said by pnh102 :

You know they are coming... ;)

said by Aframe :

Wonder where we rate at cost per subscriber?

said by Titus Pullo :

Cue the the queue of "you're a commie" rants when and if someone vents a little about something we could be doing better :uhh:

said by Aframe :

Wonder where we rate at cost per subscriber?

said by xenophon :

The US is the most sprawled of countries, it's not surprising.

However if you consider that EVDO is rolled out to a broader population base than any broadband network, it's not as poor as it appears.

said by AquaBlaze :

What pisses me off is when we have governmental whitewash on the matter and governmental studies spouting 99% connectivity bullcrap.

said by satellite68 :

It's like you stepped out of the New Deal Era yourself.

said by satellite68 :

Sounds like you've already beaten them to that particular punch...

said by jmn1207 :

Well, if we base the value of the dollar against foreign currencies, we are probably getting a steal, relatively speaking.

said by Jwobot :

I'm not surpised the U.S. is not on the top-ten.

said by satellite68 :

So basically you'd advocate a rewritting of history that makes FDR a bad guy for (gasp-cue the oxygen mask) doing something about the Great Depression.

said by Matt :

Wow, both of those charts are sad with respect to where we stand. What happened to the America that led the world in technology?

Oh yeah, Corporations and Shareholders.

said by satellite68 :

No hypocrisy there or anything. If the government tells people to move, it's an outrage. But if you tell people to move, it's a-okay.

said by TK Junk Mail :

The charts don't reflect in their prices what it ACTUALLY costs to the consumer because many of the top countries in those charts subsidize broadband access thru higher taxes. So their ACTUAL cost is more than what the charts show.

said by mrchris :

I blame corporate greed.

said by TK Junk Mail :

The charts don't reflect in their prices what it ACTUALLY costs to the consumer because many of the top countries in those charts subsidize broadband access thru higher taxes. So their ACTUAL cost is more than what the charts show.

said by burgermeister :

Please feel free to solve the problem by creating your own, non-profit, country-wide broadband infrastructure.

Sounds easy enough! ;-)

said by xenophon :

Yes, I've replaced my cable modem for EVDO. I typically get about 1Mbps and up to 2Mbps, much better than dialup. Even 1xRTT is better than dialup at 100-144Kbps.

said by Matt :

Have you used EVDO? It's barely better than dial-up.

said by morbo :

oh I see. so provide the charts but then tell us that the data is somehow flawed. you want make your point with the data while at the same time saying that it is bad data. seems like this is very familiar...

said by pnh102 :

One company already has... just fire up your wifi card and look for the SSID "Linksys". :D

said by koitsu :

Am I the only one who remembers how physically large this country is? Especially in comparison to those in the top 10? (I'll get to Canada in a moment).

said by Matt :

Maybe Sprin't EVDO implementation is way better than Verizon's then. It feels like dialup when viewing webpages. I also speed test at 1Mbps most of the time, but web pages take ages to load and the initial response to even start downloading the page is glacial.

said by ninjatutle :

As long as I am connected, I could care less about anyone else.

said by NotSoMuch :

You make some valid points, but you're grossly exaggerating how much it would cost to wire most of the country that isn't already. Increase taxes "two-fold"? Come on.

In fact, it would really be a drop in the bucket for the federal government. Want to call it $100b? Yawn. That's a couple of months in Iraq.

said by Matt :

That is such a bogus argument. Over half the country is desolate, which drops that number dramatically.

Why don't the cities that have huge population densities have access to the absolute best broadband options?

said by Matt :

Why don't the cities that have huge population densities have access to the absolute best broadband options?

said by koitsu :

Taxes in all said countries are significantly higher than the United States. I don't care to go and look up numbers for average taxation amounts in all of said countries, but I do know about Sweden -- where almost 50% of a citizen's income goes to taxes. South Korea? Almost 40%. Put two and two together.

said by pnh102 :

While there are vast stretches of unserved areas, there still is no economic incentive to provide service to these places.

