DP
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why so expensive, America?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostDidn't we already have the discussion about subsidies for rural internet users?
Every reason you guys have come up with has been proven wrong.
wrong wrong wrongTo us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sava View PostThere 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).(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Comment
-
Originally posted by notyoueither View PostHis 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).
So the argument is wrong.
wrong wrong wrongTo us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
-
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 Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Comment
-
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostThe 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.To us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
-
Originally posted by notyoueither View PostI 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.To us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
-
Originally posted by notyoueither View PostI 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.
Originally posted by Sava View PostThere's less cable period. Canada has 260-270 million less people than the US.
Originally posted by Sava View PostThis makes absolutely no sense and nobody has posted any evidence in support of this. It's all baseless conjecture.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sava View PostThis 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.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Comment
-
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostThis is exactly what I was saying. Sava's driving the discussion in circles to avoid this point.
You are piling assumption upon assumption without any data or evidence to support your assertions.To us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
-
Originally posted by notyoueither View PostNo, 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.
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.To us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostThe 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.
Wrong. False. Incorrect.To us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
Comment