Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
The Internet

Broadband Is The Secret To South Korea's Success 420

An anonymous reader writes "What makes South Korea so special in the world of high-speed Internet access? How can the U.S. and other countries learn from it? What separates South Korea from the rest is a clear agenda and execution process by the government. They wanted to be THE broadband capital of the world so bad, they never swayed from that goal. After the 1997 Asian financial crisis, South Korea was desperate for a savior. The government realized technology was going to restore the country's economic health so the entire country unified to push broadband penetration rates to the extreme."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Broadband Is The Secret To South Korea's Success

Comments Filter:
  • Easy. (Score:4, Funny)

    by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:43AM (#9831469) Journal
    How can the U.S. and other countries learn from it?

    They must learn the technique of Zerg rush, and then everything else will fall in line.
  • by beef curtains ( 792692 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:44AM (#9831483)
    "The government realized technology was going to restore the country's economic health so the entire country unified to push broadband penetration rates to the extreme." Broadband penetration is good stuff...but me, I'm a fan of broadband girl-on-girl.
  • But then again, he's also trying to get us to the moon and Mars.

    I think that Americans could benefit from a committee established to promote the complete adoption of a nationwide FTTP network or other such network to connect us at faster rates.

    Having broadband and a video cam, for instance, is no good for me, because my girlfriend has dial-up, thus limiting chat options. I blame lots of this on American capitalism, but perhaps if we get a Democratic congress again, this can be quelled.

    I recently s
    • by nojomofo ( 123944 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:49AM (#9831541) Homepage
      Why is it the fault of "American Capitalism" that your girlfriend has a dialup line? Because somebody hasn't given her broadband for free? I consider myself liberal, but really, isn't it going a bit far to expect your government to buy you your damn broadband connection?
      • But broadband porno is a Constitutional right!
      • by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:11AM (#9831788) Homepage Journal
        I think he means that the capitalists who control broadband see no profit in extending it to rural communities. (And there might not be. The cost of running the lines out there would be more than the market could sustain, even if everyone in the area signed up for it.)

        The point is that it's not subsidized. These subsidies would provide the money to cover the cost of extending it to smaller communities, so that more people could get it. I imagine this is what South Korea did. Granted, they have a lot less area to cover, but I don't think that it would be too hard for the US to have 98% of its people able to have access to a 3Mb connection, so long as the government made a big push for it.

        • Or instead of cable, they could use radio or BPL (yes, I know, boo, hiss, it messes up the ham radios). My parents live 15 miles from the nearest town and have something resembling broadband speeds through wireless. It isn't nearly as fast as the 2-3 Mbit/s that people in cities get on their cable modems and DSL lines, but it's a heck of a lot better than dialup.

          It's hard for me to understand the real incentive in govt subsidized broadband in the US, anyway. (I am of course open to suggestions.) All my
          • by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:39AM (#9832143) Homepage Journal
            It's about revitalizing rural communities and easing pressures on cities and suburs. Where would you rather live, a 1/4 acre lot with the neighbor's dog barking and traffic whizzing by, or 2 or 3 acres with fewer neighbors. I'd choose the latter, but only if I had broadband, because I need it for my job, to telecommute and transfer files back and forth.

            I guess it's hard for someone to understand if they haven't seen it. If you can, take a trip through the coal region of PA. All these little towns are dying because there is no industry, no hope of a job for anyone. All the young people have moved away. Broadband availability could help to bring companies into these regions (where the cost of living and of land are very, very low). This would bring these communities back to life, getting the people in them off of welfare and other government programs. Eventually, people won't need it. It's like running electricity or paved roads into a town; it's an economic improvement, instead of a handout.

            Contrary to what many 'pundits' think, people want to work and feel useful. Getting government handouts is what most people do to survive, but they don't want to live on it.

            • by Rostin ( 691447 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @12:59PM (#9833107)
              That's an interesting point.

              FWIW, I have seen it. I grew up on a farm (15 miles to the nearest small town, 60 to the nearest place you might consider a city), and since moving away, I've lived in a small city of 200k (where I went to college), another moderately sized city of 600k (where I did an internship 2 summers), and now I live in a small town of 12k (Not my first choice, but it's where I could get work after graduating).

