| another bad survey... The numbers fail to account for geography, demographics, and a host of other relevant factors. Compare apples to apples and I'm sure the US would be right up there.
Additionally, these days this ranking seems to be just about bragging rights. I really doubt that South Korea has a significant competitive advantage over us simply due to BB coverage... |
|
|
|
 Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| said by madmatt5:The numbers fail to account for geography, demographics, and a host of other relevant factors. Compare apples to apples and I'm sure the US would be right up there. Additionally, these days this ranking seems to be just about bragging rights. I really doubt that South Korea has a significant competitive advantage over us simply due to BB coverage... WRONG!
The stats are per capita. Here's a graph:
»www.isen.com/blog/2004/12/us-15t···ita.html
|
|
 warriorsIt's A Great Time Out
join:2001-06-05
San Jose, CA
·SONIC.NET
| reply to madmatt5
It isn't about "competitive advantage." It's about quality of life. Higher speed can deliver different variety of high tech products. Some people might never need it or desire to have it, but some do.
I want FTTH (1Gbps for $215 US) like Hong Kong residents do! |
|
| only if I knew to read chinese/japanese, many of the sites are filles with warez.. forget usenet.. those sites have movies, mp3 in them for free.. but I cannt understand a bit of what is in the forums.. |
|
| reply to Titus Pullo
Per capita. So a city of 5 million is equal to a rural state. |
|
| reply to Titus Pullo
"The stats are per capita."
Exactly. You are completely missing the point. 
This is one dimensional data. It does not account for all the other factors which influence broadband penetration.
A *much* better measure would be the % of the population which wants BB but cannot get it... |
|
Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| said by madmatt5:"The stats are per capita." Exactly. You are completely missing the point. This is one dimensional data. It does not account for all the other factors which influence broadband penetration. A *much* better measure would be the % of the population which wants BB but cannot get it... I see your point, but you're missing mine: I understand population densities and all the other reasons why the U.S. might not be in the top five, or even the top ten. But to not make the top 15 and to have slid in ratings rather than gain, to me, is indefensible. The primary factors for penetration, in my opinion, are market forces and pricing points. Look at the list of other countries and ask yourself how they manage more broadband per 100 citizens than we do.
Granted, much of it also related to systems of government, but it's still a shame to rank 15th per capita 100 in broadband usage worldwide while being the world's superpower. |
|
Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780:Per capita. So a city of 5 million is equal to a rural state. No, it's per every 100 people. It's not a matter of what's equal, actually. I see your point: providers can't/won't string lines to bum fu*k for a handful of subs, but how else would you have the survey done? It's still 100 per 100 per 100 ...
Many large statistical measures are done per capita. Granted, density is a variable that shouldn't be ignored; however, the point is that many of the top 10 countries have similarly disparate population centers inclusive of the same criteria of measure. To not rank in the top 15 while falling from the previous year says something about the importance the US places on broadband access vs what *some* of these other countries do. That's my point.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
| reply to Titus Pullo
I can agree with that. Sure seems like the 2005 definition of 'Free Market' in the US = Corporations get whatever the hell they want. Damn the consumer! Damn the long term strength/health/security of our nation! Short term profits trump everything else...
Darn Koreans blew the the curve for everybody! |
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | reply to madmatt5
BS. Simply our administration is much more interested in pleasinbg corporations - in this case: no pressure at all, nothing - than actually serve its people, period.
Corps are very fine positions now: no need to spend on big investments because they have their own "granted" areas where pretty much everybody sells the same crap on similar prices. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Ooops, it's a reply for madmatt5's crap. |
|
