The U.S. Falling Behind In Broadband? 161
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."
Hey there Chicken Little! (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, the author completely ignores the vast geographic differences between the US and other industrialized country when categorizing the US as falling behind in broadband acceptance. The US has an average population density of ~30 people per square km, industrialized Europe's is ~100, while Japan's is 336. The higher the population density, the less cable is needed (and hence, the lower the cost) to provide broadband to all these people.
In addition, the US is HIGHLY suburban, with the vast majority of broadband users living in sprawling neighborhoods with relatively large amounts of land (e.g. 1/4 to 1/2 acre+). Compare this to Europe/Japan, where a larger proportion of broadband users (and the population) live in densely populated cities. As an example, I live in a typical suburban U.S. neighborhood where almost everyone has broadband. To hit every one of the 100 homes, it would take 1.3 to 2.6 miles of cable (depending on cable location). In a European city, this same amount of cable could easily cover 2-10X the # of families living in typical apartments/condos.
Also, I don't see how large-scale adoptance of broadband in the US would help the economy by the stated $500Billion (a whopping 5% of GDP). The only people I know who don't have broadband either: don't own a computer (lack of money, interest, or live on a farm), are worried about their kids hitting the porn sites, or are grandparent types who just have no clue what the internet is and have no desire to learn. If we got all these people surfing online watching YouTube videos, searching for nudie pics, playing solitaire, and creating myspace pages, how would the economy grow by 5%?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While this is true, it doesn't completely explain thing
Reply: BigChicken!n This spin can't be true? (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds like the typical Democrat and/or Republican spin/BS.
I know some times there are MS hired-guns on
Are you a USA Telco/Cable wideband service hired-gun that tells US citizens the wideband is broadband?
The US telecommunication infrastructure is very ducked up just as the ITU and other reports have been stating for the past decade.
Telcos software/service patch/package and area-code/subscriber databases upgrades are as directed more than as needed. So, even wire-call miss-routing, phantom
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the UK we don't really have anything faster than 8Mb either, with the average probably being 2Mb (what I have). I remember the days when I was still using a modem, and was told that most people in America have T1 speed connections.. hmm *looks up T1* I see, it's only 1.5Mbs, hehe..
shameless (Score:5, Funny)
Umm, can anyone say "Land area"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now someone like, say, China or Russia having incredibly high broadband penetration? That would be damned impressive.
What? No chart? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
chart (Score:2)
Enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about there being a shortage of broadband. It's about people in the US not wanting to get broadband because they charge way more for a much worse service. Any company could say "We'll provide broadband at any house that wants it, even if it's in the most rural area, at a price of $500 per month for a 1Mbps connection", people simply won't buy i
REALITY: Real countries invest in infrastructure (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as we've fallen massively behind in scientific research (US scientists leaving to go to Singapore, only 8 percent of NIH grants accepted compared to 20 percent in 2000), so we are falling behind on every measure that dictates what a First World country is.
But, hopefully, our long national nightmare will be coming to a close. The stock market (a predictor of future investment) seems to think so.
Well, what then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let us not forget... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure implementing a powerful network infrastructure would be quite a lot faster, cheaper, and easier, if everyone in America lived in Texas.
Government Intervention? (Score:4, Insightful)
For the most part, the US has none of the above. Perhaps in this case the free market doesn't see sufficient justification for high-speed access to justify the costs, since people don't seem to know they can't live without such access until they first have it.
I think this is a matter best handled at the local level. Either let businesses fight it out, or, if a local community considers it a useful monetary investment, let cities sponsor the broadband infrastructure. I see nothing wrong with the government creating the networks on which commerce can be done, but because the internet is such a new commerce network (compared to, say, roads), not every community will see it in the same way.
Re:Hey there Chicken Little! (Score:5, Insightful)
But lower population density doesn't actually matter that much, since not only aren't there any marked differences with regards to suburbs, but because the telephone and TV cables through which to offer broadband are already installed. Few people live in ranches 30 miles from the nearest center of civilization, where the population density is pronounced and acquiring a broadband connection could actually be a problem.