For those people who are unfortunate enough to be with no wired broadband options... what can I say? Move.

said by pnh102 :

If only we could move past the New Deal. 70 years later and we are still paying for the messes that FDR created.

And by the way, using the Amtrak of electrical generation doesn't do much to boost your argument. ;)

said by mbraynard :

Who provides your EVDO?

said by Lazlow :

Tk

You forgot(again) that the US also subsidized internet to the tune of $600 billion.

said by koitsu :

Canada is a bit odd. As part of North America, it's quite large. However, most of Canada's populus exists in 5 major metropolitan areas: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Winnipeg. Thus, it's safe to say Canada is on the list simply because those areas are wired, while I'm sure if you live in Greater Sudbury your broadband choices are ass.

said by koitsu :

Personal taxes in Canada are around ~32% per person (21% per married household). Again, do the math.

said by insomniac84 :

They clearly need to check the quality of the service before considering a country "most wired". ISPs that throttle and misleading "unlimited" plans shouldn't allow a country to make this list.

said by BF69 :

So? I'm sure there wasn't "economic incentive" to provide paved roads, electricity and phone service to these areas decades ago. It was still done for the greater good.

said by BF69 :

By the way I'm sure the electric and phone companies are glad they have customers out there now making them huge profits every month. Sometimes you need to think LONG term.

said by BF69 :

That's so stupid. That is NOT a solution.

said by BF69 :

the fact is YOU the city dweller benefits from the fact there are some people that choose to live in the boonies.

said by Ahrenl :

The repeal of the banking act had little to do with subprime origination by newly created "finance" companies. Which is where most of the bad loans were created. The banks provided securitization services to these originators, and when the music stopped, there was no one left to buy the warehouses that were pending package and sale. That and off balance sheeet funding vehicles, that, again, wouldn't have been prohibited either.

said by koitsu :

Taxes in all said countries are significantly higher than the United States. I don't care to go and look up numbers for average taxation amounts in all of said countries, but I do know about Sweden -- where almost 50% of a citizen's income goes to taxes. South Korea? Almost 40%. Put two and two together.

said by Snickerdo :

Incorrect. Broadband is available in practically every populated location in Canada right up to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and the fact that you attempted to use Sudbury - the largest city in Northern Ontario with 150,000 people with cable, DSL from multiple providers, wimax, etc and wired for broadband back in the 90s - shows that you don't know much about the geography of this country or how broadband is deployed here. Just about every town with 1000+ people has some form of broadband, be it wired or wireless. I can go out to Niagara-on-the-Lake - a sparse rural town with 14,000 people - and find remote DSLAMs along the street and DSL available everywhere in the town. Cable modem service is also available everywhere the local Cableco runs wires. If that's not good enough, you've got Wimax on top of that. You attempt to make it sound like broadband is only available in Canadian cities and that we're in the same boat as the US, when the fact is that it is available just about everywhere and that we are significantly ahead of the US when it comes to broadband penetration, both urban and rural. This is the difference between national (or provincial/territorial) broadband strategies, and none at all.

said by koitsu :

• I am not aware of how wired Canada is, but coming in at #9 proves you're significantly better off than we are :)

said by koitsu :

The point of my post was to show that the problems with broadband deployment is not purely explained by lack of government involvement, but rather confirm the evidence that there are many other factors involved -- geographical size and population density being two major ones.

said by koitsu :

Canada is the odd man out (meaning it's accomplished what under those conditions would be considered otherwise improbable). The explanation you provided ("This is the difference between national (or provincial/territorial) broadband strategies, and none at all.") would be the key explanation for how Canada solved the problem.
Neither state or federal governments in the US are getting involved with telecommunications upgrades or broadband deployment. I'm beating a dead horse saying this, but it's purely the job of commercial companies (once again, thank our wonderful capitalist ideals for that).

said by KrK :

Hmmm. I was thinking about this.... If you add Federal and State income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and then add local taxes, Sales and use taxes, property taxes, tolls, permits, fees and all other taxes...