              I can agree with you a little, because part of the reason I live in an apartment in town is broadband. I had the oppurtunity to move to the outskirts of town (just out of city limits) but didn't only because I didn't want to do the dialup thing.

              Anyway, from my point of view (as a young single person), there's a heck of a lot more keeping small towns down than just the lack of broadband. If you haven't lived out in the middle of nowhere as I have and (to a lesser extent) currently do, these are things you might not have considered:

              1. You can only buy the absolute necessities, usually. Even in my town which I assume is large compared to a "rural community", I can't buy fish unless its breaded and needs to be deep fried. There are no bookstores, coffee shops, or movie theaters. The only place to buy software for 50 miles is Walmart.

              2. There is a small hospital here (because the entire county is sparsely populated, there frankly isn't a better place for one). But the more rural the community, the farther away you are from medical care. My grandpa died of a heart attack 12 or so years ago and perhaps could have been saved if it hadn't taken a small eternity to get him to a doctor. Soon afterward, his widow moved into town after living on a farm her entire life.

              3. The culture is homogenized and philistine, not to mention frequently racist. What I wouldn't give to have regular face-to-face discussions with someone about something besides hunting, farming, or NASCAR.

              And Etc. Certainly there are benefits to living in small communities, or even miles from the nearest neighbor. Peace and quiet, big yard, friendly people (as long as you don't stand out too much). (After you've done it for a while, though, the quaintness starts to wear off... it isn't attractive to start with unless you are already world-weary. Your kids will probably hate you for it. They leave the small towns, remember?) But the thing is, broadband is just one more thing that people who choose to live like that have to choose to give up. That small towns and the rural lifestyle are drying up is unfortunate in a way, and govt subsidized broadband would help that situation out incrementally, but it's just scratching the surface. We can't offer everything to these people simply because we can't afford to.

              I would go so far as to say that even if we could, they wouldn't want it. Broadband, sure. But in the town near where I grew up, a large dairy and a pig processing plant almost went up (on separate occasions). The economic development commission wooed them, offered them huge low interest loans, but they ultimately decided not to build there, in part citing a lack of support from the community. People were up in arms. They wrote letters to the paper. It's been speculated that racism played no small part in all of this. What sort (or should I say, ethnicity) of people do you think would work in a pig processing plant in a small Texas town, after all?
        • That could be a second big factor between US and Asian broadband. One of the most important statistics in assessing the potential profitability of a cable type business (phone, video, internet, even a power company) is homes per mile of cable. Your costs of deploying and maintaining a mile of cable are pretty fixed, say annual costs are in the $500/mo range. If your "content" (phone network, cable channels, ISP costs, or powerplant costs) are 80% of final consumer price your money is made on bringing you
        • by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @12:17PM (#9832581) Homepage
          These subsidies would provide the money to cover the cost ...

          But, just where the hell do you think the money comes from for these subsidies? The government can not give away anything it didn't steal from someone else (i.e., taxpayers), and then only after they filter it through 20 levels of bureaucracy to siphon off 70-90% of it.

          And what would be the point of having 98% penetration of broadband, when so many Americans can't deal with the level of internet they already have? Look at the large number of open relays and proxies in Korea... Much of that comes from ignorance of how to deal with BB that rivals our own. How many of us have a sibling, parent, grandparent, or other relative that thinks that everything on internet is real and true, for whom broadband access would just allow them to screw up quicker?

      • Depends on how important communication is to the government- after all, they gave us the Pony Express, and later the US Postal Service, for pretty durn cheap.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Why is it the fault of "American Capitalism" that your neighbour has a no road to thier farm? Because somebody hasn't given her tarmac for free? I consider myself liberal, but really, isn't it going a bit far to expect your government to build you your damn roads?

        Because state investment in infrastructure benefits everyone, sometime even in simple dollar terms. Even when large companies cannot make a profit from it.
        • Excellent!

          Starting with this weeks paycheck we'll be deducting $20USD as a "Infrastructure tax".

