5 ms·

The central point discussed here in that the mobile and internet infrastructure is far ahead of its time in Seoul. But the author makes a few statements that d

by exacube 11y ago

The central point discussed here in that the mobile and internet infrastructure is far ahead of its time in Seoul. But the author makes a few statements that don't settle well with me: > By 2020, the [South Korean] government predicts, it will be 1,000 times faster — so fast you could download a feature-length movie in approximately one second. In the same time frame, the Federal Communications Commission hopes to wire most American homes with broadband Internet with speeds of at least 100 megabytes per second, or roughly one six-hundredth of South Korea’s goal. South Koreas's land size is MUCH smaller (smaller than most US states). Although there is something to be said about why any single US state isn't as good at infrastructure as South Korea (probably California can be the only candidate), that is a different interesting discussion. > By contrast, American mobile design is fetishistically minimalist. Silicon Valley applauds itself for good taste in this regard, but this aesthetic has sprung up partly in response to a deficiency: Americans have learned to strip out bandwidth-guzzling elements because they slow down loading times. This can't be farther from the truth.. "our" design aesthetic is not on a basis of trying to save bandwidth. I don't think we will ever have "Pages are drenched in neon and populated with googly-eyed cartoon animals." even if our infrastructure was better.

rhino369 11y ago
It's not landsize its a combination of two things: They commonly live in massive high rise buildings--like judge dredd looking things--that are easier to network. And the South Korean government heavily subsidizes/prioritizes deployment. America could afford to this too, but it has other priorities.
- sushid 11y ago
  "Judge dredd looking things" not only sounds derogatory it's not entirely true. Seoul is a sprawling mega-metropolis, similar to cities like Tokyo. But it's not only places around Seoul that enjoys fast internet speeds. In fact, cities like Daejeon and Daegu has ISPs with the fastest top speeds. [1] We've had government subsidies for wider coverage and faster speeds. Perhaps by making our infrastructure less competitive and being lax in our enforcement of contracts we've created this problem for ourselves. High-speed internet isn't something that should be unique to mega-metropolises. [1] http://au.pcmag.com/networking/30145/feature/fastest-isps-2015-south-korea?p=3 http://au.pcmag.com/networking/30145/feature/fastest-isps-20... Edit: formatting
  - rhino369 11y ago
    I didn't mean it derogatorily, but I agree that sounds derogatory. I like high rises and loved visiting Korea. The thing that stuck out most was that you'd have massive high rise buildings in semi-rural areas hours outside of Seoul. Americans would fill that space up with McMansions.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Kalium 11y ago
> South Koreas's land size is MUCH smaller (smaller than most US states). Although there is something to be said about why any single US state isn't as good at infrastructure as South Korea (probably California can be the only candidate), that is a different interesting discussion. We also don't have cities with better internet infrastructure. NYC and SF both come to mind. Basically, the appeal to density fails to account for the gap in any meaningful way.
- rayiner 11y ago
  We don't have cities like Seoul. Seoul's metro area has 5x the density of NYC's, and the political power that comes from having half the population of the whole country.
  - briandear 11y ago
    And the irony is that the taxes in Seoul are much much lower than NYC.
  - dba7dba 11y ago
    Even if a city has the 1/10 of the density of Seoul, there's no reason for a city as important as NYC to have internet infrastructure as bad as it is now. Density argument doesn't make sense. Why can't major cities in US have faster internet than rural areas?
    - rayiner 11y ago
      What does "importance" have to do with anything? "Importance" doesn't dictate how much money companies are willing to spend on internet infrastructure. The number of potential customers you can hit for the cost of lying a mile of fiber does.
    - amateurpolymath 11y ago
      They do. Broadband access in rural US is terrible [1]. [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/rural-broadband-access-still-lacking-us-even-remote-alaska-communities-connect-1820070 http://www.ibtimes.com/rural-broadband-access-still-lacking-...
jeffbr13 11y ago
> This can't be farther from the truth.. "our" design aesthetic is not on a basis of trying to save bandwidth. No, it's more to do with 'democratising' app design, and cutting the expense of (good) designers.
bertil 11y ago
The quality of the connexion has little to do with geography or urban planning, but national unity and pride: think of South Korea as the country that builds both the largest boats and the fanciest (non-Apple) phones. Large engineering companies are helped by an alignement of government and industrial elites. Other countries with similar traditions (France, Sweden) have large militaro-industrial complexes, in addition to faster internet speeds than the US. Rather than make weapons, South Korea focused on telecoms and boats. They have futuristic speeds because they wanted to, and every one in charge (real estate promoters, local officials) made that happen. They did not stop to install fibre because the mayor didn’t get his pork-barrel, their cut over sales of new flats, or because models projected the installation would not be profitable if only x% of local users would switch to the Premium option: they built it, because internet access was good for everyone.
- mc32 11y ago
  Counterpoint, Japan also forwent building arms and instead built infrastructure and "robots and ai" and have their chaebol counterparts in keiretsu yet their internet infrastructure lags. I don't think its simple as not spending on arms and having heavy government-industry cooperation.
  - rangibaby 11y ago
    Could you explain where Japan's internet infrastructure lags? There has been cheap and fast internet for as long as I have lived here (since 2006)
    - mc32 11y ago
      I misspoke in that I broadly meant not just broadband, but the software and hardware industry in general lags Korea as well as most western economies, of which Japan, despite being in the east, is a "western" economy. So yes broadband is well adopted, but the national industry didn't adopt computer science as well as other economies. That's my feeling anyway, please correct if this take is incorrect.
astrange 11y ago
> Although there is something to be said about why any single US state isn't as good at infrastructure as South Korea (probably California can be the only candidate), that is a different interesting discussion. Which part of California has good infrastructure? Besides all the highways.
- sporkenfang 11y ago
  Having many highways isn't quite the same as having many good highways...
s73v3r 11y ago
The land size argument falls flat when you consider that places like LA, SF, or NYC are just as densely populated, yet have shit for broadband.
dba7dba 11y ago
our" design aesthetic is not on a basis of trying to save bandwidth Netflix. Amazon Prime Movie. I often, often, get notices on Neflix/Amazon that some movies can't be streamed due to network issue. Come on...
EliRivers 11y ago
You're absolutely right; South Korea traditionally tended towards making interfaces more complex. "Because Koreans like things to look complex," they responded. It is a symbol: it shows their status. [1] This piece is from 2007, though, and some of the lines in it that refer to the West simply don't apply anymore. I think we all know who made simplicity the new, expensive status symbol. [1]http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html

