Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, recently complained that "the United States is ranked 11th in the world in broadband penetration!...When we find ourselves 11th in the world, something has gone dreadfully wrong. When Congress tells us to take immediate action to accelerate deployment, we have an obligation to do it."
One commentary piece published on CNET News.com last week worried that the United States is "falling behind" other countries in broadband connectivity. Another from last year offered "several recommendations that could help form a national broadband agenda" and touted South Korea as a "success" story.
But is the United States truly faring so poorly? A careful look at the numbers gives reason to be skeptical.
The now-traditional source of dismay about U.S. broadband adoption is a set of figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a kind of governmental think tank. The June 2004 figures say the United States has 11.2 broadband subscribers for every 100 inhabitants, in 11th place and far behind South Korea's 24.4-people-per-100 top ranking.
Those figures are misleading. South Korea is roughly 100,000 square kilometers, about the size of the state of Indiana, with a population clustered around large cities like Seoul. In those cities, Koreans tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's perfect for speedy VDSL lines--and boosts the nation in the OECD's rankings.
By contrast, the United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square kilometers--100 times the size of South Korea--with a population more evenly distributed between rural areas, towns and cities and far more likely to live in single-family homes. Geography and demographics explain why broadband will take longer to become available in the United States. Copps might as well complain that the more spread-out United States has fewer subway lines per capita and less smog too.
It's not just South Korea. All the nations that the OECD ranks above the United States are either much smaller (Netherlands) or happen to have people clustered around large cities that can be wired more easily than rural areas (Sweden, Norway).
Canada, in third place, falls into the second category. Nearly everyone chooses to live close to cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa along the not-quite-as-cold southern border. A Canadian province bordering Greenland called Nunavut is larger than Alaska, but its entire population would fit in a football stadium with room to spare.
"We're not doing a bad job"
"These numbers that the OECD throws around and (that) keep getting used are a convenient way to make the U.S. look bad," says Jeff Carlisle, senior deputy chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. "But if you really look at the numbers, it's hard to say that we're doing a bad job...If you're talking about the broader issue, the U.S. comes out looking pretty good."
Carlisle is right. FCC figures released last month show that 94.3 percent of U.S. ZIP codes have high-speed lines available to them through at least one provider as of June 2004. More than 80 percent of ZIP codes have a choice of at least two companies selling broadband links.
In other words, all but a tiny fraction of Americans have the option to pay for a high-speed connection--but not everyone wants to cough up the cash. The OECD figures look at subscribers, not the availability of broadband to potential subscribers who don't want it.
Cultural differences might explain why. Perhaps Americans prefer to read books instead of staring at a PC? Or they'd rather watch television? Online gaming and music downloading aside, there's still no killer app for broadband in the United States. Compare that with South Korea, where you can tune in to television programming delivered over the Internet and where online gaming is a national sport.
The OECD information also doesn't reflect broadband connections in workplaces, which are prevalent in the United States. My mother, a teacher in a midsize town in Pennsylvania, vows she won't pay for a speedy Internet link at home because she has one at work. My colleague Marguerite Reardon reached the same conclusion last year--and they're hardly alone.
All this might be an interesting academic debate--except that the OECD rankings are being used to argue for more government interference ostensibly aimed at signing up more broadband users. FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, cited the rankings as "serious warning signs that we are falling behind," and Copps invoked them when urging more aggressive regulation.
Such regulation would be a mistake. In reality, even though broadband connections are readily available--not as available or as fast as in South Korea, true, but still available--Americans don't see the benefits outweighing the costs. Over time, as more-compelling content comes online and connection speeds zoom upward, this will change.
Until then, there's no national emergency that needs to be solved through new laws or more government spending. It's simply a case of bureaucrats and other critics objecting to the way Americans have chosen to spend their own money.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.
See more CNET content tagged:
South Korea, broadband, U.S., city, population
I usually love your stories, but you are way off on this one. I live in a semi-rural area and have been waiting for 5 years for broadband access in my area. The stats you quote from the FCC re: broadband penetration by zip code are absolutely worthless; they are, in fact, designed to disguise the fact that HOUSEHOLD broadband penetration in this country is barely at 25%. By using the zip/area codes (which, of course, span a wide vareity of terrain and ususally inlcude at least one metro area within their confines) as a metric, it makes it harder to see that the media companies are absolutley refusing to spend any money to expand broadband access. As for the BS "fiber to the home" theory, just a quick history lesson; the Baby Bells were talking about FTTH (and, incidentally, charging residential customers for it even though they could not use it) in the early -mid 1990's. Ten years later, it still hasn't happened. FTTH is the biggest ever - it is the "carrot" they dangle whenever the telcos need to convince regulators and lawmakers that they really care about high spped internet access for all AMericans. Thnaks and keep up the good work.
