said by xenophon :

The US is the most sprawled of countries, it's not surprising.

However if you consider that EVDO is rolled out to a broader population base than any broadband network, it's not as poor as it appears.

said by xenophon :

Yes, I've replaced my cable modem for EVDO. I typically get about 1Mbps and up to 2Mbps, much better than dialup. Even 1xRTT is better than dialup at 100-144Kbps.

said by MattE :

Maybe Sprin't EVDO implementation is way better than Verizon's then. It feels like dialup when viewing webpages. I also speed test at 1Mbps most of the time, but web pages take ages to load and the initial response to even start downloading the page is glacial.

said by mbraynard :

Who provides your EVDO?

said by MattE :

Have you used EVDO? It's barely better than dial-up.

said by Jwobot :

I'm not surpised the U.S. is not on the top-ten.

said by koitsu :

Am I the only one who remembers how physically large this country is? Especially in comparison to those in the top 10? (I'll get to Canada in a moment).

said by MattE :

That is such a bogus argument. Over half the country is desolate, which drops that number dramatically.

Why don't the cities that have huge population densities have access to the absolute best broadband options?

said by MattE :

Why don't the cities that have huge population densities have access to the absolute best broadband options?

said by AquaBlaze :

Eh, I haven't seen anyone living anywhere around the cities be entirely broadband-screwed. However, what I don't get is, even in some of the *most* population-dense areas, there isn't any competition to be seen.

Sure, a good chunk of the nation (ie. 50%+) has broadband access capabilities...but broadband optionS, that's a different percentage entirely.

And no, satellite does not count as broadband, sorry.

said by NotSoMuch :

You make some valid points, but you're grossly exaggerating how much it would cost to wire most of the country that isn't already. Increase taxes "two-fold"? Come on.

In fact, it would really be a drop in the bucket for the federal government. Want to call it $100b? Yawn. That's a couple of months in Iraq.

said by koitsu :

There are much more applicable comparisons between cost of national broadband deployment and existing programmes which are costing Americans lots of money. Iraq is the most recent, which is exactly why everyone talks about it. We could start with the overall cost of D.A.R.E., a completely worthless program, which has existed since the early 80s.

said by koitsu :

Taxes in all said countries are significantly higher than the United States. I don't care to go and look up numbers for average taxation amounts in all of said countries, but I do know about Sweden -- where almost 50% of a citizen's income goes to taxes. South Korea? Almost 40%. Put two and two together.

said by koitsu :

Canada is a bit odd. As part of North America, it's quite large. However, most of Canada's populus exists in 5 major metropolitan areas: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Winnipeg. Thus, it's safe to say Canada is on the list simply because those areas are wired, while I'm sure if you live in Greater Sudbury your broadband choices are ass.

said by koitsu :

Personal taxes in Canada are around ~32% per person (21% per married household). Again, do the math.

said by Snickerdo :

Incorrect. Broadband is available in practically every populated location in Canada right up to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and the fact that you attempted to use Sudbury - the largest city in Northern Ontario with 150,000 people with cable, DSL from multiple providers, wimax, etc and wired for broadband back in the 90s - shows that you don't know much about the geography of this country or how broadband is deployed here. Just about every town with 1000+ people has some form of broadband, be it wired or wireless. I can go out to Niagara-on-the-Lake - a sparse rural town with 14,000 people - and find remote DSLAMs along the street and DSL available everywhere in the town. Cable modem service is also available everywhere the local Cableco runs wires. If that's not good enough, you've got Wimax on top of that. You attempt to make it sound like broadband is only available in Canadian cities and that we're in the same boat as the US, when the fact is that it is available just about everywhere and that we are significantly ahead of the US when it comes to broadband penetration, both urban and rural. This is the difference between national (or provincial/territorial) broadband strategies, and none at all.

said by koitsu :

• I am not aware of how wired Canada is, but coming in at #9 proves you're significantly better off than we are

said by koitsu :

The point of my post was to show that the problems with broadband deployment is not purely explained by lack of government involvement, but rather confirm the evidence that there are many other factors involved -- geographical size and population density being two major ones.

said by koitsu :

Canada is the odd man out (meaning it's accomplished what under those conditions would be considered otherwise improbable). The explanation you provided ("This is the difference between national (or provincial/territorial) broadband strategies, and none at all.") would be the key explanation for how Canada solved the problem.
Neither state or federal governments in the US are getting involved with telecommunications upgrades or broadband deployment. I'm beating a dead horse saying this, but it's purely the job of commercial companies (once again, thank our wonderful capitalist ideals for that).

said by Snickerdo :

Without this, you end up like China which has a booming middle class along the Pacific coast, but peasants in the interior who don't have heat or running water, let alone a telephone or television. Is this what the USA wants to become in the name of governmental non-interference?

said by koitsu :

Taxes in all said countries are significantly higher than the United States. I don't care to go and look up numbers for average taxation amounts in all of said countries, but I do know about Sweden -- where almost 50% of a citizen's income goes to taxes. South Korea? Almost 40%. Put two and two together.

said by KrK :

Hmmm. I was thinking about this.... If you add Federal and State income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and then add local taxes, Sales and use taxes, property taxes, tolls, permits, fees and all other taxes...

... I'm kinda thinking the US might be around 40% as well. Or at least not far off.

said by koitsu :

said by UncleSam :

You didn't pay 5K SS. You paid 10K. The government has your employer "pay half" in order to hide the theft. 40% is definitely on the low side.

Anyone who owns a house typically is paying a lot more in property tax than they net from the mortgage interest deduction (especially after forgoing the standard deduction to itemize) 40% looking really low now.

As for you, if you have a 401-K option, PLEASE look at contributing to it, at least up to matching level. Its FREE MONEY.