Slashdot Mirror
US Broadband Won't Catch Up With Japan's For 101 Years
An anonymous reader writes "Internet speeds of users nationwide shows that the United States has not made significant improvements in deploying high-speed broadband networks in the past year, and if the average US Internet speed continues to improve only at the same rate it did from 2007 to 2008, the country won't catch up with Japan's current download speed for another 100 years, according to findings released by the Communications Workers of America's (CWA's) Speed Matters campaign." With enough statistical mangling, nearly anything can be presented as plausible, but that's not enough to cover up my envy of Asian broadband speeds.
Yes, because we all know upgrade paths are all completely linear...
Yeah, like shorter work weeks, better insurance coverage, universal health care, more vacation time.
Really, people, lighten up!
US Broadband Won't Catch Up With Japan's for 101 Years
Uh, could you somehow spin (regardless of truth) this as related to war and/or military prowess so our administration will mindlessly throw money at it instead of mindlessly ignoring it?
Like:
US Cyber Attacking Infrastructure Embarrassingly Lags Japan's
Japanese Identify US Broadband as "Ripe for the Pickin'"
Cyber Pearl Harbor Imminent
US President's Netflix Downloads 1/10 as Fast as Japanese President's
US Administration Idles as US-Japanese Broadband Gap Widens
Come on, these things basically write themselves! Turn it into a dick measuring contest or it's meaningless.
My work here is dung.
And you wish to compare the entire USA, with it's HUGE wilderness areas to Japan?
You are surprised that a country that includes Alaska, a place so wild they have to pay people to live there, has a lower average broadband connection than a small, civilized, advanced Island nation.
Let me make this clear: It is a GOOD thing that the US is not moronic enough to wire our large, open country to the same extent that a small, island country can.
Next thing, someone will complain that Japan eats more fish per capita than the US does.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I didn't take the time to check Google maps, but I'm fairly sure that Japan!=Asia. If you look at all of Asia, I would guess that it has quite a ways to go to catch up to Japan as well.
Or like better beer, a rich regional culture and history, better cuisine, better wine.
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
I have a 20/20 fiber connection available to me for cheaper than what I'm currently paying for 1/0.25 ... how lame is that?
Not the old "but America is rural!" chestnut again. Scandinavian countries have lower population densities than we do yet have much better access. And the "rural" argument might make sense for why you can't get good access on a farm in Kansas, but then why don't we have 100 Mbps consumer connections in San Francisco or Manhattan?
Whether or not the prediciton is statistically shaky, the fact remains that there is a huge gap between the US and many other, quite dissimilar countries. The big question is "Why?" Japan and Korea aren't the only ones that far outclass American broadband speed, though they do have quite a speed lead.
Chart of Broadband Speeds by Country
And sure, in the US you can get FiOS at 30Mbps, but it will cost you $200/month and you have to live in a very limited area. You can get 50Mbps from Comcast only if you live in the Twin Cities (right now), but it's still $150/month.
I could point to the geography of the US, saying how its a much bigger area than the smaller countries at the top of those charts. Sure, Japan and Korea have an incredible population density. But not Finland, Sweden, France, etc. They have population densities several orders of magnitude smaller than even cities like Houston, Miami, Phoenix, or Chicago. Why aren't these cities more like those countries?
I could also try it from the angle of regulation/free market/competition. But I'm pretty sure those countries at the top aren't all the same in that regard.
Is it because our companies tend to each have local monopolies over large areas? That seems less likely considering how just about everyone in a metro area can get cable. So they have two companies, phone and cable, to compete with each other.
Is there something unique about our infrastructure? Did we make some horrible mistake that seemed like a good idea at the time but is now haunting us?
Is the US just in a perfect storm of craptitude where all these factors come into play?
It's a nice argument, but kind of falls apart when you figure that even places like New York, which has some of the highest population densities in the world, have crap internet. If the free market and unregulated business practices was going to provide good internet at competitive rates it would have already materialized, at least in select markets.
The answer to why we don't have faster broadband speeds is simple: scarcity pays.
It is not in the interests of U.S. telecom providers to roll out high-speed bandwidth all at once. Thus we have a tiered service model, with people paying a little for 1Mb connections and substantially more to get higher speeds, regardless of what the telecom carriers' networks can handle.
Granted, some of the scarcity may be real and based on telecom companies dragging their feet on upgrading, but even if they could carry 100 times the traffic the can now it still would be in their corporate interest to artificially create a bandwidth scarcity to keep prices high.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
I live in Canada, and from talking to a couple Americans, my taxes seem to be right on pay with what they are paying, possibly a little higher. Once I count in all the benefits my government provides me, like free health care, I would probably say I pay less taxes than many Americans. Americans think they have less taxes, but if you really look into it, you'll find that logic flawed. They pay a little less, but get a lot less out of their government.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
You're blaming government-granted monopolies on the free market?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
you know, it could simply be that there isn't a demand for it. Premium services are offered, and mayhaps the ISPs simply don't see an actual demand.
I know that it might seem like a silly argument that you don't want to deal with, but really...why would 99% of the population care about anything higher than the 16Mps that is already pretty commonly available (with 45Mbps in some areas)? My content is already not waiting on the pipe between me and the provider, it is waiting on my client (at least, when I'm using my old laptop), or the server trying to generate the dynamic page.
That being said, the convo has been heavy on residential connections...the place I work would love 10x the speed, business rates are just horrible and it would be too expensive. That's a different ball of wax, though.