          The government will then use this money to lay fibre to everybodies house and give them a 40Mbit uplink!
        • I guess that you place the dividing line between luxury and necessity in a different place than I do. I agree that roads, phone service, and similar utilities these days qualify as necessities. I just don't see that broadband does. Why is it actually necessary to have a connection faster than 56k?

          And I'm not going to buy the "so I can telecommute" argument. Many people have jobs that don't allow for telecommuting, and those who do have the option of living in populated areas with broadband available.

    • I think that Americans could benefit from a committee established

      Yes, that's exactly what we need. ANOTHER committee.

    • by DrCash ( 800431 ) <webmaster&apo83,org> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:27AM (#9831957)
      Actually, that's a bunch of hogwash! Congress and the President have little to do with the development of the Internet and Broadband (other than the fact that the US Department of Defense (and later Commerce) started the whole thing (sorry, it wasn't Al Gore).

      Development of the internet and the pace at which new developments take place, has more to do with the economy and the US Consumer (yes, that's you and me, not some schmuck in Washington). As much as we're led to believe to the contrary, the government has little control over the economy overall.

      Broadband will take over not because the R or the D in the white house wants it to take over - it will take over because of supply and demand. The more people that want it, the cheaper it will become. Just look at Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi is spreading like wildfire (no pun intended) - mainly because corporations and businesses see the benefits and are willing to pay for it. They also see the fact that by offering free (or even cheap) Wi-Fi in their retail establishments, they will drive customers into the store. Even smaller mom-and-pop restaurants and bars are seeing this, and deploying Wi-Fi in their establishments. The government isn't driving this at all - but they want you to believe they are, because that's how they win elections!

    • Did you ever think that maybe it's easier to deploy broadband service in South Korea since it's land size is about 1/4 of Colorado?

      Last thing US needs is more people sitting in front of the computer chatting or playing online games all day. If you get a Democratic congress, I foresee lawsuits against ISPs because "The Internet made me fat!".
  • A 100Mbps fiber optic pipe, to be precise, and at my home in shitty Moses Lake, WA, no less. Our county is laying it all over the place. Wouldn't it be nice if everybody did this?
  • I thought.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:45AM (#9831496)
    ..government involvement was bad?! I am confused!
    • Re:I thought.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by provolt ( 54870 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:08AM (#9831749)
      It's really quite simple.

      Government involvement is good when it does things that I want. It's bad when it does things I don't want.

      Government should protect my rights. Government should protect my right to infringe on your rights.

      Government should take your money to implement my agenda. Government shouldn't take my money to implement your agenda.

      Just follow these simple rules and "the slashdot position on government" is easy to understand.
      • Re:I thought.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bull999999 ( 652264 )
        It's funny because it's true -Homer Simpson

        The slashdot position on government is same as the position on mass media, which is "Don't trust the mass media unless it has an article that I agree with. In that case, trust the media".
      • I wish I had mod points, as your post is one of the most deserving ones in this threads.

        When I read Slashdot, I try to remember this quote that is frequently misattributed to Winston Churchill:

        "If a man is not liberal in his youth, he has no heart. If not conservative when older, he has no brain".

        Eventually, most of the people posting to Slashdot will grow up. But they are unlikely to do so until the cold reality of big government slaps them in the face.

  • by ostiguy ( 63618 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:46AM (#9831504)
    in infected/rooted/wormed client pcs with lots of bandwidth.

    great.

    ostiguy saw some 3000+ intrusion detection system alerts from skorea over the past 36 hours
    • This is SOOTH! (Score:3, Informative)

      by Chordonblue ( 585047 )
      As an international school that often has a 4-5% S. Korean population, I can attest to this. Last year was the last straw. It's bad enough trying to configure a Korean student's machine to join our domain, but CLEANING it?!

      Adaware and Spybot are wonderful tools but they don't do jack for Korean spyware. The problem here is, we use a proxy and some of that garbage sits inbetween the Winsock interface and the network - effectively trying to bypass the proxy server.

