 1 edit | We may be behind Canada But probably not in quality.
Small industrial countries should be ahead.
I still do not support any fees or taxes to bring us to #1 though. S. Korea only accomplished it because the Telco is a monopoly pretty much owned, I think, and controlled by the gov't. A nuke from N. Korea would end that real quick though. | |
|
 |  | | Re: We may be behind Canada Come on we can do better than that right?? | |
|
 |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | said by rachelsfx:But probably not in quality. Small industrial countries should be ahead. I still do not support any fees or taxes to bring us to #1 though. S. Korea only accomplished it because the Telco is a monopoly pretty much owned, I think, and controlled by the gov't. A nuke from N. Korea would end that real quick though. Most ISP are basically monopolies here too. People at most have TWO choices for an broadband ISP.
Also the whole "the US is so much bigger" excuse is just lame. Ok let's look at it by state. Let's compare small but very populated states to some of these countries. I bet those states still lag behind in broadband penetration in comparison. What is Rhode Island's broadband penetration % compared to these Euro countries. Half the COUNTIES in the US are bigger than Rhode Island. | |
|
 |  |  dynodbPremium,VIP join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN 1 edit | Re: We may be behind Canada said by BF69:Most ISP are basically monopolies here too. People at most have TWO choices for an broadband ISP. Also the whole "the US is so much bigger" excuse is just lame. Ok let's look at it by state. Let's compare small but very populated states to some of these countries. I bet those states still lag behind in broadband penetration in comparison. What is Rhode Island's broadband penetration % compared to these Euro countries. Half the COUNTIES in the US are bigger than Rhode Island. You "bet" that those states lag? If you're going to state that the arguement that lower penetration numbers is due to US population density and size is "lame", you might want to come up with something other than a guess  | |
|
 |  | | said by rachelsfx:A nuke from N. Korea would end that real quick though. KJI isn't going to nuke South Korea. His whole manic plan is to reunite Korea. He wants to use the nuke as leverage so that he can invade SK without American or Japanese intervention. -- What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
|
 |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Re: We may be behind Canada He just wants to nuke Japan and us! -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: We may be behind Canada said by pnh102:He just wants to nuke Japan and us! I'm not convinced he really wants that. Maybe Japan as there's some long standing hatred of Japan in much of Asia. As far as the US is concerned, I think he just wants us to go away. As in, you can stop me from taking South Korea but it will cost you Seattle. -- What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
|
 |  | | I don't know about that. I live in Canada and I have 10mbps/1mbps service here. Certainly not the top tiers available in the major US markets but pretty darn good for not being in a major metro area. The problem lies in geography, while Canada is a huge country so much of our population is in a very small percentage area. As a result the US has far more cabling to do to cover everyone. This would also account for smaller countries ability to do the same.
James | |
|
 |  |  Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: We may be behind Canada While the higher speeds in some areas get the press coverage a lot of us are still at 1mbps and 128, and are not likely to see any upgrades unless the Government steps in. Many have no broadband options even though the uptake on broadband has been far higher in rural areas than expected where it is available. | |
|
 |  | | said by rachelsfx:But probably not in quality. Small industrial countries should be ahead. I'd take that bet any day of the week.
Most of the large DSL providers here also have TV over DSL, with SaskTel rolling out HDTV over dsl | |
|
 |
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA | Keep Dreaming The U.S. will never achieve similiar penetration levels of the EC or Japan. Never. At least until the telcos have their pet politicians pass a law that allows them to nix Net Neutrality and double dip. And the pending AT&T giveaway will be especially conducive to keeping the country at the bottom of the broadband penetration chart. -- The Toll | |
|
 |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Keep Dreaming It should be also interesting to note, that the US has at least double the overall amount of broadband users than the next nearest country, and in some cases, more broadband users than some of the other countries total population (i.e. Canada has only ~30 million people vs. 54 million US broadband subs). | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Keep Dreaming "We still have the most total connections" You mean we're #1!!!
U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A! | |
|
 |  |  | | Statistics are a great tool that politicians and people with a political agenda use to manipulate us all into thinking one way or the other. I think monopolies are really our worst enemies I beleive in free enterprise the trouble is we are regulated to the hilt. If a small town wanted to wire themselves I think they would meet with a lot of roadblocks. Try and see if you can put a wire up on a utility pole (legally) and you will find out who really owns what. | |
|
 |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | said by en102:It should be also interesting to note, that the US has at least double the overall amount of broadband users than the next nearest country, and in some cases, more broadband users than some of the other countries total population (i.e. Canada has only ~30 million people vs. 54 million US broadband subs). It should be noted that the US has more because only China and India have more people than the US.
