neighbors to the south (you're welcome).

Re:Even Canada?

[Sj0]

What can be said to someone who refuses to pay his debts, who actively OPPOSES balanced budgets?

Enjoy your meltdown. You'll have collectively earned it.

Re:Even Canada?

[akuma(x86)]

>> What can be said to someone who refuses to pay his debts, who actively OPPOSES balanced budgets?

I know it's hard for a socialist to understand the basics of capitalism but bear with me.

Case 1:
Let's say I borrow $100,000 at 5% interest for a term of 30 years.
My monthly payment is $536.82
At the end of the 30 year term, I will have paid out $193,256 in total

Case 2:
Let's say, I didn't want to take on any debt and I just put $100,000 up front.
My monthly payment is $100,000 in the first month, but $0 for every month afterwards - sounds good huh?
At the end of the 30 year term, I will have paid out $100,000 in total.

Wow, a 93% savings over 30 years? Sounds fantastic, let's get rid of the debt!

Not so fast... There's opportunity cost.

Let's say that as a productive person, I have the ability to earn 6% on capital.
If I spend $100,000 up front...
I don't have $100,000 anymore to earn a return on...
At the end of 30 years, I will have paid $100,000.

If I take out my 5% loan...
I pay $535.82 in the first month, but I have $99464.18 left over.
Here's the KEY...I can earn 6% (amortized for that month) on that balance during that month.
Next month, I have another $535.82 to pay, but I still have the balance left over to invest at a HIGHER rate of interest (6%).

So at the end of this 30 year exercise, I will have paid out $193,256 but I will have MADE $115,838 due to my 6% return on the unvested money, which means that I have SAVED $22,582. So my $100,000 worth of services have actually cost only $77,418 because I'm so godamm productive. This is a much better deal than paying up front without a deficit.

See now how lower interest rates motivate taking on MORE debt when your economy can grow faster?

You only want to reduce deficits when the rate of interest EXCEEDS the rate at which your economy can grow capital. I suppose that Canadians are so unproductive that they can't take on debt. Such is life in a socialist democracy.

"Even Canada"

[CheeseburgerBlue]

Why is the phrase "even Canada" repeated three times in the article? Is it so hard to believe we're a high-tech country, just because we're homey, cold and large ineffectual in the world sphere? C'mon. We have a history of happily adopting new technologies, including automated banking and debit card purchases, our use of which is (last time I checked) among the highest penetration anywhere. "Even" Canada -- my arse! We lead you dinks in making the Star Trek future real.

it's the size stupid

[rtphokie]

and South Korea, Japan and Canada have a long way to go when it comes to size. It's a lot easier and less expensive to roll out services like broadband when you've got a highly concentrated population. As a whole, the US does not. Wired broadband has only flourished in US metropolitan areas. Wireless technologies have changed that in some smaller places but those are few and far between.

Forgot a few

[Mr. Underbridge]

I like broadband but its pretty far down on the list of critical infrastructure projects we have neglected to pursue war, enriching the upper class, and funding a global colonial regime.

You forgot bloated Social security, welfare, and unfunded social mandates.

Re:Forgot a few

[HiThere]

Social Security isn't bloated (except, PERHAPS, at the staffing level). It's been constantly drained of the resources that were supposed to be being invested. "We'll pay it back later." has normally been the govt's excuse. (Excuse?)
Now that it's getting near time to pay back the funds that have been extorted, suddently everyone wants to blacken Social Security, just because the govt. kept stealing the money it was supposed to be saving.

The basic problem ISN'T Social Security, or anything similar. The real problem, if faced squarely, could be a reason to eliminate social security...but it would also eliminate a bunch of other government programs that corporations love, so it doesn't get faced.

Here it is: When you create a center of power, the position controlling that power will tend to become occupied by someone more interested in using the power to his own ends than in solving the problem the center of power was created to solve. Over time, this seems to happen inevitably. It doesn't only happen on a large scale, though it's more publically visible there. If you want to see it locally, attend your city council meeting, and try to figure out why certain measures that ought to be rejected are passed, and others that ought to be accepted are rejected. Or go to work, and notice the space and decoration in the offices of those with the power to control how the money is spent, as contrasted with those who don't.

This is a general principle inherent in the nature of people, and won't be changed. But you need to take it into account when attempting to predict how any particular system will operate.

OK. So there's a clear problem with Social Security (long term investments will be tapped for short term purposes if the control is under the hands of those who can benefit more from so acting). What, exactly, do you propose doing about it? Are you just going to betray everyone who trusted the government's integrity (often under duress)?

Re:Forgot a few

[Mr. Underbridge]

Social Security isn't bloated (except, PERHAPS, at the staffing level)

Tell that to the FICA and other taxes they take out of my paycheck. And no, this isn't a recent problem though I'll grant it's being made to sound like it is.

OK. So there's a clear problem with Social Security (long term investments will be tapped for short term purposes if the control is under the hands of those who can benefit more from so acting). What, exactly, do you propose doing about it? Are you just going to betray everyone who trusted the government's integrity (often under duress)?