      For instance, there was a girl complaining
  • This says it alll (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _PimpDaddy7_ ( 415866 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:47AM (#9831517)
    Many US executives and policy makers are quick to dismiss the disparity, noting correctly that South Korea's densely populated areas have made it easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely fast service to large numbers of people. But even with such geographic and demographic differences, the United States can learn some valuable lessons from South Korea's experience in jump-starting a broadband powerhouse.

    It would be a truly daunting and very expensive task to retro-fit the US with South Korean-like broadbrand. Especially with all the bureaucracy in telecommunications. The point is we should look to them and try to learn from their experiences and mistakes.
    • by skarmor ( 538124 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:53AM (#9831592)
      I think the key point is that, ".. South Korea's densely populated areas have made it easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely fast service to large numbers of people."

      It really is a huge problem to provide high-speed access to people living in rural Montanna or in the mountains of Washington state.

      The problem isn't that the bureaucracy is slowing down the development. Rather, the problem is that the revenue that would be earned by installing 8mbit capacity nationwide cannot justify the cost.
      • by garcia ( 6573 ) *
        It really is a huge problem to provide high-speed access to people living in rural Montanna or in the mountains of Washington state.

        Only because of the legalized monopolies that we allow in this country. Sadly single companies control entire areas and they don't have any reason to put broadband in if there's no competition.
        • Only because of the legalized monopolies that we allow in this country. Sadly single companies control entire areas and they don't have any reason to put broadband in if there's no competition.

          Actually most competitors have much less cash than the near-monopoly companies. They would be even less likely to spend the kind of money necessary to provide high speed in rural areas.
      • by humphrm ( 18130 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:08AM (#9831746) Homepage
        It was an equally daunting task to provide universal phone system coverage to those people in Montana and the mountains of Washington State in the mid-20th century.

        Looking at the revenue from one network drop at a Paradise, WA vs. the cost is the wrong way. That's why the FCC forced the phone company to install one there, and recover it's cost via a fee that was charged to all businesses for phone usage (and I think, probably still is).

        The same thing could be applied here, if the FCC could get its nose out of Howard Stern's butt for a moment and concentrate on what they should be doing, providing universal broadband.
        • Re:This says it alll (Score:3, Interesting)

          by skarmor ( 538124 )
          It was an equally daunting task to provide universal phone system coverage to those people in Montana and the mountains of Washington State in the mid-20th century.

          That's true. But once construction was complete the telcos essentially had a license to print money. They could easily sustain the expenditure of installing in remote areas becasue they could make so much damn money off teh system as a whole. Not to mention universal service charges.

          Right now the fear is that they will build the network and
        • by mike_mgo ( 589966 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:37AM (#9832102)
          The same thing could be applied here, if the FCC could get its nose out of Howard Stern's butt for a moment and concentrate on what they should be doing, providing universal broadband.

          Why should this be something that the FCC should be doing? I can understand that universal phone service can be justified by access to emergancy services in even the most isolated communities. What comparable requirement does having broadband access serve that can't already be met by dial-up?

          Just skimming through the article, the main benefits touted were online gaming and video on demand. Online tutoring was also mentioned (though I don't see why broadband is required for this), but all of the economic boon was from the gaming and video (and the supporting equipment necessary). So their online gaming market is great, but should it really be governemnt policy to get Americans to spend twice as much on online gaming as they do now?

      • How many people live there? While we couldn't justify the cost of getting everyone 8Mb, we could get 95% of the people 3Mb connections, which is a good start.
        • If the potential revenue justified the costs of installing 3mbit in rural communities then those commnuities would already have 3mbit - the telcos do like to make money...
          • by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:34AM (#9832065) Homepage Journal
            1) It's in our national interest to provide as many people with broadband as possible.
            2) Telcos don't see profit in getting broadband into rural areas
            3) Therefore, the government should subsidize broadband for rural communities.

            The only question is if you think statement 1 is true. Personally, I think that if more rural communities had broadband, people would be more willing to move out there for quality of life. I, for example, would love to build a home out in the country, but only if I get broadband. Without that, there's no way for me to telecommute.

            • That's a great strategy, and I'm on board with you. But I just don't see that kind of government spending happening anytime soon.