So a country that has say 100 million people where 20% are literate is more educated than one that has 10 million, but 95% are literate, because the bigger country has 20 million literate people while smaller country only has 9.5 million? | |
|
 |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Keep Dreaming I never said that the US is more broadband connected than the other countries... To take your analogy in a different perspective... A country that has 300 million people and 58 million of them are educated, while a country of 30 million has 7 million educated, the percentages are 19.3% vs. 23%, however, the overall amount of educated in the first country are almost double the entire population of the first. Ratios are one thing, raw numbers are another. 1 in 5 is easier to obtain than 1 million out of 5 million.
Also, many countries have a lot higher urban to rural ratio than the US does, which, in typical business speak, 'are not profitable' (actually should be seen as 'not profitable enough'). I may not always agree with the politics on it, but hasn't USF/FUSF slush fund already been paid into ? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Re: Keep Dreaming said by en102:Also, many countries have a lot higher urban to rural ratio than the US does, which, in typical business speak, 'are not profitable' (actually should be seen as 'not profitable enough'). I may not always agree with the politics on it, but hasn't USF/FUSF slush fund already been paid into ? Also as I said compare the small US states with large populations and ask why their broadband penetration is far behind those other countries. Aren't they of similar size and popuation density? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Keep Dreaming I'm sure there's some politics to it... Most countries: DSL/Cable 'somewhat' subsidized to deploy, but higher cost US: DSL/Cable corp will fight for market share where it is profitable, but ignore the rest. E.g. I'm sure NYC has a high availability and competition, while portions upstate may be left unserviced or serviced by one provider at a high cost. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Keep Dreaming Funny you should mention it
I don't live up there but I do get up there a bunch. Somone asked me to look into what could be done in a low population community. I asked a number of people who might be clued in and came to the conclussion that there was almost nothing that could be done. The CO was far from everyone and not all that well provisioned. Bottom line was that even the most extreme distanced community wireless was going to cost them more then they could stand to pay. I had to assume that not everyone up there was going to contribute funds and some just flat out couldn't afford it. That bothers me a bit that it was nearly insurmountable to get them even a minimal broadband connection so they remain dialup users... | |
|
 |  |  | | With the US population as large as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast alone has more broadband users and entire countries do. | |
|
 |  | | said by major marco :the pending AT&T giveaway will be especially conducive to keeping the country at the bottom of the broadband penetration chart. i wonder hoe much money fcc is gonna get out of this deal | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | 148 million broadband users in US
The United States has the largest total number of broadband subscribers in the OECD at 57 million. And I read subscribers as households subscribed, not broadband users in that stat from the OECD.
And when you take into account that their are 2.59 persons per household(2000 US census) in the US, that means there are 148 million people with access to broadband in the US. With a total population of 296 million(2005 census estimate) in the US, that means 50% of the US population has broadband access. And that number isn't based on the often derided FCC definition of broadband by zipcode. -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|
 |  Gwailo join:2000-07-16 Richardson, TX | Re: 148 million broadband users in US Tkjunkmail, you make a very good point as if you look at the raw statistics, it says 16.8% of the USA "population" is connected but in fact, homes are connected, not necessarily people.
I looked through the report and never did see anywhere where it says the percent of homes connected by country. Some countries in the list statistically have larger family sizes and others smaller family sizes so it would appear to me that homes should be the common denominator, not people. | |
|
 |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | said by Romney2012: And that number isn't based on the often derided FCC definition of broadband by zipcode. But is it using the FCC definition of "broadband" which they say is 200 kbps or higher? Let's compare apples with apples. How many houses have ACCESS( because not everyone wants the internet )to at least 1.5 Mbps broadband( which would by my minimum speed for "broadband" ). I would say that number in the US is far smaller than 50% | |
|
 |  |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | Re: 148 million broadband users in US said by BF69:said by Romney2012: And that number isn't based on the often derided FCC definition of broadband by zipcode. But is it using the FCC definition of "broadband" which they say is 200 kbps or higher? Let's compare apples with apples. How many houses have ACCESS( because not everyone wants the internet )to at least 1.5 Mbps broadband( which would by my minimum speed for "broadband" ). I would say that number in the US is far smaller than 50% The OECD definition of broadband is 256k or higher in at least 1 direction. I assume the stats about US broadband and other countries in this released report meet those requirements.
