 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI | Gee, what a surprise The US is the largest country of all those and ranks 8th? I think thats pretty darn good considering all the area we have to cover.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
|
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | Plus the fact that most have cable, and have Docsis2. Fiber isnt as necessary in todays cable environment, yet. Its really only telco using fiber. |
|
| reply to Nightfall
How dare you suggest that!  |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:The US is the largest country of all those and ranks 8th? I think thats pretty darn good considering all the area we have to cover. well, China ain't exactly small and it looks like they are close to the U.S.
and Sweden and Norway are small but have low population densities, much lower than major U.S. cities, which our wonderful incumbents can't seem to bring fiber to.
size and population density are not why we are 8th or 15th or whatever place instead of 1 or 2 - it's our monopoly/duopoly market and the incumbents lack of capital expenditure to lay fiber; upsets investors, you know, to be spending all that money instead of giving them dividends.
the way I would say it is: 8th is pretty darn good considering the U.S. market has no competition. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| said by nasadude:said by Nightfall:The US is the largest country of all those and ranks 8th? I think thats pretty darn good considering all the area we have to cover. well, China ain't exactly small and it looks like they are close to the U.S. and Sweden and Norway are small but have low population densities, much lower than major U.S. cities, which our wonderful incumbents can't seem to bring fiber to. size and population density are not why we are 8th or 15th or whatever place instead of 1 or 2 - it's our monopoly/duopoly market and the incumbents lack of capital expenditure to lay fiber; upsets investors, you know, to be spending all that money instead of giving them dividends. the way I would say it is: 8th is pretty darn good considering the U.S. market has no competition. If you think size and population density are not AN issue, then you have to give me a swig of what you are drinking. Sure, you have other issues that are not thought of. Such as the cost of terminating the fiber at both ends. A cost that a lot of people in the US don't want to pay. They would rather pay for their regular phone line and cable internet than pay for fiber. Then of course you have the companies who don't want to take a loss by deploying said fiber to some backwater city that doesn't want it, need it, or can afford it for that matter.
I could go on and on here.... |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to DaveDude
said by DaveDude:Plus the fact that most have cable, and have Docsis2. Fiber isnt as necessary in todays cable environment, yet. Its really only telco using fiber. I don't believe anyone but Cablevision has deployed DOCSIS 2. The vast majority of cable systems are DOCSIS 1.1. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by Matt:said by DaveDude:Plus the fact that most have cable, and have Docsis2. Fiber isnt as necessary in todays cable environment, yet. Its really only telco using fiber. I don't believe anyone but Cablevision has deployed DOCSIS 2. The vast majority of cable systems are DOCSIS 1.1. Which is fast enough for 98% of the broadband users out there since all most people do is email and web browse. |
|
 firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| said by Nightfall:Which is fast enough for 98% of the broadband users out there since all most people do is email and web browse. Oh, that's it. We only need "good enough". Make sure grandma is good with her quest for recipes and seeing small blurry pics of the grandkids.
The land of the free becomes land of the good enough. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:.... I could go on and on here.... here have a drink of some facts, then you're welcome to have at it:
1st google hit on my search, but references the OECD data I knew existed; I'm sure the most recent OECD data could be found directly with a little more effort:
»www.saschameinrath.com/2006apr13···relation
A closer look at the recent OECD data (through December 2005) offers a pretty damning critique of this position.
The population density of the United States is roughly 31 inhabitants per square kilometer. While some countries with higher broadband penetration rates do have much higher population densities (e.g., South Korea has 483 inhabitants per square kilometer; Japan has 338), others have much lower (e.g., Iceland has 3 inhabitants per square kilometer, as does Canada). In the end, with the US in 12th place, 5 countries have lower population densities, 6 have higher.
What this points to is that broadband penetration rates don't correlate well with population densities. Which begs the question, what then, if not population density, accounts for why so many countries are doing better than the US; and, relatedly, how has the US managed to do so poorly (slipping from first to 12th in a single decade)?
Here's the full info for population for all 30 OECD countries covered the first number is the broadband penetration rate, the second is that country's population density (inhabitants per square kilometer -- as of December 2005):
Read more...
Iceland 26.7 3.0
Korea 25.4 483.0
Netherlands 25.3 399.0
Denmark 25.0 125.0
Switzerland 23.1 179.0
Finland 22.5 15.0
Norway 21.9 14.0
Canada 21.0 3.0
Sweden 20.3 20.0
Belgium 18.3 341.0
Japan 17.6 338.0
United States 16.8 31.0
United Kingdom 15.9 244.0
France 15.2 110.0
Luxembourg 14.9 174.0
Austria 14.1 97.0
Australia 13.8 3.0
Germany 13.0 231.0
Italy 11.9 191.0
Spain 11.7 85.0
Portugal 11.5 114.0
New Zealand 8.1 15.0
Ireland 6.7 58.0
Czech Republic 6.4 129.0
Hungary 6.3 109.0
Slovak Republic 2.5 110.0
Poland 2.4 122.0
Mexico 2.2 52.0
Turkey 2.1 92.0
Greece 1.4 84.0 |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Those numbers can be misleading- like Canada, the numbers average out to 3.0, sure, but most of that broadband is likely in the most densely populated part of the country, the strip along the US border. Iceland is also very unevenly distributed.
