Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
IT News

China to Top U.S. in Broadband Subscribers 530

An anonymous reader writes "China already is rapidly approaching the United States as the country with the largest number of broadband subscribers, according to the El Segundo, Calif.-based firm, and by the end of the year, China is expected to have 34 million subscribers, compared to 39 million in the United States. By the end of 2007, China is expected to have 57 million broadband subscribers, compared to 54 million in the United States, with an even wider lead in the years to follow."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China to Top U.S. in Broadband Subscribers

Comments Filter:
  • Re:chinese democracy (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @10:21PM (#12437877)
    I wish the U.S. had this option! erhm.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @10:27PM (#12437922)
    What good is broadband if you can only access government-approved content? It's well known that the Chinese government censors its citizens' Internet Web site usage: try this [cbsnews.com] or this [wikipedia.org] or this [washingtonpost.com] or this [pcworld.com]...and that's just for starters. (Try Googling "Internet censorship in China.")

    Imagine if we all had personal Gigabit connections directly to the Internet backbone but...the RIAA controlled what sites you could visit. Alternatively, consider this: imagine having that personal Gigabit connection, but you have to subscribe to AOL (with all its...quirks). You can't use any other content provider.

    Basically, what China has is a monopoly on information. What good is broadband if you can't even choose what you want to look at?
  • by Quickfry ( 799118 ) <stuart.adams@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @10:27PM (#12437925) Homepage Journal
    Canada is higher than the US, per capita (which is what counts) I mean hell, our country is made up of lots of ice, mountains, and trees, and even our eskimos have a fat pipe!
  • Re:i would hope so (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SeventyBang ( 858415 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @10:41PM (#12437996)
    Regardless of how many of them there are, how many (a percentage will do as an alternative to headcount) of them get to see an unfiltered Internet?

    It's well-documented there are watchers in chat rooms who redact material real-time which is "against policy", some horrendous filters which screen practically everything but spam, and I'll bet the only address they're allowed to connect to with FTP is 127.0.0.1.

    Sheer numbers and population percentages mean nothing when there's nothing to look at. Trust me: the Chinese will have a better chance at seeing CineMax sans filtering at midnight before they get an unfiltered connection to the Internet.
  • by anandpur ( 303114 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @10:43PM (#12438011)
    Other news by 2007 every Indian can be Subscribers of Broadband

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=tech nologyNews&storyID=8386370 [reuters.com]
  • by NickHydroxide ( 870424 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @10:58PM (#12438091) Homepage
    I believe some people are missing the point, and aren't looking at the underlying issue. The relative disparity between economic growth, 'market' (I use the term loosely) functionality and political stability over the past 50 years has meant that while the US has enjoyed sustained and profitable economic growth, China has only turned around a number of its economic policies in the last decade or so; it is thus only recently beginning to develop technologically.

    The essence of a comparison is that while the US has proved a hegemonic economic superpower for half a century, a late starter such as China (with a small GDP per capita nowadays, compared to the US, and one which was even smaller 10 years ago) is still able to outstrip the number of broadband connections (clearly indicia of technological advancement and economic modernity).

    In one sense, people here are decrying this report as comparing apples and oranges (gross number of connections as opposed to percentages), while simultaneously expounding a similar methodology (comparing countries with gross disparities between GDP and economic histories).

    Just something to keep in mind.
  • Re:chinese democracy (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @11:03PM (#12438120)
    Yes, it is, and it is still superior to the complete lack of democracy that China has.

    China has come a long way toward democracy lately. You sure can't compare them to North Korea. Moving to quickly can create instabilities. So as long as they are going in the right direction this is a good thing.

    As far as the US being superior to China, that is somewhat debatable because it has its own problems in the form of powerful oligarchies which run big business and government.

    The US is not a democracy. If it was then it would be 'one person/one vote' NOT 'one dollar/one vote' as it currently tends to be.

    Most of Europe and Canada offer much better models for democracy then the US.

