Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. Falling Behind In Broadband?
prostoalex writes "Michael J. Copps of the FCC has published a column in the Washington Post describing the United States' Internet disconnect as far as broadband: 'The United States is 15th in the world in broadband penetration, according to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). When the ITU measured a broader digital opportunity index (considering price and other factors) we were 21st — right after Estonia. Asian and European customers get home connections of 25 to 100 megabits per second (fast enough to stream high-definition video). Here, we pay almost twice as much for connections that are one-twentieth the speed.' To be fair in comparison, USA is 2nd in the world as far as number of broadband lines installed."
Not only does the article NOT have a chart, but it doesn't even bother to list who the OTHER 14 countries are?
Also, I love how they mention ESTONIA with a tone that suggests we are somehow more "backwards" for falling behind them on some list. I'd be offended if I were Estonian.
I did feel that someone should point out that the graph purportedly showing us as have the 2nd highest number of broadband lines installed actually shows us as having the second highest number of broadband connections added in the 2Q of 2006.
Unless you somehow think there are only 2.5 million broadband users in the US, in which case we'd be far lower than 14 on the penetration list...
Free market? Maybe you didn't read the article:
Doesn't sound like much of a free market to me.
While all of what you say is true and of course a factor. The US is still far behind for example Sweden that only has ~20 people per square km. So other factors obviously play a big role as well.
Erik Dalén
I know TFA was about the percentage of broadband users, so the responses in most of the other posts are defending the US because of the population density factor. But the question I have is whether we're falling behind, not based on the percentage of broadband connections, but on the capacity of our broadband connections? Especially in regards to the price we pay for it?
I pay $40/month for my 4Mb/300Kb connection. My city owns a network that doesn't quite extend to my corner of town (I'm one block from the edge of the network). The ISPs on that network offer up to 10Mb Up/Down for slightly less, but what are prices and speeds in other countries in the world? I've heard numbers tossed around here on Slashdot that put these to shame, but I don't know how reliable those are. So what I want to know is how does the U.S. compare when it comes to our broadband speeds and prices (for residential users, particularly)?
Looking at the list, you notice two trends. (1) Cold northern countries are in the top 15... Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Canada etc... (2) Smaller countries with highly dense population centers are in the top 15... Korea, Netherlands, Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Iceland (Iceland which is both cold and small is at the very top)
That said, we probably could do better with increased compensation because we're so goddamn rich, and compared to other countries on the list, we have such a low penetration of DSL.
Here in france, we have a wonderfull provider : Free (iliad group) Read : - Broadband connection up to 25Mb/s (depending of distance from DSLAM) - They have introduced in france the "box" concept, an adatper that do VOIP (compatible with traditional phone, at incredible prices - generally free), ethernet switch, router, and initially TV output - now TV output is on a secondary device, connected to the main (linked to the DSL line) with a MIMO wifi connection. It provides HDCP connectors and all needed for HD TV. - the TV output features : numerical hertzian TV, DSL TV, Video On Demand, records channel, record channel while watching another one (40Go integrated Hard Disk, also accessible through FTP, to put and watch a DivX on, for example) - you can watch many of TV streams on your computer through RDCP protocol - the phone system can be used with SIP exactly as if you used the phone connected to the "box" More, they have recently announced fibre channel with a 70Mb _symetric_ line. All that at the unique price of ... 30. The offer depends of the kind of connection (ADSL2+, ADSL, direct connection to free network or not, and in near future fibre channel), but it's the same price. You can have all services listed above, or a simple 8Mb/s line with VOIP.
Verizon put a fiber optic cable (FIOS) through my front yard last year. Have I switched from my 1.5mbps DSL? No. Why not? Several reasons:
-They barely seem capable of managing the DSL, which they have had for several years. Seriously, the DNS seems to go down every hour, combined with other, more mysterious outages, making an often frustrating experience. I can't help but think that a newer system would just confuse them more.
-I rarely even get the 1.5mbps from whatever site I'm viewing (their upload speed apparently, as other downloads seem unaffected). Very few things I download really need more speed anyway. In a year or two, or whenever Verizon gets their video service working this probably won't be accurate. And I don't want the wife downloading from E-bay, Amazon, and QVC any faster than she already is.
