6 ms·

Was that what it was? Because I think it sounded a lot like scandinavia sighing that we've had this for a decade. (I'm sure other countries has too, the US real

by tjogin 17y ago

Was that what it was? Because I think it sounded a lot like scandinavia sighing that we've had this for a decade. (I'm sure other countries has too, the US really has backwater infrastructure.)

nollidge 17y ago
Admittedly this probably has a lot to do with luddite technology policy, but surely it has more to do with the U.S. having 10 times the land mass and 15 times the population as Scandanavia [1]. [1] Stats from Wikipedia, summing Norway + Sweden + Denmark area and most recent population vs. United States.
- tjogin 17y ago
  Actually, Norway and Sweden has a lower population density than the US has; we've got even more land mass per person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependenc... I think it has more to do with that we don't leave infrastructure development squarely in the hands of the market.
  - nollidge 17y ago
    > Actually, Norway and Sweden has a lower population density I realize that. The multipliers I gave necessarily imply exactly that: 15x pop. and 10x area => U.S. has 1.5x the population density.
    - swolchok 17y ago
      I would imagine that non-uniformity of population (i.e., cities are high-density, backwater rural states are not) is exacerbated by the greater land area of the U.S.
      - tjogin 17y ago
        Sweden and Norway has very non-uniformly populated areas as well. Don't blame your land mass, blame your telcos. They are screwing you over.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    well for the most part, the US has no market for utilities - it is all monopolies
    - jerf 17y ago
      Government-issued monopolies. This is terrible stick to try to bludgeon markets with; there's hardly a market to be found.
- khafra 17y ago
  If we've got 10 times the land mass and 15 times the population, and rolling out speedy broadband is more cost-effective given greater population density, doesn't that mean the US should be faster and cheaper than Scandinavia, not slower and more expensive?
  - nollidge 17y ago
    Perhaps I'm not thinking about this clearly, but I'm figuring that greater population density makes it less cost-effective because you have more endpoints, and therefore need more network branching, more wires, more intermediate nodes, more digging, and more time per square km.
    - khafra 17y ago
      If your revenue is what you get paid every month by your subscribers, and your cost is your total mileage of fiber (plus switching equipment, upstream connection, etc.), then the more subscribers you have per mile of fiber in the ground, the higher your net income. More saliently, the justification most often trotted out when US consumers complain about being so ill-served by broadband providers is the higher population density in Japan and South Korea.
      - nollidge 17y ago
        Ah, I was stupidly neglecting the profits from subscribers after the infrastructure was in place. However, wouldn't this run counter to the OP's argument that it's the free market economics preventing this from happening? With the greater profits available afterwards, why wouldn't the money-grubbing bastards invest in it?
        tjogin 17y ago
        I'm not saying the reason for the US's poor infrastructure development is decidedly because the US has left it in the hands of the market, I'm just saying I have a feeling it has something to do with it, that it's one of the factors. In Sweden, government policy and government subsidies have ensured widespread broadband coverage, not just in major cities, but in large but sparsely populated areas as well. This is true for both internet infrastructure as well as mobile networks. It hasn't been squarely up to the market to decide which areas deserve high capacity broadband and mobile infrastructure. I remember back in 2001 when I traveled to the most northern part of the country to teach programming; Kiruna — the world's second biggest city by area, population 19,000 — had wi-fi network connectivity over the entire downtown area (which admittedly wasn't as large as it may sound). This was not due to the power of the open market. In Sweden there is no such thing as lack of cellphone connectivity. Calls suddenly disconnecting does not happen. The only reason I even know of these phenomena is because I've heard Americans speak of it. And, finally, service is cheap, dirt cheap, by US standards.
- mixmax 17y ago
  Having a larger userbase should actually make your service cheaper since you can spread your fixed costs across more users and get serious economies of scale.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by tjogin 17y ago

Was that what it was? Because I think it sounded a lot like scandinavia sighing that we've had this for a decade. (I'm sure other countries has too, the US really has backwater infrastructure.)

nollidge 17y ago

Admittedly this probably has a lot to do with luddite technology policy, but surely it has more to do with the U.S. having 10 times the land mass and 15 times the population as Scandanavia [1]. [1] Stats from Wikipedia, summing Norway + Sweden + Denmark area and most recent population vs. United States.

tjogin 17y ago
Actually, Norway and Sweden has a lower population density than the US has; we've got even more land mass per person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependenc... I think it has more to do with that we don't leave infrastructure development squarely in the hands of the market.
- nollidge 17y ago
  > Actually, Norway and Sweden has a lower population density I realize that. The multipliers I gave necessarily imply exactly that: 15x pop. and 10x area => U.S. has 1.5x the population density.
  - swolchok 17y ago
    I would imagine that non-uniformity of population (i.e., cities are high-density, backwater rural states are not) is exacerbated by the greater land area of the U.S.
    - tjogin 17y ago
      Sweden and Norway has very non-uniformly populated areas as well. Don't blame your land mass, blame your telcos. They are screwing you over.
- protomyth 17y ago
  well for the most part, the US has no market for utilities - it is all monopolies
  - jerf 17y ago
    Government-issued monopolies. This is terrible stick to try to bludgeon markets with; there's hardly a market to be found.
khafra 17y ago
If we've got 10 times the land mass and 15 times the population, and rolling out speedy broadband is more cost-effective given greater population density, doesn't that mean the US should be faster and cheaper than Scandinavia, not slower and more expensive?
- nollidge 17y ago
  Perhaps I'm not thinking about this clearly, but I'm figuring that greater population density makes it less cost-effective because you have more endpoints, and therefore need more network branching, more wires, more intermediate nodes, more digging, and more time per square km.
  - khafra 17y ago
    If your revenue is what you get paid every month by your subscribers, and your cost is your total mileage of fiber (plus switching equipment, upstream connection, etc.), then the more subscribers you have per mile of fiber in the ground, the higher your net income. More saliently, the justification most often trotted out when US consumers complain about being so ill-served by broadband providers is the higher population density in Japan and South Korea.
    - nollidge 17y ago
      Ah, I was stupidly neglecting the profits from subscribers after the infrastructure was in place. However, wouldn't this run counter to the OP's argument that it's the free market economics preventing this from happening? With the greater profits available afterwards, why wouldn't the money-grubbing bastards invest in it?
      - tjogin 17y ago
        I'm not saying the reason for the US's poor infrastructure development is decidedly because the US has left it in the hands of the market, I'm just saying I have a feeling it has something to do with it, that it's one of the factors. In Sweden, government policy and government subsidies have ensured widespread broadband coverage, not just in major cities, but in large but sparsely populated areas as well. This is true for both internet infrastructure as well as mobile networks. It hasn't been squarely up to the market to decide which areas deserve high capacity broadband and mobile infrastructure. I remember back in 2001 when I traveled to the most northern part of the country to teach programming; Kiruna — the world's second biggest city by area, population 19,000 — had wi-fi network connectivity over the entire downtown area (which admittedly wasn't as large as it may sound). This was not due to the power of the open market. In Sweden there is no such thing as lack of cellphone connectivity. Calls suddenly disconnecting does not happen. The only reason I even know of these phenomena is because I've heard Americans speak of it. And, finally, service is cheap, dirt cheap, by US standards.
mixmax 17y ago
Having a larger userbase should actually make your service cheaper since you can spread your fixed costs across more users and get serious economies of scale.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]