by exacube 11y ago

rhino369 11y ago

It's not landsize its a combination of two things: They commonly live in massive high rise buildings--like judge dredd looking things--that are easier to network. And the South Korean government heavily subsidizes/prioritizes deployment. America could afford to this too, but it has other priorities.

sushid 11y ago
"Judge dredd looking things" not only sounds derogatory it's not entirely true. Seoul is a sprawling mega-metropolis, similar to cities like Tokyo. But it's not only places around Seoul that enjoys fast internet speeds. In fact, cities like Daejeon and Daegu has ISPs with the fastest top speeds. [1] We've had government subsidies for wider coverage and faster speeds. Perhaps by making our infrastructure less competitive and being lax in our enforcement of contracts we've created this problem for ourselves. High-speed internet isn't something that should be unique to mega-metropolises. [1] http://au.pcmag.com/networking/30145/feature/fastest-isps-2015-south-korea?p=3 http://au.pcmag.com/networking/30145/feature/fastest-isps-20... Edit: formatting
- rhino369 11y ago
  I didn't mean it derogatorily, but I agree that sounds derogatory. I like high rises and loved visiting Korea. The thing that stuck out most was that you'd have massive high rise buildings in semi-rural areas hours outside of Seoul. Americans would fill that space up with McMansions.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Kalium 11y ago