We are within the distance to to CO to get the fastest DSL that Verizon offers, but they don't offer it here. Cox is about 3 miles down the road. Charter is about 6 miles down the road in the other direction.
NONE of them have ANY plans of expanding to our area.
We are in a deadman's zone!
Satellite is the only option for any type of broadband and it is not an option as far as I am concerned due to latency issues and the requirement to have a Windows box with their software on it at the entry point. No thank you! Plus for what you get, it's way too expensive.
With third world countries being handed broadband on a platter, and the US broadband providers upping the ante to those who already have broadband instead of extending their coverage, this whole thing has turned into a fiasco, IMHO.
Two years ago Verizon installed a brand new, state of the art switching center in my neighborhood. The field techs doing the install said the equipment was completely DSL-capable, but their bosses wouldn't let them install the DSL line cards. He recommended ISDN instead, which was available on the new equipment (and is priced at a level to ensure no one would order it).
If you live in the Qwest territory, the situation is even more grim.
None of this would be tolerated in other countries, where the government has the idea that policies should benefit its citizenry, and broadband access is a right and is economically important. Here, we're deploying broadband like we're deploying Starbucks: DSL (or a new coffee) doesn't get deployed unless and until such time as the ILEC (or the Starbucks corporation) determines that it would maximize the ROI on the capital dollars required for it.
That may be OK for over-priced designer coffee. A large percentage of the population will never have a Starbucks at their street corner. But it should be unacceptable that a large percentage of Americans will never have broadband. But given the current regulatory climate, which now favors corporations over consumers, it is not likely to change.
I usually love your stories, but you are way off on this one. I live in a semi-rural area and have been waiting for 5 years for broadband access in my area. The stats you quote from the FCC re: broadband penetration by zip code are absolutely worthless; they are, in fact, designed to disguise the fact that HOUSEHOLD broadband penetration in this country is barely at 25%. By using the zip/area codes (which, of course, span a wide vareity of terrain and ususally inlcude at least one metro area within their confines) as a metric, it makes it harder to see that the media companies are absolutley refusing to spend any money to expand broadband access. As for the BS "fiber to the home" theory, just a quick history lesson; the Baby Bells were talking about FTTH (and, incidentally, charging residential customers for it even though they could not use it) in the early -mid 1990's. Ten years later, it still hasn't happened. FTTH is the biggest ever - it is the "carrot" they dangle whenever the telcos need to convince regulators and lawmakers that they really care about high spped internet access for all AMericans. Thnaks and keep up the good work.
We are within the distance to to CO to get the fastest DSL that Verizon offers, but they don't offer it here. Cox is about 3 miles down the road. Charter is about 6 miles down the road in the other direction.
NONE of them have ANY plans of expanding to our area.
We are in a deadman's zone!
Satellite is the only option for any type of broadband and it is not an option as far as I am concerned due to latency issues and the requirement to have a Windows box with their software on it at the entry point. No thank you! Plus for what you get, it's way too expensive.
With third world countries being handed broadband on a platter, and the US broadband providers upping the ante to those who already have broadband instead of extending their coverage, this whole thing has turned into a fiasco, IMHO.
Two years ago Verizon installed a brand new, state of the art switching center in my neighborhood. The field techs doing the install said the equipment was completely DSL-capable, but their bosses wouldn't let them install the DSL line cards. He recommended ISDN instead, which was available on the new equipment (and is priced at a level to ensure no one would order it).
If you live in the Qwest territory, the situation is even more grim.
None of this would be tolerated in other countries, where the government has the idea that policies should benefit its citizenry, and broadband access is a right and is economically important. Here, we're deploying broadband like we're deploying Starbucks: DSL (or a new coffee) doesn't get deployed unless and until such time as the ILEC (or the Starbucks corporation) determines that it would maximize the ROI on the capital dollars required for it.
That may be OK for over-priced designer coffee. A large percentage of the population will never have a Starbucks at their street corner. But it should be unacceptable that a large percentage of Americans will never have broadband. But given the current regulatory climate, which now favors corporations over consumers, it is not likely to change.
Tech companies and their talking heads should get over themselves.