              And as for private development - well, as soon as there is profit to be had...
      • Why does something need to generate revenue in order to justify its creation?

        This is the fundamental problem with a completely capitalistic view of the world - try injecting a little socialism and you may find that providing something people want and need *just for the sake of it* brings its own rewards (e.g. healthcare)

        -Nano.
        • Why does something need to generate revenue in order to justify its creation?

          Because telecommunications is an industry with the goal of making money.

          This is the fundamental problem with a completely capitalistic view of the world - try injecting a little socialism and you may find that providing something people want and need *just for the sake of it* brings its own rewards (e.g. healthcare)

          I'm with you - and as soon as the feds nationalize the communications industry we'll talk. Until then we ha
    • The Seoul government's clearly articulated vision for modernising the country's infrastructure stands in stark contrast to the regulatory morass that has stunted development in US telecommunications for several decades. South Korea's policy -- the cornerstone of a national technology initiative to help revive a devastated economy -- has created true broadband competition, which in turn has helped prices fall and speeds rise.

      Competition, Competition, Competition. In the 90's, dialup competition was fierc
      • Competition, Competition, Competition. In the 90's, dialup competition was fierce and now its easy to find $10 dialup services just about everywhere.

        Priced based competition, while good for the consumer in the short run, is bad for the indusrty and ultimately hurts the customer as well. While additional broadband competitors may drive the prices of broadband down to the point of being unprofitable, it is highly unlikely that they will stimulate expansion of high speed infrastructure.

        The is especial
        • Priced based competition, while good for the consumer in the short run, is bad for the indusrty and ultimately hurts the customer as well.

          You want a taker? You got a taker. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this statement. If this statement were true, the entire system of capitalism would have falled on its ass centuries ago and Adam Smith would have been flogged for being a fool.

          Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market. Capitalism is all about competition. Any and all competition
    • It would be a truly daunting and very expensive task to retro-fit the US with South Korean-like broadbrand. Especially with all the bureaucracy in telecommunications. The point is we should look to them and try to learn from their experiences and mistakes.

      I think the biggest problems with trying to get broadband to the entire USA are:

      1. You have competing interests with the telco's and the cable companies.

      2. The sheer geography of the USA mitigates against wired broadband in rural areas.

      #2 is especiall
  • With such high broadband penetration, could it be that South Korea will be the home of the first million player MMORPG? Online gaming is very popular there, perhaps in part because of the high speeds available. Whereas just across the water in Japan, these games are not as popular and broadband is far less available. In the US right now we're stuck with all of this great infrastructure, but fall short in that last mile. Plus the US government isn't making a real commitment to make broadband a part of everyd
    • Plus the US government isn't making a real commitment to make broadband a part of everyday life.

      I'm not sure it's the US Government's job / mandate to build high-speed gaming networks for the populous. But one thing is for sure, cable and internet infrastructure companies need to price their wares more competitively.

    • could it be that South Korea will be the home of the first million player MMORPG?

      According to this article [thefeature.com] one of the the massive multiplayer games, Lineage, has 3 million subscribers. That's one in twelve South Koreans! So I guess South Korea is already the home om the first million player massive multiplayer game.

      A conference I attended had South Korea as one of its topics. According to what was told there online gaming is very popular there, yes. But almost as popular was _watching_ the games.

      Appare

  • by Eddy Da KillaBee ( 727499 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:50AM (#9831553)
    Many US executives and policy makers are quick to dismiss the disparity, noting correctly that South Korea's densely populated areas have made it easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely fast service to large numbers of people.

    I think that the fact that South Korea is smaller in size than the US gives it an advantage of reaching that goal of theirs... On top of that, they might not have a bunch of communications giants (Cox Communications, Charter Communications, AOL-Time Warner, Sprint (DSL), Verizon (DSL) and Aldelphia, to name a few) fighting for customers left and right. When you have a fairly large country in size with a ton of providers offering different types of services at different prices it's harder to achieve a goal like "Broadband for Everyone".
    • >I think that the fact that South Korea is smaller
      >in size than the US gives it an advantage.