This is false. (Score:2)
"But lower population density doesn't actually matter that much, since not only aren't there any marked differences with regards to suburbs, but because the telephone and TV cables through which to offer broadband are already installed. Few people live in ranches 30 miles from the nearest center of civilization, where the population density is pronounced and acquiring a broadband connection could actually be a problem."
a) DSL has a MUCH lower d
We were first (Score:2, Funny)
2nd in Broadband installed in2Q 2006... (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Monopoly in Areas (Score:3, Insightful)
That is becuase in many areas, there is only one (i.e. local monopoly), provider of broadband. In in some cases, those providers are telling their customers that they have to pay for their other services whether their customers want them or not. In other words, they're going to charge you an extra, say, $50 a month for service that may not even want.
Government regulation is usually good for businesses because it keeps the competition away and it helps comanies keep their prices high - broadband is a fine example of this.
More useful metric? (Score:2)
Re:Government Intervention? (Score:5, Informative)
Free market? Maybe you didn't read the article:
Doesn't sound like much of a free market to me.
Disraeli had it right (Score:3, Funny)
No Excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The truth is, the US has combined the worst elements of several models. We don't have a free market to drive competition because of local telcom monopolies and failure of the FCC to enforce fair use. We don't have the benefits of central planning and widespread coverage of a socialist system, because the government just hands out money in subsidies and then does not even blink when that money does not go to the projects we were supposedly funding in the first place. So we get crappy coverage and service and high prices.
The US has high labor costs, declining manufacturing, and not a lot of unique industry. The information economy and exporting intellectual property may be our best option for maintaining a real role as an economic powerhouse. For that to happen we need two things, education, and technology. We shouldn't be 5th in broadband or 10th, we should be 1st. That two trillion dollars we blew in Iraq would have run a fiber connection and provided free internet connections to every house in the US for years to come. Heck, just the money we spent already subsidizing telecoms would have provided a fast connection to every home if we'd actually just spent it on that instead of giving it away to monopolists.
Have you seen China's network backbone diagrams? They have a beautiful three tiered full mesh that came out of a textbook. I know there is a lot of prejudice against socialist projects in the US, but we're falling behind very quickly. We either need internet and phone networks treated as a public utility and run by the government or we need to remove the local monopolies, stop politicians from taking the telecoms bribes, and have a real competitive market with equally huge subsidies given to any new players that want to build a complete competing network.
The time has come. Suck it up and invest in the future of the US with hard cash and reforms, or be left behind the rest of the world. Most Americans are blind to how some other countries are now technologically superior. How their gadgets work everywhere and are more advanced than anything sold here. his needs to be corrected now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"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 comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the claim that access to broadband means higher incomes is at best "not proven".
Who said broadband meant higher incomes? I argued that ubiquitous broadband provides the potential for long term employment rate and economic benefits, given the changing nature of the global market. The practical benefits will take many years to become apparent for such a project and will be indirect enough that the correlation will never be 100% clear.
If you look at US exports and the trend in US exports, you''ll be ab
Depends on what you define as Broadband (Score:2)
Healthcare, poverty, why is this even an issue? (Score:2, Interesting)
We really do suck (Score:5, Insightful)
An easier comparison? Compare our big cities to theirs. We still lose. By a LOT.
And then remember that WE (the tax payers) gave them $200,000,000,000 for broadband deployment.
All the population density comments (Score:3, Insightful)
look at population density! rural areas? (Score:3, Interesting)
this is common in the US, so there is no surprise that broadband penetration is like it is. it cost an absolute fortune to run the infrastructure here. the cable tv companies decided not to install in the area because everyone already has satellite. this is the most hilly part of indiana so wireless isn't a good option. cell phone reception is great, if you're with cingular so maybe you could get broadband through them, i dunno. satellite internet isn't worth the price.
seriously, whats the options?