Consider all the industries that arose from electricity...or even simpler still consider everything that has arisen from the ability to send an analog signal over digital and back to analog..and when Bell first presented this product to the world..people were impressed but essentially thought it would not have any practical or economic impact.
Hell, even when Lord Kelvin figured out better ways to lay copper wire across oceans, and filter and recieve the signal..people had the same response.
But you know, my parochial-minded friend, if you just looked at the industries and economic windfalls arising in other nations besides your own, you would see that broadband HAS a huge impact on an economy. I am not only talking about the immediate impact on the consumer and services area... online consumer commerce but in the business sector as well: (I refuse to use pr speak:"enterprise" *rolls eyes*)from manufacturing, logistical, financial, to even managerial aspects.
From entertainment; in Korea most people no longer really buy "packaged" games anymore instead its easier and cheaper for most to download it directly from the developers. This in turn has changed how the industry side works...resulting in an industry that went from nothing to multibillion, Asia-dominant in a span of less than 5 years. If you look at the actual sales charts across Asia...you'll see Korean games dominating. NCSoft, CNC, Nexen...have become behemoths not because of some magical luck...but because the broadband infrastructure of Korea completely changed, substantially increased the scope of every aspect of the industry...from development to distribution and everything in between.
Remember home automation? Bill Gates has been talking about this for years now...how this is the "future" for America. We've had home automation dependable, cheaply, and now mundane for 2 years now. I can call my house and turn on and shut off most anything in my house, set temps, turn on/off most of my appliances, I can even answer the door and see who is there when I'm not physically present at my home (hehehe this was the best thing...IMO). This would not have been possible if broadband was not hilariously cheap and everywhere. And since borandband is like that...our wireless broadband has shot off like a rocket too.
Americans still haven't figured out that broadband is like electricity, original telephony, Babbage's analytical engine, the transistor...it is the basis the infrastructure from which whole economies become. This is history to us...we already have economies of scale built upon broadband.
Tech companies and their talking heads should get over themselves.
Consider all the industries that arose from electricity...or even simpler still consider everything that has arisen from the ability to send an analog signal over digital and back to analog..and when Bell first presented this product to the world..people were impressed but essentially thought it would not have any practical or economic impact.
Hell, even when Lord Kelvin figured out better ways to lay copper wire across oceans, and filter and recieve the signal..people had the same response.
But you know, my parochial-minded friend, if you just looked at the industries and economic windfalls arising in other nations besides your own, you would see that broadband HAS a huge impact on an economy. I am not only talking about the immediate impact on the consumer and services area... online consumer commerce but in the business sector as well: (I refuse to use pr speak:"enterprise" *rolls eyes*)from manufacturing, logistical, financial, to even managerial aspects.
From entertainment; in Korea most people no longer really buy "packaged" games anymore instead its easier and cheaper for most to download it directly from the developers. This in turn has changed how the industry side works...resulting in an industry that went from nothing to multibillion, Asia-dominant in a span of less than 5 years. If you look at the actual sales charts across Asia...you'll see Korean games dominating. NCSoft, CNC, Nexen...have become behemoths not because of some magical luck...but because the broadband infrastructure of Korea completely changed, substantially increased the scope of every aspect of the industry...from development to distribution and everything in between.
Remember home automation? Bill Gates has been talking about this for years now...how this is the "future" for America. We've had home automation dependable, cheaply, and now mundane for 2 years now. I can call my house and turn on and shut off most anything in my house, set temps, turn on/off most of my appliances, I can even answer the door and see who is there when I'm not physically present at my home (hehehe this was the best thing...IMO). This would not have been possible if broadband was not hilariously cheap and everywhere. And since borandband is like that...our wireless broadband has shot off like a rocket too.
Americans still haven't figured out that broadband is like electricity, original telephony, Babbage's analytical engine, the transistor...it is the basis the infrastructure from which whole economies become. This is history to us...we already have economies of scale built upon broadband.
"Nearly everyone chooses to live close to cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa along the not-quite-as-cold southern border." The greater metropolitan areas of all of these cities only accounts for 35% of the population of Canada, not "nearly everyone". The cities in question only have 4.7 million with an additional 6.3 million living close to the cities. You know, "nearly everyone". I guess the 19 million of us who do not live near these cities don't count.
There is a good reason why broadband is more accepted and used in Canada than the U.S. and it has nothing to do with everyone crowded into a few centers. It has to do with the cost. Broadband access for me costs between $25 and $35 per month. (U.S. Dollars) My niece is going to school in New York and it was going to cost her $90 per month. She's a student and can't afford $90 per month for broadband access.