      I don't think so. Canada is only one tenth the population of the US, and has a far lower per capita GDP than the US has (Canadian per capita GDP is the sama as Korea actually), yet Canada (and Korea) both still have far wider broadband deployments than the US.

      It has just not been important for the US govt that this get done, and to the telcos either, that are always too shortsighted. So now other countries have leaped ahead.

      There is no excuse for it really, rather than corporate and govt bungling. The US has by far the highest p/c GDP of any of these countries, and is certainly rich enough to pay for it if they wanted (heck, the money used in Iraq up to now would have paid for it a dozen times over...)

      So its not about density, or 'too expensive'.. Just the people in the power to make change don't care to do anything about it...

      • But Canada has very dense population centers. Most of its citizens live in cities along the border with the US.

        So density really is the key..
      • I don't think so. Canada is only one tenth the population of the US, and has a far lower per capita GDP than the US has (Canadian per capita GDP is the sama as Korea actually), yet Canada (and Korea) both still have far wider broadband deployments than the US.

        Yes, because Canada is smaller which is what the original poster SAID. You forget Canadians are all huddled together in the lower regions (I guess so they can snuggle up to the USA. They just love us there, you know). Like, 97% of Canada is barren wa

      • by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:52AM (#9832296)
        "Canada is only one tenth the population of the US,"

        ... which would mean something if Canada's population distribution was anything like the US. It isn't. [nasa.gov] While the US seems to have one of the most homogeneous population distributions on the globe, the vast majority of Canadians live within 200 km or so of the US border (try naming a major Canadian city that isn't) and then tend to clump around urban centers. You can play connect-the-dots with Edmonton, Red Deer and Calgary over in Alberta, while major US cities like Chicago and Houston are a little tough to pick out if you don't know where to look.

        One line 10 km long is cheaper to deploy than ten lines 1 km long.

    • When you have a fairly large country in size with a ton of providers offering different types of services at different prices it's harder to achieve a goal like "Broadband for Everyone"

      I have to disagree with you in this matter. I probably come from a different background (mideuropean country), but I always had the impression that a high rivalry for market creates a great opportunity for the customer. Think what could you do in a country that has the monopoly for all telecommunications...

    • by RealityProphet ( 625675 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:05AM (#9831727)
      On top of that, they might not have a bunch of communications giants (Cox Communications, Charter Communications, AOL-Time Warner, Sprint (DSL), Verizon (DSL) and Aldelphia, to name a few) fighting for customers left and right. When you have a fairly large country in size with a ton of providers offering different types of services at different prices it's harder to achieve a goal like "Broadband for Everyone".

      No. Having a bunch of providers is exactly what will spur higher bandwidths and lower prices. It is called the free market system.

      • No. Having a bunch of providers is exactly what will spur higher bandwidths and lower prices. It is called the free market system.

        Yep, I mean that's why we have the internet in the first place, isn't it? It was created by free markets. The idea that government could create such a thing is laughable. Oh, hang on. Now I'm a bit confused...
      • Aaah, but we don't have 'a bunch of providers,' or at least not a bunch of providers in competition. We pretty much have a bunch of providers who have Balkanized the country into non-competitive fiefdoms. There is some competition between cable and DSL, in some areas, but that's about it. I guess CLECs haven't been completely driven out of business, but just give the FCC and ILECs a few more years.
    • I think that it's more likely that the problem is in the communications giants themselves. They'll not roll out the serverices except to the most profitable areas.

      I live in a small town in Iowa and have had DSL at home longer than what its been available to people in all but the state's largest cities. This is because we have a local phone company that can and will roll out these kind of services.

  • Due to its large output of spam and its place as a relay station for cracker attacks, Korea is finding that it is in an intranet of its own. Non-responsiveness from (or non-existance of) admins and abuse desks in Korea is legendary. Thank you for korea.blackholes.us.
  • Not odd (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fateswarm ( 590255 )
    Not odd for South Korea to succeed on a goal it aims. But it's more than that. Some times a "goal" of south korean can be translated to obsession.

