Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking The Internet Technology

All Korea To Have 1Gbps Broadband By 2012? 386

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the gotta-have-good-net-for-starcraft-binges dept.
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that while 60 Mbps may be enough to get us excited in the US, Korea is making plans to set the bar much higher. The entire country is gearing up to have 1 Gbps service by 2012, or at least that is what the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) is claiming. 'Currently, Koreans can get speeds up to 100 Mbps, which is still nearly double the speed of Charter's new 60 Mbps service. The new plan by the KCC will cost 34.1 trillion ($24.6 billion USD) over the next five years. The central government will put up 1.3 trillion won, with the remainder coming from private telecom operators. The project is also expected to create more than 120,000 jobs — a win for the Korean economy.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

All Korea To Have 1Gbps Broadband By 2012?

Comments Filter:
  • Botnets (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:24PM (#26696231)

    I bet the botnet operators are furiously masturbating right now. With that kind of bandwidth, they could destroy anything they wanted.

  • Oh sweet.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:24PM (#26696253)

    Now their Zergrush will reach me even faster than before!

  • Food for thought (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Taevin (850923) * on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:25PM (#26696257)
    Korea is roughly 1/100th the size of the US. If we estimate a similar plan in the US based on size only, it would cost $2.46 trillion USD. The Korean government is paying 1.3 trillion of the 34.1 total (or roughly 4%). If the US government did something similar, it would be about $100 billion USD. If they were generous they might give 8% which would be about $200 billion USD. I wonder what might happen if the US gave its private telecom companies $200 billion to execute such a plan...
    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:29PM (#26696343) Homepage

      I wonder what might happen if the US gave its private telecom companies $200 billion to execute such a plan...

      The executives of those telecoms would get really huge bonuses.

      • by Loadmaster (720754) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:30PM (#26696363) Homepage

        Again!

      • by fm6 (162816) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:59PM (#26696809) Homepage Journal

        They'll get them anyway. U.S. corporate executives get bonuses when their companies are making money (reward for doing well), when they're losing money (it could have been worse), when their market share grows (keep up the good work!), when it shrinks (somebody has to make the hard choices) and most of all when they fire people or make them take lower pay (somebody has to watch the bottom line).

        The problem here is not that corporations have too much money. I mean, Merrill Lynch paid out billions in bonuses as the company was facing a fatal tide of red ink. They even paid them early so they'd go through before the company was taken over by BofA.

        The problem is a corporate ruling class with an extreme sense of entitlement.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          As opposed to the sense of entitlement displayed when people demand that public investment occur in non-necessary services so they can be further entertained? Or maybe that entitlement is more worthwhile because you agree with it... hard to tell really. Personally I find both repellent but I have an easier time accepting it from people who have actually done something towards earning it.

          • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday February 02, 2009 @02:52PM (#26697527) Homepage

            As opposed to the sense of entitlement displayed when people demand that public investment occur in non-necessary services so they can be further entertained?

            Yes, because the Internet is just for porn and Facebook, right? It couldn't possibly be that it's being used for public services, governmental operation, and businesses both large and small.

            And roads are just for joyriding in cars. Trains and planes are just for vacations. Electricity is just for watching TV and playing computer games. Indoor plumbing is for water balloon fights.

          • by fm6 (162816) on Monday February 02, 2009 @03:46PM (#26698281) Homepage Journal

            ...but I have an easier time accepting it from people who have actually done something towards earning it.

            And what, precisely, do all these overpaid corporate suits do? Besides grind their companies into the ground, then leave with huge golden parachutes when they finally get canned. There's simply no link here between performance and reward. If you have a certain kind of job, you're entitled to big bucks, even if you're totally incompetent.

            I agree that an excessive sense of entitlement is a problem all across the board. You may find the ESOE typified by $50 TV upgrade certificates more irksome than $50 million dollar executive bonuses. But the issue here isn't what pisses you off more. The issue is what does more damage.

            Those $50 dollar certificates aren't that big a line item, and arguably will even serve to stimulate the economy. All those overpaid executives who sweep in the rewards regardless of what they do is not only a huge line item (one-third of Merril Lynch's final year red ink was bonuses) it is destructive of the very marketplace that creates all our wealth. It's a kind of corporate socialism. I assume you're against socialism?