Re:Hey there Chicken Little! (Score:4, Informative)
# installed means nothing, we have large populatio (Score:3, Insightful)
Speed and price vs. adoption rate (Score:3, Informative)
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)?
Re: (Score:2)
Current Toronto broadband prices (Score:2)
Extreme: 6 Mbps down/800 k up for $51.95/month (+ $3 modem rental, or buy modem for $99)
Express: 5 Mbps down/384 k up for $43.95/month (+ modem as above)
Lite: 1 Mpbs down/128 k up for $31.95/month (+ modem as above)
UltraLite: 128k down/64 k up for $21.95/month (+ modem as above)
All come with a 60 GB activity limit per month (additional use at $1.25/Gig)
So the 43.95 Cdn = $39.55 US for the Expr
Cincinnati (Score:2)
My mom, in Rio Rancho NM, can get free wireless. It's only 512Kb/60Kb and for 1 hour a day, but it's free.
Clearly (Score:2)
It is because we CONTROL THE INTERNET... (Score:2)
Once the control is transfered to a UN agency by the world-friendly new Congress, proliferation of broadband will immediately sky-rocket in the US.
As Borat would say: NOT!
Dense and COLD places (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Hey Geniuses!!! (Score:2)
1. A country with 300,000,000 (US) people of which a percentage (likely only the middle and upper class) have broadband and all the associated infrastructure (in a country with a tanking economy)
2. A country with 130,000,000 (Japan) people of which a larger percentage (even the lower middle have more money than the middle here in the US) have broadband and all t
Telco's are the problem (Score:2)
What is needed is to split the ILEC's into services, and physical infrastructure. Require the PHY telco's to build-out the rest of the network so that at least everyone can get SOME kind of DSL, and have a long term plan to migrate to fiber. The services side (telephone, ISP) would have to compete with everyone else (CLEC's) and pay the exact same amount for "colo" space at
A potentially missing explanation... (Score:2)
It wouldn't surprise me if, in nearly all countries that beat the US in broadband penetration, those connections are supported much more by taxes than here in the US.
2nd in the world (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow it doesn't sound nearly so comforting put that way, does it?
French Provider : Free (Score:2, Informative)
What people don't realize... (Score:2)
So in truth, if you just look at Urban areas, those are increasing exponentially towards higher density, while many people are moving from the rural the urban areas.
Eventually the US will have more citizens living in Urban areas in a decade or so and there will beno excuse for lack of broad band.
Population Density (Score:2)
Does that mean Australia's broadband penetration should be 15 times lower per capita than America's, with a population density of 2 people per sq. km.?
A good logic, but there are 1.3 million consumer broadband lines in Australia - 1 per 15 persons. The US has 69 million broadband consumers from 300 million population, 1 per 4 persons.
So all of you people whining about how it's a stupid and specious comparison on the grou
We must not allow... a broadband gap! (Score:2)
I mean, we must be... increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mineshaft space, in order to breed more prodigiously than we do, thus, knocking us out in superior numbers when we emerge! Mr. President, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!
leap frog bovine porkers (Score:2)
A number of posters have mentioned the geographic factor, but I didn't see any comments about the leapfrog factor: first movers can end up looking fairly lame toward the end of an infrastructure cycle. All the same, Canada and the US entered into the internet era at the same time facing mostly the same geographic challenges, and so far as I'm aware, Canadian cities have come out ahead on the whole.
I guess the main difference is that our Canadian monopolies form an orderly, bovine progression to the feed bu
Well, duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, even 50x more bandwidth than the pathetic 200 kb/sec I'm liable to get on a good torrent is not a lot when they are doing traffic shaping.
Now if there was a broadband offering here in San Diego County that gave true 1mb/sec downloads without traffic shaping, monitoring, shutting off the connection YOU ARE PAYING FOR, or other such shenanigans then I could reasonably recommend them to family and friends. As it stands, You might as well just use dial up, since email, google, and MySpace is all the internet is good for anyway. What good is broadband without bit torrent? Are there hundreds of uses that I'm somehow missing? Does the average person really give two shits about streaming random teenagers singing into a webcam on youtube?
