3 ms·

Here's why: population density is much higher in Europe. The price per mile to put cables into the ground has a lower bound that cannot be breached. The same le

Here's why: population density is much higher in Europe. The price per mile to put cables into the ground has a lower bound that cannot be breached. The same length of cable will connect far more customers in high-population areas than it will in rural Wyoming. It is not valid to compare Europe with the USA in this regard because they truly are apples and oranges geographically. I assert that broadband would be faster and cheaper anywhere given true capitalism (that is, a system where people trade honestly, at a profit, with the only government involvement being the courts [no regulation to give corrupt businesses and activists the upper hand].)

Apocryphon 15y ago
The article actually mentions that point: Meanwhile, the size of the U.S. may be a red herring. Most of the region between Boston and Washington is as densely populated as most of Europe and the UK. So is the California coast between San Francisco and San Diego. And so is the region of the Midwest centered on Chicago. Those areas are home to about a quarter of all Americans. In other words, we live in a big country, but a lot of it is relatively empty space.
- maxharris 15y ago
  I don't buy that. One reason is that the article fails to account for the taxes that are put on phone bills that subsidize rural telecommunications. Another is that the regulations that force American telcos to support low-density projects have direct effects (someone subsidizes folks in Wyoming, and that invariably ends up being people living elsewhere) as well as indirect ones (regulating a business changes its culture for the worse. Risk takers get pushed out.)
  - dalke 15y ago
    The Federal USF Surcharge is what, US$1 per residential line per month? That's the only nationwide subsidy program I know of. Even if it's more - $5/month? $20/month? - that's nowhere near enough to account for the disparity in network performance in the Northeast seaboard states compared to, say Sweden. I'm an American living in Sweden. I'm in a city and can get 200Mbit/s for US$80/month. Checking Comcast for Boston and I don't see any option above 105Mbit and that costs US$105/month. That's not a simple difference in subsidies. In any case, Sweden is not a densely packed country. It's about 54 people/sq. mile and the US is 83 people/sq. mile. Massachusetts is 830 people/sq. mile. Why doesn't Boston have better internet service than here? It can't be subsidies for universal access for a far-flung population since the surcharge isn't that high. It can't be population density since otherwise Boston or any other large US city would have better connectivity than here. The point of the survey is to analyze those reason, and you drew your conclusion after only reading a summary of it. The objections you raise come up every time there's a cross-national comparison of internet access. They are accounted for, and the US is still behind, and falling further behind.
pyre 15y ago
> population density is much higher in Europe. If this is really the case, then: * Why do FIOS rollouts happen in the suburbs rather than in the densely packed cities? Wouldn't it be cheaper to roll out in the city since the suburbs are less dense than the cities that they cling to? * Why don't we have excellent broadband on the US East coast where the population density is comparable to Europe? > far more customers in high-population areas than it > will in rural Wyoming That's really the point. There are areas of high population density in the US, but the broadband options, even in those areas are sometimes lacking (especially when the ISPs oversell their bandwidth in high-population areas rather than upgrading to deal with the additional load).

Apocryphon 15y ago

The article actually mentions that point: Meanwhile, the size of the U.S. may be a red herring. Most of the region between Boston and Washington is as densely populated as most of Europe and the UK. So is the California coast between San Francisco and San Diego. And so is the region of the Midwest centered on Chicago. Those areas are home to about a quarter of all Americans. In other words, we live in a big country, but a lot of it is relatively empty space.

maxharris 15y ago
I don't buy that. One reason is that the article fails to account for the taxes that are put on phone bills that subsidize rural telecommunications. Another is that the regulations that force American telcos to support low-density projects have direct effects (someone subsidizes folks in Wyoming, and that invariably ends up being people living elsewhere) as well as indirect ones (regulating a business changes its culture for the worse. Risk takers get pushed out.)
- dalke 15y ago
  The Federal USF Surcharge is what, US$1 per residential line per month? That's the only nationwide subsidy program I know of. Even if it's more - $5/month? $20/month? - that's nowhere near enough to account for the disparity in network performance in the Northeast seaboard states compared to, say Sweden. I'm an American living in Sweden. I'm in a city and can get 200Mbit/s for US$80/month. Checking Comcast for Boston and I don't see any option above 105Mbit and that costs US$105/month. That's not a simple difference in subsidies. In any case, Sweden is not a densely packed country. It's about 54 people/sq. mile and the US is 83 people/sq. mile. Massachusetts is 830 people/sq. mile. Why doesn't Boston have better internet service than here? It can't be subsidies for universal access for a far-flung population since the surcharge isn't that high. It can't be population density since otherwise Boston or any other large US city would have better connectivity than here. The point of the survey is to analyze those reason, and you drew your conclusion after only reading a summary of it. The objections you raise come up every time there's a cross-national comparison of internet access. They are accounted for, and the US is still behind, and falling further behind.

pyre 15y ago

> population density is much higher in Europe. If this is really the case, then: * Why do FIOS rollouts happen in the suburbs rather than in the densely packed cities? Wouldn't it be cheaper to roll out in the city since the suburbs are less dense than the cities that they cling to? * Why don't we have excellent broadband on the US East coast where the population density is comparable to Europe? > far more customers in high-population areas than it > will in rural Wyoming That's really the point. There are areas of high population density in the US, but the broadband options, even in those areas are sometimes lacking (especially when the ISPs oversell their bandwidth in high-population areas rather than upgrading to deal with the additional load).