        • The problem is a corporate ruling class with an extreme sense of entitlement.

          And a bonus structure where the fox guards the henhouse. Great idea, guys.

    • by stranger_to_himself (1132241) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:33PM (#26696417) Journal

      Korea is roughly 1/100th the size of the US. If we estimate a similar plan in the US based on size only, it would cost $2.46 trillion USD. The Korean government is paying 1.3 trillion of the 34.1 total (or roughly 4%). If the US government did something similar, it would be about $100 billion USD. If they were generous they might give 8% which would be about $200 billion USD. I wonder what might happen if the US gave its private telecom companies $200 billion to execute such a plan...

      Putting money into an industry providing infrastructure people actually want and need while creating many many jobs across the country seems like a pretty good idea to me. Maybe that was your point.

      • Re:Food for thought (Score:5, Informative)

        by Loadmaster (720754) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:34PM (#26696433) Homepage

        It would be, but that wasn't his point. This was:

        http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html [pbs.org]

      • by cayenne8 (626475) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:42PM (#26696525) Homepage Journal
        Trouble is...it appears Korea (assuming South Korea) doesn't seem to have the inherit need to put extreme amounts of pork and other wasteful spending on their broadband legislation. Unlike the big, bundled travesty of the current US 'stimulus' package.

        Break that damned bill into separate bills, directly target at the US economy. I'd back the part with rolling out broadband....it would help our infrastructure, as well as help create new jobs.

        I can't, however, go along with some broadband funding bundled with some kind of 60's beatnik museam in SF and other crap we don't really NEED at this time.

        • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday February 02, 2009 @02:20PM (#26697107) Homepage

          Trouble is...it appears Korea (assuming South Korea) doesn't seem to have the inherit need to put extreme amounts of pork and other wasteful spending on their broadband legislation.

          What's even sadder is that the whole thing isn't entirely an issue of corruption. Corruption would actually be easier to deal with. The problem is that our culture has become so bitterly divided into two camps that, in order to get any laws passed, you have to put something for each camp into the law.

          You want any kind of infrastructure? Well according to roughly half the country, spending money on infrastructure is "communist", so you had better bundle that spending with "tax cuts" to make them happy. Oh, but now you're asking for tax cuts, and tax cuts are always for the rich, so we'd better include some "scholarships for low-income minorities" to keep the first half from getting upset.

          Go back and forth a few hundred times until everyone feels like they're getting something out of the deal, and then maybe it will pass.

        • Oh, yeah, we have this Congress which is elected district by district, so EVERY SINGLE BILL has to be a bonanza giveaway with something for everyone.

          Don't blame Congress for this, the Constitution we have was designed for an 18th century agrarian society. No matter how carefully it was designed the resulting system cannot possibly be ideal for a modern 21st century post industrial society.

          But cheer up, once the country has been misgoverned by this abomination into total collapse then the fascists will come

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They already did give 200 billion : http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

      We (the US) don't even have one city with that kind of connectivity available for the public to use. Sure a few companies in each city have fiber access, but how many homes? We are getting chewed alive. Slovenia has faster internet than we do.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! (70830)

      Thats a fair assessment, but the US east of the Mississippi is a lot like any European country. Lots of cities withing short distance of each other. The argument that the US is too spread out applies only to the western states. I think there's a real problem here with broadband. At the very least the east coast would have 100mbps service to be on par with Korea or some European nations.

      • Re:Food for thought (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Taevin (850923) * on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:43PM (#26696555)
        I totally agree with you. The whole "we're too spread out" thing has been bogus from the beginning. One only has to look at countries like Sweden which have lower population densities than the US but still have very high speed synchronous connections for less than we pay for a fraction of the service level here.

        I might even buy into the spread out argument if it applied to truly rural areas. I could understand a telco not running $20,000 in fiber to one farmhouse. I can't understand why densely populated cities, especially newer growth cities, are still stuck with slow DSL and cable connections.
        • Synchronous (Score:3, Informative)

          by DragonWriter (970822)

          One only has to look at countries like Sweden which have lower population densities than the US but still have very high speed synchronous connections for less than we pay for a fraction of the service level here.