The corporate stranglehold on this country is the problem. It is the terminal malignancy that we are under not just in the technology sector, but in every way that should matter to the US citizen.
Yay, we voted out the corrupt and dirty Republicans! What's that you say, the Democrats are just as sold out to corporate interests and also don't give a shit about the American populace or the concepts of civil liberty as envisioned by our forefathers? Oh, shit....
rhY
Re: potentially missing explanation... (Score:5, Insightful)
That might have some weight if the US had not spent over 200 billion subsidizing our broadband internet development over the last few years. The US has spent a great deal more in taxes, per person, than countries that have completely free networks via socialist programs.
Re: Hey There Chicken Little (Score:2)
Two problems with this argument:
1. Maintenance
Despite the fact that the infastructu
You think that's bad? Try Australia (Score:2, Informative)
Size matters not! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The existing infrastructure is basically useless for broadband. The old copper phone lines in much of the country won't carry a high speed signal (a lot of the ones on overhead lines are really rotting due to weather exposure, etc.) The cable infrastructure is crap, a lot of installed 30 years ago by people who didn't really know what they were doing--splitt
Re: Hey there Chicken Little (Score:2)
So there's urban, suburbs, and ranches 30 miles from anywhere?
I live in a town of 6,000 p
An honest question (Score:2)
But in those countries with cheap ubiquitous super-fast broadband... what can they do that we can't? OK, hi-def TV streaming is possible with high speed. But is that actually a product they can purchase?
What are they doing with their fat pipes besi
Operation Estonian Freedom (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No Excuse (Score:2, Informative)
Speakeasy (Score:2)
I recently had an email exchange with Speakeasy and they do not plan to invest in new technologies to either replace their ADSL offering or upgrade it. Also, WiMax will not be deployed beyond downtown Seattle. Speakeasy, are you looking to be bought out?
If Speakeasy dies or
Penetration, you say? (Score:2)
You know, that is probably the first good explanation I've heard for why everyone drives such large cars.
and what do you do with all that speed? (Score:2)
I like the price, but then realized that if I have HDTV and Tivo, what do I do with 28mbps internet? What do i do with the 768k that I have now? (note: I have DSL ONLY because it is literally cheaper than dial-up) I read Slashdot, Play Kingdom Of Loathing, and do research (reading) for work. (12mbps for 5,000 people in the office)
What the hell d
More is Better (tm)? (Score:2)
on population densities (Score:2)
And you completely ignore the fact that L.A. and NY are also way behind these other countries but have similar population densities.
It's not exclusively population density (Score:2)
Seriously though, the author completely ignores the vast geographic differences between the US and other industrialized country when categorizing the US as falling behind in broadband acceptance. The US has an average population density of ~30 people per square km, industrialized Europe's is ~100, while Japan's is 336. The higher the population density, the less cable is needed (and hence, the lower the cost) to provide broadband to all these people.
I used to think the same- until I went looking for bro
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that one possibility is that Verizon is making shit up. The other possibility is that you're wrong and their number crunchers are right. Running infrastructure in urban areas costs a fortune. A numb
Re:Hey there Chicken Little! (Score:2)
So you're saying that distance has no effect on the availability of DSL, for example, through an existing phone line?
Umm...ok
Should be further along (Score:2)
I agree. But the communications companies have had eno
Re:Hey there Chicken Little! (Score:2)
Re:Government Intervention? (Score:2)
Low population density? Don't make me laugh (Score:2)
Re:Well, duh. (Score:2)
The Democrats aren't perfect, but a HELL of a long way from being as pro-corporate as the Republicans. I can't even guess what imaginary world you live in, that could possibly look like the Democrats are remotely as bad as the Republicans, on this issue.
It isn't the Democrats always pushing for "tort reform" (codeword for eliminating your right to sue business). It isn't the Democrats that have been rubber-stamping every monopol
Re:Enough already (Score:2, Interesting)
I live in Arizona and for years have been trying to get a high-speed Internet connection, but only 26.4 K dial-up was available. Last week DSL finally became available from the telephone company and I am now enjoying my new 1.5 Mbs DSL connection. It is a wonderful improvement over 26.4K dial-up. In my neighborhood, 56K modems had only been able to connect at 26.4K and DSL was not available. I had not been able to get either cable or DSL even though I have had to watch their advertisements for both pro
RE: Where'd the comment reply link go? (Score:2)
Rural? (Score:3, Insightful)
That works out to ca 27 people per square kilometre, or about TWICE the density of Norway - a country with broadband offerings that are far better than most of the US...
Americans tend to compare USA to densely populated Central European nations to complain about how rural the US is whenever cellphone coverage, broadband or public transport is brought up. But there appears to be a tendency to ignore the fact that this somehow isn't an issue for Norway, Sweden etc. that have far lower population densities.
In fact, only 12 US states have population densities below that of Norway, and their total population is about 17 million.
Second? (Score:2)
sure, China is #1 with a populatin of 1.2 Billion and
USA is #2 with a population of 270 Million
Truth is: the figures and situation is: BROADBAND LINES ADDED not the EXISTING ones.
ADDED in the US got 2.5 million new broadband lines. (with 270 million inhabitants)
ADDED in france + germany + UK got
So: per million inha
Why? (Score:2)
Why is broadband not ubiquitous in the most powerful country of the world?
Re:Hey there Chicken Little! (Score:2)
The truth is that there is no real competition in the US, whereas all it took in France was a very aggressive competitor that forced all the old national carriers to compete, or die. And before you ask, yes, it built it
Ppffffttt....Falling behind? (Score:2, Interesting)
There's plenty of data to support Copps (Score:3, Interesting)
The physical factors account for some of it, but not much. For one thing, the suburban qualities of America doesn't give much insight into why it is that city dwellers in most of America still have broadband speeds that pale in comparison to those in much of Europe and Asia. Remember that according to the FCC, broadband means anything over 200kbs, so talking about "broadband" in America and South Korea is really talking about two completely different things.
The "America is so huge" argument doesn't work when you also recognize that most Americans only have two broadband providers to choose from. The consolidation of the telecom market means that it is a losing proposition for one carrier to enter a geographic market that another carrier has already taken. Usually it comes down to "competition" in the form of a choice between the dominant local telecom and whichever cable operator has the contract for the area. You can drink anything you want, as long as it is Coke or Pepsi.
By defining broadband as an "information service" the FCC and the Supreme Court (in the Brand X decision) turned the incombent telecos and cable companies loose. They no longer had to lease excess capacity to new entrants in the market. The anti-competitive measures taken by the Baby Bells in the late 1990s were essentially excused and ratified, and almost all of the plucky broadband competitors that sprung up to bring broadband to the masses were squashed by the giant, slow-moving, ever-consolidating telecom entities.
The South Korean approach worked in part because the government created an initial infrastructure and allowed carriers to compete on top of it. Here in the US, we talk about the free market incessantly, but in reality we have coddled the Baby Bells. They are the severed pieces of the old AT&T, which was essentially a government-protected monopoly for decades. So when the heads of these companies talk about how pissed off they are at Google, et. al., for using "their" networks, just remember that they were born rich. Sure, they built the fiber optic networks and invested billions in infrastructure, but were it not for government intervention in the early years of telecom, they would have been in the same place as Covad and all the other newcomers. Anyone can compete in the broadband market in theory, but in reality if the incumbents have a decades-long lead on you and billions of dollars, how in the hell are you going to get the funding necessary to compete? Of course, with that nice head start, the mutant offspring of the Baby Bells are fervent supporters of free market competition. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Look up broadband prices in the US from 10 years ago, five years ago, and now. Evidence of a truly competitive market? Check prices per megabyte in the US against those in the OECD report linked to below. Something isn't right.