... I'm kinda thinking the US might be around 40% as well. Or at least not far off.

said by koitsu :

P.S. -- I'd love to hear about Hawaii and Puerto Rico's broadband capabilities.

said by rradina :

Yeah we can -- Cogeco Cable. :p

said by koitsu :

said by Snickerdo :

So you'd exclude your own country from the list ....Hell, you probably can't even name a single Canadian broadband provider

said by AquaBlaze :

Eh, I haven't seen anyone living anywhere around the cities be entirely broadband-screwed. However, what I don't get is, even in some of the *most* population-dense areas, there isn't any competition to be seen.

Sure, a good chunk of the nation (ie. 50%+) has broadband access capabilities...but broadband optionS, that's a different percentage entirely.

And no, satellite does not count as broadband, sorry.

said by Snickerdo :

Without this, you end up like China which has a booming middle class along the Pacific coast, but peasants in the interior who don't have heat or running water, let alone a telephone or television. Is this what the USA wants to become in the name of governmental non-interference?

said by patcat88 :

FDR did it, Bush did it.

said by UncleSam :

You didn't pay 5K SS. You paid 10K. The government has your employer "pay half" in order to hide the theft. 40% is definitely on the low side.

Anyone who owns a house typically is paying a lot more in property tax than they net from the mortgage interest deduction (especially after forgoing the standard deduction to itemize) 40% looking really low now.

As for you, if you have a 401-K option, PLEASE look at contributing to it, at least up to matching level. Its FREE MONEY.

said by koitsu :

Am I the only one who remembers how physically large this country is? Especially in comparison to those in the top 10? (I'll get to Canada in a moment).

United States -- 5659858 square km, ~30 persons/km

9. Canada -- 9970610 square km, ~3 persons/km

Canada is a bit odd. As part of North America, it's quite large. However, most of Canada's populus exists in 5 major metropolitan areas: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Winnipeg. Thus, it's safe to say Canada is on the list simply because those areas are wired, while I'm sure if you live in Greater Sudbury your broadband choices are ass.

Personal taxes in Canada are around ~32% per person (21% per married household). Again, do the math.

What I'm trying to say is that we'll never be on the top 10, simply because our country is too physically large. Ask anyone living in Europe, or better yet New Zealand, what they think of the United States. "You're too physically big" is what they'll tell you.

said by koitsu :

There are much more applicable comparisons between cost of national broadband deployment and existing programmes which are costing Americans lots of money. Iraq is the most recent, which is exactly why everyone talks about it. We could start with the overall cost of D.A.R.E., a completely worthless program, which has existed since the early 80s.

said by jeffster1970 :

Not sure how Winterpeg made that list of yours, both Calgary and Edmonton are larger urban centers. However, the US claiming that size is an issue for them, not sure how that fits in, as most Americans live in or close to large cities and therefore in large states as well.

said by rawgerz :

It should serve as a temporary reminder to any other countries that wish to start something with the US.

said by rawgerz :

How is Canada supporting the US in the war? According to wikipedia only 5 Canadians have died in the war.

said by rawgerz :

How is Canada supporting the US in the war? According to wikipedia only 5 Canadians have died in the war.

said by rawgerz :

And if anything good can come out of Iraq its that we showed them what kind of power we really have and that we're a force to be reckoned with. It should serve as a temporary reminder to any other countries that wish to start something with the US.

said by rawgerz :

And if anything good can come out of Iraq its that we showed them what kind of power we really have and that we're a force to be reckoned with. It should serve as a temporary reminder to any other countries that wish to start something with the US.

said by AquaBlaze :

Umm...last I remember, Iraq didn't really "start" anything with the US. If anything, Iraq serves as an international reminder how gullible and manipulatable our populace is.

said by rradina :

I have no idea. I just looked at your signature. It says St. Catharines, ON which I'll assume means you're in Canada. Under that it says Cogeco Cable.

said by insomniac84 :

Please don't be a jackass.

said by james1 :

Mr Potman, meet Lady Kettlesworth, heir to the #000000 fortune..