Ahem... 46 years and counting, just manually compiled and dropped in a new 2.6.26 kernel on my Linux server, now off to smash teenager butt on "World Of Padman".
Anyway, sonny, your music is rubbish!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
They pay a little less, but get a lot less out of their government.
Personally, I'd like to pay even less and get even less from government.
Canadians also benefit from having very low military spending compared to the size of the territory.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The lack of fast internet in America is crippling all the business that relies on fast internet speeds. Sorry to burst your bubble but the Internet is actually used for more that just surfing the web. If America is supposed to be moving away from a manufacturing economy and toward a service economy (specifically an information service economy) then we need to have the infrastructure to handle the demands of that economy. Just like when we invested tons of money in the railroad infrastructure in the beginnings of the Industrial revolution and then again on our highway system in the 50â(TM)s for trucking; we need to invest heavily in our Internet infrastructure. If we donâ(TM)t then we will surely fail as an Information Economy. Iâ(TM)ve had direct experience with this as I worked for a Medical ASP and we were constantly crippled by crappy Internet speeds that would not have been an issue in most of Europe and much of Asia. Itâ(TM)s shameful how our economic growth is being hampered by a few very greedy Telco companies.
In the meantime, we've got areas with Fios, and 50/50Mbit symmetrical fiber connections to the 'net. So instead of moving to Japan, you can move to Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, or Texas
Specifically, move to a limited amount of affluent, white suburbs in those states. Don't bother with big cities, either. Yes, there are areas with crazy-fast FiOS service, but Verizon is really only rolling it out in the areas that require less work: rich suburbs. More folks that are willing to pay for the service (and higher-level service), and stringing up fiber to individual homes is a bit simpler than dealing with apartments. Everywhere else they're seriously dragging their feet.
Lots of nerds praise FiOS and recommend it all the goddamn time, but it really isn't as available as it is often made out to be.
So how come, even in Silicon Valley, I can't get a consumer connection faster than 5Mbps? In 2008? Yet, when I moved to Japan in 2002, the *slowest* most *basic* package I could get (excepting dial-up, which was being phased out) was 12Mbps.
Fine, we get it, the US is huge. That's no excuse. The simple fact of the matter is that the telcos are much happier to sit there and overcharge for crappy service, as they have no compelling reason to upgrade. If population density and geography alone were the only limiting factors, US residents would still be able to get decent high-speed connections in the urban areas. But they don't exist. I mean, jebus, FINLAND has better download speeds, by a factor of almost 9x (2.4Mbps US vs 21Mbps Finland), despite a population density of about half the US (31/sq km US vs 16/sq km Finland).
So quit the hyperbole, and look at the basic facts -- we're getting shafted in the name of telco profits.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Or like better beer, a rich regional culture and history, better cuisine, better wine.
The United States doesn't have rich regional cultures? I guess you've never been to New York City or New Orleans?
And the rest of those are purely subjective. Most of the mass market European beers (Heineken comes to mind) are just as crappy as the mass market American beers. Start talking about microbrews though I think you'll find a few American beers that stack up favorably. American wine came of age a long time ago and competes successfully on the world stage. And 'better cuisine'? Cuisine varies so much between regions (even within small countries -- ever traveled across Italy?) that I'm really interested to hear how you define "better".
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Not at all! We are probably the first generation that has a serious chance of living to a Thousand...
Since you ignored it the first time:
Scandinavian countries have lower population densities than we do yet have much better access. And the "rural" argument might make sense for why you can't get good access on a farm in Kansas, but then why don't we have 100 Mbps consumer connections in San Francisco or Manhattan?
Your post didn't answer the first point, and ignored the second. Finland has 5.3 million people in 130,000 square miles. Wisconsin has 5.7 million people in 65,000 square miles. So, obviously Finland is gong to have a lot more open areas than Wisconsin, yet it has a median download speed of 21 Mbps, compared to less than 2 Mbps for the United States. I don't have figures for Wisconsin, but what do you think the chances are they will be remotely close to Finland?
And I have yet to see any apologists offer a reason why you can't get access in densely populated American cities like Manhattan to match what Europe is able to deliver to their people in the sticks.
I have a 20/20 fiber connection available to me for cheaper than what I'm currently paying for 1/0.25 ... how lame is that?
You have a far faster connection available to you but you continue to pay higher prices for vastly inferior bandwidth? That is incredibly lame -- switch already!
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Access to a waiting list is not access to health care
Existing taxes could finance decent preventive medicine, but that would mean getting rid of the congressional pork trough, subsidizing industries that don't need it, canceling useless weapons systems and insuring property in areas prone to disasters.
No budget is in irretrievable deficit when you have missiles large enough to level any bank that tries to get back what you owe them :)
You can always find statistics to make one country look bad. This happens to the US far too often.
There's one fairly simple measure of a country's success, and that's how willing its occupants are to leave if they get the chance. You could offer free emigration to all US citizens, and I bet hardly any would take up the offer.
Sure it has problems, and to be honest, for the country that 'invented' the internet, your connection speed is a joke, seriously.
On the other hand, and American can get in a car and drive thousands of miles without crossing national borders or having their right to travel questioned.
That's a pretty big thing in my opinion, something to be proud of in fact.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
US data is taken from speedmatters at 2.3Mbps
International data taken from theInformation Technology and
Innovation Foundation at http://www.itif.org/files/2008BBRankings.pdf
This report shows US at 4.9Mbps
A significant difference in findings between the two. Ill let you draw the conclusions