You're right regarding the trust angle - it shows how much of a pyramid scheme SS is and always was. You can't reduce SS's burden on the taxpayer without screwing at least one generation. Ideal solution would be a time machine to go back and beat Roosevelt for what he was about to unleash on us with the best of intentions.

Without that solution, I'd be tempted to use general funds tp pay off the older recipients and gradually wean everyone else off it. SS just isn't an efficient system, and I'd rather not be a part of it.

But I digress - I was more pointing out that the burden on the taxpayer is a mix of Rep. and Dem. pork, and the original post seemed to have skewed that a bit.

NEWS!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet isn't thant important to your average american. They don't spend 12+ hours per day on it like most geeks do. It's not a normal way of life.

Re:I for one..

[repetty]

>> And foreigners wonder why Americans hate them... their lack of sense for sarcasm!!!

Is that sarcasm?

--Richard
Austin, Texas

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least I can spot a BS article that is trying to spin numbers when I see one.

Cool! Can you prove it?

Verizon FIOS

[Zackbass]

I've been using Optimum Online for the last five years and Cablevision keeps raising the rates while giving worse service.

Thank God my town just got the Verizon "swarm" stringing up fiber this week. In a few months I'll finally be able to get my 15/2 for $50/mo and give Cablevision the finger.

USA will go broadband with 802.16/802.20.

[MtViewGuy]

It's that simple.

Here's the big issue: the USA has so much old legacy communications infrastructure that the cost of upgrading it to support broadband Internet is exorbitantly expensive, especially in the older large metropolitan areas in the USA. And of course, because of the large rural population, most of them are out of the reach of DSL or cable broadband. It's essentially the so-called Last Mile Problem, something that's less of an issue in densely-populated Europe, Japan, and South Korea, where there are enough people per square kilometer to justify the exorbitant cost of setting up land-line broadband connections for everyone locally.

So how do we get around this problem? The answer is wide-scale wireless Internet access using 802.16/802.20 WiMax technologies, which will start rolling out in the USA in 2006. Unlike 802.11x WiFi technologies, WiMax can handle thousands of users per antenna array at essentially light of sight range at 2-4 Mbps data transfer speeds. It's vastly cheaper to put up an array of WiMax antennas than to hardware every business or residence to support DSL or cable broadband; this will also allow many rural communities to get broadband for the first time. I think WiMax will roll out by using the same antenna arrays used by cellphones, so already we'll have pretty substantial national coverage anyway.

Re:USA will go broadband with 802.16/802.20.

[Math, The Ancient]

Any links for reference?

It really isn't the size

[shalla]

I live in a major metropolitan area. Trying to get a reliable broadband connection to my house was hellish.

I wouldn't be quite so bitter if Verizon (formerly Bell Atlantic) hadn't gotten billions from the state of PA to be able to deliver 45Mbps upstream and downstream broadband to the door of a majority of the state. Ten years later, the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission let them off the hook on that agreement, and I still can't get a clean DSL connection to my damn house.

If a large company that was paid to deliver such services can't manage to do so to someone who lives in a nice area of a major metropolitan area, especially when given ten years to do so, then the problem isn't the size of the country. The problem is the lack of accountability and the ability to charge for services without delivering.

I should also add that to this day, Verizon keeps sending me ads saying I can get DSL to my house. They're more than happy to try and sign me up again. They just can't be bothered to actually deliver the service.

Now I understand...

[Math, The Ancient]

...why the pompous attitude of recent visitors to the Internet.

Doing it all wrong

[CarpetShark]

Download first. Then you can keep pressing rewind.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

I read what you wrote, but all I heard was "Me me me me me me me me me me me me me..." I am PROUD to sacrifice a higher portion of my income so that someone who has no income can get a heart transplant if needed and then go on to get a PhD without spending several hundred thousand dollars on tuition fees and hospital bills. After all, that someone could be me someday. Stop being such a selfish fuck.

Alright bitch, we'll be sending two dozen armed state and federal tax collectors to your place so you can "sacrifice" even more of your stuff. When they knock a few of your teeth out with the buttstocks of their submachine guns, take 75% of what you have, and tell you to "stop being such a selfish fuck", maybe then you'll realize the error of your ways.

Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy.

[Math, The Ancient]

"Americans (not all, probably not even most of the ones on slashdot, but such a large number that it is a real problem) have a myopic fanaticism about cutting their taxes (to the point where their government can no longer provide even
basic services) "

No, it's because the "reps" keep spending on other crap (and it's always hidden behind some title of a bill). If we're not going to have a gov't anyway, why pay them?

Aliant vs. Eastlink in Nova Scotia

[Jabolio]

When I lived with my parents, their Aliant high speed was $40 (this was a few years ago), provided of course that you went with Aliant for your long distance provider. While I currently use Eastlink (I agree with you on them being the only ISP worth their salt in the area), I've heard the opposite in terms of availability: that Aliant shows up in a neighborhood before Eastlink's Cable service does.

Regarding Eastlink's BW caps, I don't know if I've truly noticed them... I know they've definitely capped Bittorrent upload speeds to 15KBps (because people were leaving torrents open forever, no doubt), although this only applies to traffic leaving the Eastlink subnet. I still occasionaly get Bittorrent DL speeds of 200KBps, and I haven't noticed any other rate caps on my connection. I've also generated over 50 Gigs ul/dl traffic in a month and haven't heard a peep from them. Either way, they're much better than Aliant, for a much better price (especially if you bundle)

Size Differenc

[mickyflynn]

In case anyone hasn't looked at a map lately, let me remind you that Japan and Korea are small. The United States is fucking huge.