    It is no more than a year than discovery channel (or was it n.g chan? anyways) has done that show about the industrial revolution of south korea. It was discussing the obsession that country had to keep up with Japan and eventually it succeeded. The odd thing that obsession had come to that extreme that some workers were willing to give their lives for their coun
    • Not odd for South Korea to succeed on a goal it aims.

      Exactly. The real question is whether the anticipated economic gains resulted. Saying that "Broadband Is The Secret To South Korea's Success" is a bit redundant when waht they're succeeding at is broadband.

      The odd thing that obsession had come to that extreme that some workers were willing to give their lives for their country's economic wealth. They had that south korean director of contruction for a ship building company that said "That day the ship w

  • by solive1 ( 799249 )
    Wal-Mart would turn the broadband industry upside down. They'd do it cheaper than the others, and more "common" people in America would flock to the Wal-Mart name because of brand recognition. This alone would force the broadband companies to innovate.

    This could also be applied to the cell phone industry.
  • Could it be... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bob-o-Matic! ( 620698 ) <robert.peters@NoSPam.gmail.com> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:54AM (#9831606) Homepage
    1. that nearly one-fourth of the RoK population lives in one metropolitan area?

    2. that all telco equipment was most likely installed well after 1953, whereas the US infrastructure is surely much older? ... Don't have time to finish this post... think about Korea Telecom... government runned telco...

    DSL rules in the RoK. No doubt about it. Although as I was leaving in March 2003, wireless was catching on.

    I for one miss my 6Mb/1Mb connection for about $35/month (no contract so it was more pricey).

    Also, it was interesting explaining to the techs that I needed to swap my internal (pci) ADSL modem for an external one so I could use linux. The techs had never seen linux, so I invited one over to show them. Maybe they were just blown away by a caucasian speaking their language fluently.... ;)
  • by suhlash ( 411731 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:55AM (#9831619)
    The high penetration rate of broadband into south korean homes is definitely a economic advantage and productivity enhancer. But I disagree with the argument that government must do more to help the penetration of broadband into homes. Government must do less - they need to get out of the way and regulate less so the market forces can be unleashed. The american broadband penetration is considerable less mainly because there is so much government involvement and regulation at every level from national to local. The south korean government did the companies that wanted to build and enable broadband a favor by streamlining their regulations and reducing the hurdles.
  • Just goes to show... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by petra13 ( 785564 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:58AM (#9831650) Journal
    that if a government decides to focus very hard on a particular goal there's a real possibility of their becoming dominant in that area. See also: US's determination to build the A-bomb in WWII, JFK's determination to win the space race, etc. and the effects that these had on related science/technology industries in the US at the time. The South Koreans decided that modernizing their telecommunications infrastructure was necessary to revitalize their economy, pursued the goal, and can now watch television over their internet connections.
  • by inkdesign ( 7389 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:58AM (#9831653)
    http://urban.blogs.com/seoul/ [blogs.com] Always found this blog interesting, seems the right time to pass it on. :0]
  • Very interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by curtisk ( 191737 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @10:59AM (#9831658) Homepage Journal
    The United States considers itself the centre of technological innovation, yet South Korea has gone considerably further in making a mainstream reality out of the futuristic promises of bygone dot-com days.

    Thats because they don't have Comcast/Cablevision/TimeWarner controlling it, trying to cap bandwidth and milk every penny it can out of its users. I STFA (scanned..TFA), did it mention what this exceptional service costs over there? They talked about what the government put out to make this infastructure happen.. but what does Joe Blow have to pay to get it? LOL Their "so-so" connection in APARTMENTS are 8 times faster than the best we have...

    • Re:Very interesting (Score:3, Informative)

      by pubjames ( 468013 )
      The United States considers itself the centre of technological innovation

      Yes, the USA considers itself the centre of technological innovation, but that doesn't mean it is.

      Places like Japan, Northern Europe, and as this article discusses Korea, are ahead of the USA in many respects.
  • by WaxParadigm ( 311909 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:00AM (#9831676)
    I'm all for broadband, but I don't see the wisdom in doing it through government any more than I see wisdom in having the government provide food, shelter, charity, religion, education, employment, health care, etc. It might sound like a nice eutopia, but it's not sustainable without the competition introduced by a free and open market. The best example is our food. Food is THE necessity, even more than health care, etc. If the government provided it there would be little selection, less supply, and less quality.

