Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Katheryn, it didn't occur to me that lack of actual availability of service in remote areas could be a contributing factor, but of course this makes sense. Although, rates of internet use are higher in Canada, which has far lower population density than the US...
Right, but Canadian population is MUCH MORE CENTERED around large metro areas. Rural living is very common in the US, much moreso than in Canada.
Interesting map here:
Quote:
Katheryn, don't you think it's possible that as the internet becomes more and more ubiquitous, and it becomes more and more central to how many (most?) people communicate, it actually will become difficult to live without it?
To live? No. To live a contemporary lifestyle? Yes.
Quote:
I love the idea of being able to go off the grid - the ability to do this in the US is in itself a 'resource' that should be valued, an integral part of the idea of 'wilderness'.
Does the government not get involved at all in the internet infrastructure there?
Wow, you must not have much interaction with the typical American living in the red states (conservative). They oppose government regulation and involvement in pretty much every aspect of life. They also elect politicians that thrive on giving bennies to corporations at every turn. Not gonna happen here.
That's not really the case though... U.S. is huge, look at raw #s. No way is France ahead of the U.S. for internet ... they were notoriously late to adopt internet stuff b/c they had that weird phone lookup thing in many stores. Forget what it is called.
Also, the size of some of these Euro countries are tiny and often revolve around one area like Iceland/Rekyjavik
300k people? That's like one or two neighborhoods in NYC.
Norway, Denmark, Finland? Their entire populations could be contained in say Atlanta, Dallas or Houston. Sweden could be entirely contained in just Chicago. And Netherlands could be entirely contained in just NYC or LA.
UK/Canada/Germany all could be compared to just the NE section of the United States in terms of development/population.
Katheryn, thanks for those maps, they're really interesting. I had no idea there was such a stark difference in population distribution between the two countries. How do you feel about the unavailability of internet in rural areas? Is the balance about right between communication and wilderness, or are there some places where people suffer from unavailability of internet?
Tom, I think people might have misunderstood when I mentioned government involvement in internet infrastructure. In the UK, ISPs are certainly not publicly owned, but there have been government programmes to expand the reach of the internet. The US Interstates were built by the federal government, so why shouldn't build what is arguably now just as important a network, at least in places where the market is reluctant?
Grapico - well, it's not really a matter of which country is 'ahead' - the US is clearly the leading country in terms of developing internet-related technologies - I was asking what the reasons are behind the fact that proportionally fewer Americans use the internet than in Canada and Western Europe. As I've said, this may or may not reflect lack of internet availability - it could equally reflect people exercising their freedom of choice. People have put forward a variety of possibilities, which is really interesting. The comparisons you've made between the populations of Nordic countries/the Netherlands and areas of the US are right, but what are you saying with this?
Typically internet infrastructure is either privately owned by telephone companies or cable companies. There have been some movements to have free city-wide wi-fi in areas, but the telecom lobby does everything they can to limit this.
The government might throw some subsidies at the private companies to incentivize them to provide access to more rural areas, but there's no such thing as government-run internet access, outside of things like army bases and research facilities.
We have the "best government money can buy".
Here in central Washington the telecom companies bought the former Governor of Washington Gary Locke....lock, stock, and barrel. So Obama appointed him Secretary of Commerce to expand broadband access throughout the United States. And now you know how that story turned out!!
However, here in central Washington thanks to a strong Republican push we have fiber optic lines to homes and businesses provided by the local governments. Locke did all he could to stop government ownership of fiber lines, but at that time there were enough Republican's in the state legislature to overcome his objections. He did slow up the project for two years.
There are other public municipal projects throughout the United States, however, they are having a very hard time given the fact our government is "owned" by the telecoms.
We have spent the past four winters traveling in California and Arizona.....now in those places broadband is considered 1 mbps. I don't know how anybody can live on a daily basis with internet at that speed. We have 100 mbps and that really should be considered the minimum broadband connection.
Here in central Washington the telecom companies bought the former Governor of Washington Gary Locke....lock, stock, and barrel. So Obama appointed him Secretary of Commerce to expand broadband access throughout the United States. And now you know how that story turned out!!
However, here in central Washington thanks to a strong Republican push we have fiber optic lines to homes and businesses provided by the local governments. Locke did all he could to stop government ownership of fiber lines, but at that time there were enough Republican's in the state legislature to overcome his objections. He did slow up the project for two years.
There are other public municipal projects throughout the United States, however, they are having a very hard time given the fact our government is "owned" by the telecoms.
We have spent the past four winters traveling in California and Arizona.....now in those places broadband is considered 1 mbps. I don't know how anybody can live on a daily basis with internet at that speed. We have 100 mbps and that really should be considered the minimum broadband connection.
Interesting! Although I think dirty politics are not confined to the US.
I'm surprised if internet in California and Arizona is only 1mbps. But equally, I've not idea why most people would need 100mbps. We currently have about 20mbps, which works fine for streaming etc. We're about the change it to a different service that will be 70mbps, but only because we're changing provider and the difference in cost is pretty negligible.
Interesting! Although I think dirty politics are not confined to the US.
I'm surprised if internet in California and Arizona is only 1mbps. But equally, I've not idea why most people would need 100mbps. We currently have about 20mbps, which works fine for streaming etc. We're about the change it to a different service that will be 70mbps, but only because we're changing provider and the difference in cost is pretty negligible.
We were traveling mostly in rural and small town areas. Which is where we live in eastern Washington.
You will notice the difference between 20 and 70 mbps. I cannot imagine running a business at 20!
It really isn't dirty politics in the sense that it is all about money. The telecoms contributed more campaign money to Governor Locke than voters in central Washington. The surprising part was how driven he was to represent THEIR interests. Money trumps political philosophy every time.
Remember Washington was in the forefront of the public power movement and the fiber optic deployment came from that history. Which is how you end with Democrats squawking about getting government OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR and Republicans saying its OUR GOVERNMENT WE CAN MAKE IT WORK FOR US.
^^^ If you took an analysis of similarly sized areas at the state or city level in the U.S. with comparable populations I would imagine they would be just as high.
I think it just cultural and choice in how people use their spare time as with non-participation rate it would otherwise be increasing. In some ways its like TV in that it has made people socially lazy with less human contact face to face.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
