Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

America's Not So Up to Speed

Posted by Zonk on from the tortoise-only-wins-it-so-long dept.

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.

79 of 516 comments (clear)

  1. No kidding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  2. Not first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Not first post by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  3. Country size matters by Rosyna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. Re:Country size matters by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Country size matters by Jabolio · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Country size matters by MarkRose · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Be relentless!
    4. Re:Country size matters by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Country size matters by Rosyna · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    6. Re:Country size matters by Cplus · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    7. Re:Country size matters by CarlinWithers · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

    8. Re:Country size matters by derfy · · Score: 3, Funny
      Finally, keep in mind that this general rule: too much Internet makes you stupid.

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

    9. Re:Country size matters by xstonedogx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Country size matters by clambake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    11. Re:Country size matters by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

    12. Re:Country size matters by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    13. Re:Country size matters by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Dark Nexus
      "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
    14. Re:Country size matters by Senjutsu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Country size matters by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.)

    16. Re:Country size matters by Cplus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    17. Re:Country size matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    18. Re:Country size matters by Fishead · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    19. Re:Country size matters by Feztaa · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have to say "Look at the picture!"

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

    20. Re:Country size matters by abigor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    21. Re:Country size matters by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    22. Re:Country size matters by dago · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
      --
      #include "coucou.h"
    23. Re:Country size matters by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    24. Re:Country size matters by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Percentage doesn't mean jack.

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

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    25. Re:Country size matters by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. Not a fair comparision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's see which country uses more speed.

  5. Fiber by caryw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Fiber by kettch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
  6. What about the midwest? by TelJanin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  7. US v. Canada by pilot-programmer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:US v. Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "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.

    2. Re:US v. Canada by Monkelectric · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    3. Re:US v. Canada by Cplus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    4. Re:US v. Canada by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Informative

      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)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    5. Re:US v. Canada by Cannucklehead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

  8. ALL infrastructure by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:ALL infrastructure by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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,

    2. Re:ALL infrastructure by Yotsuya · · Score: 2, Funny

      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).

      --
      Claude Angers
    3. Re:ALL infrastructure by coaxial · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:ALL infrastructure by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  9. wrong conclusions by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:wrong conclusions by lifebouy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Drop me a line at:
      Key ID: 0x54D1D809
  10. Just me... by Psionicist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better by Nimrangul · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
  12. Population Density by tankenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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......

  13. What's up with these "scare" articles? by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    --

    Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

    1. Re:What's up with these "scare" articles? by clandestine_nova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Discworld.
  14. might be a little off topic..... by mangus_angus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:might be a little off topic..... by Roug · · Score: 2, Informative

      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)

  15. Them is all COMMIE-NIST countries by Cryofan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  16. Re:I for one.. by Stalyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  17. Broadband for all of B.C. by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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).

  18. Re:"... and even Canada"? by Cplus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 .

    --
    "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
  19. Bureaucracy, pure and simple by N5 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    John 3:16 - The easiest way to a BETTER YOU.
    1. Re:Bureaucracy, pure and simple by iwadasn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  20. The facts & figures by rbrander · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  21. IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! by RollingThunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lower standard of living? Interesting assertion.

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

    2. Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! by S.O.B. · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    3. Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! by Stoutlimb · · Score: 4, Funny

      " 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.

      .

    4. Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  22. Excuses, Excuses... by smokin_juan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Excuses, Excuses... by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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!

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  23. Demand isn't always enough. by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  24. *Even Canada!* by blorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't mind the negative comparisons to Japan, South Korea, Denmark. But *Canada*! That really hurts.

  25. Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy. by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

  26. Broadband in the U.S. by RealRav · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  27. Gasp!!! by PhotoGuy · · Score: 3, Funny
    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.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  28. Even Canada? by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It's been a long time.
    1. Re:Even Canada? by akuma(x86) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> 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

  29. USA will go broadband with 802.16/802.20. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  30. It really isn't the size by shalla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  31. Mo Money Mo Problems :-X by xshariq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  32. Remember this and vote them out by bluGill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  33. The US has been on a 4 year-long "snow day" by ibi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.