          I agree with your overall point, but I think you mean symmetric rather than synchronous here.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by krenshala (178676)

            I agree with your overall point, but I think you mean symmetric rather than synchronous here.

            I think he did mean synchronous, as in SDSL.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Taevin (850923) *
            Yes, you are absolutely correct. Symmetric as in same bandwidth upstream and down. Both words start with "sy," are infrequently used, and I've had synchronization on my mind all morning. Always proofread. :)
      • Not spread, SCALE (Score:3, Interesting)

        It's not really so much of a "spread out" problem. It's a problem of SCALE. Any time you scale a project up orders of magnitude, you get problems. It's the same problem with large corporations and bureaucracies. You run out of smart people and aren't able to be part of the hiring process. You also turn into a faceless entity, so the employees have very little stake in the success of the operation anymore and have zero loyalty. Everything has cost overruns and delays because nobody is around and empowe

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by FireStormZ (1315639)

        That's a fair assessment, but the US east of the Mississippi is a lot like any European country.

        So you're saying, for example, Kentucky (101.7 People/sq mi)is about the same as France (297/sq mi)?

        "Lots of cities withing short distance of each other."

        Look at New York state.. The second largest city (Buffalo) is five hundred or so miles away from the largest city. Now it might be fair to say the US eastern seaboard up to two hundred miles inland is the same as Western Europe but 'east of the Mississippi?

        "The

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by gad_zuki! (70830)

          >So you're saying, for example, Kentucky (101.7 People/sq mi)is about the same as France (297/sq mi)?

          You cant cherry pick stats for your own disengenious argument.

          Denmark is 22 people per sq mile and is one of the top broadband providers in Europe. 40 for Finland.

          What all these countries have in common is good government. You can have all these broadband toys if you wish, but not with the current US system and the cronyism that comes with it.

          Look at New York state.. The second largest city (Buffalo) is f

    • by Rinisari (521266) *

      Didn't the US.gov already do that in the '90s and we saw nothing out of it?

    • Re:Food for thought (Score:5, Informative)

      by DragonWriter (970822) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:44PM (#26696575)

      Korea is roughly 1/100th the size of the US. If we estimate a similar plan in the US based on size only, it would cost $2.46 trillion USD.

      If we assume that the costs would scale with land area. Of course, if you took South Korea, split it in half, and added an equal area of uninhabited desert between the two halves, you wouldn't double the cost; the assumption that the costs would scale with land area is ludicrous.

      The actual costs would probably be closer to scaling with population, where the US is less than 10 times as big as South Korea, though that would probably underestimate things a bit because distance does have some effect.

      I wonder what might happen if the US gave its private telecom companies $200 billion to execute such a plan...

      That depends how tightly constrained they were in how to execute it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Taevin (850923) *
        In case the point was missed, I was referring to this [pbs.org]. I saw this article and was amused to see how closely the numbers fit to our friend the broadband scandal.

        With respect to your comment, I can only point out that you completely missed the point. Of course it wouldn't work out quite like that (which is why I said "based on size only"). My point was that after investing money into such a project, even assuming 90% losses through inefficiency and corruption (which is ridiculous to begin with), one shou
        • With respect to your comment, I can only point out that you completely missed the point.

          No more than you did in responding to it. That is, like you, I was aware of the US broadband scandal, but I didn't realize you were intending to make an oblique reference to it. OTOH, the actual results of the US effort were in large part what I was referring to when saying the results in the US would depend on how tightly constrained the telecoms were in the use of the money.

          Substantively, though, I think we're on the s

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Thaelon (250687)

        No, it's not based on area. No, it's not based on population. It's based on local population density. The average density of the whole country isn't relevant, it's the distances between clusters and individual houses that matters, and you cannot accurately boil that down to a single representative number.

  • Not "all Korea" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:25PM (#26696265)

    I'm pretty sure the northern part would be happy to just get some food.