    Oh snap. I just fucking smoked your comment out of the water. Time for my victor lap.

    Only in your mind
  • Re:chinese democracy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rsborg ( 111459 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @11:06PM (#12438140) Homepage
    I bet they would trade their broadband for US' democracy.

    Gee, I wonder, is this the democracy that we call a "catastropic success" [politicalwire.com], oh, say that Iraq [comedycentral.com] is having right now? Or maybe you're talking about the our wonderfully successful policy of spreading democracy [socialaffairsunit.org.uk] that doesn't work? I'm sure China would love to get some of that action...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @11:37PM (#12438311)
    China is growing only in the cities - the countryside remains primitive without even decent roads. There's little infrastructure.

    In the countryside manufacturing is poisoning entire regions (we're talking millions of square miles here) because there are no environmental laws and the local governments are utterly and completely corrupt and in the hands of industrialists. Thousands of people are dying of chemically-induced cancer and chemical poisoning. But the Chinese government attitude is that the fewer people the better.

    In 10 years China will be like East Germany is today - buried in pollution and toxic waste. While it may take Germany another 30 years to recover, China may never do so. The reason is that by then a war will have started and the fecal matter will really impinge upon the rotating impeller device.

    The relationship between government and industry in China is simple fascism - just like Germany before World War II.

  • Communism at work.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by going_the_2Rpi_way ( 818355 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @11:43PM (#12438359) Homepage
    Not surprising really, since most 'broadband' sharing type setups are very socialist in nature. I wonder just how 'broad' that band really is.
    I mean, I've heard Cuba touted as having the 'best' healthcare system in the world (honestly!)... , but I don't think you'd have easy access to a CAT scan unless your name was Fidel. It might be the most 'even' perhaps in that almost everyone has the same lack of access.
    Any bandwidth figures?
  • Not that simple. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @12:17AM (#12438532) Homepage Journal
    1.1 billion people is just so many warm bodies --they mean nothing unless they're part of a vital economy. Fifty years the population ratio was almost as lopsided, but the Chinese couldn't even feed themselves, much less buy fancy technology. At that time, the U.S. dominated the planet in infrastructure, manufacturing base, skilled workforce, advanced, raw economic power, and a lot of other factors. Not led, dominated.

    In 1955, most people wouldn't have had any notion what "Broadband Internet Access" was. But if you could make them understand that it was a key technology of the 21st century, and that it would be more available in China than in the U.S....

    An American would have reported you to the FBI for spreading commie propaganda. And a Chinese would have shaken his head at your obvious dementia. The U.S. has lost its edge, and this is another sign of it.

  • by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @12:22AM (#12438553) Homepage Journal
    For starters, China would own the US in anyway war

    Are you for real? The worldwide annual military expenditures is ~$900 billion. The US portion of that is 1/2. That's right - one half of the world's militarism is the US. China is barely a blip, and is generally equipped with Russian cast-offs and cheap knock-offs.

    Perhaps you're confused by the fact that China has the largest standing army - when you are dominated from the air and sea, that's what they call "cannon fodder". It's an absolutely irrelevant number, and really just represents how big of a casualty count you can rack up.

    I'm not trying to piss on China - it is going to be great nation in coming years, and will definitely achieve the influence it deserves - but you clearly are so blinded by your anti-US rhetoric that you totally fell off the clue boat.
  • by walters5 ( 70173 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @12:51AM (#12438675)
    I think the more important aspect of there being more Chinese with broadband than Americans has a lot less to do with what Chinese citizens can find on Google. Broadband is a catalyst for business and information services. It's even a catalyst for change in culture. Look at the other asian countries that have spent millions on broadband spending. If South Korean teens consider online gaming to be as everyday as more 'conventional' sports like soccer, how much will making computers and the internet a common understanding change the way they do business? The last thing I want to see is the US falling behind in IT growth in areas like broadband.

