OECD Releases Fresh Scare Stats On US Broadband Penetration
from the cut-off dept
A new report is out that once again rings the alarm bells about the relative lack of broadband penetration in the US. According to the OECD, in the past year, the US dropped from 12th to 15th in the world in terms of broadband access per 100 people. Luxembourg, France and Japan all surpassed the US in the last year. Naturally, telecom activist groups are using the news to push for more federal leadership on the issue, in hopes that this will catapult the country back up to the top of the list. But while broadband access is important to the economy, it's important to put these numbers in perspective. Simply looking at the number of subscribers doesn't necessarily translate to a good measure of broadband availability. Also, the US has a more difficult time getting broadband out to everyone, since it's much less dense, population-wise, than many of the leading countries in Europe or Asia. There's no easy answer to the problem of rural broadband deployment, as it's very expensive, while any federally mandated program would almost certainly lead to a USF-like boondoggle. This isn't to say that the US broadband picture is ideal; it's not by any means. It continues to be less competitive than it could be, which has a negative impact on price and quality. But it's important to realize that despite all of the warnings that without a comprehensive broadband strategy, the US would fall behind the world, the country is no slouch in the innovation department, particularly when it comes to the Internet. We'll gladly take our ranking of 15 and Google over France's superior ranking and Quaero.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Level the playing field
For reference, http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/040407-government-policies-add-to-japans.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't bigger families also skew the numbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't bigger families also skew the numbers
It is sad that I fear the day my statement will be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The report lists america's rate at 19.2
The average family size in denmark in 2002 is 2.2 persons.
http://www.denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,520402&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
The average family size in USA is 3.14 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts
Supposing the numbers are cooked the way you propose, 100% actual broadband penetration in denmark would be one subscriber per family or 45%. This puts them at 29.3/45 = 0.65% of theoretical maximum
In america one subscriber per family would be 32%, which puts us at 19.2/32 = 60% of theoretical maximum.
Supposing the numbers are cooked like you propose. Any opinions on that? it seems plausible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i dont know if thats what you are referring to as population density, but I suspect it is, and its technically true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's perfectly possible, in the US, to drive 2-3 hours without ever seeing any sign of civilization. The scale of the place, esp. out West, is very hard to understand if you have never seen it. Flying across the country gives some impression of scale as the last four or so hours of an East->West flight are over basically empty space. In contrast, most Nordic countries have populations heavily concentrated in towns and cities, which makes it a lot easier deploy services.
Also, when comparing European countries to the US, you really need to compare said countries to states. For example, Norway is about the size of New Mexico. Norway has a population of 4.6 million, while New Mexico has a population of 1.9 million, less than half. Dense places like New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island skew the national density numbers and are not really reflective of what it's like in the mid-West and West of the US.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It has more to do with a shrinking middle class in the US that can afford internet access. As the gap increases between have and have nots its harder for this number to increase. The have's already have broadband. The increasing number of poorer people can't afford it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. have you increased the population density (yes)
2. are any of those new inhabitants easy to get broadband to? (no)
therefore, more "population density" does not mean it should be easier to get broadband deployed. more people evenly dispersed across the land means that is harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
federally mandated boondoggle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: federally mandated boondoggle
1. decent broadband coverage via private-sanctionedmonopoly interaction
2. roads trickled throughout the nether reaches of rural territory were built by counties and states and collective local willpower, not federal mandates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: federally mandated boondoggle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: federally mandated boondoggle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Penetration
How come these same principles don't apply to ugly people? Hey, ugly people have a lack of penetration penetration - should we subsidise this? Somehow promote ugly people getting laid more often?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luxembourg?
I think it would be more fair/relevant to see broadband numbers relative to land mass. Otherwise we're comparing apples to oranges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great examples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just want a pipe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Australians laugh at your lack on broadband
"It's perfectly possible, in the US, to drive 2-3 hours without ever seeing any sign of civilization. "
Try days, mate. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In France the government acts desesperatly on many subjects, but for the broadband market regulation it was not the case. Thanks to the official regulation agency (ARCEP.fr), competition was allowed to grow despite France Telecom rude behaviour.
Reading this blog often, it really seems that in the US the true problem is big telcos rather than density.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broadband
it looks like WiMax can cover remote areas at reasonable costs. Microwave or fiber backhaul are required, but what feeds cell towers? With a much better range than cellular and colocation on existing sites, we could cover a lot of very remote areas, at least close to the highways. And guess where most people live? There's also way good potential for satellite broadband if the fed would consent to lobbing a few more sats into the Clark belt. Not cheap, but who has the best launch platform on the planet right now? India?
Admittedly, wireless is best deployed in fairly flat areas- but google "stratellite" for yet another possible approach. From overhead, mountains are no barrier. The means already exist- if we could get something better than mumbled lip service from our not so exalted leadership, we could kick ass in this venue almost overnight. Speaking of India: they'll be giving broadband to most residents by 2009- at two mb/s- everywhere. So, other than idiocy, what's the holdup here? It isn't the technology- it's the telco and cable multiopolies dragging their heels because that much broadband means a total loss of control over all those carefully cornered, hardwired customers. Triple play my- well, you get the idea.
Hardwired has its place- can't beat it for security- but for everyday stuff, who cares? Messengers are secure too, with a large armed escort, but you don't see too many messenger convoys tooling down the road these days. Let's get with the program and quit whining. The technology isn't cheap, but it will keep us competitive- and we might as well just bring on the welfare state if we can't keep up with a world we basically built over the last century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at the cost of Broadband in the international economic model... How many Big Macs does broadband cost/month.
The US... Broadband $20/month, Big Mac $4... so the cost is 5 Big Macs a months.
Sweden... Broadband $15/month, Big Mac $7.50... the cost is 2 Big Macs a month.
As long as Broadband is so highly regulated (you can "choose" between the local telco or cable) the prices will stay high and the spread low.
In the "Socialist regulated" Sweden there are more than 5 companies compeating on all the markets.
Population densety has nothing to do with Broadband adoption in comparison with price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]