Interesting People mailing list archives
more on U.S. broadband A-OK
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:10:32 -0500
Mike was at the FCC when I was there. Djf ------ Forwarded Message From: Michael Kende <Michael.Kende () analysys com> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:25:36 +0000 To: <dave () farber net>, Ip <ip () v2 listbox com> Subject: RE: [IP] U.S. broadband A-OK It is always important in these debates to differentiate between adoption and availability. There are two issues discussed below and they need to be seperated. First, the concerns discussed below relating to the ranking of the US in broadband penetration, relate to the *adoption* of broadband. According to NCTA, by Sept. 30, 2004, 105,000,000 households out of 109,590,170 TV households had access to cable modem service, and this ignores DSL and satellite services. Thus, more than 90% of Americans have access to at least one form of braodband today. The low penetration rate of broadband thus has nothing to do with population density - households already have access. Second, it is true that population density impacts the deployment of new networks such as fiber based networks, and of course it is cheaper to do this in South Korea than it is here. I believe that this is a legitimate concern, that is beginning to be overcome by new fiber rollouts, but as the article describes, this does not appear to be the issue raised by these rankings - I do not believe that the broadband speed being considered in these rankings is higher than that offered by DSL and cable modem service in the US today. So, why are so few households adopting broadband in the US today when it is available to them? Is this something to be concerned about? These are legitimate questions, and should not be lightly dismissed by citing population density issues that have already been overcome with current broadband offerings. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 3:09 AM To: Ip Subject: [IP] U.S. broadband A-OK ------ Forwarded Message From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> Reply-To: <dewayne () warpspeed com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:47:11 -0800 To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] U.S. broadband A-OK 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 michael.kende () analysys com 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 interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on U.S. broadband A-OK David Farber (Jan 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on U.S. broadband A-OK David Farber (Jan 11)