Canada is also fucking huge, but has a lot less people than the US and they live in a rather nice line.

Wireing the US is expensive, requires a lot of cable, and a lot of time. It'll get done eventually.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear ?

Hehe .. you don't know what fear means.

There are still tens of thousands of US soldiers in Europe and I did not notice any fear in millions of people who came out to protest US couple of years ago.

They didn't seem scared to me - they knew US was harmless unless fucked with.

First post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah baby!

Re:First Post!

[darknightroot]

Damn

Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada doesnt have any real slums because we try to take care of everybody.

No, Canada (allegedly) doesn't have any real slums because Canada doesn't have large populations of negroes who lead pathological lifestyles and think "whitey" owes them something.

Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just had to respond to (though off-topic) your welfare assertions. The pervasiveness of your right wing views surrounding welfare during the Mike Harris era in Ontraio has led to the desparate situation many unfortunate people find themselves in today.

In Canada's capital, Ottawa, a single male will receive $520.00 per month... maximum. Tell me where you can even find a 1 bedroom apartment for that much in Ottawa. I'll tell you... nowhere. If you DO manage to find one by some miracle, what are you going to eat?

Sure you have other options like roomming with someone, but lets face it, even if you manage to find some extremely cheap shared accommodation, and eat Kraft Dinner every day, your life isn't going to exactly be utopian.

So how is it that you think that these people are just going to sit around and wait for someone to offer them a $10/hour job when what the government is providing them does not even cover the basics?

Well, well...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the tables have turned, eh?

Don't worry, the US will do an aboot-face soon.

Mo Money Mo Problems :-X

[xshariq]

We're only behind because I think it's high-speed internet is expensive.
correct me if I'm wrong

High-Speed
Comcast: $50+
SBC DSL: $30+
RoadRunner: $30+
Dial-up
AT&T: $11-21 (depending on your package)
AOL: $20-25
Netscape: $10
NetZero: $15

see my point? why pay 20-30 dollars extra when you can do everything the same except for downloading speed!

Re:Mo Money Mo Problems :-X

[Kuj0317]

its different. Broadband makes the internet 'not special' - it requires no effort to find any tidbit of data that you could possibly want. movie times? no problem. Want to find out what an "angry dragon" is? Its only a search away. With dialup, there is an intermediate step, that makes internet use more of a process rather than a part of life. and download speeds affect the downloading of websites, which due to broadband penetration, have become quite heavy. I could not imagine trying to download some of these sites on a dial up connection. It would just be too painful.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait, you mean all the immigrants who became successful business owners like my boss, who now employs Americans like me, drives a Lexus to work (while his wife drives his kids to school and soccer practice in a second Lexus SUV) was aiming for the bottom 10%?

Plenty of money?

[MacDork]

No, there is plenty of money

What country are you living in? Last time I looked, the United States was approaching $8,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. We're broke and begging to borrow more daily.

we just don't spend it on things most Americans really want it spent on. For the cost of the Iraq war you could have

purchased a $150,000 home for each and every one of the 1.3 Million homeless children in America and still have enough left over to furnish those homes.

or at least made a dent in the debt.

You misspelled budget deficit. If you took all the money from all the years Bush has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would amount to about half of last years budget deficit. It wouldn't touch the debt with a ten foot pole. Even if you earmarked it specifically for the interest on the debt you would come up short.

Re:Plenty of money?

[Citizen of Earth]

What country are you living in? Last time I looked, the United States was approaching $8,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. We're broke and begging to borrow more daily.

I'll assume that this is only Federal debt. What about State, Municipal, and Individual debt? How many zeros does this add to the figure? You can't borrow your way to prosperity... at least not in the long term.

"and even Canada"

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear US:

Eat a dick.

Love, Canada.

Remember this and vote them out

[bluGill]

There is nothing you can do about this for the next year or 3 (I'm not sure how exactly your state government works), but make sure you remember this when election time comes up. Find out where the local political parties meet (pick one), go to the meetings and propose a resolution to repeal this ban. If your party is the incumbent run for his office.

Now doing this alone isn't going to do much. However get a few friends together and you can change things. Political party meetings are often poorly attended, so just 10 people showing up per area is enough to have a majority in all the votes, and you can force things through.

Then between the meetings and elections knock on doors and tell people to not for for the incumbent to voted for this. Politicians only listen to money because it helps them get votes. When you go behind them in grass roots like this you more than negate all the money - you force them to vote your way again because you are prooven to represent enough votes to get them out of office. If you have a good personality you just might find yourself a powerful congressmen trying to decide which, if any, bribes are worth taking.

Typical rubbish.

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of rubbish. Find the dark fiber. Let's see it. Where is it? It's certainly not hanging off of my curb, or anyone else I know!

