Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:13PM EDT
See Comments (14)
Once again, the gadflies are hovering around the issue that broadband penetration in the U.S. has slowed way down, and dredging up the old news that U.S. broadband speed is comparatively dog slow compared to the rest of the world.
Is it really that bad? Sure, I'd love to have the 60-plus megabits per second that the average Japanese broadband subscriber has access to, but the logistics of offering such a service on a national scale in a country as large as the U.S. are nightmarish. The U.S. is 25 times larger in area than Japan, and 96 times larger than South Korea, the other big broadband high-flyer.
I took a look at the 20 countries where broadband penetration is the highest (they're ranked from top to bottom in the chart above), and compared the average broadband speed (per the recent Explaining International Broadband Leadership study, page 6 [PDF]) to the geographical area of each country. I then multiplied the two numbers together to give a sense of how many Mbps are available per thousand square kilometers of sheer land that has to be covered. (Higher numbers indicate faster coverage over more land.)
The exercise is simplistic but the results are interesting, if expected: Smaller countries generally have faster broadband. The bigger nations, including the U.S., Australia, and Canada, lag far behind. (Canada is considerably better off than the U.S. is, with a 7.6Mbps average vs. our 4.9Mbps average, but consider how much of the country is unpopulated. And yes, I know we have Alaska, too, but still...)
What's surprising about the chart isn't really how fast a few select countries are but how slow a few very small ones are. Look at Denmark, Switzerland, and Luxembourg: All are very well-off, industrialized countries, and all are very small (Luxembourg has just 3,000 square km to manage, about the same size as Rhode Island). All of them have slower broadband service on average than we do in the U.S.
Do we have room for improvement? Absolutely, and I believe higher-speed broadband is on the way. Regardless, the numbers aren't so grim that would should hang our heads in shame.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
heres another example of what I am referring to- Lets say buy an 8 port gigabit Ethernet switch- and you attach 8 computers to the switch. All computers receive 1gbps bandwidth. You share a folder on one of the computers. There is a large file on the folder (lets say 1GB). You then configure the other seven computers to retrieve the file from the shared folder- in essence the seven computers have to share the 1gbps link between the "server" and the switch- in a FIFO environment the seven computer would average about 135 mbps at best.
To go a steop further- Cisco and other networking companies have technologies such as LRE (long reach ethernet)1gbps ethernet that can reach upwards to a mile. Very nice. Even if Comcast provided that technology to me- I would still share the Aggregate Comcast Point of Presence Internet link (whatever speed that is)- plus the Internet switches and routers have to move packets across provider networks extremely fast for me to ever achieve 1gbps on the Internet. Thats why Comcast is imposing bandwidth caps. The equipment is dated and needs to be upgraded. They claim they dont have the money. I dont really know if this is true or not- but thats their story.
Even worse I know they are spending tons of money on bandwidth monitoring equipment, traffic analysis tools, and monitoring personnel. I would rather see them spending this money on upgrading their equipment rather than monitoring my Internet usage. They WANT to slow the Internet down so that they can charge you for every bit you send.
Comcast is already updating their system to one of the highest speed uber multi terrabit systems on the planet. Dont believe any hype that they "dont have the money" - they are just not finished with doing the back-end upgrades necessary to roll it out across the majority of the US yet. When they do, a magic switch will be thrown and the HD channels will suddenly be clearer as they will no longer be compressed like they are now, and new interactive TV stuff will be rolled out, along with a standard 100Mbps for internet access for all Comcast users - and new fees as well, like a nice $200 a month all you can eat package.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
Null- the correlation your present with landsize to broadband bandwidth is not the best here. Broadband penetration and location yes (i think we agreed earlier about this point). The key feature the US is suffering from is the overall number of users surfing the web and the dated equipment used for the backbone. Japan and S. Korea joined the Internet community later then us (we created it of course) and their initial investment for switching equipment (on the Internet) came later than ours. Their equipment therefore will be inherently faster to some degree. To see this more clearly- most of the Asian continent is running IPv6 - the US? Heck there are IT guys out here who prolly dont even know what it its and how it works.