[IP] more on U.S. broadband A-OK A REAL MUST READ
------ Forwarded Message
From: Les Vadasz <les@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:11:49 -0800
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] U.S. broadband A-OK
Hi Dave,
Usually I read these news items and go on to the next one. Some of factual,
some are amusing, some - like this one - is downright infuriating. Maybe the
writer should realize that this Country did not get where we are by making
excuses for difficult tasks. On the contrary. It was by creating
opportunities that solved problems. That has differentiated us from the rest
of the world.
We are not doing that in broadband deployment, and it will bite us. There
will be an economic price to pay that will affect our standard of living.
The negative imacts will come in some doses, and it will be hard to measure.
The cumulative impact can be huge.
I just hope that most of your readers do not take this point of view.
Les
----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from junk email by MailFrontier Desktop
from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com
U.S. broadband A-OK
By Declan McCullagh
<http://news.com.com/U.S.+broadband+A-OK/2010-1071_3-5517695.html>
Story last modified Mon Jan 10 04:00:00 PST 2005
It's become fashionable to fret about the purported need for a "national
broadband policy," a concern typically accompanied by laments that the
United States lags other nations in adopting speedy Internet connections.
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.
To be sure, complaints about U.S. lagging refer both to slow adoption of
broadband and the slower broadband speeds available. 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. By the way, if
you've got complaints about the rollout speed, the best way to accelerate it
would be to eliminate wacky government regulations stemming from the 1996
Telecommunications Act--not add to the confusion with new ones.
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."
[snip]
Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net>
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as les@xxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/