Of course, the US isn't evenly distributed either- much of population is in more densely populated areas than the density numbers reveal. |
|
 PaladinSage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL | reply to Nightfall
When Grandma wants to bump up to d/ling music over iTunes or Linux distros over bittorrent, there becomes the problem. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to firephoto
said by firephoto:said by Nightfall:Which is fast enough for 98% of the broadband users out there since all most people do is email and web browse. Oh, that's it. We only need "good enough". Make sure grandma is good with her quest for recipes and seeing small blurry pics of the grandkids. The land of the free becomes land of the good enough. Unfortunately, BBR users are not the majority of internet users out there. Otherwise, fiber would be the only way. Companies are not out to make a product that is more expensive and only caters to 2% of the population. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:said by Nightfall:.... I could go on and on here.... here have a drink of some facts, then you're welcome to have at it: 1st google hit on my search, but references the OECD data I knew existed; I'm sure the most recent OECD data could be found directly with a little more effort: » www.saschameinrath.com/2006apr13···relationA closer look at the recent OECD data (through December 2005) offers a pretty damning critique of this position.
The population density of the United States is roughly 31 inhabitants per square kilometer. While some countries with higher broadband penetration rates do have much higher population densities (e.g., South Korea has 483 inhabitants per square kilometer; Japan has 338), others have much lower (e.g., Iceland has 3 inhabitants per square kilometer, as does Canada). In the end, with the US in 12th place, 5 countries have lower population densities, 6 have higher.
What this points to is that broadband penetration rates don't correlate well with population densities. Which begs the question, what then, if not population density, accounts for why so many countries are doing better than the US; and, relatedly, how has the US managed to do so poorly (slipping from first to 12th in a single decade)?
Here's the full info for population for all 30 OECD countries covered the first number is the broadband penetration rate, the second is that country's population density (inhabitants per square kilometer -- as of December 2005):
Read more...
Iceland 26.7 3.0
Korea 25.4 483.0
Netherlands 25.3 399.0
Denmark 25.0 125.0
Switzerland 23.1 179.0
Finland 22.5 15.0
Norway 21.9 14.0
Canada 21.0 3.0
Sweden 20.3 20.0
Belgium 18.3 341.0
Japan 17.6 338.0
United States 16.8 31.0
United Kingdom 15.9 244.0
France 15.2 110.0
Luxembourg 14.9 174.0
Austria 14.1 97.0
Australia 13.8 3.0
Germany 13.0 231.0
Italy 11.9 191.0
Spain 11.7 85.0
Portugal 11.5 114.0
New Zealand 8.1 15.0
Ireland 6.7 58.0
Czech Republic 6.4 129.0
Hungary 6.3 109.0
Slovak Republic 2.5 110.0
Poland 2.4 122.0
Mexico 2.2 52.0
Turkey 2.1 92.0
Greece 1.4 84.0 That article brings nothing new to the table. It states the same damn thing we read in the other article. It says nothing as to why fiber isn't more widely used which I explained in my previous post. Try again please. |
|
| reply to firephoto
Do you own the highest ranked car in its class. Or do you drive "good enough"? |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | reply to Nightfall
The problem is though, that people who cannot get the faster speeds don't waste their time with those items that need higher speed access. |
|
 CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | reply to nasadude
actually is IS part of the reason - the other part is that those countries ahead of the US have the govt build out/subsidize the service (and are more socialist/liberal and less capitalist) and most have large population centers that account for their high penetration. |
|
| reply to Nightfall
Which is fast enough for 98% of the broadband users out there since all most people do is email and web browse.
Woohoo! More made up statistics |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Nightfall
you said:
If you think size and population density are not AN issue...
that means you think size and population ARE an issue, unless you meant to say something else.
I showed you data which shows size and population density appear to be irrelevant. even when you do broadband penetration per 100 persons, the U.S. position barely changes.
the rest of what you say I agree with somewhat, but I think the main reason fiber is not more prevalent is the lack of competition. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to EPS
said by EPS:Those numbers can be misleading- like Canada, the numbers average out to 3.0, sure, but most of that broadband is likely in the most densely populated part of the country, the strip along the US border. Iceland is also very unevenly distributed. Of course, the US isn't evenly distributed either- much of population is in more densely populated areas than the density numbers reveal. why aren't LA, NYC, Chicago, DC, etc. wired for fiber? I'm sure where fiber is going now is pretty dense, but the U.S. is doing pitifully compared to the rest of the developed world. What the hell happened to we're #1? We used to lead the world in almost everything; now, just in making war and torturing people. |
|
CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
1 edit | NY is getting wired and Verizon is going from their home on the east on out (makes perfect sense really) but they are not going to wire AT&T or other ILEC territories for reasons already stated (cost of entry).
The US can't go up against countries where the govt's subsidize or build the infrastructure and have huge population densities - it's a fact of our policies. Comparing other countries to the US in this area is apples to oranges. |
|
