13Gigatons
Diamond Member
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
Some of you forget that some major cities have contracts with companies to only have one company provide tv or internet to them. That alone breeds monopolistic tactics.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
* No matter how one measures broadband penetration -- whether it's per capita or per household -- the United States still ranks 15th in among the 30 OECD nations.
* There is absolutely no correlation between a country's population density and its broadband penetration. The geographical size of the United States doesn't explain the poor state of broadband adoption and availability.
* Critics claim the OECD measures are flawed because they don't count mobile wireless. But a cell phone is no substitute for a true broadband connection -- and if these phones were counted, the United States would fare even worse in the world rankings.
* While U.S. consumers have at best two choices for a wired broadband connection, in Europe consumers have many choices -- sometimes dozens -- among providers on just a single platform.
* Many of the countries ahead of the United States in the world rankings still have higher levels of absolute broadband growth. And the U.S. broadband penetration growth rate during the second half of last year was the second lowest in the entire OECD.
http://www.technewsreview.com....ticle.php?article=2148
The myth of low population density
Whenever I write about America?s lag in telecommunications ? how we?re falling behind other countries both in wired and wireless networks ? some people point out that we have much lower population density than Europe or Japan.
This is true in a literal sense, but largely irrelevant. Yes, there are vast open spaces in America. But hardly any of us live there.
Way back when, I got my back up when George W. Bush declared that he goes to Crawford to ?stay in touch with real Americans.? ?And what are those of us who live in New Jersey ? chopped liver?? I asked.
And the truth is that New Jersey is more typical of modern America than Crawford. In 2000, a sizable majority of Americans ? 58% ? lived in metropolitan areas with populations of more than a million people. Two thirds of us live in metro areas with more than half a million people.
The density issue isn?t entirely irrelevant. South Korea surged ahead in broadband partly because so many South Koreans live in easily-wired large apartment buildings. But there?s no excuse for poor network coverage in the fairly dense sprawl in which most Americans live. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...ow-population-density/
Recent data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. 15th in the world in broad penetration per capita, down from fourth in 2001 and 12th just six months ago. The OECD data is not alone. Reports from the International Telecommunications Union, United Nations and Communications Workers of America demonstrate nationwide problems with access, speed and affordability.
http://mediacitizen.blogspot.c...co-myths-about-us.html
* There is absolutely no correlation between a country's population density and its broadband penetration. The geographical size of the United States doesn't explain the poor state of broadband adoption and availability.
* Critics claim the OECD measures are flawed because they don't count mobile wireless. But a cell phone is no substitute for a true broadband connection -- and if these phones were counted, the United States would fare even worse in the world rankings.
* While U.S. consumers have at best two choices for a wired broadband connection, in Europe consumers have many choices -- sometimes dozens -- among providers on just a single platform.
* Many of the countries ahead of the United States in the world rankings still have higher levels of absolute broadband growth. And the U.S. broadband penetration growth rate during the second half of last year was the second lowest in the entire OECD.
http://www.technewsreview.com....ticle.php?article=2148
The myth of low population density
Whenever I write about America?s lag in telecommunications ? how we?re falling behind other countries both in wired and wireless networks ? some people point out that we have much lower population density than Europe or Japan.
This is true in a literal sense, but largely irrelevant. Yes, there are vast open spaces in America. But hardly any of us live there.
Way back when, I got my back up when George W. Bush declared that he goes to Crawford to ?stay in touch with real Americans.? ?And what are those of us who live in New Jersey ? chopped liver?? I asked.
And the truth is that New Jersey is more typical of modern America than Crawford. In 2000, a sizable majority of Americans ? 58% ? lived in metropolitan areas with populations of more than a million people. Two thirds of us live in metro areas with more than half a million people.
The density issue isn?t entirely irrelevant. South Korea surged ahead in broadband partly because so many South Koreans live in easily-wired large apartment buildings. But there?s no excuse for poor network coverage in the fairly dense sprawl in which most Americans live. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...ow-population-density/
Recent data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. 15th in the world in broad penetration per capita, down from fourth in 2001 and 12th just six months ago. The OECD data is not alone. Reports from the International Telecommunications Union, United Nations and Communications Workers of America demonstrate nationwide problems with access, speed and affordability.
http://mediacitizen.blogspot.c...co-myths-about-us.html
That article CLEARLY shows the author has no earthy idea how networks are built and how distance and population/subscriber density affect costs. It is very obvious he just has no clue about it.
Those are the two biggest factors in capital and operation expense - distance and subscriber density. Everybody that builds or operates networks knows this. The cost model for any ISP is primarily based on these two factors.
Those are the two biggest factors in capital and operation expense - distance and subscriber density. Everybody that builds or operates networks knows this. The cost model for any ISP is primarily based on these two factors.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Considering that we are the third largest country in the world and most of it is rural areas, it is of no surprise to me that we lag behind in infrastructure upgrades.