    Too bad it already is. What the hell is the FCC thinking?
  • by jmv ( 93421 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @12:54AM (#12438684) Homepage
    ...and consumes 25% of all goods. It's not like the US is really producing goods for other countries (yes, I've heard of exportations), since its commercial balance is negative. The environmental situation is already bad with what the US does (it's not the only country polluting, but the largest at the moment). What's even more scary is the thought of China imitating the US development and reaching the same level of production/pollution as the US _per capita_. That would mean 5 times more pollution than the US and at least twice the *global* amount of pollution. I don't want to see that.
  • Re:i would hope so (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2005 @12:55AM (#12438687)
    Yes, they have 4x as many people as we have.
    But their GDP is $7.262 trillion [cia.gov], quite lower than the GDP in the US which is $11.75 trillion [cia.gov].

    That's why it's worth a story!
    Their GDP per capita is much lower than ours, however, they manage to have more highspeed internet access than us.

    Use your brain, for once, for chriiss sake.
  • Re:So? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tratten ( 783047 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @01:47AM (#12438879)
    South Korea has about 78%. The article was about number of broadband subscribers, not the percentage of the people with broadband access. If it was about percentage, US wouldn't be mentioned.
  • a lot of character (Score:2, Interesting)

    by armed ahmed ( 868166 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @01:48AM (#12438883)
    About ten years ago people were talking about the problem of millions of chinese and other peoples with complex character sets coming to the net. It was estimated that around something like 2020 the most used language in the net would be cantonese and that content written in english would be becoming a minority. It was said that if the automatic web-page translators wouldn't keep up, we westerners would soon find ourselves in a position of a tourist in a strange land when surfing the net.

    Of course the webs content would only increase and diversify, not change into chinese, so I don't think there will be THAT kind of problems. But I wouldn't wonder if all the pop-ups and the ads in slashdot would one day be full of characters that are alien to me advertising something I could only guess at.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2005 @01:57AM (#12438914)
    It's not as bad as the media makes it out to be.

    Proof?

    People in China in general are more worried about their lifestyle than politics or the right to protest the government.

    The political dissent and protests would argue otherwise.

    In fact, in some cases, the absence of political discussion in China is a positive since they don't have to hear about partisan bickering like the United States.

    Whatever you say, Adolf.

    Who the fuck are you.. the Chinese Information Minister? I've never seen such load of garbage.

    BTW, I am a Chinese American. My father fleed China, you have some fucking gall to sit here and try to put a false spin on the totally tyrannical conditions China is in right now.
  • Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by anactofgod ( 68756 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @03:27AM (#12439222)
    Yeah...well, we now have executive and legislative branches dominated by those who ran on a platform to end those subsidies. Even though those in my state and in my tax bracket may get more cash back from the Feds, how much do you want to bet that subsidies to the red states will actually *increase* over the next four years? I'm willing to bet that fiscal irresponsibility will abound in order to keep the red staters fat and sassy.

    Instead of giving the money back, I'd appreciate it if the red states would spend some of it on their educational systems. The US going to need a better educated workforce if we're going to stay competitive. That, or keep recruiting the top foreign talent in place of the brains we're not willing to train at home.

    Continuing the discussion of the disconnect between red state political ideals and realities. Guess which ten states have the highest bankruptcy rates? Utah, Tennessee, Nevada, Georgia, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi and Idaho - all red states. Nice, huh? What an incredible demonstration of fiscal responsibility and self reliance! Still, I like that your representatives are willing to put the screws to you with the change in bankrupcy laws they are trying to enact.

    Once red staters stop drinking the Kool-Aid and realize that they were never as self-reliant as they think they are, and that the Republican elite DON'T have their best economic interests at heart, they're going to switch. It might kill them to join up with gay-loving baby killers, but they'll do it anyway when they can't feed their families. And they'll be begging for those safety nets that are being slowly stripped away.

    Don't worry. We blue staters are an understanding and tolerant lot. Comes with the territory, so to speak. *grynn* You'll be welcome back into the mainstream fold.

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Working...