

The embarrassment of American broadband - pmikal
http://www.macworld.com/article/140109/2009/04/broadband_embarrassment.html?lsrc=rss_main

======
Xichekolas
So the US has 79 million broadband subscribers, and ~300 million people. The
article states that this means that ~26% of the US population has broadband.
But does one subscriber equal one person?

I read 'subscriber' as 'person in the household that pays the bill'...
multiple people may be using that account.

If you click through to the OECD numbers, you'll find the following:

    
    
      Rank  Country        Subscribers/100 people
      1     Denmark        36.7
      6     Sweden         32.3
      7     S. Korea       31.2
      10    Canada         27.9
      15    United States  25.0
      17    Japan          23.0
      20    Spain          19.8
      30    Mexico          4.7
      =========================
            OECD Average   21.3
    

Not near as alarmist as he makes it seem.

I agree that our slow speeds are embarassing, but statements like:

 _"But it’s pathetic that roughly three-quarters of the people in this country
don’t have broadband Internet service."_

are disingenuous at best, and, as you'll see in the next table, blatantly
false.

The fact is that "subscribers per 100 people" is always going to be higher in
countries with smaller households (Smaller households mean more households per
100 people, which means more subscribers per 100 people).

More useful statistics would be "households with broadband access", which
thankfully is also provided by the OECD data:

    
    
      Rank  Country        % households with broadband
      1     S. Korea       94.1 (includes 3G)
      4     Denmark        69.5
      5     Japan          67.6 (includes 3G, but only when tethered)
      7     Sweden         66.6
      8     Canada         64.0
      14    United States  50.8
      20    Spain          39.2
      30    Mexico          6.1
      =========================
            OECD Average   48.2
    

Also, before the obligatory "but the US is different, we are spread out"
comment comes, the OECD has data on that too. There is a positive correlation
between subscribers and population density, but it is 0.22, so not
overwhelming. While correlation (or lack thereof) does not imply (or deny)
causation, I'd imagine factors like regulation have much more to do with it
than geography.

~~~
snprbob86

      1) Thank you for being logical and data driven
      2) Damn you for being logical and data driven
    

I'm a firm believer that necessity is the mother of invention. I also believe
that necessity is only proven by crisis. Even if we had the world's greatest
broadband infrastructure, I'd rather everyone think we were having an internet
drought of biblical proportions. It would certainly step up the pace of
innovation and encourage modernized legislation.

------
Dauntless
I'll just mention that in Romania I pay $15 for unlimited bandwidth at 5 Mbps
(it even gets speeds of 10Mbps and up for connections from inside the country)
and they give you free install and fast costumer support also.

Romania was smart/lucky because people started their own micro-ISPs
(Block/Neighborhood Networks) with 50 to 3000 customers each. Buying from
bigger ISPs very powerful connections and selling it to more users that shared
that connection. Thanks to competition, it brought the prices down a lot and
even the big ISP had to adjust.

Edit: There is a side effect like having this
[http://www.roconsulboston.com/Media/Artists/DDBuchJly08/Wire...](http://www.roconsulboston.com/Media/Artists/DDBuchJly08/WiresLg.jpg)
on almost all streets in Bucharest, but I find the benefits much higher. Also
Wireless Internet is free in pubs/bistros/coffee houses that provide this
service here.

~~~
mmphosis
<http://www.uh.edu/engines/nycandwires.jpg>

------
harpastum
I enjoy the ridiculously fat pipe at my American university: 90mb/s down,
52mb/s up (actual, not theoretical) [1]. I can download that 4.6GB Bond movie
in a little _under_ nine minutes.

Yes, I realize the story is as much about penetration as it is raw speed. But
really, once you have felt ~100mbits, it's just painful to hear people talking
about 256k as 'Broadband'.

[1]<http://www.speedtest.net/result/445903195.png>

------
pieter
I wonder how the broadband market and cellular data services will interact in
the future. Broadband is more expensive in the US than here in the EU, and the
same is true for cellular data. You can basically get a month unlimited (fair-
use) cellular data here for €10 (~$14), in any country (though sometimes
you're not allowed to tether). I think 3G is much more expensive in the US
(but haven't really checked).