The long haul stuff between major cities isn't doing any good... and it's not as much as you think. There's very little fiber laid out to the neighborhood. There's even less to the curb. And outside of the large to medium-sized cities, if you think someone is going to come in and lay fiber today or tomorrow, hoping to get 10% of the public to pay $150 or more per month for internet access, you've got another thing coming.

There might be a lot of dark fiber out there, but where is it? Laying fiber is easy in a new development with the proper planning. Laying fiber in a big city that's been built up for 100-200 years? It's more work than you think. And it's terribly expensive. Add the increased right-of-way charges that are being jacked up by greedy city councils in cities across the US, and you've got a lot of money to lay out before ever putting equipment on the ends. Speaking of equipment, what are you going to buy? You need something to drop some serious bandwidth at the homes. Optical ethernet? Cisco ONS15454's, feeding 6509's and 3550's? How about a DWDM backbone with 60 to 120 waves of 192 using Ciena DWDM feeding fujitsu SONET muxes? Buying Ciena DWDM equipment, or Fujitsu SONET muxes, or Cisco ADM boxes or any of several other solutions, installing it, and putting it into service is expensive. What are you going to make the consumer buy? It's not going to be cheap.

Now that you've asked for it, do you really need an OC48 or an OC192 at your curb? Let's say you settle for an OC12. Is 622 meg (minus overhead, it's under 600meg) enough bandwidth? You'll want to offer HDTV. OC12 doesn't sound like enough. And how much per month are you willing to pay for cable TV? And who are you going to get on the other end to offer you internet access? And what are you going to pay them? Are you going to forfeit any chance to re-sell that internet access? You're going to have to to save some money on that internet access. The provider doens't want to give you 10 meg of internet acess, only to find you're sharing it with a dozen neighbors.

How close is the average neighborhood to a fiber hut? How many dark fibers are in there? Is there conduit that's empty? Why doesn't the phone company spend several billion dollars wiring out several million homes with fiber to the curb? Have you checked with teh municipality to see what their new "right-of-way" fees will be once they've heard about your project? I bet they jack you around. What are you going to do when the municipality comes in and offers wireless DS3 bandwidth for $29.99 a month?

If you think it's cheap, or that dark fiber is so bountiful, go ahead and start your own company, try to get some investment capital and see what happens!
Then ask your neighbors what they're willing to pay for fiber-to-the-curb services. I bet they're all interested now, but after it's installed, and it comes time to buy the $1000 piece of hardware to plug in, and the $150 a month it takes for service, they suddenly lose interest. Then add programming and services on your fiber-to-the-curb offering? Internet access alone isn't going to be enough. TV? I hope you've got deep pockets to pay for the programming. Programming costs are going to be the largest expense. If you have enough subscribers, you can get a discount. But what are you going to do until you get more subscribers? So let's say you get 1 million homes with fiber buried to the curb. 5% might take the offering. How expensive do you think it is just to terminate the fiber in the home? It'll take 10 years to pay off the expense for the fiber installation.
Who's going to pay for the programming? Local taxes? Increased fees? Do you really think ESPN is going to give it away? Add in the internet access, ongoing labor, repair, maintenance, equipment upgrades, and it's patently clear that fiber to the curb

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Zymlink]

Your boss is an illegal alien?

Nope, socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that the other countries all have a certain degree of socialism in them. Americans don't, they're actually going quickly towards pure corporationism. In socialist countries, taxes are higher, spending money is lower, but many services are cheap or free. In US, taxes are lower, spending money is plentiful, but services are more expensive. Two different value systems, two different lifestyles.

Just like cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! This is very similar to those third-world countries in Africa where there are so few motorized vehicles. The people there just prefer to walk or ride bicycles, cars are not part of their lifestyles, that's what makes them unique.

Riiiight!

America's Not So Up to Speed

[infiniphonic]

It seems that other countries pay less than we do for more bandwidth.Is this correct?And why?

Re: America's Not So Up to Speed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you pay for high speed internet (and what your definition of high speed is...). Where I live (Canada) a dial up modem account (57.6 kb/s) costs $9 (Can) per month. An ADSL modem at 1.5Mb/s down, 0.5Mb/s up no limit costs $34.95/month ($CAN). My pesky ISP (Telus) called yesterday, and asked if I wanted faster service: 2.5Mb/s down, 1 Mb/s up, no limit for an extra $5(CDN) per month. I know they compete against the cable companies who offer similar speeds for the same, or less money (I think Shaw Cable was offering that package for $24.95/mo). There is a lot of competition here for service. VOIP has really bugged the phone companies (the cable companies are now offering phone service, plus unlimited long distance, broadband and cable T.V. all on one pipe). I don't know if the competition is what drives down the prices, but it's probably a big piece of it.

First post

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this time, there is hope...

After all, I'm on dialup, you insensitive clods!

Bollocks? No Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative??

Either you are lying, or you are stupid, to pay that amount of taxes. I earned $172,543 last year, and my TOTAL income tax paid (I just finished my taxes today) was $51,650 (29.6%).

Even if I:
1) Generously add in other taxes (property, GST, PST, additional fees and levies)
2) Assuming that I spent every dollar I earned
3) Received no tax credits,
4) And paid an average of 20% tax on every purchase (which is on average 5 points higher than the normal tax amounts)

It would still be less than 50% (for ALL taxes combined!) on total income earned.

