5 ms·

UK is smaller than Oregon. Oregon has a population of 3.9 million. UK has a population of 63.2 million. It is cheaper to get Internet to concentrations of pe

UK is smaller than Oregon. Oregon has a population of 3.9 million. UK has a population of 63.2 million. It is cheaper to get Internet to concentrations of people (more income per line).

notauser 13y ago
Why are people in NYC and San Fransisco subsidising people in Oregon? Shouldn't both of those cities have comparable prices to London, whereas Oregon should be $200+ per line to cover the cost of the long distances between homes?
hdevalence 13y ago
Sure, but the density of, say, NYC, Chicago, or SF, is pretty high. If density were the only factor, parts of the US would rank much more highly than they do now, would they not?
- FireBringer 13y ago
  American Fiber is a corperate venture and doing work in the large cities can be expensive (especially New York) so maybe that has something to do with it.
  - oblio 13y ago
    I'm guessing doing stuff in London is pretty expensive too, so I doubt that reason is valid.
nubbie 13y ago
Yeah, Australians have it rough. ADSL2 here costs anywhere between $40-$100, those living a little further from the exchanges get speeds as low as 1.5mbps, and this is in Sydney. I can't imagine what it's like in country Australia. It's a real shame our government decided it's a good idea to CUT investment on broadband.
- deevus 13y ago
  I was wondering where Australia was in the article graphs. Speed: crap. Price: stupid.
- velodrome 13y ago
  Don't forget the ridiculously low bandwidth caps.
itafroma 13y ago
> UK is smaller than Oregon. Oregon has a population of 3.9 million. UK has a population of 63.2 million. It is cheaper to get Internet to concentrations of people (more income per line). That's a bit misleading: 70% of Oregon's population is concentrated in the Willamette Valley, an area 1/5th the size of England and with a higher population density than Scotland. The US population is not evenly distributed: most of the population concentrates in very dense urban/suburban areas whereas most of the area (particularly in the west) is sparsely populated.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA-2000-population-density.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA-2000-population-densi...
skrause 13y ago
Oregon has roughly the same population density as Sweden, which has some of the fastest and cheapest broadband connections available.
bencoder 13y ago
The UK isn't the only country with cheap broadband. Most of the US has a population density[0] higher than Finland(16/km^2) or Sweden(20/km^2), yet they also have low cost, high speed broadband(faster than the UK). So I think this argument is misleading [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_populati...

UK is smaller than Oregon. Oregon has a population of 3.9 million. UK has a population of 63.2 million. It is cheaper to get Internet to concentrations of people (more income per line).

notauser 13y ago

Why are people in NYC and San Fransisco subsidising people in Oregon? Shouldn't both of those cities have comparable prices to London, whereas Oregon should be $200+ per line to cover the cost of the long distances between homes?

hdevalence 13y ago

Sure, but the density of, say, NYC, Chicago, or SF, is pretty high. If density were the only factor, parts of the US would rank much more highly than they do now, would they not?

FireBringer 13y ago
American Fiber is a corperate venture and doing work in the large cities can be expensive (especially New York) so maybe that has something to do with it.
- oblio 13y ago
  I'm guessing doing stuff in London is pretty expensive too, so I doubt that reason is valid.

nubbie 13y ago

Yeah, Australians have it rough. ADSL2 here costs anywhere between $40-$100, those living a little further from the exchanges get speeds as low as 1.5mbps, and this is in Sydney. I can't imagine what it's like in country Australia. It's a real shame our government decided it's a good idea to CUT investment on broadband.

deevus 13y ago
I was wondering where Australia was in the article graphs. Speed: crap. Price: stupid.
velodrome 13y ago
Don't forget the ridiculously low bandwidth caps.

itafroma 13y ago

> UK is smaller than Oregon. Oregon has a population of 3.9 million. UK has a population of 63.2 million. It is cheaper to get Internet to concentrations of people (more income per line). That's a bit misleading: 70% of Oregon's population is concentrated in the Willamette Valley, an area 1/5th the size of England and with a higher population density than Scotland. The US population is not evenly distributed: most of the population concentrates in very dense urban/suburban areas whereas most of the area (particularly in the west) is sparsely populated.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA-2000-population-density.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA-2000-population-densi...

skrause 13y ago

Oregon has roughly the same population density as Sweden, which has some of the fastest and cheapest broadband connections available.

bencoder 13y ago

The UK isn't the only country with cheap broadband. Most of the US has a population density[0] higher than Finland(16/km^2) or Sweden(20/km^2), yet they also have low cost, high speed broadband(faster than the UK). So I think this argument is misleading [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_populati...