Is it a matter of broadband costing more to implement in the U.S. than Canada? Don't think so. It seems to me that the U.S. companies have made agreements, unwritten and unspoken, amongst themselves that they won't be too competitive in this market because it is making them a lot of money.
Short term greed is the answer Declan, nothing more, nothing less.
I travel to Canada once every month or two and expect that I know more about it than the average American (which, I agree, may not be saying very much).
Perhaps my sentence that irked you was inartfully worded. What I meant was that the population of Canada is more concentrated than it is in the U.S. -- we enjoy a more-or-less temperate zone, while the Canadian population is concentrated along the relatively warm southern border. Perhaps not within the "greater metro areas" of those cities I listed, but not that far, relatively speaking.
Or perhaps you'd like to go ahead and tell me how densely populated Nunavut is?
"Nearly everyone chooses to live close to cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa along the not-quite-as-cold southern border." The greater metropolitan areas of all of these cities only accounts for 35% of the population of Canada, not "nearly everyone". The cities in question only have 4.7 million with an additional 6.3 million living close to the cities. You know, "nearly everyone". I guess the 19 million of us who do not live near these cities don't count.
There is a good reason why broadband is more accepted and used in Canada than the U.S. and it has nothing to do with everyone crowded into a few centers. It has to do with the cost. Broadband access for me costs between $25 and $35 per month. (U.S. Dollars) My niece is going to school in New York and it was going to cost her $90 per month. She's a student and can't afford $90 per month for broadband access.
Is it a matter of broadband costing more to implement in the U.S. than Canada? Don't think so. It seems to me that the U.S. companies have made agreements, unwritten and unspoken, amongst themselves that they won't be too competitive in this market because it is making them a lot of money.
Short term greed is the answer Declan, nothing more, nothing less.
I travel to Canada once every month or two and expect that I know more about it than the average American (which, I agree, may not be saying very much).
Perhaps my sentence that irked you was inartfully worded. What I meant was that the population of Canada is more concentrated than it is in the U.S. -- we enjoy a more-or-less temperate zone, while the Canadian population is concentrated along the relatively warm southern border. Perhaps not within the "greater metro areas" of those cities I listed, but not that far, relatively speaking.
Or perhaps you'd like to go ahead and tell me how densely populated Nunavut is?
They also cant get my address right, neither the town nor the zip code.
There is not another area left in the country with this problem!!
I live in Highland NY, with zip code 12528.
The houses with addresses on Swartekill Road numbered greater than 400 have
Time Warner Cable/ Road Runner. The houses with addresses under 100 have
Cablevision/Optimum online. Those of us between 100 and 400 on Swartekill Rd
have no CABLE TV (for 3 decades) and no chance of getting DSL either.
Survey's done by Time Warner are now over $25,000; but they are sent to wrong
address and list our town (100 - 400 Swartekill Road) incorrectly. TWC insist
we are in Town of Esopus at zipcode 12429. Our correct town is Highland NY
with zipcode 12528. Would you accept a survey result of $25,000 and hand over
that much money to a company that can't even straighten out their customer
database, and have the addresses correct?
Lastly, because our addresses are incorrect in their (TWC) database
our are requests are not being counted correctly - not being counted at all!
In fact, when I call TWC for service they insist that I am not in there area.
It takes several minutes to convince their rep that this is TWC area. I am sick
of this conversation. For 6 years I have been calling TWC every month and
getting no where. Everybody else can get high speed for free installation
or $59 installation charge, Why do I have to pay $25,000 installation charge?
and then have my address in the wrong town and zipcode yet.
I still on dialup - probably forever.
This is clearly a case of government regulation gone wrong.
Cablevision has informally told me over the phone
that they would like to build cable in my area
and absorb the cost (no mention of any money, not $25,000)
but that they cannot because they would need a franchise.
Who would create a franchise for 20 customers?
They also cant get my address right, neither the town nor the zip code.
There is not another area left in the country with this problem!!
I live in Highland NY, with zip code 12528.
The houses with addresses on Swartekill Road numbered greater than 400 have
Time Warner Cable/ Road Runner. The houses with addresses under 100 have
Cablevision/Optimum online. Those of us between 100 and 400 on Swartekill Rd
have no CABLE TV (for 3 decades) and no chance of getting DSL either.
Survey's done by Time Warner are now over $25,000; but they are sent to wrong
address and list our town (100 - 400 Swartekill Road) incorrectly. TWC insist
we are in Town of Esopus at zipcode 12429. Our correct town is Highland NY
with zipcode 12528. Would you accept a survey result of $25,000 and hand over
that much money to a company that can't even straighten out their customer
database, and have the addresses correct?