> South Koreas's land size is MUCH smaller (smaller than most US states). Although there is something to be said about why any single US state isn't as good at infrastructure as South Korea (probably California can be the only candidate), that is a different interesting discussion. We also don't have cities with better internet infrastructure. NYC and SF both come to mind. Basically, the appeal to density fails to account for the gap in any meaningful way.

rayiner 11y ago
We don't have cities like Seoul. Seoul's metro area has 5x the density of NYC's, and the political power that comes from having half the population of the whole country.
- briandear 11y ago
  And the irony is that the taxes in Seoul are much much lower than NYC.
- dba7dba 11y ago
  Even if a city has the 1/10 of the density of Seoul, there's no reason for a city as important as NYC to have internet infrastructure as bad as it is now. Density argument doesn't make sense. Why can't major cities in US have faster internet than rural areas?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    What does "importance" have to do with anything? "Importance" doesn't dictate how much money companies are willing to spend on internet infrastructure. The number of potential customers you can hit for the cost of lying a mile of fiber does.
  - amateurpolymath 11y ago
    They do. Broadband access in rural US is terrible [1]. [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/rural-broadband-access-still-lacking-us-even-remote-alaska-communities-connect-1820070 http://www.ibtimes.com/rural-broadband-access-still-lacking-...

jeffbr13 11y ago

> This can't be farther from the truth.. "our" design aesthetic is not on a basis of trying to save bandwidth. No, it's more to do with 'democratising' app design, and cutting the expense of (good) designers.

bertil 11y ago

The quality of the connexion has little to do with geography or urban planning, but national unity and pride: think of South Korea as the country that builds both the largest boats and the fanciest (non-Apple) phones. Large engineering companies are helped by an alignement of government and industrial elites. Other countries with similar traditions (France, Sweden) have large militaro-industrial complexes, in addition to faster internet speeds than the US. Rather than make weapons, South Korea focused on telecoms and boats. They have futuristic speeds because they wanted to, and every one in charge (real estate promoters, local officials) made that happen. They did not stop to install fibre because the mayor didn’t get his pork-barrel, their cut over sales of new flats, or because models projected the installation would not be profitable if only x% of local users would switch to the Premium option: they built it, because internet access was good for everyone.

mc32 11y ago
Counterpoint, Japan also forwent building arms and instead built infrastructure and "robots and ai" and have their chaebol counterparts in keiretsu yet their internet infrastructure lags. I don't think its simple as not spending on arms and having heavy government-industry cooperation.
- rangibaby 11y ago
  Could you explain where Japan's internet infrastructure lags? There has been cheap and fast internet for as long as I have lived here (since 2006)
  - mc32 11y ago
    I misspoke in that I broadly meant not just broadband, but the software and hardware industry in general lags Korea as well as most western economies, of which Japan, despite being in the east, is a "western" economy. So yes broadband is well adopted, but the national industry didn't adopt computer science as well as other economies. That's my feeling anyway, please correct if this take is incorrect.

astrange 11y ago

> Although there is something to be said about why any single US state isn't as good at infrastructure as South Korea (probably California can be the only candidate), that is a different interesting discussion. Which part of California has good infrastructure? Besides all the highways.

sporkenfang 11y ago
Having many highways isn't quite the same as having many good highways...

s73v3r 11y ago

The land size argument falls flat when you consider that places like LA, SF, or NYC are just as densely populated, yet have shit for broadband.

dba7dba 11y ago

our" design aesthetic is not on a basis of trying to save bandwidth Netflix. Amazon Prime Movie. I often, often, get notices on Neflix/Amazon that some movies can't be streamed due to network issue. Come on...

EliRivers 11y ago

You're absolutely right; South Korea traditionally tended towards making interfaces more complex. "Because Koreans like things to look complex," they responded. It is a symbol: it shows their status. [1] This piece is from 2007, though, and some of the lines in it that refer to the West simply don't apply anymore. I think we all know who made simplicity the new, expensive status symbol. [1]http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html