»www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/33/2475737.pdf
And an easier to read confirmation of info in the above OECD PDF document is here: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_access
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has defined broadband as 256 kbit/s in at least one direction and this bit rate is the most common baseline that is marketed as "broadband" around the world.
-- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Re: 148 million broadband users in US said by Romney2012:And an easier to read confirmation of info in the above OECD PDF document is here: » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_accessThe Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has defined broadband as 256 kbit/s in at least one direction and this bit rate is the most common baseline that is marketed as "broadband" around the world.
Well that's all fine if they are using the same number, but 256 kbps is still a joke to consider that broadband. More like dial-up delux. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | Re: 148 million broadband users in US said by BF69:Well that's all fine if they are using the same number, but 256 kbps is still a joke to consider that broadband. More like dial-up delux. I wouldn't call 256k download real broadband either. But that is what the OECD is using to create the report listed in the news item. -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|
 |  | | The OECD and ITU numbers are all connections. These include business lines, as well as any cellular line that exceeded 256K.
The U.S. household penetration is somewhere between 30% and 38%, depending on whose dataset you look at (survey methods).
But the best way to do this is use the FCC's data (which is where the OECD gets their info from). If you assume the 43 million residential lines represent one per houshold (which b/c of cellular, slightly overstates that), and you use the latest census estimate of 115 million U.S. households, then you have a U.S. household penetration level of about 37%. Nowhere near the 50% you calculated. | |
|
 | | What is the highest expense for fiber optic ????
Networks ?
Is it the wire or the labor ?
We could use public assistance for munis. | |
|
 |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Re: What is the highest expense for fiber optic ???? said by Eric Martin:Networks ? Is it the wire or the labor ? We could use public assistance for munis. I'd say it was the government. Local and State governments all over this country are imposing inane requirements on broadband providers who want to deploy service. A lot of these providers are finding that it is simply not worth the effort to deal with these restrictions. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
 1 edit | So what? All this means is we have a population who seeks other sources of information for their news and entertainment including dial up.
Not wanting it and can't getting it would be two different statistics.
A lot of people CHOOSE not to buy it and to that I say, so what?
Next up, Bush sucks, the UN rules and FiOS installers break a water main. | |
|
 | | It's cool and all to know about broadband access. But what is the percentage of homes with internet access per country. AOL still had 19 million U.S subscribers as of June 2006.
Let alone I know of many people that use the library for net access and at least in my part of town the local library offers free wireless access.
And how many broadband connections are their in China and India? Hard to find information in my quick search but according to www.internetworldstats.com in 2004 China had over 25 million DSL subscribers which is like 2.5% of China had access to broadband. Which reminds me..
Where is Hong Kong on the list, or is it just a part of China? Back to www.internetworldstats.com, in 2004 11.5% of Hong Kong had broadband penetration.
Apparently 69% of the U.S. is connected to the internet. What that means is that the U.S. still needs to upgrade the infrastructure, big deal, it's happening everyday. Comcast in the first quarter of 2006 *added* 437,000 high speed customers. That is 1/4 of all of Denmark in 3 months. Kinda puts a little perspective on things. | |
|
 | | This is something I just came up with... I was pondering some of the issues pertaining to Community Wireless in badly connected remote regions and got an idea. So ponder this idea before you say I am crazy and then if there is anything to it spread the word. I am also an Amateur Radio Operator (Ham radio) there has been much talk in Ham circles about a proposal for a wide band digital segment. The traditionalist hate this suggestion intensely but some find it enticing. Now there are issues where Amateur Radio is concerned particulary about type of usage and type of content. But another similar alternative could be to create a Citizens Band Packet Radio segment which if they let it be allowed in the current 11 meter band should/could provide good connectivity over longer distances. If this could be done/allowed then one could setup a community WIFI by getting a high speed digital connection from a distant location and feed that signal to the distant community and then the community could distribute the signal via standard WIFI equiptment for less money. The speed might not end up being the greatest but it would provide one more opportunity to connect up people that might desire it in a remote location. | |
|
 |
|