As far as I understand it, the broadband is pretty much monopolized in the US,
while it's pretty competetive over here. Perhaps the cellular providers can
provide some competition? It's happening here already, with for instance 3
providing 3G-only services for use with your laptop.

~~~
derefr
Here in Canada, 3G is double-sold: I'm on with Rogers, and they charge you
once for a "data pack" for your phone ($30CDN/mon for a _1GB cap_ \--there was
a $35/6GB/mon point for a while, but it was promotional) which absolutely
disallows tethering, and then charge you _another_ $30/1GB/mon, on a separate
plan, to use their "wireless internet stick" (a USB 3G modem.)

------
icey
Really, this should be "The embarrassment of broadband in the English speaking
world."

I don't think Canada, Australia or the UK have terribly good broadband options
either.

~~~
thristian
So true. While I wait for ADSL2 to be enabled at my local exchange (in Sydney,
Australia) so I can upgrade beyond 1.5Mbps, I laugh bitterly at all the "our
10Mbps connections are so slow!' articles I read.

------
shrughes
The fact that our broadband level is lower than other countries' doesn't mean
that it is "bad." Here's an alternate theory that explains the difference:
Other countries have governments that like spending excess amount of money on
things. One of those things is internet access. (This isn't the only reason --
we could use a more competitive marketplace.)

There does exist a level of broadband at which point it's not worth increasing
the level of broadband any more. Does anybody make the argument that we are
below that level?

What are we going to do with more broadband? Watch movies at higher
resolution? What a life-changing experience that will be!

There are definitely more interesting ways in which higher amounts of
broadband could change the way we use the Internet, but right now the limiting
factor is imagination and distribution channels, not bandwidth.

------
ojbyrne
"we now lag the rest of the world when it comes to broadband Net access." You
don't lag the nightmare that is Canada.

~~~
Hexstream
I'm guessing you're excluding Quebec? I can consistently download at 800k/sec
(if the server will push the bits this fast) with Videotron. Is that really
considered impossibly slow nowadays?! I don't even know what I'd do with more
bandwidth, though now that I have a server the 100k/sec upload limit is a bit
more of an irritation.

~~~
Retric
If you look around the world ~100MB/s residential connections are fairly
common and a few places are rolling out 1Gbit/second. However, in the US you
see everything from ~80MB/s down to 256k/s depending on your location. The
fastest connection my mother can get is 256k/s which plenty fast for web
surfing but don't try and watch HD video streams on that thing. And that's the
problem 30 vs 100 MB/s is not that big deal but when much of the US can't get
1/10th that we have a problem.

Edit: Mine is 20MBbit down, 2MBit up.

------
old-gregg
The issue isn't raw downloading power. The issue is request latency,
overloaded DNS servers and overloaded data centers. In other words it's not
just about quantity, it's (as always with life) mostly about quality.

In 2000-01 I briefly had a relatively modest (2mbit/sec) DSL line from a local
mini-ISP with crazy fast ping times and DNS on steroids: nearly _everything_
on the Internet would load under half a second.

That mini-ISP got acquired and disappeared, and my internet experience has
been deteriorating ever since: my guaranteed 6mbit/sec connection allows me to
I download hundreds of front pages of HN per second, yet I wait for up to 10
seconds sometimes to load just one, and google maps always gets stuck at one
or two map fragments when I look something up.

------
anigbrowl
Back in the day, CompuServe, Delphi etc. used to charge for connections by the
mnute (not to mention for emails). Major phone companies like Verizon etc.
still segment customers dependent on whether they're calling inside or outside
the network (as if I care what carrier someone else sues, or are going to ask
them to switch for my benefit!).I hope this model is doomed.

I'm glad the current administration is committed to a broadband plan for the
US, although I'm worried that the FCC has set it sights far too low.
Personally, I'm OK with some taxes going towards this; Broadband is nowadays
as important as a well-functioning road system. It seems to me that the poorer
or less economically developed parts of the US would derive big long-term
economic benefits.

<http://www.fcc.gov/broadband> is the central FCC page for the electronic
superhighway and related policies. Though very dull looking, there's a lot of
substance at the links on the left.

------
DTrejo
Don't forget the embarassment of ridiculously high prices for public wireless
(at airport, cafes etc).

$5.00 for two hours!? What!?

~~~
m_eiman
In Sweden we have something called Sidewalk Express where you can sit down at
a computer and browse the web for €1 per hour. If you want to use the WLAN in
the same location (from some other company), you'll have to pay ~€5 per hour -
and then the computer isn't included. Weird.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
True. But on your laptop you can at least have VPN set up and be somewhat
secure in your use. Sidewalk Express I am not even sure I want to log into my
email account with.

~~~
m_eiman
Indeed, but it's still silly that I can get the connection plus a computer for
a fifth of the price!

------
jmtame
History and the implications of network neutrality (covers AT&T and Verizon in
depth): [http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-
neutrality-w...](http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-
word97/)

