Maine has a population density of 43 people per square mile, less than 1/10th the density of the U.K. or Germany. Maine is just Northeast's version of Montana.
Please stop bringing up this kind of measurement as if it were an excuse.
Sweden's population density is 21 inhabitants/km2 -- about 54/sq.mile. Finland's population density is lower. Both countries have much better, and cheaper Internet connections on offer than the US.
Agreed. However, having gone down that rabbit hole too often, the arguments devolve. One particularly puzzling exchange devolved from my position of "Japan and Korea has ultra high speed Internet, why doesn't the US?" to "population density" on the other side, then to this same argument about Sweden's density, then to "cultural homogeneity" on the other.
That made me pause. "Cultural homogeneity?" I asked. And, the debate devolved into how there are too many minorities in the US and because of that, no one in any position of power wanted to allow everyone universal access because minorities (which I assumed to be Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc.) would need too many handouts to get the same speed, which no one would want to pay for. But if it were all-white like Sweden or all-Japanese, etc. it would be fine because it's "for the good of the people".
I just kinda tuned out after that argument. That debate did make strike a nerve, though. I wonder how much "cultural heterogeneity" actually _does_ come into play rather than the tired "population density" argument.
I know you meant no ill by saying it, but I have seen the claim of homogenity in the Swedish population brought up in several discussions over the past months and being Swedish myself it does sting a bit. Sweden has a long tradition of accepting refugees, wherever they may come from. Along with Germany, we are currently receving far more than other EU countries and many more are expected over the next few years due to the current unrest in the world.
Sweden being all-white, all-Scandinavian is an outdated image. Many cultures thrive together here, bringing new food and traditions. Almost thirty percent of the current Swedish population is foreign-born or have foreign-born parents. Studies show that the average Swede has become increasingly positive to immigration.
I am certain that if something is holding back the progress of Internet connections, it's not minorities. If this post can change the image of Sweden as "all-white" in just one person on HN, typing it will have felt very worth the time.
That said, I think that the fact that the Swedish regulatory and legislative process isn't captured by commercial interests in the same way it is in the US, is the key thing that has allowed Sweden to move ahead with good broadband.
Are you seriously arguing to which extent Sweden is not actually racist enough to base its investments into internet technology on merit rather than skin color? What?
> And, the debate devolved into how there are too many minorities in the US and because of that, no one in any position of power wanted to allow everyone universal access because minorities (which I assumed to be Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc.) would need too many handouts to get the same speed, which no one would want to pay for.
If anything it's probably the other way around. It will be a long time before it's cost effective to run fiber to every farm and and shack in the woods in America. But if you let the telcos decide who to serve then you end up with $50/month for gigabit fiber in rich and middle class neighborhoods and $20/month for some tin can on a string in poor neighborhoods, where "poor neighborhoods" include most of the predominantly racial minority neighborhoods, which makes it a political quagmire.
So the telcos end up saddled with build out requirements which means no gigabit fiber for anybody. Which is really quite unfortunate because the justification doesn't require the remedy. Most of the urban poor neighborhoods might not be profitable but they're at least close to break even. The problem is the universal service requirements passed to make sure they get served also require providing service to sparsely populated areas that are a pure money pit.
> So the telcos end up saddled with build out requirements
Whoa there, this story is about "the telcos" opposing municipalities taking the matter in their own hands and ensuring their citizens get fiber.
I would assume there would be no build-out requirement for private entities if there is municipal fiber, but they're welcome to offer service over it if they want, but apparently they don't want that. So if they're saddled, they're hell-bent on keeping on being saddled, presumably so that they can continue wringing their hands and building out things veery slowly, while keeping the local monopoly.
The end goal of all the BS arguments on this topic is too make sure the telcos stay on top. The message gets tuned to the audience no matter how hypocritical the tuning makes it.
"Oh it would be unfair to minorities" "You don't want to subsidize minorities" "anti-free market!" "it's too expensive for the private sector".
When rich people in industries start telling you what's good for the industry, at the end of the day the goal is always to do what's good for them.
Sweden and Finland are only sparsely populated on paper. Nearly 75% of Sweden lives along the coast, compared to only 40% of the U.S. 18% of Swedes live in the country's four largest cities, versus only 5% of Americans.
The 5 largest American cities all have larger populations than urban Stockholm and 4 of them have higher population density. None of them have better broadband.
Let's see, Washington DC has a population density ~10 times that of Japan. Guess which has the faster Internet speeds? As an independent state that have no need to subsidize anyone in low population areas yet the Internet is just not that fast.
Population density is something of a misnomer as for example parks significantly lower population density but there basicly irrelevant when building a network.
You can't compare an urban city with a whole country. Japan's landmass includes farm land, mountains and shit.
Washington, DC isn't very dense for the core of a city. There aren't any high rises. Most of the city is single family homes and 3 story walk up apartments.
I live in Arlington, VA which used to be part of DC. I get Verizon Fios. I get 75/75 and cable tv for 80 a month. It's not the dark ages.
I can't think of any place that I've lived in the US which has consistently worse broadband performance than DC and Northern Virginia. This is especially sad given Northern Virginia's density of large tech companies and history as 'internet alley'[1].
According to speedtest.net I have a 58 MBit download and 39 MBit upload. Yet, Netflix is basically unwatchable at around 6PM on weeknights. I literally get a better connection on my parents DSL than with Verizon Fios in Northern VA.
Remember Netflix maxes out at 3MBit/second and use useable at .75MBit/second so I am getting ~1-2% of my theoretical connection speed.
That's an issue specific to Netflix, as far as I'm aware, and implicates a wholly separate issue. I'm fully willing to concede that U.S. telecom policy gives infrastructure companies more leverage over content companies.
I have personally had similar issues with youtube and other video sites, but besides that as a customer I don't care. I am paying them ~100$ a month and getting a terrible product. Also, images on some websites often take forever to load, so I think there is some issue with 1 or more CDN networks.
Hell, the battery backup in their fiber > coax box died after 18 months and they want 50$ to replace it. I don't actually care if it works though a blackout as my router is going down anyway, but the damm thing will not stop beeping.
Sweden's population density is 21 inhabitants/km2 -- about 54/sq.mile. Finland's population density is lower. Both countries have much better, and cheaper Internet connections on offer than the US.