Here's a question for people - why do you think Europe and Asia are leading the way in passive optical network (PON) rollouts? This is the same as verizon's fios from a technology perspective.
What are the target markets for verizon fios? This should give you enough to ponder an idea.
What are the target markets for verizon fios? This should give you enough to ponder an idea.
I live 30 miles out of Minneapolis and have a 10/2 connection that bursts to over 20Mbps. I pay 24.99-29.99 depending on what special Charter is running when I renew my contract.
Honestly though I rarely use that bandwidth. The only time it gets used is when downloading files from technet or steam. Since moving here in 2005 my connection speed for the same price has moved from 3-5-10Mbps. I suspect in 4 years I could be looking at 30Mbps.
These rankings are dumb anyways. Our population density is much lower than many parts of the world. We have an ove population density of 80\sq mile. Places like Germany are close to 300\sq mile.
Honestly though I rarely use that bandwidth. The only time it gets used is when downloading files from technet or steam. Since moving here in 2005 my connection speed for the same price has moved from 3-5-10Mbps. I suspect in 4 years I could be looking at 30Mbps.
These rankings are dumb anyways. Our population density is much lower than many parts of the world. We have an ove population density of 80\sq mile. Places like Germany are close to 300\sq mile.
13Gigatons
Diamond Member
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
It's people with your attitude that cause most of the problems. Corporations will say there is no demand or that it cost to much. The truth is that millions of Americans could use 100mbps, especially the upload speed.
Eventually people like you would start using more bandwidth as well. The size of America has NOTHING to do with it. Every time a small town wants to build their own fiber network then AT&T or Comcast come around and start suing.
So it's a mere coincidence that New Jersey has the highest broadband penetration while the Dakotas are amongst the lowest?
Here's a crazy idea, maybe average speeds are so low because, *gasp*, most Americans are fine with 1.5mbps dsl :Q Maybe some people don't give a shit about uploading HD videos :roll: I certainly don't. I have a choice here between 2mbps DSL & 12mbps cable, and I've got the 2mbps DSL because I don't need the extra speed, so I don't pay for it.
I wouldn't mind seeing that against size of the country. It's easy to upgrade a network when you have a small asian country but running a few million miles of cable is expensive.
Yes but like we said, at least our urban areas should have blazing fast internet everywhere. A few months ago many Comcast standard plans were still stick at 6/1. Some people were still on 4/1.
Places like Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea rely on a lot of underwater cables too. I remember an earthquake last year in Taiwan messed up their whole stock exchange because the internet cables got messed up. Fixing those and laying those cost a freaking lot of money. It's not exactly the most expensive stuff to run miles of cables through the Great Plains.
1 mile = 1.6 km so 1 square mile = 2.56 square km? Well yeah whatever Tokyo and NYC are comparable according to Wikipedia in terms of population density. But come on, if you want to prove your point at least use the same units.
God Mode
Platinum Member
- Jul 2, 2005
- 2,903
- 0
- 71
Is there a chart that shows broadband speeds+penetration and average income levels?
While I would have no problem paying 100 for some sweet bandwidth, someone living in a middle US state might not want it even if the cableco/telco offered it at prices that were non-profit.
I think a lot of people living in rural states/counties dont realize the level of subsidies that need to be approved by .gov and state for them to receive many services. Do you want isolation, cleaner environment and peace or technology, entertainment/shopping and overcrowded cities?
While I would have no problem paying 100 for some sweet bandwidth, someone living in a middle US state might not want it even if the cableco/telco offered it at prices that were non-profit.
I think a lot of people living in rural states/counties dont realize the level of subsidies that need to be approved by .gov and state for them to receive many services. Do you want isolation, cleaner environment and peace or technology, entertainment/shopping and overcrowded cities?
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
You keep bringing up cost, but avoid the topic of the several hundred billion dollars they got through congress to finance these build outs but then reneged after they got what they wanted.
Had they spent the money as promised the infrastructure would be there.
Canada has a much lower density then the US. Canada's average is 7.6mbps compared to 1.97mbps for the US in the same report. I actually took a look at how Canada fared when I saw this thread since I always thought we had crappier broadband then the US. Once I saw the numbers I couldn't believe the US was that far behind. Worse is that in Canada there's a complete monopoly with Bell and Rogers in the East, and Shaw and Telus in the west.
This is a 2007 document btw, mbps has improved since then in Canada a fair bit. I was trying to find the numbers for the recent report.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-165790733.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-165790733.html
No it isn't, as I said, people aren't going to be using speednet with dial up, they'll only be testing with broadband. You have a thread in ATOT asking about ISDN connection for crying out loud.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter