Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

All Korea To Have 1Gbps Broadband By 2012?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the gotta-have-good-net-for-starcraft-binges dept.

Networking 386

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.'"

cancel ×

386 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Botnets (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696231)

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

Oh sweet.. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696253)

Now their Zergrush will reach me even faster than before!

Food for thought (5, Insightful)

Taevin (850923) | more than 5 years ago | (#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...

Re:Food for thought (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696343)

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.

Re:Food for thought (5, Insightful)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696363)

Again!

Re:Food for thought (5, Informative)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696509)

For the readers who don't already know: $200 Billion Broadband Scandal [newnetworks.com]

Re:Food for thought (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696793)

I'd say for wangling such a huge sum out of the taxpayer, they'd deserve to get a huge bonus. Certainly if I were a shareholder I'd want to handsomely reward any executive who could look after the company's interests so well.

Re:Food for thought (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697011)

Certainly if I were a shareholder I'd want to handsomely reward any executive who could look after the company's interests so well.

And as a taxpayer you'd probably want to hang them from the nearest lamppost

Re:Food for thought (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696809)

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:Food for thought (2, Interesting)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697049)

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.

Well, I think you know the answer to that. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696357)

Executive bonuses!

Re:Well, I think you know the answer to that. (5, Funny)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696531)

Insightful + Sad = Funny?

Re:Well, I think you know the answer to that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696633)

Why is that "Sad"? $200 billion in new government contracts comes in while they're in charge. Sounds bonus worthy to me.

Re:Well, I think you know the answer to that. (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697219)

Sounds bonus worthy to me.

For what? Being in charge when the government decided we needed better bandwidth? For having not already taken steps to put this type of bandwidth in on the company's own dime?

Re:Food for thought (3, Insightful)

stranger_to_himself (1132241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696417)

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 (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696525)

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.

Re:Food for thought (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697107)

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.

Re:Food for thought (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696441)

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:Food for thought (2, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696447)

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 (4, Interesting)

Taevin (850923) | more than 5 years ago | (#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 (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697207)

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.

Not spread, SCALE (2, Interesting)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696771)

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 empowered to make smart decisions. It all turns into a giant charlie foxtrot, and that's even assuming you don't have some bad eggs intentionally swindling the operation.

Re:Food for thought (2, Interesting)

FireStormZ (1315639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696851)

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 argument that the US is too spread out applies only to the western states."

It applies to everything away from the coast (east, west, and gulf) from the Ohio Valley to the Sierra Nevada. Now were the abandoned waste land that might matter but near half the US population lives in that area.

"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."

Im left to ask why? is this *really* a priority given everything else we are going through?

Re:Food for thought (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696467)

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

Re:Food for thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696497)

Another way to think about it is that South Korea fits inside of Pennsylvania but has the world's 10th largest economy.

Of course they can distribute technology easily.

Re:Food for thought (1)

Taevin (850923) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696627)

Another way to look at it is that is only 100 times larger than South Korea and has an economy over 10 times as strong and yet can't seem to distribute even 1/100th of the bandwidth.

Re:Food for thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696501)

They would pocket the $200 billion, jack up the prices, and leave things the (shitty) way they are right now.

Re:Food for thought (4, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Food for thought (2, Insightful)

Taevin (850923) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696815)

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 should then hope to have an increase of 10% of the proposed expansion. However, as we have seen, even investing twice the amount the Korean government is, we get exactly... 0% return. You don't see a problem with that?

Re:Food for thought (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697083)

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 same page here.

Re:Food for thought (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697113)

Considering that internet connectivity is better now than it was when the project that you so dearly love to link started, 0% return is disingenuous. Unsurprisingly, of course. I don't expect intellectually honest arguments on Slashdot. But still, come on.

This lets me get first post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696261)

It's already here! That's how I got first post!

Also, this change has been driven by Starcraft!

Not "all Korea" (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

South Korea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696377)

Yeah, this must be only South Korea. North Korea couldn't get sneakernet to work, except for the Government Military Sneakernet.

Re:Not "all Korea" (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696635)

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.

So true....Not "all Korea" (3, Interesting)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696941)

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, different and culturally isolated. They have a history of being crushed by their neighbors and suffering disproportionately for it. They have 1.2 billion Chinese to the West, 100 million Japanese to the West, and in theory 300 million Russians to the North (although there is a lot a territory between Korea and where the Russians actually live). They are surrounded by people who aren't concerned about the best interests of the Korean people and have been for thousands of years.

This affects their culture and even the basic way of thinking of the Korean people. Which is, to the rest of the world, paranoid mentally unbalanced, and unlikely to change. They also tend to create a reality distortion field around themselves. This causes them to see certain things as far more important than they actually are. They have a tendency to confuse symbolism with reality.

So they invest huge amounts of money into basically symbolic projects that have marginal long-term benefit.

Like this one. What use is it to have 1 Gig bandwidth to every house in the country? There might be some military advantage, but I can't think of any. The whole project seems like a 'pissing contest', a 'anything you can do, we can do better'- type of project.

Maybe I'm wrong. But here's a country that is split in half and the northern half is in the control of the most brutal and fascist dictatorship on Earth. This is country that has been on the edge of suicide for 50 years. And they don't have much hope of changing the situation in the next 50 years.

Maybe the North will implode when 'Dear Leader' dies. Maybe the North will launch their huge invasion of the South that they have been preparing for during the past 50 years. Everyone used to worry that a new Korean Civil War would suck the neighboring countries into a giant pan-Asia war. But that is unlikely to happen now. Chinese young people love everything Korean. Even the Japanese and Koreans have entered a era of mutual respect and peaceful acceptance. It's possible that the North part of Korea will enter the civilized world without a major bloodbath. But, since Korea has an obsessive, violent, self-absorbed, and fanatical, and quite possibly, mentally unbalanced culture, it is very possible the entire country could fall into a huge suicidal bloodbath while the rest of the world watches helplessly.

But not likely, the South of Korea makes a lot of things that the world needs. People have a lot of money invested there. It's not a place like Palestine, which could experience a final solution to its situation without having any effect on the rest of the world.

So, we should congratulate the Koreans in their latest accomplishment and huge infrastructure project. It's quite possible that we could learn a lot from their experience in wiring the entire country.

Re:So true....Not "all Korea" (4, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697109)

They have a history of being crushed by their neighbors and suffering disproportionately for it. They have 1.2 billion Chinese to the West, 100 million Japanese to the West

Japanese to the West huh?

Re:Not "all Korea" (1)

Murpster (1274988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697151)

Silly hippie, don't you know commies don't count as people?

Re:Not "all Korea" (1)

LunarEffect (1309467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697189)

These are my thoughts exactly. I was wondering if North Korea had become so insignificant to the world that people just forget about it and call South Korea "all Korea"...
Thats like saying "All of America" if you just mean the USA. oO"

So is their price going up? (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696267)

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.

Finally! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696279)

A network speed that meets Vista's basic internet browsing and e-mail requirements!

They are getting ready (5, Funny)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696427)

for the second comming of starcraft!!!

on an unrelated note... (2, Interesting)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696293)

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

640K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696305)

aught to be enough for anybody ;-)

Bah. Humbug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696309)

Another country has something that's better than what WE have?!

Unpossible! They probably just stole it and, besides, WE would have it a long time ago if it was worth having anyway. And my uncle Mort has had this since 1983.

And they're socialists.

There. Have I wrapped up the usual Other-country-has-tech-not-commonly-found-here arguments here on /. ?

Meanwhile (5, Informative)

SRowley (907434) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696347)

All of Britain's going to have 2Mbps broadband [guardian.co.uk] .

Re:Meanwhile (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696443)

Welcome to the 20th Century mate :)

Re:Meanwhile (2, Funny)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696735)

Obviuos solution: outsource goverment to Korea.

Must be nice (2, Insightful)

hicks107 (1286642) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696369)

I cant complain with my 10/2 fios, but 1Gbps sure would be nice. then again, a 1Gbps link doesnt necessarily mean 1 Gig of bandwidth.

Re:Must be nice (2)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696807)

Maybe not to remote servers, but it sure does mean it to your local network. Which is key for P2P and other types of applications like that.

Re:Must be nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26697211)

Boy, I really don't understand why these corporations don't want to invest in the technology to help users pirate free entertainment more effectively. It's shocking, I tell you. A true violation of the human right to watch any TV show at any time. Someone should invade.

mmm (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696379)

1 gbps. That sounds delicious! :D

Good for them, but... (4, Interesting)

Tx (96709) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696383)

...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:Good for them, but... (3, Interesting)

Phoenixhawk (1188721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696687)

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 based on selling more bandwidth than they have because nobody will really use all of what they are paying for would they.

Even the biggest pirate, still only gets his 10mbps down and /512kbps up so if they sold what they really had in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Personally over the years, my premium package has gotten upgraded over the years, and I believe it is supposed to be 20Mbps or something near that speed tests put it between 3 Mbps & 21 Mbps at any give point in time, yet anytime I download Its a freaking miracle if its faster than 500/800Kbps and on a happy day I see that coveted 1.2Mbps, while I can go to or remote in to work on their full lines and pull down from the same server to my workstation at speeds of around 3-4 Mbps

Re:Good for them, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696827)

b not B

Re:Good for them, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696811)

I'd be happy to shed some light on the situation.

1. Unlike US ISPs, Korean ISPs are *competent*. This goes a long way towards providing great service for cheap prices.

2. US ISPs are largely either monopolists are oligopolists. Why invest in infrastructure when you can just raise prices and pocket the profits?

3. If US ISPs took the money they spent on caps, forged RST packets, private ip telephony networks, and lobbyists, and instead spent all that money on infrastructure, every household in the US would currently enjoy Tbps service for $.99/ month with no caps, filtering, or other BS.

4. The US has "deregulated" the telecommunications industry. Deregulating entrenched monopolists is brain dead. The results are predictable.

5. In the '90s, the telecoms received $200B in tax breaks and subsidies from state governments to build, deploy, and maintain true high speed networks. The telecoms took the money, and then didn't build jack shit. Instead, they gave us pitifully slow DSL.

6. A general attitude among US lawmakers that "the free market will sort things out" despite overwhelming evidence that *there is no free market for Internet access*

I could continue, but I have some other matters I must attend to this afternoon.

They've come a long way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696389)

We civilized their country, gave them a booming economy, we protect them from their mischievous northern neighbor, and yet they still get into fistfights over how best to disrespect us and screw us over...

And the *real* useful bandwidth will be? (5, Insightful)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

Only 10% (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696605)

10% of 1Gb/s = 100 Mb/s

I'd take that

Verizon is GPON (2, Informative)

thule (9041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696705)

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.

Re:Verizon is GPON (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697157)

Lucky you. I'm in the San Fernando Valley, and still no word on when FIOS will show up here.

Re:And the *real* useful bandwidth will be? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696869)

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:And the *real* useful bandwidth will be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696883)

What do you suggest they call it instead? Do you have a benchmark that you would like them to use?

As long as the customer is happy and the ISP makes a small profit, all is well.

Re:And the *real* useful bandwidth will be? (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696927)

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...

Re:And the *real* useful bandwidth will be? (1)

rzei (622725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697183)

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.

What's the oversubscription? (2, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:What's the oversubscription? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696647)

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 downloads at almost real time). I guess if you have 12+ family members each streaming HD video you might approach 1gb continuous but I'm not actually going to calculate that.

Re:What's the oversubscription? (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696821)

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

Re:What's the oversubscription? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696853)

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.

Re:What's the oversubscription? (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697133)

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? :)

DDoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696437)

This is clearly a cyber-warfare weapon. Korea will have a Weapon of Mass Cyber Destruction! That's probably a bad idea for them...

Motivation (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696449)

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

Misleading title...why? (0, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696463)

"All Korea...?" I doubt. Does the author realize that Korea is made up of North and South? These are the same folks who think the USA is the best at everything; ignoring the fact that some folks in the so called poor world are doing much better than what here are doing in as far as health care is concerned. I mean Cuba.

Re:Misleading title...why? (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696895)

I mean Cuba.

Ah yes, you mean a country with a repressive autocratic regime, where a single paragraph of mild criticism of the government can land a journalist in jail for 20 years. But of course you trust that government's self-reporting regarding its subjects' health.

Re:Misleading title...why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696947)

I didn't realize leftists seriously praised Cuba's
"health care", I thought that was mainly an unfounded attack. Thanks for changing my mind!

I would say to get a clue, but I doubt just one would help you.

thats nothing (1)

nih (411096) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696475)

here in the UK we will have a 'guaranteed' 2mbit by 2012!
hey wait a minute! ffs!

The 60mbps falacy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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 (4, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696797)

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

Home buyers' demands (4, Interesting)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696507)

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.

Re:Home buyers' demands (1)

perp (114928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696769)

Posting to undo moderation error. Tried to moderate this interesting, which it is.

All Korea? (1)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696533)

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?

Re:All Korea? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696663)

Actually it's only the North Koreans who will get the bandwidth. The South Koreans will be forced at gun point to provide their northern "neighbors" with slave labor.

It's all part of the Obamunist "stimulus" package.

In Soviet Amerika: +1, PatRIOTic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696579)

Government broadband YOU [thesmokinggun.com] .

Obama bailout will soon tank.

Keep spending U.S. $ on your stupid foreign fiascos.

Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout [exiledonline.com] .

WMF (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696601)

WMF: Weapons of Mass Flooding.

Huh? (1)

Dr Egg (1451323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696655)

Currently, Koreans can get speeds up to 100 Mbps, which is still nearly double the speed of Charter's new 60 Mbps service

WTF?! SINCE WHEN WAS 100 NEARLY DOUBLE 60?!?! I DEMAND PROOF!

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696817)

It's also asynchronous, not 60 down 10 (or whatever) up. So in pure bandwidth terms it's nearer 3x.

economist article on broadband (3, Interesting)

qw0ntum (831414) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696667)

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.

Ah, soooo.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696757)

Anything for good ping times for StarCraft, is it?

It's not how much more spread out the US is... (3, Insightful)

rbrander (73222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696765)

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.

Re:It's not how much more spread out the US is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696855)

Korea is also better defended than the US.

Re:It's not how much more spread out the US is... (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697009)

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.

Meanwhile, in Spain... (1)

RazZziel (1144159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696773)

... I'm extremely happy if I can get 6Mb/s (or 1MB if you live more than 3km away from the center)

This sounds like a bad Monty Python Skit (1)

KJSwartz (254652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696859)

Troll to 1st Knight Crossing Bridge: "How Fast is Broadband Service in Korea?"

1st Knight: "60Mbps, no, wait, 1Gbps"

1st Knight is "Magically" tossed from bridge.

Troll to 2nd Knight Crossing Bridge: "How Fast is Broadband Service in Korea?"

2nd Knight: "North or South?"

Troll: "I Don't Kno..."

Troll has now "Magically" jumped from bridge...

Create jobs? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696943)

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.

Re:Create jobs? (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697087)

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"?

Re:Create jobs? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697171)

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 they've earned the right to sell stuff in the USA.

Re:Create jobs? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697139)

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-repeated-on-slashdot claim that government-initiated infrastructure programs categorically do not create jobs but move jobs around is completely bogus.)

...and we're paying $0.20 USD for 100 bytes SMS! (0, Offtopic)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697013)

Why the hell are we still paying for text messages? Yeah, I know this is offtopic, but it's just freaking sick that the rest of the civilized world is much more forward thinking than here in the US in terms of data services. Why do we tolerate being the cell oligopoly's little bitches? This is f***ing madness.

Just what we need (0, Troll)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26697153)

Just what we need, a whole nation of bots on 1 gbps connections.

Granted, S. Korea isn't quite the spam sewer it was in, say, 2000, but it's still bad enough that if you don't need to receive mail from there, you're better off refusing all traffic from S. Korea.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>