Slashdot Mirror
Internet Connectivity Outside of the United States
Ant writes "A Yahoo! news story says that nearly 60 publications in countries bear the PC World name, or are associated with it in some way. The editors at several of them were asked to report how their readers get online. Not surprisingly, the report indicates that many countries are substantially ahead of the United States in online access." From the article: "For example, in the United Kingdom, you can buy DSL service with a download speed of up to 24 megabits per second. In Denmark, some people have fiber-optic connections as fast as 100 mbps. And in Italy and Spain, broadband service is cheap, and dial-up service is free (except for the cost of the local call). Still, many countries have their own connection quirks ..."
Yes you can get 24mbit but very few people have access to that. Many are lucky to get 1Mb and many on MaxDSL are having terrible problems trying to keep their 4-6Mb connection stable. Those on cable are better served with 10Mbit being pretty cheap.
Almost everyone I know is on broadband but none are on 24mbit and most on 1Mb.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
So Does Canada, But I'm still paying $30/month (cdn) for 10mbps down, 2.5mbps up ADSL.
78% of the US population lives in urban areas (2003)
f
42% lives in urban areas with more than 1 million people (2005)
compared to Italy (67%/20%), Spain (78%/23%) and Norway (76%/?), it doesn't look like there's an inherent disadvantage.
source: http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdipdfs/table3_10.pd
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Are street lights really efficient? Even if they are, why would a private company actually want to provide street lighting for free?
I suggest that most countries and their citizens do benefit from street lights.
To the free market worshippers: the free market only works when not all people choose to be totally selfish and greedy. Once there are too few of those "salt of the earth" types, the whole thing starts falling apart.
No matter what system you have, if you want something good from it, you will need good people.
This is exactly the opposite of what has happened in the UK.
When British Telecom was the only ADSL supplier, it didn't bother to invest anything in competing with the cable companies. And the cable companies (which are also regional monopolies) didn't bother to invest anything in competing with BT. So we all had a choice of 512k broadband from either supplier.
Then the government forced BT to lease equipment to competitors. Suddenly we have 24M broadband from those competitors, and BT has suddenly discovered that its own equipment can do 8M instead of 512k.
And actually one of the few places in the US where you can get 24 Mbps, Vermont, has a very low population density. It probably helps that VTel is an independent telephone company. 24 Mbps isn't available everywhere in the state yet and does cost $50/mo, probably more than people in the UK are paying, but 24 Mbps DSL does exist in America. And if it hasn't arrived in your corner of Vermont yet, you can still get 8 Mbps for $35/mo while you wait.
And when you sign up for it, you get two t-shirts featuring smug comparisons between VTel's speed and everyone else's. All of the gloating would be annoying if it weren't so justified; I just find it frustrating that all of the nice retired Vermonters down the road from my parents' place can get nearly 10x the speed of what Verizon deigns to give me where I live.
I can't believe how often this is used as a legitimate justification for the US's crap broadband.
Yeah no kidding... population density really has very little to do with how easy it is to offer proper internet.
If the argument were to hold true then why are there many countries (including Canada) with a significantly lower population density that offer better internet access for a lower price?
And if you really think about it almost the entire infrastructure is already in place in the united states (cable and telephone lines). I know it's not that simple, equipment has to me upgraded or modified, but it's not like they have to roll out new wire to all the communities.
If you ask me the whole problem is the states overly capitalistic government. All of the infrastructure is controlled by a select few companies (with little regulation compared to the countries that rank high in internet access). The companies set the rates and the little guys have to live with it. While they're making a profit there's not much anyone can do about it.
Government control would most certainly help the situation, but that isn't the american way. I suspect the american public will have to wait for a new infrastructure to be built for the rules to change (perhaps WiFi). And even then, if it's rolled out by the same companies that control the wires, it may not help.
It's also a matter of pure area.
Not in the least. The population concentrations are concentrated enough to be independent entities. Yes, the entire US doesn't compare well to any individual European country, but many states have similar area and distribution as European countries, and Europe as a whole can roughly compare to the US. Regardless of how you measure it, the USA is well behind other similar places around the world. Or are you saying that NYC should have crappy access because Montana is spread out?
I imagine that Sweden's population is highly concentrated around the southern portion of the country with it being very sparsely populated to the north, and then typically in isolated pockets of towns. How many people who live in Sweden do not live in a large city?
Sounds like it isn't too far from the Alaska layout. Care to guess what we get for speeds and prices? I'll give you a hint, take whatever you have, half the speed, double the price, and put a monthly cap on usage, and that's what I have access to. Yay for population concentrations!
I'm not throwing rocks, just pointing out facts and how/why it may be easier to give most of the people in Sweden better Internet access than most of the people in the USA.
And I'm just pointing out that the US is diverse enough that every arguement I have heard is refuted by some specific state in the US. The population density in California is greater, so their prices should be lower, but aren't. The population in Alaska is more concentrated than Sweeden, yet has higher prices. Montana is more spread out and has higher prices. The difference is that the USA has private monopolies. Private monopolies have always worked to screw the customers. And it was the free market that brought us to those monopolies. The FCC wasn't involved until long after AT&T was formed.
Learn to love Alaska