> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 24 23:28:58 2005 > Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:27:15 -0700 (PDT) > From: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Daniel Golding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lewis Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > NANOG list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: ISP's In Uproar Over Verizon-MCI Merger > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Daniel Golding wrote: > > > > > I suggest you take another look at these numbers. Those countries with > > overall population densities lower than the US's all have something in > > common - they are really cold. Iceland, Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden. > > Folks in those countries are densely packed into relatively small regions of > > their overall land area (near oceans or in cities). Sure, some folks live > > out in Nunavut, but a relatively small number. Contrast that with the US > > where the population is far more spread out. > > > > This is an issue of both distribution and density, not just density. > > > So you're saying the US is screwed because of unique geography? Or is that > something poltical will can overcome?
political will cannot overcome the situation where it is further from the _property-line_ to the house than the reach of DSL or cable -- never mind the distance from the telco C.O., or the cable head-end. Delivering service in low-population density areas is _expensive_, no matter how you do it, when measured on a 'per user' basis. 'Wireless' is the most efficient way to serve low-density areas, but the cost-per-user is still orders of magnitude higher than wired service in a high-population-density locale. If you want to do 'meaningful' geographic comparasions, one needs to break down each geopolitical entity into sub-areas, by population density. and look at relative coverage within the areas of 'comparable' population density.