    A map [flickr.com] tells the tale better than words.

    • In DPRK, they will let thousends of singing young people display image of broadbend internet server on stadium, using color tables. They can turn it into a car in 2 seconds as well.

    • The above comment is so true. This whole project has the odor of Asian 'group-think' about it. So before you call me a racist (and you will), let me define this concept.

      The Koreans seem obsessed with the idea that they are as smart, driven, tough, and visionary as anyone else in the world, without exception. That is fine and well; it's good for them and it's good for everyone else. And for the most part it is true that they are as smart, driven, and tough as anyone.

      But they are also a small nation, diff

  • I mean I doubt the telecom companies are doing it out of the warm fuzzy feeling it will make in their hearts. What will be the other side of this? Are they planning to offer on demand TV/Movies? Site to site teleportation? I mean that is a lot of bandwidth.
  • by nobodylocalhost (1343981) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:27PM (#26696293)

    Malware and spambot writers everywhere are making plans to move their botnet hub to korea.

  • Meanwhile (Score:5, Informative)

    by SRowley (907434) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:29PM (#26696347)
    All of Britain's going to have 2Mbps broadband [guardian.co.uk].
  • by Tx (96709) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:31PM (#26696383) Journal

    ...our ISP's in the UK, USA etc seem to be having real problems dealing with the bandwidth usage of their customers who have paltry 10Mbps connections. Do the Koreans not use bittorrent or usenet? Are these connections going to be capped or throttled? If the connections are bandwidth-managed, then it seems kind of pointless to have them in the first place. But if not bandwidth-managed, then I can't see how the ISPs can make it work. TFA sheds no light, so I guess it's just a rather pointless snippet, unless anyone can shed some light on these questions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Phoenixhawk (1188721)

      In the USA its more of a problem of greed, over-selling and business model.

      While contracts have changed over the years, Mine with timewarner states it as being always on and always available.

      For which I will be over charged a vast amount for my 10Mbps connection that will never really run at full 10Mbps.

      So out of the box, they already broke their contract, (Yes I'm aware that the wording is more complex and they no longer read anything like the old ones that some of us still have)

      Their business model is bas

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fwr (69372)
        ISP's give preferential treatment to traffic to/from speed test sites, so what it says you will get is what you will get only when accessing the speed test sites.
    • South Koreans consume LOTS of bandwidth just watching "broadcasting" and films/"pirated" DVDs. Probably there is little crackdown on at least the piracy of DVDs and related material because ultimately sales downstream probably depend upon or are enhanced by it. Plus, in the South, there are seriously dedicated gamers who'd probably put to shame just about any of the rest of the world.

      The Bandwidth Capital of the World
      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/korea.html [wired.com]

      Korea Broadband Archives (12)
      http://www. [websiteoptimization.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mjwx (966435)

      ...our ISP's in the UK, USA etc seem to be having real problems dealing with the bandwidth usage of their customers who have paltry 10Mbps connections. Do the Koreans not use bittorrent or usenet? Are these connections going to be capped or throttled? If the connections are bandwidth-managed, then it seems kind of pointless to have them in the first place. But if not bandwidth-managed, then I can't see how the ISPs can make it work. TFA sheds no light, so I guess it's just a rather pointless snippet, unless

  • by hwyhobo (1420503) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:32PM (#26696395)
    Just because you pull fiber to someone's home and claim it is capable of 1Gbps, it doesn't mean you will get a useful 1Gbps. At some point all those strands of fiber are going to meet in a Central Office. How much bandwidth will they have on the backbone? What about their connection to other offices? How much bandwidth will the long-haul links have?
    • 10% of 1Gb/s = 100 Mb/s

      I'd take that
    • Verizon is GPON (Score:3, Informative)

      by thule (9041)

      Verizon is deploying GPON or Gigabit Passive Optical Network. The Ethernet port on the Optical Network Terminator outside my house is labels 1000Mbit. My area was lit 4 months ago. That means it was something like 5 years for Verizon to get to my area of Los Angeles... not for lack of effort.

      It takes a long time to pull that much fiber.

