| US wouldn't have the most US wouldn't have the most subscribers if the definition of broadbrand wasn't so slow. |
|
1 edit |
YAWN. Another months old statistics rant comparing us to all the little BF countries that dont compare to a gnat on our ass in size.
|
|
 BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | said by Fatal Vector:YAWN. Another monts old statistics rant comparing us to all the little BF countries that dont compare to a gnat on our ass in size. Japan > USA population
Canada > USA landmass
Korea > USA population |
|
| reply to Fatal Vector
Yawn? Umm, your argument doesn't hold any water. If you add up the population density of all the countries ahead of the US, you will find that on average, they share the same density. Hell, 20% of the US is alaska, which has a population density of 1 person per sq mile. Take out alaska, and the US has an AVERAGE density of 100 people per sq mile. Fully HALF the countries that exceed us have population densities WAY lower than the US.
The problem is that the 'free market', in this case, isn't working in the consumers best interest. If we had a SANE national broadband policy, like our electric policy, 99% of the US would be wired for fiber. The problem, as you can read in many stories, is that the megacorps are too short sighted and greedy to recognize it. The fat cat CEO's are only interested in next quarters numbers, so they can cash in their stock options, and get rich, while the other 95% of the country get's poorer and dumber.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
|
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to BonezX
Japan and Korea have higher population than the US?
In case you slept through those classes...
Japan: 127,463,611 (2006 estimate)
Korea: 47,278,951 (Nov 2005 estimate)
USA: 298,444,215 (2006 estimate)
Canada: 32,889,598 (Oct 2006 estimate)
Now, what was your point again?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
 PoloDudePremium,VIP
join:2006-03-29
Northport, NY
kudos:2
1 edit | reply to BonezX
Japan Population: 127,463,611 (July 2006 est.)
USA Population: 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)
Canada Population: 33,098,932 (July 2006 est.)
South Korea Population: 48,846,823 (July 2006 est.)
Canada Area - Land: 9,093,507 SQ KM
USA Area - Land: 9,161,923 SQ KM
Japan Area - Land: 374,744 SQ KM
South Korea Area - Land: 98,190 SQ KM
You have it backwards
*** i was replying to Bonezx |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to karlmarx
The fat cat CEOs are reacting to the stockholders, who demand short-term results. Who are the stockholders? Us....
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
 sitrix
join:2002-04-15
Tacoma, WA | reply to PoloDude
When it comes to population, he really blew it... Now, land might be a little different story according to Wikipedia... »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co···_by_area |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| reply to Fatal Vector
said by Fatal Vector:YAWN. Another monts old statistics rant comparing us to all the little BF countries that dont compare to a gnat on our ass in size. First off, CANADA is beating us in broadband penetrations, and last time I checked its actually bigger then the United States, and people are living a lot more spread out.
Second, it still does not explain that even in very dense populated areas, like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc... the average DSL connection is still 1.5 Mbps down, 384 Kbps up.
Its mostly a political and financial issue. Its not that the U.S. cannot do it, but it just doesn't want to fund it. There are government subsidies for broadband in most European countries and in Canada which really help in pushing broadband. Those countries also happen to have..... oooh, trivial things like national health insurance and affordable (sometimes even free) public transport. The United States rather spends 1 billion dollars a week on a war that we can't seem to win, and doesn't want to spend the money on getting broadband out to the less populated areas.
The big telco's aren't spending the money because they won't be making a whole lot, and it will take many more years to pay off the initial investment made.
Bottom line: U.S. doesn't subsidize broadband, and therefore it doesn't get done.
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. |
|
| reply to sitrix
I was gonna say - since when did the U.S. gain landmass?