Lastly, because our addresses are incorrect in their (TWC) database
our are requests are not being counted correctly - not being counted at all!
In fact, when I call TWC for service they insist that I am not in there area.
It takes several minutes to convince their rep that this is TWC area. I am sick
of this conversation. For 6 years I have been calling TWC every month and
getting no where. Everybody else can get high speed for free installation
or $59 installation charge, Why do I have to pay $25,000 installation charge?
and then have my address in the wrong town and zipcode yet.
I still on dialup - probably forever.
This is clearly a case of government regulation gone wrong.
Cablevision has informally told me over the phone
that they would like to build cable in my area
and absorb the cost (no mention of any money, not $25,000)
but that they cannot because they would need a franchise.
Who would create a franchise for 20 customers?
game does not help anything. Washington DC is a small city that
still does not have internet speeds anywhere close to South
Korea (and it's smaller than that country too).
"tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density
makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's
perfect for speedy VDSL lines" ... New yourk kinda fits this don't
you think?
"The United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square
kilometers".. been out West lately? Losts of empty space.
"It's true that South Korea and Japan may offer connections
measured in the tens of megabits, but fiber connections are
finally happening in the United States. "... Lets see. I drive
around my county (outside DC) and see Verizon laying miles of
orange tubes for their fiber. They did that only after they got the
favorable rule that lets them NOT share. Lets spell M-O-N-O-P-
O-L-Y. (Don't give that crap about investmetns etc. They will
make a ton of money even if they were to share).
"eliminate wacky government regulations"... Yes, that would
work. Who do I send the check to Comcast or Verizon monopoly.
Or, maybe I can chose one bundle of un-needed services for
another. Or, maybe I can get a lifetime contract for crappy
service like wireless phones.
"More than 80 percent of ZIP codes have a choice of at least two
companies selling broadband links." It seems that all the places
I visit has only one cable internet provider. So much for
competition. DSL is slower so it does not factor in.
"My mother, a teacher in a midsize town in Pennsylvania, vows
she won't pay for a speedy Internet link at home because she
has one at work. My colleague Marguerite Reardon reached the
same conclusion last year--and they're hardly alone."... So, what
does that tell you? It's about price. Free versus $40 or $50.
"Americans don't see the benefits outweighing the costs." Is that
an understatement or what? I kno, ask your mother. She
evidently does know!
It's all about MONEY and pretty much free MONEY to boot.
Certainly its never about service. And yes the government
should regulate and regulate hard.
game does not help anything. Washington DC is a small city that
still does not have internet speeds anywhere close to South
Korea (and it's smaller than that country too).
"tend to live in high-rise apartment buildings. Population density
makes it relatively easy to provide high-speed connections--it's
perfect for speedy VDSL lines" ... New yourk kinda fits this don't
you think?
"The United States sprawls over nearly 10 million square
kilometers".. been out West lately? Losts of empty space.
"It's true that South Korea and Japan may offer connections
measured in the tens of megabits, but fiber connections are
finally happening in the United States. "... Lets see. I drive
around my county (outside DC) and see Verizon laying miles of
orange tubes for their fiber. They did that only after they got the
favorable rule that lets them NOT share. Lets spell M-O-N-O-P-
O-L-Y. (Don't give that crap about investmetns etc. They will
make a ton of money even if they were to share).
"eliminate wacky government regulations"... Yes, that would
work. Who do I send the check to Comcast or Verizon monopoly.
Or, maybe I can chose one bundle of un-needed services for
another. Or, maybe I can get a lifetime contract for crappy
service like wireless phones.
"More than 80 percent of ZIP codes have a choice of at least two
companies selling broadband links." It seems that all the places
I visit has only one cable internet provider. So much for
competition. DSL is slower so it does not factor in.
"My mother, a teacher in a midsize town in Pennsylvania, vows
she won't pay for a speedy Internet link at home because she
has one at work. My colleague Marguerite Reardon reached the
same conclusion last year--and they're hardly alone."... So, what
does that tell you? It's about price. Free versus $40 or $50.
"Americans don't see the benefits outweighing the costs." Is that
an understatement or what? I kno, ask your mother. She
evidently does know!
It's all about MONEY and pretty much free MONEY to boot.
Certainly its never about service. And yes the government
should regulate and regulate hard.
For a fact, Japan has a substantially higher population density clustered in their cities however their broadband infrastructure has lagged 3 to 4 years behind Korea. It was very hands-on managemnt, regulation and willingness to take on innovative projects like Nynex's FLAG (lets see if the article writer knows about that..probably doesn't, seeing how misinformed his article was) on the part of the government that got Korea to this point.
The telcos and corporations in Korea tried to do the same scam that Verizon and the baby bells do to your national and state governments...however the governments of Kim Dae Jung and his predecessor had the political will to recognize that would put Korea in the same position as the US...i.e. a broadband wasteland, a cellular patchwork nightmare, and clueless about Wi-fi.
They understood that like electricity was to previous eras, broadband would be to this. They had no time for the shortsightedness of making money off the utility like the American focus but instead concentrate on on the applications that run on it. So they mandated many policies that America and the Republican Party would find hostile to "business" of the telcos...
You see Canada, most of Europe, and now China has understood this. CHina's efforts were less than impressive because they were emulating the US model...but now they're following the Korean model and have set 2008 as a target date for acieving the same results. Many US writers have pooh poohed their efforts because simply they are misinformed or have political agendas that are favorable to the telcos but anathema to the real business of laying wire. But they'll succeed.
Like the destruction and the deterioriation (incidentally by the Romans and later by the Crusades) of the libraries in Alexandria which heralded the decline of the Greek and Roman cultural/financial empires/superpowers. America's inability to construct what the rest of the world has done with speed and thoroughness heralds its decline.
Heh when CHina hits its target in 2008 will journalists liek your esteemed political correspondent here further excuse the US's in ability to get broadband to its citizens by bringing up population dernsity again? That argument in regards to CHina will sound even more hollow. But I predict they will.
For a fact, Japan has a substantially higher population density clustered in their cities however their broadband infrastructure has lagged 3 to 4 years behind Korea. It was very hands-on managemnt, regulation and willingness to take on innovative projects like Nynex's FLAG (lets see if the article writer knows about that..probably doesn't, seeing how misinformed his article was) on the part of the government that got Korea to this point.
The telcos and corporations in Korea tried to do the same scam that Verizon and the baby bells do to your national and state governments...however the governments of Kim Dae Jung and his predecessor had the political will to recognize that would put Korea in the same position as the US...i.e. a broadband wasteland, a cellular patchwork nightmare, and clueless about Wi-fi.
They understood that like electricity was to previous eras, broadband would be to this. They had no time for the shortsightedness of making money off the utility like the American focus but instead concentrate on on the applications that run on it. So they mandated many policies that America and the Republican Party would find hostile to "business" of the telcos...
You see Canada, most of Europe, and now China has understood this. CHina's efforts were less than impressive because they were emulating the US model...but now they're following the Korean model and have set 2008 as a target date for acieving the same results. Many US writers have pooh poohed their efforts because simply they are misinformed or have political agendas that are favorable to the telcos but anathema to the real business of laying wire. But they'll succeed.
Like the destruction and the deterioriation (incidentally by the Romans and later by the Crusades) of the libraries in Alexandria which heralded the decline of the Greek and Roman cultural/financial empires/superpowers. America's inability to construct what the rest of the world has done with speed and thoroughness heralds its decline.
Heh when CHina hits its target in 2008 will journalists liek your esteemed political correspondent here further excuse the US's in ability to get broadband to its citizens by bringing up population dernsity again? That argument in regards to CHina will sound even more hollow. But I predict they will.
" FCC figures released last month show that 94.3 percent of U.S. ZIP codes have high-speed lines available to them through at least one provider as of June 2004. More than 80 percent of ZIP codes have a choice of at least two companies selling broadband links.
In other words, all but a tiny fraction of Americans have the option to pay for a high-speed connection...."
That's a preposterous conclusion because the FCC considers one home in a zip code with broadband to mean that entire zip code is "serviced".
- Declan McCullagh Does Poor Research
- by January 10, 2005 10:23 PM PST
- DM wrote:
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- high-speed lines
- by Al Johnsons June 3, 2007 2:17 PM PDT
- http://www.analogstereo.com/infiniti_fx45_owners_manual.htm
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (66 Comments)" FCC figures released last month show that 94.3 percent of U.S. ZIP codes have high-speed lines available to them through at least one provider as of June 2004. More than 80 percent of ZIP codes have a choice of at least two companies selling broadband links.
In other words, all but a tiny fraction of Americans have the option to pay for a high-speed connection...."
That's a preposterous conclusion because the FCC considers one home in a zip code with broadband to mean that entire zip code is "serviced".