Korea Shifting From DSL to FTTH → The US needs to get a clue....

and start thinking like the Korean government. Perhaps the FCC should be given a "Broadband 101" class by the Korean government.

Or maybe I should move over there.....

Good point...

Did you read the article? South Korea is small enough that about 1 billion dollars can upgrade the biggest ISP to FTTH. Verizon in the United States, on the other hand, is investing 23 billion in FIOS.

At some point, you need to realize that the United States is much, much bigger country, and a mass deployment of fiber is more expensive (and complicated, since one ISP isn't going to provide access to the entire country).

We'll get there, but it won't be overnight.

Start packing

Bravo, excellent post WilbyWilson. Context, is an extremely important concept which is usually ignored by far too many people to their own detriment, knowledge and wisdom, which most of the time are parallel to each other, also determine whether or not context is applied to a given situation and/or issue by all interested parties. Let's not forget that South Korea wouldn't even exist today and would have been just like the communist hellhole to its North, were it not by the United Nations in general and very much so to the U.S.A. and U.K. in particular, but hey, that requires a little knowledge of history and a little bit of context.

Q1: What is your current U.S. income tax?
Q2: Would you be willing to pay double that for cheap 100Mbps Internet?

One thing many fail to realize is that S. Korea is about the size of the state of Indiana. Thats a whole lot less area to cover than the entire lower 48 states.

And not only is South Korea smaller, but has a population density around 15 times higher than in the US; population density has a huge affect on cost of deployment per subscriber.

A1: I paid ~$19,000 in Federal tax this year. Another $12,000 in State taxes.

A2: Based on what it could cost to get a DS3 at my house currently, Absolutely! Even with such an absurd tax bill, I'd still come out saving $81,000/year. (A DS3 to my house has been quoted at $6000/mo + $45,000 installation. And that would only be 45mbps instead of 100mbps.)

}Davoice

quote:

---

At some point, you need to realize that the United States is much, much bigger country, and a mass deployment of fiber is more expensive (and complicated, since one ISP isn't going to provide access to the entire country).

---

Just so. South Korea's land area is 37,911.37 square miles, slightly larger than Indiana, with a population of 48,846,823 (July 2006 est.). That's 1,288.45 people per square mile.

The US area is 3,537,438 squares miles with a population of about 301.2 million. That's 85.15 people per square mile. But ...

At least 94.6% of the US, 3,346,416 square miles is rural. Only 20% of the US population lives in rural areas. That's 18 people per square mile, and most of them are in family dwellings.

Providing DSL, cable or FTTH in a place where the population density is 1,288.45 per mi² is economically justifiable. That isn't true where 18 people live in a square mile that most likely has maybe half a dozen discrete dwellings.

Conclusion: comparing Korea to the US in terms of broadband penetration is meaningless.

Only if you choose to include the middle of nowhere.

If you took the land area of all the cities of the US, added the populations you get similar projections. While smaller these area still struggle to provide a connection greater than a few mbps. In terms of cost per MB we pay 300% more for broadband connection in some cases.

Hell Verizon is still arguing how to put FIOS in Apartments.

If AT&T had it's way we'd all would of ended up with 128k ISDN lines everywhere and they'd probably be trying to figure out DSL. When broken up the seperate companies came out with advancements such as DSL and even today Verizon innovates and looks out for the future with their FTTH project. AT&T thinks that FTTN is going to solve their problems.

We need a broadband strategy. FTTH for all urban areas with population density greater than X, and they need to be competitve lines not limited monopolies. Imagine if AT&T, Verizon, Qworst, and all the cable providers were to all be taxed to start and maintain a company that built the network for them to compete on. If they were all forced to agree on one technology that could move us forward I'm betting they'd all choose FTTH vs FTTN.

This whole distance thing is a myth. It's just an excuse to not serve urban areas and not to stall on serving rural areas because they have no real intentions to do that.

Move, I won't be missing you.

Did you read my comment? What is our national broadband strategy? I guess you like the FCC's hands off approach and their definition of broadband.

Bottom line: Without cutting edge technology, we won't be able to innovate at the cutting edge.

No but I would be willing to shift any and all of my tax funds from the Iran war and the 363 tons of cash we diliverd there this month in cargo planes to a better national broad band infra structure.

"The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) shipped $12 billion in cash from the Federal Reserve in New York to Baghdad and handed it over to Iraqi ministries with only the sketchiest accounting controls. The cash, all 363 tons of it, was shrink-wrapped into $400,000 bricks and carried on C-130 cargo planes."

I would just assuem have 12 billion go to our infrastructure.

The question wasn't about a DS3, but a standard residential FTTH connection. I don't really think that FIOS, or UVerse are worth $9,500 per year, even; not to mention $38,000 per year.

Rather then focus on the context of the size of Korea vs the USA, or population density, or amount of money it would take to wire one area vs another, maybe we should focus on the context in this way:

In 1995, when the Internet was still just becoming known to people, the South Korean government immediately saw the potential and had the vision to jump in early and in a big way. As a result, their nation and populace are now reaping the rewards of such forward-thinking.

Meanwhile, 12 years later in the USA, with the Internet now playing a large role in business, world economics, and citizens lives, The USA Government STILL can't find the vision or leadership to step out and promote fiber deployment on a national scale.

That really is the context we should be concerned about.

quote:

---

Only if you choose to include the middle of nowhere.

---

If you want 100% penetration, then Farmer Brown, in the "middle of nowhere" two miles from the nearest neighbor, must be included. And at the moment, at least, there is no reasonable way to justify the expense of bringing FIOS to his farmhouse, particularly if he doesn't want it.

Speaking as one, the average rural resident has nothing to do on the Web that requires 100 Mbps. In fact, most of the folks who live out here appear to be content with dialup, if they use the Web at all. AFAIK, I have the only satellite Net dish for several miles in either direction on this road, although TV dishes are common. That tells me that broadband is low on the list of my neighbors' priorities.

I'm satisfied with HughesNet's 1 Mbps. There are a few occasions where a faster connection would be nice, but my infrequent desire for one is not sufficient incentive for Verizon, Comcast or any other company to provide it.

Perhaps everyone in Korea wants warp-speed Internet, and the pop density there makes it practical. In the USofA, which consists largely of wide-open spaces, the notion of 100% broadband availability is the stuff of fantasy. As long as the private sector provides broadband, the economics and logistics of it will be the determining factors. Starry-eyed idealism is not on the list of considerations.

Could be worst you could live in Canada in which case you'd probably give up on internet altogether.

The Egyptians built pyramids for their Gods Pharaohs. The Koreans pay their Gods for broadband Internet.

I have no desire to work for Pharaoh, or AlGore/John Kerry/Hillary Clinton.

EDIT: Just had to get in my dig at HC!

You won't need to work for them. Seems you're already a slave to Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Guiliani & Co!