-Installation seems like a pain in the a**. They set up an ethernet router next to where the phone box is, and then I get to string ethernet cable across the house to where my computer is, or set up wi-fi (which I don't want to do). My computer is currently right next to the DSL modem. There's not yet sufficient incentive to bother.
I see I've drifted off my point, which was going to be that they (well, at least Verizon) need to do a better job of setting up their current infrastructure if they want to be able to handle more customers, and keep their current ones. I hear a lot of complaints about cable TV access too. Do they have similar problems in Europe and Japan? The article mentions we pay about twice as much for a connection, but didn't offer any numbers. I'm paying about US$30 for my DSL. How much do people pay in other countries?
If you think that things are falling behind in the US, take a look at Australia. We pay three times as much for a slower connection that has monthly data limits (in most cases). Most normal ADSL connections are limited to 1500kbps/256kbps, and limit your bandwidth after you've downloaded a certain amount of data. ISPs and telcos are slowly rolling out their own DSLAMS for ADSL2+ (which will offer a theoretical speed of 24Mbps), but once you get outside of the heavily populated areas, you're stuck paying a fortune for slower, limited internet access. Naturally, I could go on to blame Telstra (Australia's major telco) for the lapse in technology and affordability, but there's a whole political side to it as well. Maybe one day we'll at least catch up to other parts of the world in terms of broadband capabilities. However, until then, Australia isn't falling behind. It's holding the rest of the modern world up from the bottom.
Sweden is one of the least corrupted countries in the world after Finland. The United States is way down in the Transparency International index...
show the US at a 12th place
2 3_37529673_1_1_1_1,00.html
... (hmmm, that just sounds wrong)
http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,2340,en_2649_342
it ALSO has a nifty penetration/inhabitants per sq km
anyhoo, here's the list:
1 Denmark
2 Netherlands
3 Iceland
4 Korea
5 Switzerland
6 Finland
7 Norway
8 Sweden*
9 Canada
10 United Kingdom
11 Belgium
12 United States
13 Japan
14 Luxembourg
15 Austria
16 France
17 Australia
18 Germany
19 Spain
20 Italy
21 Portugal
22 New Zealand
23 Czech Republic**
24 Ireland
25 Hungary
26 Poland
27 Turkey
28 Slovak Republic
29 Mexico*
30 Greece
Here in Canada things are starting to open up. I know my cable provider is going to be offering a "Nitro" service of 25Mbps in a week. We already have 10Mbps "Extreme" service, and the rest of us (cheap) chumps have to live with 5Mbps.
:)
I believe Telus and other phone companies are bringing out products with speeds similar to 25Mbpsvery soon. I'm just not willing to pay $100/mo to get them.
Quoting 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF:
"Every time this topic is discussed, I hear the same excuses. Mostly, people claim that the US is too large and with too many rural areas. It's a load of crap. We've paid billions subsidizing the laying of lines, more per person than numerous other countries and we still have much slower and more expensive service than those countries. Sweden has been the model of how to do this right. Despite government corruption and favoritism on par with the US, they have managed almost complete saturation, for less per-person government subsidy, and with a population density almost the same as the US."
We've paid billions subsidizing the laying of voice-quality phone lines. While DSL can run on the same cable type as analog voice, its maximum distance is MUCH lower. I'd say only 25% or less of "good quality" voice lines in the US are even remotely close enough to their CO to provide DSL service. Even in central New Jersey, one of the most densely populated areas of the most densely populated state in the nation, only 50% or so of residences are actually close enough to their telco COs to get DSL service.
Cable TV penetration is MUCH lower since it hasn't received any subsidies, or if it has, has received far less than the telephone industry.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
While this is true, it doesn't completely explain things.
Few (if any) home users in NYC, Boston, DC, Chicago, or San Francisco have 25Mbps. These places are easily as dense as an average European/Asian community.
Also, when cable TV first came out, the more rural areas got it far more quickly than we did, and they always had phone service. The infrastructure is there, or can be put pretty much anywhere, we just don't make 5Mbps+ a priority.
Also when speaking of density, you have to realize that the overwhelming majority of the US is largely unpopulated. You can fly from the Mexican Border to the Canadian Border in the West, and save for Las Vegas, you won't see a single house. Alaska's (our largest state) has a land area is something like .001% populated. We have places like North Dakota and Wyoming. Japan and Europe don't have similar wide-open expanses to water-down their overall density numbers, and thus a direct density comparison is extremely difficult.