http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/31/broadband.south.korea/?hpt=C2
"An average broadband bill there runs about $28.50."
Do they subsidize ISP's there? And are they not taking that into the cost?
limitgov: The slower connection here in the U.S. costs about $45.50 per month on average, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The slower connection here in the U.S. costs about $45.50 per month on average, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
What does "the slower connection" means in numbers?
I believe someone recently showed that in fact in terms of actual broadband penetration the United States has the highest regardless of not having the top speeds. I'll try to find the article in question later.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Marko:What does "the slower connection" means in numbers?
I think average connection speed in SK is 14.0+ Megabits where as in the US it only 3-4.
Is that what your asking?
"the power of the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to regulate is not as strong here as it is in other countries," which means its less likely that the U.S. will pass policies to promote the growth of ultra-fast broadband."
- John D. Sutter, CNN
what a ridiculous quote. No wonder noone takes CNN seriously.
This article is trying to make the ridiculous assumption that government intervention is what will drive up our speeds and drive down our cost for fast internet.
Solarist: Marko:What does "the slower connection" means in numbers? I think average connection speed in SK is 14.0+ Megabits where as in the US it only 3-4. Is that what your asking?
No, I'm asking, do they subsidize all ISP's there?
Yes. $45.50 does sound a little pricey for 3-4 megabits.
Of course relative to wages it probably isn't as much...
The U.S. has the fastest networks. They just cap lower than others.
Population density should also be considered. Many parts of the US are very rural and away from central ISP hubs. It's easier to grant access to high-speed connections with a high population density.
Sphairon: Population density should also be considered. Many parts of the US are very rural and away from central ISP hubs. It's easier to grant access to high-speed connections with a high population density.
this pretty much hits it on the head. Seoul (and the nearby areas) have about 50% of the population, so it's really easy to wire up dense areas with high-capacity broadband lines (ie: fiber) and gets these kind of numbers. In the US, it's extremely cost prohibitive to deploy fiber except in the most dense of areas....even then, it's not exactly cheap. The real expense of fiber isn't always the fiber itself (which has greatly fallen in price), so much as it is the laborers who work on fiber---especially termination; it's a very high skill, high precision, high-paying job, which, naturally, makes deploying fiber, in the long run, expensive.
Another problem in the US is that State governments usually hinder entry of other competitors into the market (ie: granting exclusive rights to a certain territory to deploy telephone or cable service....just like the utility commissions do with electric lines), and FCC compliance also is a burden on start-up cost.
Sadly, people will always say (if you support as many telephone companies as the market will support) "do you want our telephone lines to look like this?' http://sjeltur.nl/wp-content/2008/05/india1-medium.jpg
http://photos.travellerspoint.com/83709/6-Indian_m..ne_pole.jpg
http://thugtooth.net/images/india_phone_3.jpg
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4248715/2/istockphoto_4248715-phone-line-mess-in-shanghai-china.jpg
This really is a matter of property rights though; if you sell them the right to put "X" many poles on your property and you haven't homesteaded the area where the wires are, then you have no right or say in how they put the wires up....but really, I doubt private companies would end up making a stringy mess as seen in those pictures, as they have a strong incentive to conserve on cable to cut costs....besides, these days, telcos usually desire to put cables underground, as it's lower maintenance cost in the long run.
Resident Christian Anarcho-Capitalist.