America's Not So Up to Speed 516
indiejade writes "According to The Broadband Life, the U.S. has quite a way to go before catching up to countries such as South Korea, Japan and even Canada when it comes to percentage of the population enjoying high-speed internet access. 'In 2000, the U.S. ranked third in Net users connecting at high-speed among the top-30 world economies. The next year it fell to fourth. Now it's 11th,' the article said." Commentary on this is also available at Foreign Affairs and The New York Times.
No kidding... (Score:5, Funny)
Not first post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not first post (Score:2, Funny)
IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! (Score:5, Funny)
*Even Canada!* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! (Score:5, Interesting)
What's your prime metric? Percentage of encarcerated adults? Deaths due to firearms? Bankruptcy due to medical expenses?
Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! (Score:3, Informative)
"all these countries with a lower standard of living"
As others here have pointed out, that's just wrong.
"with far higher population density"
Have you been to Canada? Can you even find it on a map?
U.S.: 32.0 people/sq km
Canada: 3.6 people/sq km
And before you complain about it being in "sq km", I used population and areas stats from the CIA factbook [cia.gov] which quoted area in "km".
"and enormous federal pork to build their
Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! (Score:3, Informative)
80% of Canadians have a higher standard of living than 80% of Americans. Only when you factor in the Bill Gateses do you end up with the misleading conclusion that the average American is somehow better off.
with far higher population density
This statement is misleading in the opposite way, as Canada has 1/9th the population in a larger area. However, Canada is more highly urbanized and the population cent
Re:IT'S NOT A WEEK AT /. WITHOUT THIS STORY! (Score:5, Funny)
I personally think that our low homeless population is due to our harsh winters. They provide a very strong incentive for people to live indoors.
And the hobos we have that do live outside in the winter are usually DAMN tough customers.
.
Country size matters (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Country size matters (Score:5, Insightful)
And then there's a few million people displaced into the prairie provinces that stretches thousands of miles.
Saying everybody lives within 100 miles of the u.s. border oversimplifies things a wee bit.
Re:Country size matters (Score:5, Interesting)
If 5 million Canadians moved out into the prairies, the population density of Canada would not change. But it be a lot tougher to bring them broadband.
Re:Country size matters (Score:2, Informative)
You could get highspeed internet in a large number of rural communities throughout central BC for quite a while. even my mother-in-law can get it and she lives in a town with a population of 300 and is 30km from another town in either direction. Not exactly dense population there.
Re:Country size matters (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Country size matters (Score:5, Informative)
While much of Canada's population does lie within 100 miles of the US border, that says nothing about why Canada's broadband infrastructure has been ahead of the States in recent years.
Where I'm from (Halifax, Nova Scotia), we've had residential broadband access in some form or another since as far back as 1995 or 1996. Much of rural Nova Scotia and PEI have broadband access. The greatest thing about it all is that the prices are relatively reasonable, around $40CAN per month, with varying degrees of speed/accessibility
On the other hand, there isn't a whole lot of "wasteland" to fill between towns, meaning that setting up so many additional connections will always yield a decent increase in subscriber base.
This kind of article shows up every now and then, doesn't it? Oh well. It's not Canada's fault that there's just SO MUCH MORE UNITED STATES to cover.
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Interesting)
Many of the large population centers in the U.S. have had residential broadband access since 1995 too.
On the other hand, there isn't a whole lot of "wasteland" to fill between towns, meaning that setting up so many additional connections will always yield a decent increase in subscriber base.
That's the problem. Everything ends up being relative, because of it. In th
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why? Because it simply isn't cost effective to wire up a "small" subscriber base of 100,000 people."
See above.
Re:Country size matters (Score:4, Insightful)
I live in a village in rural Hong Kong (it's not all high rise) with a population of about 3000. We got broadband three or four years ago; 3M DSL. All they had to do was install the equipment at the local phone exchange, then we coul;d plug in our DSL modems.
As TFAs point out, the problem isn't that providing broadband is unprofitable; but that it will eat into the profits of the phone companies (by allowing IP telephony) and cable companies (by allowing downloading or streaming of video content). So they're delaying installing broadband as long as they can get away with it, while doing everything to block other providers using their circuits. Here the old phone monopoly company was forced to share its network, which led to several companies offering DSL at less than half their rate, along with IP phones and broadband TV.
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Informative)
You're lucky. In the U.S. they usually have to replace all the wire to the street. Sometimes they have to rewire an entire community of thousands of people that may be separated by more than a few kilometers. Furthermore, the phone company usually has to build one or more new CO's because the distance from these communities to the current CO are usually more than 6000m. Even at fifty bucks a
Re:Country size matters (Score:5, Informative)
the majority of Canadia's population is settled within 100 miles or so of the US border
Every time the topic of poor broadband availability in the US comes up, this fallacy is repeated. Yes, the majority of the Canadian population is near the US border, but broadband penetration goes much further. I live roughly 500 miles north of the US border, and a 5 hour drive from the nearest city of over 50,000 people -- yet I have my choice of broadband internet providers -- and at competitive prices. For $20/month Canadian (about $15 US), I get 170 KB down and 60 KB up (bytes not bits). The whole argument is bullocks.
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Country size matters (Score:2)
Of course, the Telecom Monopoly (Verizon) owns the pipe and is forced by gubment laws to share it with all comers, so my actual ISP fees are hiked by that, "service charges", TAXES TAXES TAXES, etc...
Oh, and Verizon is pretty gross.
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Insightful)
And every time someone like you posts the "But we have connectivity X-thousand kms away from anything!" I have to say "Look at the picture!" [nasa.gov]
Canadians clump around cities. Period. It can't be compared to the contiguous 48, especially the US Midwest or South. Thanks to that, you only need to run a few long-distance legs to a major hub and then only worry about those tiny little hops from hub to end-user.
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not the person you were replying to but I know many small towns (Villages if you want to call them) that are wired. I can name 15 small towns with populations under 1000 that have broadband access up north (sitting hundreds of kilometers outside of the 401 corridor.)
Re:Country size matters (Score:2, Interesting)
The truth of the matter is that the Canadian government created the network infrastructure in Canada, rather than the corporations, who now use it to sell us our broadband and that's why it's chea
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Informative)
Canada has 79.6 percent urban
People clump around cities, it's an industrialized nation thing.
As another note, here in Canada almost everyone has cable or satalite TV. We don't have the population density to get more then a couple of channels.
US stats - see p32 [census.gov]
Canadian stats [statcan.ca]
Re:Country size matters (Score:4, Funny)
All this map proves is that Canadians are more conscious of light pollution...
Re:Country size matters (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Country size matters (Score:2, Interesting)
The US has more people? You're kidding, right? /end sarcasm
This is by percentage. What it means is that for some reason the US is adopting broadband SLOWER than other nations.
All it means is that there is something that is preventing the adoption. It may be something as simple as the price is too high. Or it could be more complex, such as a societal attitude among those who don't adopt that the internet is just hype.
Yes, keep your head in the sand ... (Score:2)
Re:Country size matters (Score:2)
What's your point?
Population size does not matter. If a country has a larger or smaller population, you use more or less wireless APs.
Re:Country size matters (Score:2)
If you compared the Americans who live within 100 Miles of the Canadian border to the Canadians who live within 100 miles of the US border, you'd probably get the same kinds of results.
The US is being very slackass about ensuring that it's citizens have access to broadband. The government has given effective monopolies on the infrastructure to large companies and not pushed them to supply brooadband to the people they serve.
I can go to places like Bowen Island (Pop. ~4000 and a 20 minute ferry rid
Re:Country size matters (Score:2)
While the point, which is often made, that the US should not be compared to such countries as Japan and South Korea is a valid point, comparing the US to China or India fails to recognise that the US should be far out in front of these countries based on technological and infrastructure development.
Re:Country size matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Broadband penetration is a matter of public interest, not geography. If there was a demand for it, it would be provided even in the remotest regions, especially in a country as developed as the US.
Demand isn't always enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of people now a days DO demand high-speed internet access. And what they get in many cases is a 1.5Mbit/256Kbit connection via Cable, or DSL if you're in the city. Sure, I can say "I want more" but it's just not offered.
Some of it is user education - if people knew the potential in 100Mbit to the house connections, they might want it more. But what do the broadband companies care? They like the status-quo. They can get paid just as
Broadband for all of B.C. (Score:2, Insightful)
I was just reading in the paper (Vancouver Sun) the other day that the B.C. provincial government plans to make broadband accessible to every community (defined as any area containing a school or hospital or other public building) in B.C. in the immediate future.
A quick look at some fun B.C. facts [gov.bc.ca] shows that B.C. is roughly four times larger than Great Britain (~950,000 km^2), has a population of 4.1 million people and comprises of 75% of the world's stone sheep population. So, with a population density
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, how about comare New York and, say Osaka... What do you see?
Re:Country size matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Three quarters of all Americans live within 80kms (49.7 miles) of the coast or great lakes. If having larger parts of the population in a small number of clumps was the over-riding factor here, the US broadband penetration would still be expected to be higher than it currently is.
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Informative)
I tried to search for urbanization levels and found the following numbers on this UN report [un.org]
except China & India, all the other listed countries have a better broadband penetration than USA (see here [oecd.org])
It seems that population density isn't the sole factor, as it is stated in the article.
Re:Country size matters (Score:3, Funny)
No I'm....doesn't!
Not a fair comparision (Score:2, Funny)
Fiber (Score:5, Insightful)
In a big city or town in other countries most buildings have ethernet running throughout with one tap to a fiber backbone in the telephone closet. Here every office suite is expected to pay a premium for DSL. And you wonder why we're behind on the times, it's our marketing and poor policy machines at work.
Residential users are a little different, but very rarely do you hear of a homeowners association getting together and buying a fiber trunk or something.
--
NoVA Underground: Where Northern Virginia comes out to play [novaunderground.com]
But its not last mile capacity (Score:2)
Re:But its not last mile capacity (Score:2)
The bankrupt and failed telcos of the dot-bomb era (WorldCom, PSINet, Global Crossing, etcetera) cranked out a huge amount of "dark fiber" that is now being used to help off-shore out-source USA's IP and high tech jobs to China & India & elsewhere.
If the same resources had been used to build out the USA's fiber infrastructure (like FTTP) instead of "other places", the USA would be "numero uno" in percentage of broadband usage, unstead of 11th-going-on-50th. The regional "Baby Bells" we
Re:Fiber (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in an area that is considered rural because it is isolated by terrain rather than distance from town. Hell, at night I can lights from houses on the ridge about a mile away and who l
What about the midwest? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about the midwest? (Score:2)
USWEST PROMISED US DSL.
Yes, for those of you remember our little survivor from Ma Bell all those years ago..gobbled up by qwest.
The DSL line has NOT MOVED IN 6 YEARS. It's been 1/2 mile south of us for that amount of time. Now we're finally hearing that we "can hope to have DSL by July" but I'm not putting much faith in that.
No, wireless links were and are too expensive - too many tall trees, and any towers we set up would become the tallest thing around.
Satellite's
US v. Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
Compare to this part of the US where companies charge around $50 per month for broadband and act like they are doing us a major favor by only charging double what I pay for phone service or water and sewage on a monthly basis.
Re:US v. Canada (Score:2, Informative)
Bollocks. I paid 72% of my gross in taxes last fiscal year. That is why we have $20 broadband and 'free' healthcare. It is not magic and fairies.
Re:US v. Canada (Score:2, Insightful)
You should seek out a decent accountant and get some advice on how to manage your finances so that you don't have to pay so much tax. There are ways of making as much as you do and not putting it all in the pot.
Re:US v. Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US v. Canada (Score:2)
ALL infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
I like broadband but its pretty far down on the list of critical infrastructure projects we have neglected to pursue war, enriching the upper class, and funding a global colonial regime.
Re:ALL infrastructure (Score:2)
Basically the goal of globalisation atleast seems to be to have other countries reach the that same status that US has reached, as written in the parent post.
The way things are moved to places with minimal corporate taxation will lead to things getting more and more harmonised at the given model.
Some countries try to buck the trend and many have been successfull sofar, but with the push coming, this se
Re:ALL infrastructure (Score:2)
Re:ALL infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there is plenty of money, we just don't spend it on things most Americans really want it spent on. For the cost of the Iraq war you could have demolished and rebuilt from the ground up, a significant portion of all of the school in the US. Or you could have paid for everyone's healthcare for one year (every US resident), or you could have wired most major cities for 100MB connections to the residence, or at least made a dent in the debt.
Americans pay taxes comparable to other market-based nations too, so the idea that they are saving the wealth is also wrong,
Re:ALL infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Our infrastructure is falling apart quite literally at the seams. Yes. The corporations have enough power to shutdown municiple WiFi ("It amounts to unfair government price controls, and government price controls are communist.") Yes. Education spending and educational standards are falling. Yes. The wage gap is getting larger. Yes. some care. No. Not enough are willing to do anything about it because they're distracted by gay marriage. Yes. America is moving full tilt to dismantle every socioeconomic safety net in the country, and effectively repeal the 20th century.
America's best days are behind it.
Re:ALL infrastructure (Score:2, Interesting)
At any rate, my own personal spin is that we've managed to break our federal model of government. For example...
"Is there really that little money left over for society once the corporations have had their fill? Do they really have that much power that they can shut down municipal WiFi like I've read in previous slashdot articles?"
The problem maybe isn't so much
Re:ALL infrastructure (Score:2, Funny)
The sentence breaks down as:
(I like broadband) but (its pretty far down on the (list of critical infrastructure projects we have neglected)) to (pursue war, enriching the upper class, and funding a global colonial regime).
Re:ALL infrastructure (Score:2)
Thats right, because no one would quit quality jobs like those offered at Walmart or Wendy's to work on a construction project. Your assumption is that only the unemployed could be drawn upon, which is false.
wrong conclusions (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that more Americans don't want high speed internet access isn't a bad thing, it isn't a good thing either. It's just what makes the people of this country unique.
Re:wrong conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wrong conclusions (Score:2)
Re:wrong conclusions (Score:2)
Acually, I think you missed the point. And managed to insult the parent poster in the process as well.
20 bucks is about the going rate for dialup in the US. If people were offered a higher speed at the same price, they'd SURELY take it. And then they might discover that they could start to do other things with the available bandwidth, such as VoIP (in any of the myriad of forms available now) with their family who liv
Re:wrong conclusions (Score:2)
"Why, I'd like the cheeseburger, Sir! That makes me unique."
'nuff said...
Americans also have alternatives (Score:2)
Just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me or do anyone else find it highly annoying when articles with statistics like these don't bother linking to any source material? I would like to know Swedens position for example. According to TFA 73% of South Koreas population has broadband. What's the figure for other countries?
Shame on you Yahoo Editor.
I live in a very small town (Score:2)
My town has a population of about 600 and a locally owned telephone company. I've had broadband since early 2000. That is before cities 10 times (or more!) our size got it!
Population Density (Score:3, Insightful)
The US has population density (Score:2)
Re:Population Density (Score:2)
What's up with these "scare" articles? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I'm sure some of these things truly do deserve concern -- but this kind of scare tactic has been around since the early days of the Cold War, and probably long before that. Last time I checked, though, we haven't been conquered by the Soviets/Japanese/nation-du-jour -
Re:What's up with these "scare" articles? (Score:2)
Like with healthcare, Americans laughably continue to cling to the notion that their healthcare is better because they pay more (much more) for it.
Re:What's up with these "scare" articles? (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, the gist of this article doesn't mean that the U.S. is going to suddenly become irrelevant - it means that the U.S. isn't as technologically advanced in certain areas as other, seemingly weaker countries. And that the U.S. is falling behind, as well, which is certainly something to note.
Re:What's up with these "scare" articles? (Score:2)
might be a little off topic..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Them is all COMMIE-NIST countries (Score:3, Insightful)
Bureaucracy, pure and simple (Score:5, Informative)
What makes me the angriest is that our wonderful Pennsylvania state house voted against townships operating wireless networks. The telecoms even tried to get public support for it, bundling it with bills that would give stuff to schools, then having the audacity to make commercials urging them to call their representives to support it. They also gave verizon 6 billion to bring high speed more places. Verizon being true to their ma' bell heritage promply took the money and did nothing. So it's no wonder that Pa is 50th on the list (last time I saw it) for broadband. Our elected state leaders are so bad, they jam their voting buttons (no roll call) so they can take the day off and still get their wage, plus food and transportation costs.
Pennsylvania: First to vote with electric buttons (supposedly) yet still hasn't made it to the 21st century.
good grief
Remember this and vote them out (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing you can do about this for the next year or 3 (I'm not sure how exactly your state government works), but make sure you remember this when election time comes up. Find out where the local political parties meet (pick one), go to the meetings and propose a resolution to repeal this ban. If your party is the incumbent run for his office.
Now doing this alone isn't going to do much. However get a few friends together and you can change things. Political party meetings are often poorly
Re:Bureaucracy, pure and simple (Score:4, Interesting)
Live in the suburbs, die by the suburbs. The real problem with the US is that we subsidize soccer moms paving over the forests to ahve their white picket fences. Then people bitch because they can't get superfast internet access 1000 miles from nowhere, and they complain that gas costs too much money. Isn't it the responsibility of the city folk to pay for their 100 mile long power lines, phone lines, roads, and the cheap gas to run their SUVs?
Move somewhere decent, and you'll have excellent broadband. Many of the apartment buildings in NYC (like the one I'm in right now) just buy their own DS3, and merge their signal onto the cable going to every apartment. Works quite well, it's the new trend I think. Even if that doesn't work for you, we have at least two providers of DSL, and probably two more of cable. $30 will get you quite a lot of bandwidth around here, even though everything else is quite expensive.
Also, NYC is expensive, but the wages are huge. Travel anywhere, and even when they charge you the ripoff tourist rates, it'll be cheap by comparison. Make 4 times the pay, pay 4 times the bills, save 4 times the money, and get vacations for the same price, not a bad deal.
The facts & figures (Score:5, Informative)
Canada, the US, and Korea are all about equally urbanized.
US, 2000 census: 79.2% urban population
Canada 2001: 79.6% (statistics canada)
Korea, 2000: 77% urban
Even better, the McKinsey quarterly uses telco stats to compute the "reach" of broadband, that is to say, the percentage of total households that can be equipped with broadband if they choose to pay for it:
Korea: 95%
US: 89%
Canada: 87%
The houses that actually purchase broadband:
Korea: 54%
US: 13%
Canada: 25%
In short, it isn't for lack of ability to provide the broadband. It's the price offered to the consumer. It's cheaper in Canada and much cheaper in Korea.
NB: Disposable income is lower in Canada and much lower in Korea. But the prices for broadband are that much lower again.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.h
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-221-XI
www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/South-Korean-pop
http://www.dalfarra.ch/nds/zusatzdokumente/2003
Why does this matter so much? (Score:2)
How much of net use is used for downloading entertainment and playing games?
Having a net connection is really important, but having much cheaper dial-up as opposed to broadband may not be that much of a gain.
This stat seems to get thrown up by people who are either in the broadband business and want concessions from government or are in t
Verizon Fios (Score:2)
Excuses, Excuses... (Score:4, Interesting)
Pish-posh. In the months coming up to every war US'ians are heard saying, "yeah, we'll kick all their asses! Glass parking lot! We got teh tech!" But given a crack at wide broadband distribution the techies all cry, "wah, it's just too hard!"
Finally, after five years of rural broadband drought someone comes up with the simplistic idea of an antenna on a blimp. Whoa, geniuses they were. But wait... It was the Aussies that "invented" that. And as simple as the idea is and the area that it covers, five years after the idea WE STILL DON'T HAVE IT!
It could be done TOMORROW. You can make up your own excuses why it won't be.
I'll give you a start
Regulation
Capital distribution
Personally, I live 10 minutes from the 11th larges city in the US and couldn't get broadband (aside from that high-latency high-dollar satellite crap) until 2003. If the people in this country keep giving our turds to every other country on earth hoping that they'll polish it to our expectations... well, once again, make up your own excuses.
Re:Excuses, Excuses... (Score:3, Interesting)
There really ISN'T any good term denoting the residents of the US, because the US wasn't originally intended to be a country. It's like the EU in that sense. If Italy decided to withdraw from the EU, they would still be Europeans, so that is only an app
Gasp!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Even CANADA? GASP!!! (*Slaps face with both hands in amazement...*)
Yes, we occasionally do stop squatting in the ditch stuffing berries up our noses, to surf the net. Sheeeeesh.
Even Canada? (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't a suprise. The free market is good, but not as good as pre-existing infastructure and a government mandate.
Re:Even Canada? (Score:3, Insightful)
Government mandates eliminate choice and result in an inefficient allocation of capital. What about Canadians that don't give a shit about broadband - they have to pay anyways because of higher taxes. Let the market decide. Not some govt. bureaucrat. It's policies like this that made me leave Canada for the US about 9 years ago.
If people don't want broadband, then they should
USA will go broadband with 802.16/802.20. (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the big issue: the USA has so much old legacy communications infrastructure that the cost of upgrading it to support broadband Internet is exorbitantly expensive, especially in the older large metropolitan areas in the USA. And of course, because of the large rural population, most of them are out of the reach of DSL or cable broadband. It's essentially the so-called Last Mile Problem, something that's less of an issue in densely-populated Europe, Japan, and South Korea, where there are enough people per square kilometer to justify the exorbitant cost of setting up land-line broadband connections for everyone locally.
So how do we get around this problem? The answer is wide-scale wireless Internet access using 802.16/802.20 WiMax technologies, which will start rolling out in the USA in 2006. Unlike 802.11x WiFi technologies, WiMax can handle thousands of users per antenna array at essentially light of sight range at 2-4 Mbps data transfer speeds. It's vastly cheaper to put up an array of WiMax antennas than to hardware every business or residence to support DSL or cable broadband; this will also allow many rural communities to get broadband for the first time. I think WiMax will roll out by using the same antenna arrays used by cellphones, so already we'll have pretty substantial national coverage anyway.
The US has been on a 4 year-long "snow day" (Score:3, Insightful)
We're a net importer of technology now. (The trade deficit in technology grew to $37 billion last year.) [nytimes.com] Think about *that* for a second.
Good government policy is a critical part of having a competitive economy. (Where do you think the Internet came from? Private industry alone? Hardly.)
The current administration couldn't care less about any of what we're taking about here - it doesn't speak to their core constituencies of the very rich (who are insulated from the public sphere by their gated communities, private schools, etc.) and the very stupid (who are convinced the Rapture [msn.com] is around the corner - "Econamy? Technalogy? Future? What *are* you all babbling about?".)
Unless we get rulers that actually *care* about any of this, we're just going to have to get used to slipping further behind every year.
Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better (Score:2, Offtopic)
It goes on to say even though Americans are wealthier than people of other countries, somehow people with more wealth in America have a lower standard of living than people with less wealth in other countries because the distribution of wealth in the US is more uneven. That argument does
Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better (Score:2)
Unless hospitals and doctors offices spring up out of the ground unbidden, unless doctors and nurses donate their time for free, unless drug R&D happens all by itself...health care is never 'free'.
It just doesn't show as a line item on your paystub.
Re:Ok, So They Do One Thing Better (Score:2)
No Europe is all talk, the US drops bombs (whether right or wrong).
Cross the US and things explode, cross the EU and they will pass legislation to officially say "we don't like what you did"
But seriously, too many times Europe or other nations bow down to US imposed rules. Copyright, patents, trade, etc. Sure the people may be vocal against policies, but the one universal truth is politicians can be bought.
Re:Too US Centric (Score:2)
Jorge Bush called. He is looking for a part time GOP lackey.
Yea mod me down as "Troll" or "Flamebait". I don't care. Truth hurts and you know it.
Re:I for one.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I for one.. (Score:2)
Re:"... and even Canada"? (Score:5, Informative)
Government interest in broadening communications abilities in Canada has always been viewed as culturally and economically important. A country laid out as we are couldn't possibly survive or thrive without such an interest. Canada paid a lot of attention to the establishment of the national telephone network, a great deal of funding is pumped into the cbc to guarantee that every community has access to it, and now
Re:"... and even Canada"?-- Its policy. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://broadband.ic.gc.ca/pub/index.html?iin.la
Canadians believe in trying to smooth things out
a bit so that people are on as level a playing field
as possible, giving everybody a chance to succeed,
and for development to be spread out across
the country.
Americans (not all, probably not even most of the ones
on slashdot, but such a large number that it is a real problem) have a myopic fanaticism about cutting their taxes (to the point where their government can no longer provide even
basic services) and that awful neighbourhoods
are somehow natural. The leading cause
of personal bankrupcy in the US is getting sick.
Bad neighbourhoods happen because society
doesnt give a shit. Canada doesnt have any real slums
because we try to take care of everybody. Not
to the extreme point of communism but trying
to make sure people have a chance: free health care,
low cost education, low cost broadband, reasonable
social safety net.
The only people we do a pretty poor job with are
aboriginal peoples, because they live so far out
in the boonies that it is really hard to bring them
a reasonable standard of living, when it takes a 12-hour
plane ride to get them to the nearest hospital.
We try to level things out, were not fanatics about it,
but we do our level best.