The reality is that most Canadians pay around 20% tax (my wife earned $51K and she paid 15% tax).

These types of comments do nothing to inform anyone of the reality of the Canadian tax system -- which is higher than the US, but less than most European countries.

Not tougher, less profitable

[Anonymous Coward]

You just don't get it, do you?

In USA, broadband is in the hands of corporations who won't lay it out unless it's profitable for that particular location. So remote locations will never have it.

In countries like Canada, broadband is laid out because of governmental mandate. I.e. broadband access is provided to as many Canadians as possible no matter the cost. It's subsidised by our taxes. So remote locations get it even if it'll never be profitable for the corporations.

Re:Not tougher, less profitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually "You just don't get it, do you?" seems a bit rich --especially talking about Alberta. The provice has never been in the 'business of business'. Everything is privatized (even Supernet). It's all on a cost-recovery basis. There is no over-ruling government mandate. They just wanted it to happen, and had private companies do it. The provice expects to get every bit of it's investment back (possibly taxes, but more likely economic spinoffs so it isn't higher taxes, but more people/businesses that they can collect taxes from...). The government found that it could put in high speed networks (everywhere) and save on fuel/transportation costs. Banking, commerce and home broadband were all part of the cost/benefit analysis.

Re:Not tougher, less profitable

[LinuxLuver]

In countries like Canada, broadband is laid out because of governmental mandate. I.e. broadband access is provided to as many Canadians as possible no matter the cost. It's subsidised by our taxes. So remote locations get it even if it'll never be profitable for the corporations. This is true of many things in Canada right from the start: railways, radio, telecoms, television, roads - all provided by the government in the first instance....or picked up by the Government after private companies fell over and left everything hanging - like the railways right in the middle of WW I. The US model of ONLY private everything has never worked for Canada and Canadians have had the good sense to do what works and not be trapped by ideology into dead ends and empty excuses.

A 26.4 K dial-up only neighborhood

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Arizona and the telephone lines in my neighborhood are only capable of 26.4K. The telephone company says that DSL is unavailable where I live. I do not have cable either so I just get by with the 26.4K dial-up connection on my 56K modem. The 26.4K is actually good enough for me for most purposes so I am not really complaining much. Slashdot and similar websites work great at 26.4K. Does anyone know whoat percentage of the US or Arizona is still connecting at 26.4K?

How I compensate for the slowness

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to add to my above post comments on how I have adapted to using the slow connection speed. On a slow dial-up connection the tabbed browing feature of Firefox is helpful because I can have one webpage loading while I am still viewing another. Once I am through with the Slashdot article I can click on the other tab which by then has finished loading.

I also block most advertising URLs in the host file to cut down on the graphics laden advertisements which consume bandwidth. One of my computers runs Windows the other runs Linux. I do that on both computers.

I like to download MP3s of the "Coast to Coast AM" radio show because it does not come in clearly on the radio where I live. MP3s of the show are available to be downloaded by subscribers. Each hour of the show is available as a 16 Mb MP3 file. I use the Linux computer to download the show and start the first download just before going to bed. I then start a crontab job which is set to disconnect the dial-up connection about 2 hours later after it is done downloading. When I wake up the next moring the MP3 file is there waiting for me. I do the same thing when I go to work and the second hour of the show is waiting for me when I get home later in the day.

So 26.4K actually does the job just fine for me. My neighbors occasionally complain about their 26.4K connections but who really needs 56K or better?

Last year, I was a member of a small club with a monthly newsletter. Two women in the club and I worked together on the newsletter. Unfortunately, for some reason, the two women were not able to send large files by e-mail to each other. It seemed as if perhaps their Internet povider did not allow files that large. The newsletter was usually a 2 MB or so Microsoft Word document with several photos in it. I was always able to send or receive the file after about 15 or 20 minutes of downloading or uploading but they couldn't do that. They were not able to recive files that size so they would burn a CD each month drive to the other persons house.

Well, this is what dial-up at 26.4 K is like.

Bombay?

[vain gloria]

I thought it was knwon as Mumbai now?

but it's the default in the US

[Trepidity]

Local calling plans in the US by default have unlimited local calling, so using it for the internet has no additional cost besides the ISP's monthly fee. In most countries, if unlimited local calling plans exist at all, they're not default/standard, so you'd have to pay extra for them.

Basically, Americans who have a phone line already have unlimited local calling, whether they want it or not, so the incremental cost of getting dialup internet is much lower.

Re:but it's the default in the US

[AaronGTurner]

Many providers in the UK at least now offer free evening and weekend local calls. It's becoming increasingly common as part of the default package, and often with no extra cost (the cost may be hidden in other charges, but then the same goes for the USA). It does depend on the particular supplier you choose, though. Also some suppliers in the UK that offer free local calls specify ISPs are not included, but it probably depends on supplier - there are a lot of them now. In the UK, at least, you can pick a light call scheme for your normal phone and then get broadband for anything as low as UKP10 per month for 512k download, which probably makes it very competitive compared to the cost of a phone and dialup in the USA for better bandwidth. However I don't know what the current proportion of UK households with broadband is - the uptake has been complicated by the BT 'triggering' system for exchanges.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Not fear, through action.
You can pass all the condemnations and sanctions you want through the UN, and almost always it won't work. North Korea, China, Serbia, Iran, heck even the US, Britain, and Germany have been condemned by the UN for various actions, and the countries don't care.