    • by fm6 (162816)

      Building backbone networking and central data centers is a lot cheaper than laying "last mile" cable. I mean a lot cheaper. It would be very strange if they dug up every street in South Korea to string cable, and then neglected the relatively small expense you're concerned about.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella (173770)

      Well forever it's been said the last mile is the problem because of the endless miles of ditch digging it'd take. Is there really a big problem laying a big bundle of cables point-to-point between centrals? Besides if they delivered 20% of what they claim before and 20% of what they claim now the increase is still the same...

    • by rzei (622725)

      I doubt that it will much of an issue. Having anywhere between 10-100Mbps (up&down) up to what ever and making it really work at that level like a charm will open up a lot of potential to people spreading up around the country and creating jobs as they slowly spread..

      I'd work from home, and even better I'd like to move over to a bit more rural area only if I could get a 10Mbit line up there.

    • Just because you pull fiber to someone's home and claim it is capable of 1Gbps, it doesn't mean you will get a useful 1Gbps. At some point all those strands of fiber are going to meet in a Central Office. How much bandwidth will they have on the backbone?

      Enough. Only one download has to come from the outside world; after that a swarm of incredibly high speed Korean peers distribute the torrent locally with enormous efficiency.

      What, you thought people were going to use a gigabit connection for web browsi

  • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:34PM (#26696425)

    Anybody know what these countries that offer 100/1000Mb to the home can actually deliver? I'm kinda doubting that Korea is going to have a 10Gb circuit for every 10 customers. If you had an apartment building with 100 units in it, do we really expect the ISP to be able to provide 100Gb simultaneously?

    I just want to know, is this a case of providing high speed "last mile" but it's business as usual when it comes to oversubscription in the distribution/core layers.

    • by Hadlock (143607)

      Does it really matter if all 10 users can get full 10 gigabit eithernet at the same time? Can you really think of any application where a home user would need 10 gigabit for more than 10 minutes at a time... per day? At that point your hard drive's write speed(s) become the bottleneck. Maybe down the road (10 years) you'll have users who can tap out a 10 gb connection 24/7 but right now with 5 megabit I can download video over bit torrent faster than I can watch it (at standard definition, 720p divx downloa

      • And then there's the problem of content? How many content distribution networks could actually stream that kind of bandwidth at a time?

      • by PitaBred (632671)
        What about gaming? P2P for something higher quality than 720p DivX? Remote desktops? There are all kinds of things that faster networks enable, some of which are still being invented. Saying that the network is fast enough is like being an old farmer and saying your horse does a great job plowing, you don't need that newfangled tractor.
    • by Chabo (880571)

      Well, at least it means that BitTorrent's local-user-finder feature (I forget the real name of it) will let you download off your neighbor at ~1Gbps, right? :)

    • by Mascot (120795)

      It's just in trial here so far, but the "test family" for my ISPs 1Gbit connection has so far managed to measure 920Mbit on it.

      Unfortunately, the details are rather slim. All they say about the specifics is that they had a very hard time digging up a way of managing to utilize the bandwidth. My personal guess is they finally found a popular enough torrent to seed. Since they specified the test was done on upstream speed.

      Of course, it's a far cry between a single family having it and them opening it up for t

  • There could be only one thing to motivate all of SK to pull this off: StarCraft 2 must be a bandwidth hog!

  • The 60mbps falacy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:39PM (#26696483)

    Touting 60 mbps is entirely disingenuous since it's only the download speed. The connection is still a crippled by a 5 mbps upload speed. If the internet is to truly become the enabling force that it has the potential to be, we need to rid ourselves of the idea that people are consumers of information only and do not also produce information that they can share with the rest of the world.

    We need to start demanding synchronous connections and the ability to run servers from our homes. And we need to get rid of the mindset that an internet connection's sole purpose is to get information from the internet. The ability to run servers from our homes is an important one, and not just for people like those who read Slashdot who are capable of setting one up. That's because once all internet connections are allowed to run servers, you'll start to see all sorts of products for non-technical people that utilize that ability.