I've enough citizens there to see they are gaining more body mass than us though  |
|
| reply to maartena
said by maartena:Its mostly a political and financial issue. Its not that the U.S. cannot do it, but it just doesn't want to fund it. There are government subsidies for broadband in most European countries and in Canada which really help in pushing broadband. Those countries also happen to have..... oooh, trivial things like national health insurance and affordable (sometimes even free) public transport. The United States rather spends 1 billion dollars a week on a war that we can't seem to win, and doesn't want to spend the money on getting broadband out to the less populated areas. The downside to having broadband subsidized, national health care and affordable transit is having higher taxes across the board on goods, services, land transfer fees, etc.
C'est la vie. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to maartena
The real reason is that most people don't see the need to have a gigabit fiber connection welded to their anus. A slower (and much cheaper) connection suits them just fine.
This is not a dick measuring contest.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
| reply to maartena
Better yet because some of us believe broadband is a choice and not a right. We have choice in the US we can seek the internet connection of our choice be it Dial up, 768K DSL to megabit rate broadband. We do not need a self-righteous geek to force one high-speed solution down our throats then leave us with the bill. Beside the way Government funded Muni WI-FI is going these days we probably will not be 15 perhaps not in the top 20 if we turn broadband over to a government planed and subsidized socialistic entitlement. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to maartena
quote:
First off, CANADA is beating us in broadband penetrations, and last time I checked its actually bigger then the United States, and people are living a lot more spread out.
And someone's gonna say, "but most Canadians live in a dense zone within 100 miles of the southern border. That's why they have broadband". Well, I'll beat them to it and provide the counter-argument fist. "Dense" in a relative sense. The southern portion of Canada is "dense" in the sense that it's like the lower 48 US States. Most of Canada is like Alaska.
quote:
Bottom line: U.S. doesn't subsidize broadband, and therefore it doesn't get done.
I wouldn't say that's the reason. The U.S. doesn't have higher broadband availability because there is no policy to make it so. The Powers That Be stick to the story that laissez faire, 100% hands-off policy is the best, despite all the evidence to the contrary. We have near 100% electricity availability, but there's no gov't subsidy to make it happen. The countries that are big in broadband mostly do it through private means and government incentives, not strictly public means. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to richardpor
said by richardpor:Better yet because some of us believe broadband is a choice and not a right. What you think is irrelevant. We already had that debate, and Congress decided in 1996 that broadband should be available to all in a timely manner (available, not paid-for; i.e., like electricity). |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Yawn? Umm, your argument doesn't hold any water. If you add up the population density of all the countries ahead of the US, you will find that on average, they share the same density. Hell, 20% of the US is alaska, which has a population density of 1 person per sq mile. Take out alaska, and the US has an AVERAGE density of 100 people per sq mile. Fully HALF the countries that exceed us have population densities WAY lower than the US. You once again prove the adage that "Figures never lie, but liars always figure".
Many of those other countries also have large areas that are nearly uninhabited as well, so to exclude Alaska without excluding areas like northern Canada or other sparcely populated regions of other countries is either dishonest or ignorant... probably both in your case. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT: We have near 100% electricity availability, but there's no gov't subsidy to make it happen. I guess the REA is just a figment of FDR's imagination.
By the way, to get electric service to a place more than a couple hundred feet from an existing power line, you pay through the ass. Most people are not willing to pay the construction cost to extend fiber to their house in order to get 100 megabit/second Internet.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to blueeyesm
said by blueeyesm:I was gonna say - since when did the U.S. gain landmass? I think that would be Iraq you could add. lmfao |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
Yabbut just think of all the pr0n you could download at that speed!
The whole intarweb =/= utility is starting to get fuzzy. A number of government agencies in Canada offer certain services exclusively through the 'web.
To wit, you can file for your passport electronically up until the final step of handing the friendly civil servant behind the counter at your local passport office your proof of citizenship and photos. They will have a record of your application being filed online and you get to jump the queue in a BIG way.
--
"It's all coming down!!" - Mike Holmes |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to XknightHawkX
said by XknightHawkX:US wouldn't have the most subscribers if the definition of broadbrand wasn't so slow. 'Broadband' doesn't denote any speed at all. It is a signalling method that constrasts with 'baseband'. |
|
