4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoWe 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 agoAnd the irony is that the taxes in Seoul are much much lower than NYC.
- dba7dba 11y agoEven 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 agoWhat 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 agoThey 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-...
- joshuapants 11y agoThe "appeal to density" explains some but not all of it. The other issue is laws that grant de facto monopolies to telecom providers.