U.S. Drops Further In Global Broadband RankingsNew OECD data now puts U.S. 15th in broadband penetration ( old news - 05:13PM Monday Apr 23 2007) tags: stats · worldThe OECD today released broadband statistics through December 2006 that show the United States has dropped further in the global rankings, though we still have the most overall broadband subscribers among OECD countries. Some key findings from the report: •European countries have continued their advance with high broadband penetration rates.•Denmark and the Netherlands are the first two countries in the OECD to surpass 30 subscribers per 100 inhabitants.•The strongest per-capita subscriber growth over the year comes from Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Ireland. Each country added more than 5.8 subscribers per 100 inhabitants during the past year.•Fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) subscriptions now comprise nearly 7% of all broadband connections in the OECD and the percentage is growing.•Korea and Japan each have more than 6 fiber broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants.•Japan leads the OECD in fibre connections directly to the home with 7.9 million fibre-to-the-home subscribers in December 2006. Fibre subscribers alone in Japan outnumber total broadband subscribers in 23 of the 30 OECD countries.•The total number of ADSL subscriptions continues to fall in Korea and Japan as more users upgrade to fibre-based connections.•DSL continues to be the leading platform in 28 OECD countries. Cable modem subscribers outnumber DSL in Canada and the United States.•The United States has the largest total number of broadband subscribers in the OECD at 58.1 million. US broadband subscribers now represent 29% of all broadband connections in the OECD, down from 30% in June 2006.•Canada continues to lead the G7 group of industrialized countries in broadband penetration•DSL makes up 62% of the OECD rankings to cable's 29% and FTTH's 7% The Free Press wins the prize for being the first organization of many who'll lament the showing and once again call for some kind of national broadband policy. The full data and assorted graphs are available here.
Related:- 400 Million Global Broadband Users
- Backbone Analysis Puts Exaflood Myth To Bed
- Cable To Grab 75% Of New Subs In 2009
- UK Regulators Say UK Speeds Lacking
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- The GPS Sky Is Falling
- Broadband Hardware Market To Shrink 36%
|
 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| yet another World vs USA BB stat thingamagigy I have 3 connections personally. Home DSL, EVDO PC card, Smart Phone + EVDO service but yet, I envy the indigenous people in the Amazon and their way of life with no access and no technology  | |
|  | | | | bohn
join:2006-05-30
Scarborough, ON
| Re: yet another World vs USA BB stat thingamagigy Living in Canada i can tell with all certainty Canada will go from first in penetration to dead last and hold that position indefinitely. The internet in this country has become nothing but a sick joke... communism at its finest. No newsgroups caps as low as one giabyte a month and 10 bucks a month for every gigabyte over that. Email that doesn't work speed throttling even on all encrypted traffic, traffic shaping no chance for anything other than surfing the web with dns numbers that don't even work. Virtually all ports blocked. Prices rising seemingly many times a year while the rest of the world pays less every year. Speeds that seem to have gone in reverse. Yes please tell me more about the internet in Canada en102. The only recourse Canadians have is to get a second or third job or just work the one job and get dial-up from America. | |
| | | | 
Hmmmmmmm
@rogers.com | Re: yet another World vs USA BB stat thingamagigy Here here!
It sucks ass when your cable co. subsidizes their home phone with multiple price increases in their other services. With DSL I get 3 meg max (interleave).
On a tangible level, these studies mean shit. | |
| | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI
| said by ninjatutle  :I have 3 connections personally. Home DSL, EVDO PC card, Smart Phone + EVDO service but yet, I envy the indigenous people in the Amazon and their way of life with no access and no technology [/BQUOTE Read the news on the bee it might come down to us giving up something we have come to love. A world with out cell pnones, what ever will we do As a child of the 80's I want to forget those evil dark times. When the phone companies rape you as a matter of point just to cal accross the street. My mother worked for the phone co back then and I got Free Zone calling thus my nick was born. | |
| | TheTruest
join:2003-02-18
Los Angeles, CA
1 edit | Re: yet another World vs Look at this angry Republican get mad
you're a joke. | |
| |
lolRepublican
| Move to the middle of Nebraska and tell me how Uber Your Internet Connection's are.. Ohhh Wait your in the middle of a huge city......Republican's lol | |
| | | 
JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
| Re: yet another World vs USA BB stat thingamagigy said by lolRepublican :
Move to the middle of Nebraska and tell me how Uber Your Internet Connection's are.. Ohhh Wait your in the middle of a huge city......Republican's lol
if you google his town there's only 900 people living there
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. | |
| 
sitrix
join:2002-04-15
Tacoma, WA
| hmm... Canada continues to lead the G7 group of industrialized countries in broadband penetration It's G8... Pretty big mistake, makes you think "what else have they got wrong?" Other then that, report looks interesting. With US having the largest "connected" population. We'll have to see if somebody decides to take it easy and lets China catch up.  | |
| | gnoll110
join:2007-06-09
Australia
1 edit | Re: hmm... G7 is the correct term, in this case.
The seven original countries being: US, UK, Canada, France, West Germany, Italy and Japan.
G8 = G7 + one (Russia). The term G7 goes back to Cold War times.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the G7 countries started inviting Russia along too. From memory Russia still does not have the same rights at G8 meetings as the other countries have. A number of other countries (like Australia) also send observers to G8 meeting too.
As Russia is not an OECD member country, there are no stats for it, and thus the correct usage is G7, not G8.
China is also not an OECD member country, so there are no stats for it in this reporting. Anyone know of any figures for China? | |
| XknightHawkX
join:2003-02-13
Morton, IL
clubs: | US wouldn't have the most US wouldn't have the most subscribers if the definition of broadbrand wasn't so slow. | |
| | 
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
 ·Verizon FIOS
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
Nashua, NH
·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
Nice'n Round.
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. | |
| | | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | | 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
·ygnitionnet
| 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. | |
| | dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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'. | |
| | | | | | | dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio | Re: US wouldn't have the most If you use it incorrectly, then it leads to the bickering that has already occurred in this topic: is or is not 'X' bits/sec deserving of the name 'broadband'?. | |
| 
fw
join:2005-09-18 | nothing new Nothing new here | |
| radam
join:2004-02-13
Fairfax Station, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Vonage
2 edits | MItIgating circumstances Our telecommunciatoins model is a bit different than ROW. I think most utilities in foreign countries are run by the public sector and receive huge subsidies. In the US, the private sector has to make money at it. I suspect American companies haven't been able to make the business case to justify the fiber investment in the last few miles off the trunk lines. i think its really an consumer need and adoption issue as opposed to an availability issue as some critics argue.
There are some interesting charts at »www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0609/. It basically says the the US leads broadband market penetration at ~75% while the best usage rate in a European Union country lags at ~30%. | |
| | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Of course..... We all know this is President Bush, Carl Rove's, and Dick Cheney's fault. They want to listen into everything that goes on on the internet and It is well known they are holding out to let Helliburtion control Broadband in the United States.
Thankful we have Speaker Nancy Implosive riding her broom to the rescue. With a wave of her magic wand and the incantation "Bitch-ah-loma" and everything will be ok.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| 
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA | The US should be leading, not following The US used to lead the world in so many things, now we seem to follow more often than not, that's sad. Thank you gwbuh for putting the US even further behind. | |
| nexus79
Premium
join:2003-07-08
Japan
| hmmm....
:-) |
| |
| | | |
|
|
·