    • Re:The 60mbps falacy (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hadlock (143607) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:58PM (#26696797) Homepage Journal

      Running servers from home connections destroys pretty much all pricing structures for both intertube providers and dedicated hosting providers. If you want a dedicated (T1) connection you're going to have to pay ~350/month in most cities

      • What you say may be true but your qualification using the word "server" concerns me.
        What if it's all clients?

        You see, there is no black and white line between a "server" and a "client" on the internet. At the packet level, perhaps there is but at the IP level, all nodes are equal. That isn't by accident. That is by design. The ISPs/telco's - years ago - made the crappy decision to provide asynchronous service. Now, the chickens come home to roost when customers want better upstream performance.
  • Home buyers' demands (Score:4, Interesting)

    by troll8901 (1397145) * <troll8901@gmail.com> on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:40PM (#26696507) Journal

    My friend says in South Korean, houses and apartments are frequently advertised with an emphasis on Internet broadband speeds and latency (fixed line).

    Due to a respectable demand by home buyers to actually base their decisions with broadband as a major criteria. It appears that a respectable portion of the population are avid gamers.

    These are for South Korea. For North Korea, elrous0 (869638)'s viewpoint is quite right.

  • Wow, that's quite an achievement for the communist North that can't even feed its own population.

    Sure, not entirely surprising for the South, but an amazing achievement for all Korea.

    Unless, of course, "all Korea" is a little more selective?

  • by Yvan256 (722131)

    WMF: Weapons of Mass Flooding.

  • by qw0ntum (831414) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:50PM (#26696667) Journal
    The Economist this week has an interesting article on subsidized broadband and its economic impact:

    http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13024563 [economist.com]

    I do not necessarily agree or disagree with the opinions presented within the article; I just think it is an interesting and timely take on the topic.
  • by rbrander (73222) on Monday February 02, 2009 @01:57PM (#26696765) Homepage

    Debate this one as you will, but, PLEASE, just this once, don't anybody write, "Of course Korea and Japan and Europe have better broadband than the US, they're all a big urban beehive, we're all rural and spread out."

    Somebody says that every time the 3rd-rate US broadband comes up, and every time I or somebody has to point out that Canada is even more spread out than the US and has way higher broadband penetration. Some European countries with spectacular broadband offerings (Finland) have lower persons/sq km than the US has. (US: 30 persons/sq.km, Finland, 14.7, Sweden 20)

    Now check out Finland & Sweden vs. the US position on this chart:

    http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Images/commentarynews/broadbandspeedchart.jpg [worldpoliticsreview.com]

    Even Canada is way ahead of you, and two countries could hardly be more alike in their respective fractions of population in large cities, small cities, large towns, and small towns. We, too, have privatized, not government-run, phone companies, but we lean on them a little harder to compete with cable and satellite, and to invest profits, not keep them.

    Face it: networked infrastructures like water, power and communications are "natural monopolies"; monopolies require either outright government ownership, or at least tight regulation to not exploit their customers for maximum profit at minimum service. For a long list of reasons, the US doesn't do it as well as some.

    Korea and Finland in particular have no ideological barriers to large government investments in this particular basic infrastructure, the way the US has no ideological barriers to large government investments in defense. The US is well-defended, Korea is well-networked; get used to it.

    • by Ogive17 (691899)
      If Canada was just as spread out (or more spread out) than the US, population wise, most Canadians wouldn't live within 50 miles of the US border.

      I'm not using that as a reason why the US broadband is so crappy.. hell, time warner just capped mine at 250kb/sec basically because they put too many homes on one line, and service is horrible. Of course service still sucks, now it just means anything I do download takes 3 times as long as normal when I let it run over night.
      • by rbrander (73222)

        It's not WHERE your population does its urbanizing, it's how much it is urbanized. The actual figure is 75% of the Canadian population lives within 200 mi. of the US border: but if we were EVENLY spread through that area, we would be totally non-urbanized and hugely expensive to network. (It would be less than 15 houses per square mile.)

        The population of Canada is 79.4% urbanized (living in centres of >=10,000 population).

        http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/canadian_cities.html [citymayors.com]

        The population of the USA i

  • It doesn't "create 120,000 jobs". All it does is shift jobs from one place to another. If there is any creation of jobs, it will be in the follow on services.