I could go on and on about this, but Copps is right. The US is getting its ass kicked in broadband, and the "hands off" approach the government has taken over the last ten years has clearly not worked. Sure, we're a big country, but the technical aspects are the smallest part of the equation. After all, the Internet was started here. DSL was invented here. Fiber optic cable was first put to practical use here. We screwed up politically, and now we're paying for it.
Broadband Reality Check II [freepress.net] (PDF)
OECD report on broadband access in several countries [oecd.org]
GAO report on broadband [gao.gov] (PDF) - takes the FCC to task for failures in its methodology for determining broadband penetration.
BS is always Wrong, USA Broadband ain't Broadband (Score:2)
USA Broadband as defined (marketing spin) by most USA providers ain't in fact Broadband, it is wideband or less.
USA proportionally has far less citizen/public broadband access to the Internet than most other developed nations' citizens.
Our government provides Billions of tax dolors annually to foreign countries with much better telecommunications
infrastructure than currently exist in the USA, while politicians also make
Broadband Prices in Germany (Score:2)
But
Ok, here are the key data about my current broadband account in Germany, I'm a hansenet customer (alice-dsl.de)
At ~40 (50USD) I get dsl (ADSL2+) and ISDN phone service. I have nominal 16000KBit/s down, 1000KBit/s up, in fact it is 17800/1150 as my home is close to an access point. Taking losses at the dsl-modem in account, this translates to ~1,8 MB/s down, 110KB/s up. Included
Geography? (Score:2)
So, in other words: (Score:2)
Well, maybe they can adopt our policies and get their broadband penetration up before they're left behind.
The problem with these statistics (Score:2)
I'm sure a significant number of people in the U.S. are satisfied with their current options. I know I am, and I have the option to get faster service for a slightly higher price. It's just not worth it to me. But these statistics as used in the story assume that I'm just desperate to get Internet access like they have in K
Re: A potentially missing explanation... (Score:2)
Bullshit excuses (Score:2)
OECD statistics for broadband penetrationjuly 2006 (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,2340,en_2649_3422 3_37529673_1_1_1_1,00.html [oecd.org]
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 Slova
25Mbps in Canada next week (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Umm, can anyone say "Land area"? (Score:2)
No. It's not "much easier" to wire-up a nation with less square mileage. What counts is the population density, not the size. If you cut the USA up in 50 pieces (let's call them "states") you'd find that wiring up the pieces is, on the average, exactly as hard as wiring up the entire USA.
Sure, each individual piece is much smaller, but the thing is, each individual piece also has much less users,
Oh, come on! (Score:2)
The fact is, not everyone wants broadb
Estonia (Score:2)
It is no shame being listed after Estonia in Internet related statistics.
Re:Where'd the comment reply link go? (Score:2)
Gone for me too. I am replying to you by clicking the little number to the right of your comment and then clicking the Reply button on the next screen. Weird that such hijinks should be necessary through.
Same deal in Firefox and Safari.
phone lines carry 24Mbps in Paris (Score:2)
Re: potentially missing explanation... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Umm, can anyone say "Land area"? (Score:2)
Looks like they're saying it about China [itu.int].
Re: (Score:2)
The result was that BT put in the equiptment to give every home broadband down existing phone lines (copper) via the
Re: (Score:2)
Not so, my friend. Canada is large, yes, but 90% of its population lives within 100 miles of the US border. Seat of the pants population density for that skinny country: 33 million * .9 divided by 3900 mile long border * 100 miles = 76 people per sq mile. For the US (lower 48): 300 million divided by 3.5 million sq mi = 85 people per sq mile.
And, BTW, I thought George W. Bush was the "deci
Re: (Score:2)
And I'd wager that our rural to urban land area ratio is significantly higher.