    You might look to the government to (at the threat of inprisonment) take money from everyone else to pay for what you want or need, but I'd rather people have the option to pay for what they want and help others in the way they see most fit. Most sane/intelligent people see the former as theft, but it's obvious that some view it as a way of life.
    • Yes, food is THE necessity. But the government provides subsidies to people who can't afford food. Is that wrong? Or should they depend on the kindness of strangers?

      Conversely, I don't agree with what the military is doing. Should I deduct that from my income tax? I mean, I should have the option to pay for what I want, right?

  • by dougnaka ( 631080 ) * on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:04AM (#9831719) Homepage Journal
    That's what government can do to improve broadband adoption. Stop trying to regulate businesses, and don't have any "initiatives". Let the free market take us where we want to go. I don't think that long run any of our problems will be solved by government, especially broadband adoption. Sure the government can make us pay more for broadband while we think we're paying less, since 30% income tax, tax on food,clothes,medicine,cars,travel are all acceptable, but $75/month for broadband is outrageous. Please, give me 5-10% flat tax and I'll be happy to pay more for market delivered goods, oh and give to charity and the needy.
    • Why regulate when you can provide incentives? It will never be economically profitable to send broadband out to rural areas of the US. (Except satellite, which isn't really useful because of the latency times.) Maybe the government (that is, the people of the US) could see that providing broadband to rural areas is a good thing, and give incentives to companies that make it profitable to send broadband out there?

      And would you really give to charity and the needy? It's nice to say, but do you really do it?

  • Korean. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VC ( 89143 ) * on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:10AM (#9831770)
    1. Everyone in korea speaks korean.

    2. Noone else speaks korean.

    3. Koreans are mainly interested in korean websites.

    Ergo, when they pay $5 USD a month for 4mb internet accesss, the ISP is betting on the fact that they wont hardly have to pay for any international traffic.
  • by martin ( 1336 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [cesxam]> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:13AM (#9831799) Journal
    Just look at the problem that have have from malware.

    One mydoom varient (or was it blaster, anyway) nearly knocked the whole country off the internet.

    technology without knowledge/education is a bad thing (tm)
  • South Korea's commitment to broadband might explain why I keep seeing addresses there when I do a WHOIS on the servers sending me SPAM. I've suggested to my ISP that they block ALL mail coming from South Korea.
  • I don't know what the situation is in South Korea, but in Europe cable/dsl is much more attractive than dial-up, because dial-up is almost always paid by the second. In many parts of Europe, broadband is the only way to get flat-rate internet. In the US flat-rate is the norm for dial-up, so broadband is not such a big upgrade as it is in Europe.
  • by SalsaDot ( 772010 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:41AM (#9832172) Homepage
    I'm staying at an apartment here in Seoul. Applied for broadband Tuesday afternoon after I arrived - the apartment wasn't wired for cable.

    Guy rocks up with some cable, a cablemodem and a drill Wednesday morning.

    Installation: Ran a cable from the roof of the apartment down to the window. Cable just flops onto the floor (he used the drill for some cable clamps in the wall).

    Setup: Plug the cable modem into my laptop. DHCP on. Thats it. No login software, no caps. no smtp server, no home page. Just 2.5mbps download and 1.5mbps upload (in a test to the states that I did, during evening time).

    Price: We chose no contract because we're only here a month, so we had to pay installation. 44,000W for installation, 27000W for one month.

    Thats like $60USD for one month of broadband bliss (remember, including connection & installation).

    While I'm at it - their TV stations here (KBS, MBC) offer live streaming of their TV channels PLUS video on demand of just about all programs they air. Who needs a TIVO here! (you've got to have at least 100kbps connection to enjoy it).

    Alas you dont get very far if you dont speak Korean.
  • by geekee ( 591277 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @09:04PM (#9839123)
    and the whole telecom sector went bankrupt because no one was willing to pay for it. Remember the internet bubble burst?

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.

Working...