Why so expensive, America?

[Sava]

DP

[Sava]

Didn't we already have the discussion about subsidies for rural internet users?

Yes. And it was proven to have a negligible effect on the overall cost.

Every reason you guys have come up with has been proven wrong.

wrong wrong wrong

[notyoueither]

There are no "if's", "and's", or "but's". Canada is not more urban than America.

His meaning was clear to me and he was replying to Mike who was clearly being misled by a statistic that doesn't have much bearing.

Also the difference in urban population percentage is pretty small (82.4 vs 80.7).

[Sava]

His meaning was clear to me and he was replying to Mike who was clearly being misled by a statistic that doesn't have much bearing.

Also the difference in urban population percentage is pretty small (82.4 vs 80.7).

It doesn't matter. The whole premise was that Canada's costs are lower because of a higher urban population. Canada has less urban population.

So the argument is wrong.

wrong wrong wrong

[regexcellent]

The argument was that Canada's costs are lower because there's less, proportionally, rural mileage of cable to subsidize with money from urban customers.

Saying "wrong wrong wrong" doesn't change that.

[notyoueither]

I think his point was that the way the Canadian population is arranged makes it easier and cheaper to serve them with wires. I think he's right. Less rural land area with enough population clout to require service damn the cost, and better concentration of urban population (better for the task of given them cheap wires). Which is all salient to Mike's query.

[Sava]

The argument was that Canada's costs are lower because there's less, proportionally, rural mileage of cable to subsidize with money from urban customers.

Saying "wrong wrong wrong" doesn't change that.

There's less cable period. Canada has 260-270 million less people than the US.

[Sava]

I think his point was that the way the Canadian population is arranged makes it easier and cheaper to serve them with wires. I think he's right. Less rural land area with enough population clout to require service damn the cost, and better concentration of urban population (better for the task of given them cheap wires). Which is all salient to Mike's query.

This makes absolutely no sense and nobody has posted any evidence in support of this. It's all baseless conjecture.

[regexcellent]

I think his point was that the way the Canadian population is arranged makes it easier and cheaper to serve them with wires. I think he's right. Less rural land area with enough population clout to require service damn the cost, and better concentration of urban population (better for the task of given them cheap wires). Which is all salient to Mike's query.

This is exactly what I was saying. Sava's driving the discussion in circles to avoid this point.

There's less cable period. Canada has 260-270 million less people than the US.

That's also 260-270 million fewer people paying for the cables that are there.

This makes absolutely no sense and nobody has posted any evidence in support of this. It's all baseless conjecture.

More concentrated people in one place means you need less infrastructure to serve them. Does that make sense?

When you have people arranged in a straight line, it's even easier to serve them, because it turns out that cables are shaped like lines. Does that make sense?

[notyoueither]

This makes absolutely no sense and nobody has posted any evidence in support of this. It's all baseless conjecture.

No, I based my conjecture (you're right it's that) about the US having a greater area of rural space on amount of land under cultivation, so it's not baseless. Incomplete perhaps, maybe even wrong, but not baseless. There's also my taking into account the huge area of Canada that is unpopulated (effectively) barren land or wilderness.

[Sava]

This is exactly what I was saying. Sava's driving the discussion in circles to avoid this point.

It only seems like a circle because every one of your everyday man's logical points goes back to the same place... being wrong.

You are piling assumption upon assumption without any data or evidence to support your assertions.

[Sava]

No, I based my conjecture (you're right it's that) about the US having a greater area of rural space on amount of land under cultivation, so it's not baseless. Incomplete perhaps, maybe even wrong, but not baseless. There's also my taking into account the huge area of Canada that is unpopulated (effectively) barren land or wilderness.

But that bit of conjecture is wrong. You are making assumption about population distribution without showing any of the actual infrastructure of those cable lines.

The 50+ million people in the northeastern US should be much easier to serve than the 15-20 million people living in the Windsor/Quebec corridor... precisely for the reasons your own reasons.

This discussion keeps going back to the same point... that US internet providers must be somehow giving charity to rural customers by providing them service.

BTW, this is service that most rural areas in the US don't even have.

So even that bit of the argument is baseless.

Not a single bit of "conjecture" in this thread is based on fact.

Assumption + assumption + assumption doesn't equal fact.

[regexcellent]

The 50+ million people in the Northeast are subsidizing the ~560,000 people in Wyoming, roughly the same in Vermont, and rural towns throughout the mountain west from Idaho to Nevada and Arizona, plus the farming communities in the Midwest and the South.

.3% of Canada's population lives in its northern territories (Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon.) They comprise about 40% of Canada's land area. Most of Quebec and Manitoba are completely uninhabited taiga forest and lakes. Most of British Columbia is uninhabited mountains.

The rural farming and mining communities in Canada are concentrated in a few relatively easy to serve places, mostly near the US border.

[regexcellent]

The inhabited farming area of Canada is pretty easy to see from space. I've circled much of it; the remainder is mostly in southern Ontario between Ottawa and Windsor (in the aforementioned Quebec-Windsor corridor).

[Sava]

The 50+ million people in the Northeast are subsidizing the ~560,000 people in Wyoming, roughly the same in Vermont, and rural towns throughout the mountain west from Idaho to Nevada and Arizona, plus the farming communities in the Midwest and the South.

This is not true. Stop repeating it. Your entire argument is based upon this. It is wrong.

Wrong. False. Incorrect.