how-to block ads
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
1 edit | Re: US wouldn't have the most
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. | |
|  
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
| Re: US wouldn't have the most 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 | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: US wouldn't have the most 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. | |
| | 
PoloDude
Premium,VIP
join:2006-03-29
East Northport, NY
1 edit | 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 | |
| | | | | | | 
blueeyesm
join:2003-09-05
Waterloo, ON | Re: US wouldn't have the most 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  | |
| | | | | | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| 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. | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: US wouldn't have the most The fat cat CEOs are reacting to the stockholders, who demand short-term results. Who are the stockholders? Us....
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | 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. | |
| 
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
| |
blueeyesm
join:2003-09-05
Waterloo, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: US wouldn't have the most 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. | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| 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. | |
| | 
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| 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
| Re: US wouldn't have the most 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). | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| 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. | |
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: US wouldn't have the most 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. | |
| | | | mr weather
Premium
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON
| Re: US wouldn't have the most 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 | |
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by RadioDoc :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. Providing loans and other tax incentives to electric co-ops doesn't constitute the "socialist gov't handout" widely complained about here.
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.
But at least you have the choice with elctricity. And many would pay that for broadband. From what Verizon employees have told me, the only thing stopping me from having DSL service is Verizon's willingness to install a DSL line card in the (otherwise DSL-capable) Remote Terminal at the end of the block. If I had the option, I'd pay for the line card myself. | |
| | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: US wouldn't have the most "but there's no gov't subsidy to make it happen"
Who said anything about socialist government handouts? You said there was no government subsidy, and I pointed out how utterly incorrect your statement is.
There is more to DSL in a remote terminal than one line card. Anyone else you know served from that RT?
You could easily order a dedicated circuit and pay for it yourself. That's what happens when you have to pay to run electric service two miles down a country lane to get to your new Country Palace. You have no choice of how much you will pay or who will provide the service. In fact, it is less of a choice than you have for high speed Internet.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
4 edits | "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."
The canadian government has mandated broadband penetration to the entire occupied areas of the country, including rural and BF towna and is helping pay for it. Canada is about the same goegraphical size as the US, but it's population is mainly clustered in the southern part along the US border. A large portion in the north is uninhabited or inacessable because of mountains, glaciers, etc.
1.5 Mb DSL suits me fine, just as it does most other people. The number of people that actually NEED faster connections, for whatever reason, is small compared to the whole consumer base.
The US isn't europe. As you might remember we fought a long war to throw off the european yoke and go our own way. Just ask canadians what they think of their national health care system. Or, the British. Americans dont want to ride on buses with plastic seats and young punks. The only ones that ride public transport in this country are those that have no other choice and schoolkids.
Never mind that riding the bus anywhere is a royal pain in the ass, assuming, of course, that you have access in the first place and can afford $2 each way and a extra .25 for a transfer, or, can afford to waste up to an hour waiting for each one...
We can afford the money in Iraq. It is in our long term interests to spend it. In any case, the government sure as hell wouldn't spend it on deploying broadband to the countryside.
Besides which, Canada was not one of the "BF" little countries I was referring to in my original comment, even though, on a population comparison basis, it is about 10% of what we are. | |
| | | satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| Re: US wouldn't have the most quote:
We can afford the money in Iraq. It is in our long term interests to spend it. In any case, the government sure as hell wouldn't spend it on deploying broadband to the countryside.
Says you! Have ya looked at the polls lately? Seems like that position is in the minority. Even the shitspigot Fox News polls show a majority of Americans don't agree with that ascertation. State of denial indeed.
So when the government spent money on rural electricity, that was a bad thing? I'm forgetting something here-oh right, the government who taxes us is supposed to be (gasp) making life better here and not in Baghdad. That's their friggin' problem.
Now, you can spout off all day about how the terrahists and the evil Muslims of the world are hell bent on killing us-and I'd say "No shit! What a news flash!" | |
| | | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
1 edit | Re: US wouldn't have the most
Actually, having to use terms like:"shitspigot Fox News " doesn't say much for your thinking ability, my friend. It just shows your inability to rationally consider other points of view. IF, of course, in your zeal, you even bother to try.
Polls can be manipulated to get whatever results the poller wants. Nor does that alter the fact the if you stop and actually think about what I say, you find that it makes just as much sense as any other
State of denial, indeed... | |
| | | | | satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| Re: US wouldn't have the most Oh yes, you've met me and can determine that from one post. (rolls eyes)
Please.
Surely even the most zealot Fox News viewer (unless lobotomy is part of the viewing experience) can see that their brand of "news" is as much about entertainment as The Daily Show is. | |
| | | | | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
1 edit | Re: US wouldn't have the most
My point was that thinking people do not have to use such descriptions to get their point across. They just make you sound like a extremist.
Actually, ALL the "news" channels are more about sensationalism, violence and entertainment. It's what sells to the lowest common denominator and makes their parent corporations money.
News today is nothing more than another TV show. That's why so many in our country, especially the young couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone the latest propaganda. | |
| | | | | | | satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY | Re: US wouldn't have the most Too bad, I happen to think "shitspigot" fits nicely. And you could insert that word to describe plenty of other things.
Oh, and BTW, I think just nicely, thank you very much. So I'm not sure who is insulting who at this point. | |
| | | | | | | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: US wouldn't have the most
Just an observation, my friend. How you take it is your affair. However it is also true that a noob shouldn't spout untill he knows where he treads. There are some here who aren't as nice as ol' Fatal is.
In any case, using such terms as "shitspigot" here wont get you much in credibility. Well thought and reasoned posts will. | |
| | | 
JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
| Even though many Canadians live in the more southern parts (close to the American border), Canadians in the more northern parts have access to high speed service as well.
Pick some northern cities in BC and let's test...
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. | |
| | bohn
join:2006-05-30
Scarborough, ON
| First off, CANADA is beating us in broadband penetrations... The internet in Canada has become a luxury item only for the well to do. You need at least a 6 figure income to afford it after Canadian taxes. Sadly the average wage is only about one third of that. It looks like the internet in Canada will go the way of the dinosaur or the do-do bird. Either you have dial-up from America or or don't have internet will be the catch phrase for the future of Canadian internet. I feel sorry for all the school kids but alas we were put in that position. | |
| | 
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
·Time Warner Cable
| said by maartena :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. I agree with everythhing that you said except for one thing. The government is subsidizing broadband. AT&T and Verizon are collecting that subsidization and you can see it itemized on your phone, cable and internet invoice. If you have ever ordered a T1 line from a telco and been quoted $500 per month and when you get the invoice there's literally $300 in taxes, fees, surcharges, munis etc so your bill is actually $800! That is subsidization. The really disgusting part is that the telcos recieved the bulk of the money to upgrade the infastructure prior to 2004. They took that money and put it into lobbyists and therebye eliminating their accountability. Hence the reason we have substantially more $ than any other country in the world yet we're in 15th in the world when it comes to broadband penetration.
After CEO ED Whitacre AT&T got the funds and the contract to build out the fiber network across the country, two years later he was boasting that DSL was good enough and noone would ever need 20 Mbps.
If you were AT&T and you already received the funds to build the network, you already had a network in place and there was no competition, would you spend billions replacing your network or would you attack vertical markets? What's your motivation to build out this fiber network? And again the consumer is the loser. | |
| | | |
|
·