Chicken or the egg syndrome?

[cbreaker]

Who will develop a new "killer app" when there's absolutely no infrastructure to support it?

Who knows what fantastic things could be invented.

What came first? eBay or the accessability of the Internet to most people (be it dial-up or otherwise?)

Even e-mail is a good example, without so many people accessable via e-mail it wouldn't be a killer app at all. And without the infrastructure and equipment to support sending those photos to grandma, how would she demand such things?

Your iPod reference is an even better example of why the infrastructure must be made available first - would apple's iTunes music store be so successful if you had to wait 35 minutes to download every song? Probably not - it's successful because our current infrastructure allows them to be downloaded in moments.

The idea isnt' to pay more - you miss the point completely. The idea is to pay the SAME or maybe less, and get ultra high speed internet. THAT is what accessability is all about; affordable access that everyone can get. And that's what the Japanese are doing, very much to their credit.

Re:Chicken or the egg syndrome?

[arminw]

...apple's iTunes music store be so successful if you had to wait 35 minutes to download every song?...

Actually, over a 40K connections it would take about 15min to download a song. Most music however on most iPods did not come from the Internet, but was ripped from the iPod owner's CD collection. I have about 16G of music on mine, and only 800MB came over the network. Ipods would be big sellers, even if there were no iTunes music store, simply because they allow music to be listened to very conveniently.

Usually the application has to come first, then the infrastructure will be created. The automobile made for the construction of good roads. The Visicalc spreadsheet started the boom in the personal computer.

The idea is to pay the SAME or maybe less,....

Freeways cost more than 2 lane highways and if there are not enough cars to justify freeways, they will not be built if there are already adequate 2 lane roads. Similarly, if there are no applications that demand a high speed information highway which MUST cost more, since the existing POTS road has already been long paid for, then the existing modem roads will be adequate. It is indeed a chicken and egg problem and right now there is only a limited demand for eggs, so there is no sense in having too many chickens around.

The US has been on a 4 year-long "snow day"

[ibi]

since 9/11. Sure it sucked but eventually folks here will have to realize that the rest of the industrialized world didn't stop competing because we "discovered" terrorism.

We're a net importer of technology now. (The trade deficit in technology grew to $37 billion last year.) Think about *that* for a second.

Good government policy is a critical part of having a competitive economy. (Where do you think the Internet came from? Private industry alone? Hardly.)

The current administration couldn't care less about any of what we're taking about here - it doesn't speak to their core constituencies of the very rich (who are insulated from the public sphere by their gated communities, private schools, etc.) and the very stupid (who are convinced the Rapture is around the corner - "Econamy? Technalogy? Future? What *are* you all babbling about?".)

Unless we get rulers that actually *care* about any of this, we're just going to have to get used to slipping further behind every year.

Not this again...

[Rotten168]

The US still beats all of those countries in internet penetration.

We got people hooked on dialup when dialup was all the rage. This is one of the reasons broadband is lagging, another is that the US has some of the cheapest rates for local calls in the world.

Blah..

[cbreaker]

We could go on like this for a month.

"Actually, over a 40K connections it would take about 15min to download a song."

15 minutes still sucks man. Compared to the 30 seconds on any sort of real broadband connection. It's symantics.

"Most music however on most iPods did not come from the Internet, "

I didn't say anything about the iPod. I said specificially the iTunes music store, which sells a crap load of songs.

"Usually the application has to come first, then the infrastructure will be created."

I don't agree, not one bit. They kind of feed off each other, and I think infrastructure is more imporatant.

" The automobile made for the construction of good roads. "

On the other hand, good roads were required for the modern automobile.

"The Visicalc spreadsheet started the boom in the personal computer."

Visicalc would have never been created without a viable infrastructure (read: many, many PC's at an affordable price.) If nobody could ever own a PC, there would have been no Visicalc. While I have no doubt that early business applications allowed the IBM PC to push forward to where it is now; the PC came first, not the applications.

"Freeways cost more than 2 lane highways and if there are not enough cars to justify freeways, they will not be built if there are already adequate 2 lane roads."

It's not the same. Cars are cars, trucks are trucks. Bigger, more accessable roads won't spark a new technology that will enable you to do things like never before imagined. The point is, a technical person like you should be able to realize that until a technology is possible, people won't invent them. We have no idea what the Internet will become if everyone had Fast Ethernet speeds at work, home, and everywhere else.

Re:Blah..

[arminw]

...They kind of feed off each other, and I think infrastructure is more imporatant.

In a sense that is true and I agree with you. Sort of buid it and they will come kind of thing. However, a bridge usually is not built unless there is the need to cross the waterway or whatever. For the beginning, a ferry might be all that is needed, but as more people want to cross, a bridge will eventually replace the ferry boat. Right now the Internet is still in the ferry stage and there is no great demand for a bridge (broadband) yet. Perhaps no single killer app will fuel the demand for a bridge, but if the bridge can be built cheap enough, maybe more people will want to cross just to see what's on the other side.