    Still, I'm all in favor of adopting more asian-like policies in America. Korea has a long list of goods that it tarriffs or protects against foreign imports of, and I think it is long overdue for America to do the same. Let them sell their Hyundais to each other, that's what I say.

    • by hwyhobo (1420503)

      Let them sell their Hyundais to each other, that's what I say.

      And let us sell Pontiacs to each other. Oh, wait, is that a new "Chinese Curse"?

      • by tjstork (137384)

        And let us sell Pontiacs to each other. Oh, wait, is that a new "Chinese Curse"?

        It depends on the Pontiac. My 2004 GTO was a great car. Yeah, I know it is a rebadged Holden Commodore but the V8 and tranny are made in Michigan. Besides, I have an alliance exception. Aussies fought with the USA in pretty much every war we've been in since WWI, and fairly with the US. There's absolutely no need for Australia to a have sent anyone to Iraq but there's enough dead Australians from the adventure that I think

        • by Chirs (87576)

          How about Canada? Have we had enough deaths in Afghanistan to qualify?

          Is "sending soldiers to die for US-initiated wars" the new criteria for trading partners?

    • It doesn't "create 120,000 jobs". All it does is shift jobs from one place to another.

      No, it shifts money from one use to another. Not all uses of money are equal in effect on jobs, so its quite possible it does create jobs. (Of course, lots of job creation analysis doesn't really look at the job losses, if any, from wherever the money is taken from, so doesn't really address net job creation; if that's the case with whatever underpins this claim, it may well be defective for that reason, but the whole oft-

      • by tjstork (137384)

        but move jobs around is completely bogus

        It's not bogus at all. My point is that the statement "creates 120,000 jobs" is completely dishonest.

        Unless that money is sitting in a room in the form of gold bars, then, a movement of investment from one place to another will have a net change in jobs. You might have more jobs for less money in one situation, versus, less jobs for more money in another, but, the overall size of the stimulus to the economy will remain the same from that act, although the shape of

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DragonWriter (970822)

          It's not bogus at all. My point is that the statement "creates 120,000 jobs" is completely dishonest.

          The argument that moving money from one use to another cannot create jobs is bogus. Determining whether the statement "creates 120,000 jobs" is accurate relies on information not presented in this discussion, it may or may not be.

          Unless that money is sitting in a room in the form of gold bars, then, a movement of investment from one place to another will have a net change in jobs.

          Again, this is completely bo

  • by Amazing Quantum Man (458715) on Monday February 02, 2009 @02:27PM (#26697225) Homepage

    The old people will only use it for email.

  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Monday February 02, 2009 @04:18PM (#26698795) Journal
    1,000,000,000 bits/second. Assuming you aggressively go to 50ms updates, that means you get 20 default updates a second for your position. 50,000,000 bits / 50 ms It takes about 50 bits to encode your position/velocity vector. 1,000,000 bits /50 ms * 50 moves/bit So I didn't do a good job with my units, but that was the calculations for a single player. So you can have a million other players in the game where everyone is just moving around. You'd have a bit less when you factor in their actual play moves in. If you do an aggressive melee only algorithm where you don't update the people near you as often, you'll see you can get upwards of 10 billion people playing an action game with no lag. If you go serverless, you can half your latency. Not many companies do this because you need to write months worth of antihacking. I'm just putting this out there because 50ms latency is fast enough to allow fighting games even. For the number of people who will actually play a game on this planet, you don't need much more than 1GBS to get everyone who wants to play all on at the same time. This means even new concepts for games are possible... But they'll be slow to be made because the game design abilities of corporations aren't what they were in the early days. Probably the first thing we'll see is 1000 player capture the flag in a game like quake. But this is Korea who likes their long dry grinding MMORPGS so I'm not sure what route they'd go... probably they'll just spend less when hosting a server. You could totally make an action MMORPG with that nice of broadband, but no one wants to risk their entire MMO on a skill based combat system because it conflicts with the concreteness of a stat based system.

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...