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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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......

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: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.