Re:Bollocks? No Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm,

You appear to have forgotten one thing. If you spent the money, you would be in the same situation as a low income earner: no capital gains, rrsp, dividend or investment breaks. Would that change the equation at all?

IEEE-USA has a new whitepaper on this topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

The document there provides additional details and analysis on this.

First Post!

[darknightroot]

Yes!

Hello, simplicity at its finest

[billcopc]

As a happy canadian bandwidth whore, I'll give you some insight as to why we're "enjoying" high speed more than USians.

1. Bell Canada, Videotron, Rogers Telecom... just three huge service providers for cable and DSL, with a bunch of small-time resellers. Compare that with the US, where each state is like its own distinct country and you have several competing ISPs, many of them losing or selling out to the big guys. Our telcos are much stabler.

2. cheap! for 40$ canadian (roughly 30$ US) we get 5 mbit down, 900kbit up.. capped at 20gb/mo I believe. for less than double that I get 7mbit down with no caps at all. We even have "econo" DSL/Cable, which is only 256kbit or so, but frees up your phone line and costs roughly the same as dial-up. It's a no-brainer!

3. The RIAA/MPAA can't nail us here (yet). P2P heaven! :D

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[tsotha]

Go back and read my post. The wiki article says poor people in the US have more material wealth - VCRs, TVs, washing machines, etc, than poor people in other countries. Not more money. More material wealth. So your argument, which basically boils down to an explaination of cost of living differences, doesn't hold water. Yes, the cost of living is more in the US. So what? Even with cost of living taken into account, people below the poverty line in the US have more square footage of living space than all European countries save four (see this for lots of other relevant statistics).

Uneven wealth distribution is a political problem, not an economic one. The study I linked above shows some pretty eye-popping statistics about the wealth of poor people in the US. Their material standard of living exceeds the average of wealthy (Western European) countries, let alone all countries.

Now, you could make the argument that material wealth isn't the complete measure of standard of living. I agree with you there (those long vacations would be nice, although I don't think the European model is sustainable). But my point was the wiki article was self-debunking, as its arguments either refute or don't support the point.

And this has nothing to do with greedy providers..

[macraig]

... keeping the prices artificially high? Or using addiction marketing techniques to sucker people into getting dependent on a service after a few months of irresistible pricing, and then hitting them with the real monthly cost of the service?

I'm even more angry since I learned here that Australians now get 8mbps service for $30, and I can't even get basic DSL for that!

I, for one, am resisting both DSL and cable because of the business practices and pricing of both the companies involved (SBC and Comcast). Somebody, please, gimme an alternative!

Wire NYC + suburbs is equivalent

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose I could wire NYC + the surrounding suburbs and get more connected people than in all of Canada.

How about comparing the USA broadband usage to somewhere that has a comparable size, population density, and geographic dispersion of people?

This article is just like saying:

4 people sharing an office talk to each other more than 4 people in seperate offices.

Try understanding the tax code first.

[Anonymous Coward]

For you and me, the tax rate is the same as elsewhere, but for the superwealthy, it's very, very low by comparison.

This is categorically false.

For the first time in my life, I cleared six figures this year. Combined with my wife's comfortable salary, we did quite well. In spite of our excellent year, we wouldn't call ourselves "wealthy" by any objective American standard, and yet, we find ourselves paying nearly 40 percent in income taxes.

This doesn't begin to include the personal property tax (2.5% on every 100,000 of property), vehicle registration (assessed by year through some weird scam formula that nobody can figure out -- on a $22,000 car, we pay $2500 per year in TTL).

We pay 8 cents on the dollar in sales tax. We pay school tax, and we have no children. We pay FCC tax for using our phone, and we pay state income tax, Medicare, and FICA.

We got our final round of paperwork back from the accountant in time for filing the taxes for April 15 (tax day in the US), and I'm looking at the papers right now.

We supposedly "made" $150,000 last year. Keep in mind that through the scammed-up federal income tax withholding program, we only saw about 70% of our gross pay each pay period. Final tally: we payed 48,000 in federal income tax. I hate to come off entirely grumpy, but you ought to knock off the "for you and me" crap.

The "superwealthy," as you called them (of whom my family is not a member), pay 95% of the entire federal tax burden in the United States, and given the chunk of friggin' change that I just gave Uncle Sam, where in the world do you get the trumped-up notion that "we don't really tax the wealthy?"

Do yourself a favor, and go check out the Federal Tax Code before you go making claims about stuff you don't understand. My guess is that you're a full-time student, and you've not even begun to pay real taxes. Until you have, I'm sure you can't relate to what I'm saying.

Whoa there, buckaroo.

[Anonymous Coward]

The dividend tax rate is payed out by corporations. The rate that Bush changed was on the so-called "double-taxation of dividends" -- this has NOTHING TO DO with personal income tax. You're quite confused, my friend.

Also, you're not even factually accurate. From the AP wire: "President Bush reported adjusted gross income of $784,219 for last year on which he paid $207,307 in federal taxes." That's a whopping 26% of his gross income. And if you'd take the time to understand the marginal rate, you'll see that as income levels increase, so does the mean rate of taxation. Here's a link if you care about educating your brain to share an informed opinion.

