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.
kupriaa1 - You're right, there are additional factors at work, but sheer size is, in my mind, an unquestionably big hurdle to get over. Upgrading the backbone is even, in part, an issue of geography...
I think we're well off regardless. I just want better switches from point to point so that I can get a faster speed. The backbone isn't largely what needs upgrading; it's the switches that process where which data goes.
Since we're bigger, we'll need better wires and tech. The longer the wire and length, the less power that travels through so it will be more expensive.
I'm just happy to have gone from 6-768kbs to 10-1.5. That said I wish I were in a Verizon area.
I have internet at 3kbs which is slower than what I get on my Blackjack 2. So why don't the internet companies spend some money to get high speed internet to people on dailup. By the way I 2 miles from the Interstate.
Given the devaluation of the US dollar, and the fact that within a few years the US will be a $10 Trillion dollars of debt, it is likely that US communication companies will get bought up by foreign corporations within the next few years. It will be interesting to see what German or French telecomms are able to do, or if they will even bother with the backbone of our infrastructure.
There aint going to be no frogs or krauts buying anyone out. Just because the dollar is down and the nation has incurred debt does not mean telcomms are going to sell their baby. Sheesh.
This is an important issue! this will enhances efforts like: http://www.digitalcribs.net/DisplayVideo.aspx?id=971429333
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
$200? Yeah right..for the first three months..and you sign a 20 year agreement agreeing to pay $500 a month. And no upgrades to service and you will only get three channels. Thats how they roll.