Slashdot Mirror
US Lags World In Broadband Access
An anonymous reader writes "When It Comes To Broadband, U.S. Plays Follow The Leader says a story in IWeek. Their thesis is that, while broadband access in the United States rose from 60 million users in March 2005 to 84 million in March 2006, the US is well behind countries like England and China. Indeed, what you may not realize is that the U.S. ranks a surprisingly poor 12th in worldwide broadband access, a situation which could threaten its ability to maintain its technological lead. The federal government is no help: the FCC has almost no data on the rate of hi-speed adoption, or of what the speed and quality of those services are. Broadband is more expensive here than in other nations, as well, almost 10 times as expensive by some estimates. The cost and poor quality of service aren't from population density, aren't from lack of interest, and are not from lack of technical know-how. So, what is holding us back?
Not a bad argument for why rural areas are lagging, but why are urban areas lagging too?
The United States was one of the first countries to have internet widely available, as such they have the infrastructures of that generation. However, countries in which internet sprung up later have newer infrastructures that have better capacity. The internet capacity of the United States then becomes an economic problem: is the cost of updating the entire internet infrastructure of the United States worth the benefit? If you examine it from a telco point of view, you will get subscriptions whether you have a fast connection or a faster connection. There is basically no new market to gain by increasing the speed of the internet connection, but an enormous sunk cost. Also, the nature of the industry makes it almost impossible for a startup to come in, up the ante and increase the speed of the internet. Telecommunication is a natural monopoly in that sense. In short, wait a few years, or decades.
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
Do a wiki search for "Lincon Highway". Wasn't even until 1920 that we had a single road across the US. Even longer until it was paved. Rails, sure, but driving across the US was a 30 day adventure, involving fording streams and rivers. San Fransisco was already completely built out by the time of the 1908 fire. We didn't have a national highway act until the end of the Eisenhower term. And people wonder why California has a totally different culture than the east coast - it was pretty much a seperate independent country until the advent of the highway and cheap travel in the 40s and 50s.... also why none of SF's banks failed in the great depression.
moox. for a new generation.
Certainly: Sweden.
A country world-renowned for its internet access, which has about 20 people/km^2 compared to the US's 30 people/km^2.
I think I've made my point.
I live in one of the most densely populated regions in the US and arguably the center of the tech industry. Yet my choice for broadband is either a single cable company, SBC or several CLECs like Speakeasy. Not only that, but in the last couple of places that I lived, I always was at the max range of the DSLAM, which meant that my connection was regularly crap.
The problem is not location. The problem is local governments being cahoots with telecom monopolies who love nothing more than charging through the roof for crap connections. Yes, other nations have telecom monopolies as well, but for some reason they're not facing the same kind of problems. I suspect that the difference is that with a state monopoly, you can vote for change. With a government sanctioned economic monopoly, you can only bend over.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.