Get your facts straight, bub.

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[Anonymous Coward]

tsotha,
I don't think your trolling and honestly think you believe what you wrote....
But stop and think for a second...Square footage of poor people is probably greater in the US because it is bigger and land is cheaper as compared to say England or Germany. Zoning is different, suburbs are discouraged, etc, etc.
Europeans (even rich ones) might like living in an apartment and walking to the grocery store and not having a lawn. This serverly skews the metric of square foootage. Talk to a New Yorker. They think the same way...... Just put yourself in someone elses shoes for a minute and rememeber alot of people in the world are not driven by money and thus money can then become a poor metric (REALLY, alot are though too). Economics is not phyiscs, that's why its in arts, not science............

Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy.

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

just for laughs, Ill bite...

ya ever heard of the underground railroad ? Slaves would escape from the south, and ... where do you think they went? Do you think they all went back to the US after the civil war? Do you know that the majority of the population of both Vancouver and Toronto is non-white ? That In Canada, the splashy news reports that come out once in a while are about asian gangs, not blacks? That our biggest crime problem / drug dealers are biker gangs, and they seem to be mostly white? That in Europe, the slums are mostly arab and gypsy, depending on the country...

Looking at it another way... Why the heck do you have blacks in slums? Id say it is because the US public education and social safety net has so many holes that folks in the inner city are completely written off and have very little chance to get out, generation after generation. In other words, you are proving my thesis. Society doesnt give a shit, so there are slums.

cheap because of deregulation? sounds bogus.

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

I dont know if BT was more like a European PTT mandated monopoly, or more like a independant company with a defacto monopoly like in North america. In North America, the phone companies own the COs. So the word deregulated means nobody messes with the phone companies, and they can do whatever they want (ie. do not allow any third parties access to their networks, competitors would have to build an entirely separate network.) The US is highly de-regulated, in their own understanding of the term. For example, the Cable companies explicitly fight not to be considered a telecom carrier, because that is more heavily regulated. In the US, DSL is open to third parties, but cable is not.

In Canada, the same forces you describe in the UK are at work, but they come about because of intense regulation of organizations that control the last mile, to encourage them to share. Hence third party ISPs can obtain wholesale access to DSL and cable networks. I havent heard of any access at the local loop level yet.

Re:cheap because of deregulation? sounds bogus.

[Cato]

Deregulation is a horrible term - it's used in the UK to describe the process of going from a European-type PTT to a private company, with strong regulation of the market as a means of allowing competitors to survive without being crushed by the newly privatised PTT.

So I think the UK model is closer to the Canadian model as you describe it, with strong regulation and forced unbundling resulting in real competition (eventually).

thats ok, all I want to know is

[museumpeace]

whether american companies are selling all the satellite ground stations, coax, servers, fiber, routers etc that make all this broadband available: we invented most of this stuff and not selling it would be even more pathetic than not installing for ourselves.

Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy.

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

Look at what someone gets in the US. If you are able to
work, they cut you off completely in many US jurisdictions, or force you to work at jobs in order to earn their welfare.
If you are part of the working poor, you are eating your KD in the states, and you get sick, what happens? You lose everything paying medical bills, and once you are poor enough, the state will take care of you.

In Canada, getting sick isnt a sentence of poverty. There is a safety net. Social entitlements like health care, and welfare are, by far, the biggest ticket items in government budgets.
In the US? Defense. Canada isnt heaven, but compared to the US, we do a far better job of taking care of our own, because doing so is considered a societal priority.

Im not going to defend Mike Harris. Im not trying to promote or defend any cuts to the social safety net, but simply contrasting it with the US one, which I think it is safe to say, is inferior to what we have here.

If youre saying that our welfare program isnt enough to live on, well, OK, but it is already the biggest program in the government, in terms of budget, next to servicing the debt which was built by.... social spending we could not afford...
At least we did not do it by invading St-Pierre & Miquelon.
I think folks who advocate tax cuts are completely irresponsible, but so are those who want to set standards
based on needs without regard to what the tax base
lets us pay for. The last generation paid for welfare by
saddling us with 30 billion in debt servicing per year. Lets not leave an even heavier burden for our children.

The only way to improve benefits is to either raise taxes
or pay off the debt. Were stuck. Well do what we can, but youre right, there wont be a chicken in every pot.

Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know that the majority of the population of both Vancouver and Toronto is non-white ?

Less than 1 percent of Vancouver's population is black. Toronto's population is 20 percent black.

Looking at it another way... Why the heck do you have blacks in slums?

Because the federal and state governments started subsidizing pathological lifestyles in the late 1960s, which led to, among other things, multi-generational single welfare mothers.

In other words, you are proving my thesis. Society doesnt give a shit, so there are slums.

On the contrary, your thesis is backasswards; there are slums precisely because "society" started "giving a shit".

Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better

[tsotha]

I don't think your trolling and honestly think you believe what you wrote...

Yes, indeed. That's why you should go and read the link so you can see all the other statistics. Or do you believe Europeans would rather not have TVs or washing machines?