4 ms·

I don't have direct experience with the state of the internet in the U.S., but isn't it terrible in large, metropolitan cities as well? I'm really just using th

by insuffi 13y ago

I don't have direct experience with the state of the internet in the U.S., but isn't it terrible in large, metropolitan cities as well? I'm really just using the anecdata I've been reading on HN. Furthermore, afaik many small towns even in eastern europe(while making great strides, no particularly huge cities) boast 100 mbit connections. Assuming both of those statements are true, It doesn't seem to me like the economies of scale argument is valid here. EDIT: 100 mbit/$20, 500 mbit/$30, checked my ISP.

dublinben 13y ago
You're absolutely correct. Population density is a red herring in this issue. The broadband situation is no better in the major cities of the U.S than it is in the rest of the country. Major cities in the rest of the developed world have much better connections somehow. One of the first deployments of gigabit fiber in the U.S. was in Chatanooga TN, with a population density of 471.9/km2. New York City has a population density of 10,640/km2. Romania's third largest city, Timișoara, with population density of only 2,446.58/km2 is considered the city with the fastest internet in the world. http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-city-comes-out-first-in-the-world-in-internet-download-speed-ranking/103102/ http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-city-comes-out-first...
- saosebastiao 13y ago
  Density is not something that can be described adequately in a single number. It is entirely possible to have high residential densities in cities with remarkably low average densities. Moscow is a great example of this...their plazas and parks drive down average density way beyond the density that the average person experiences. Everybody talks about the last mile being the most expensive part of infrastructure, but if the last meter is 90% of the cost of the last mile (I don't know what the exact proportion is, but it is definitely close), then 100 houses in 10 sq km census block is going to be in a cost category that is orders of magnitude higher than 100 apartments in a tower with a 9.9 sq km park around it.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    Density either prevents better infrastructure in the US, or it doesn't. My use of statistics was merely to show that density has no relation to the existence of fiber internet infrastructure. The US cannot be too sprawling for fiber if areas with lower density in other countries have better internet. Major cities cannot also be too dense when cities with higher densities abroad also have better internet. This is a commonly repeated argument in favor of the status-quo in the US, and I'm just trying to refute it whenever possible.
    - saosebastiao 13y ago
      Your use of statistics is meaningless because average density is meaningless. It suffers from the same resolution problem as the coastline paradox [1]. I'm an example of this: If you measure density by the block, I live in a density of 120,000 persons/km2, but if you measure density by the city, I live in a density of 1720 persons/km2, and if you measure density by the MSA, I live in a density of 168 persons/km2. I have gigabit, and the fact that I live in an MSA with 168 persons/km2 is in no way a refutation of the fact that density matters for infrastructure costs. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
      - brenschluss 13y ago
        Saying average density is meaningless is like saying, because of the coastline paradox, even a small island's coastline is the same length as a large continent's coastline -- they're both infinite!
        saosebastiao 13y ago
        Correct. However, if you can define a level of resolution to measure the coastline/density, then then it can be compared. Average density/coastline is meaningless without context.
        brenschluss 13y ago
bluedino 13y ago
>> I don't have direct experience with the state of the internet in the U.S., but isn't it terrible in large, metropolitan cities as well? It depends on where you are. Two different apartment buildings in DC or NYC could differn, one getting FIOS and the other on a congested cable network or low-speed phone company DSL circuit. But don't get the idea that the internet is generally terrible in the USA. I'd imagine my situation is similar to most others - I live in a smaller town (population < 50,000) and about 90 miles from the nearest 'big' city (Detroit), but for $39.99 I get 30mb cable internet which I'm more than happy with. They offer 60mb and 100mb packages but I don't see the sense in spending any more.

by insuffi 13y ago

dublinben 13y ago

You're absolutely correct. Population density is a red herring in this issue. The broadband situation is no better in the major cities of the U.S than it is in the rest of the country. Major cities in the rest of the developed world have much better connections somehow. One of the first deployments of gigabit fiber in the U.S. was in Chatanooga TN, with a population density of 471.9/km2. New York City has a population density of 10,640/km2. Romania's third largest city, Timișoara, with population density of only 2,446.58/km2 is considered the city with the fastest internet in the world. http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-city-comes-out-first-in-the-world-in-internet-download-speed-ranking/103102/ http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-city-comes-out-first...

saosebastiao 13y ago
Density is not something that can be described adequately in a single number. It is entirely possible to have high residential densities in cities with remarkably low average densities. Moscow is a great example of this...their plazas and parks drive down average density way beyond the density that the average person experiences. Everybody talks about the last mile being the most expensive part of infrastructure, but if the last meter is 90% of the cost of the last mile (I don't know what the exact proportion is, but it is definitely close), then 100 houses in 10 sq km census block is going to be in a cost category that is orders of magnitude higher than 100 apartments in a tower with a 9.9 sq km park around it.
- dublinben 13y ago
  Density either prevents better infrastructure in the US, or it doesn't. My use of statistics was merely to show that density has no relation to the existence of fiber internet infrastructure. The US cannot be too sprawling for fiber if areas with lower density in other countries have better internet. Major cities cannot also be too dense when cities with higher densities abroad also have better internet. This is a commonly repeated argument in favor of the status-quo in the US, and I'm just trying to refute it whenever possible.
  - saosebastiao 13y ago
    Your use of statistics is meaningless because average density is meaningless. It suffers from the same resolution problem as the coastline paradox [1]. I'm an example of this: If you measure density by the block, I live in a density of 120,000 persons/km2, but if you measure density by the city, I live in a density of 1720 persons/km2, and if you measure density by the MSA, I live in a density of 168 persons/km2. I have gigabit, and the fact that I live in an MSA with 168 persons/km2 is in no way a refutation of the fact that density matters for infrastructure costs. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
    - brenschluss 13y ago
      Saying average density is meaningless is like saying, because of the coastline paradox, even a small island's coastline is the same length as a large continent's coastline -- they're both infinite!
      - saosebastiao 13y ago
        Correct. However, if you can define a level of resolution to measure the coastline/density, then then it can be compared. Average density/coastline is meaningless without context.
        brenschluss 13y ago

bluedino 13y ago

>> I don't have direct experience with the state of the internet in the U.S., but isn't it terrible in large, metropolitan cities as well? It depends on where you are. Two different apartment buildings in DC or NYC could differn, one getting FIOS and the other on a congested cable network or low-speed phone company DSL circuit. But don't get the idea that the internet is generally terrible in the USA. I'd imagine my situation is similar to most others - I live in a smaller town (population < 50,000) and about 90 miles from the nearest 'big' city (Detroit), but for $39.99 I get 30mb cable internet which I'm more than happy with. They offer 60mb and 100mb packages but I don't see the sense in spending any more.