CASE STUDY - GLOBAL BROADBAND ACCESS
All historical accounts agree that the Internet was birthed in the United States. If this is true, does the U.S. continue to be the world foremost user of the network that it created?
The answer to this question depends on how you look at the numbers. According to the OECD (Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development), the U.S. continues to be one of the world frontrunners in both fixed and mobile
oadband subscriptions for Internet access [OECD11]. However, when viewed on a per capita or population percentage basis, there is considerable evidence that the average citizen in many of other highly developed nations around the world is more likely than the average American to have
oadband access to the Internet. Although more than two-thirds of U.S. households have
oadband Internet access, America’s
oadband penetration rate lags that for many other countries [SALW12].
Recent research indicates that Bulgaria has the highest level of
oadband adoption; it has an adoption rate of 96 percent. South Korea leads the world in average
oadband connection speeds (16.7 Mbps). Although 81% of the
oadband connections in the U.S. had connection speeds of 2 Mbps or more, 35 other countries had higher percentages in 2011. The U.S. is 13th place worldwide in average
oadband connection speeds [MALI12].
On a per capita basis, as of January 2012, European nations led the world in both fixed and mobile
oadband adoption. At that time, twenty-six of every hundred citizens (26%) in European Union (EU) nations had fixed
oadband connections while 54 of every XXXXXXXXXX%) EU residents had a mobile
oadband connection [WEBS12]. The Netherlands led all countries worldwide with 38.1 fixed
oadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Switzerland and Denmark are not behind. South Korea led Asian nations in fixed
oadband connections with a 35.7% penetration rare. The US was 16th with a 27.6% fixed bandwidth penetration rate.
Mobile access to the Web continues to grow. At the beginning of 2012, there were over 5.9 billion mobile subscribers worldwide [MOBI12]. Of these, 1.2 billion were active users of mobile
oadband services, according to a 2011 survey performed on behalf of the (ITU) International Telecommunications Union [WEBS12]. At that time, 90% of the world's population had access to second generation (2G)
oadband, while 45% of the world could access third generation (3G) services. In the U.S., there were more than 203 million mobile
oadband users in 2011 [OECD11].
India and China have the fastest growing populations of mobile users, but South Korea and Japan have the highest percentages of mobile
oadband users with respective penetration rates of 91% and 88% [MOBI12]. According to the OECD, the U.S. ranks seventh in mobile
oadband penetration with a rate of nearly 66% [OECD11].
In terms of
oadband access speeds, cities in South Korea and Japan dominate other population centers around the world. Although 23 U.S. cities made it into the global top 100 list for
oadband access speeds in 2011, none made the top 10 [MALI12]. Citizens in the Romanian city of Timişoara enjoyed the highest peak
oadband access speeds at 41.5 Mbps.
What do the Numbers Tell Us?
So what do all of these facts and figures tell us about
oadband access in the U.S.? Well, it is clear that we continue to be one of the global leaders in
oadband Internet connections. However, it is also apparent that citizens in other countries can lay claim to being more “connected” to the Internet than Americans, at least in terms of the percentage of the population with
oadband connections and average connection speeds. In terms of social media use, however, the U.S. is still at or near the top [HUFF12].
Many reasons have been advanced for why multiple countries can claim to be more “wired” and Internet-centric than the U.S. For example, in terms of geographic size, countries like Japan, Singapore, and South Korea have much smaller footprints than the U.S. for building out fiber optic and mobile
oadband infrastructure. The challenge in
inging this infrastructure to the comparable percentages of the population in the U.S. is far greater.
Government supported national infrastructure initiatives have also contributed to greater
oadband pervasiveness in numerous countries. These have enabled Japan, South Korea, and multiple EU nations to roll out
oadband infrastructure to most, or all, corners of their countries. Similar initiatives have been proposed to
ing
oadband to the majority of citizens in the U.S., including those in rural areas, but the legislation needed to make this happen has languished in Washington, D.C. For mobile
oadband, those countries with the highest penetration rates typically have standardized on a single multiple access protocol. The U.S., on the other hand, seems content to let the market sort out which access protocol will dominate. As a result, no single path forward for either 3G or 4G mobile
oadband access has been adopted and this helps explain why there are pockets of GSM, CSMA, TDMA, OFDM, and LTE within the mobile
oadband marketplace in the U.S.
Why Aren’t U.S. Percentages Higher?
Multiple additional explanations have been provided for why the U.S. lags other developed countries in
oadband access penetration rates. The most frequently mentioned reasons for why American households not adopting
oadband are summarized in Table C5.1. For some households, affordability is the most important reason for not having
oadband Internet access. Both the cost of purchasing an acceptably powerful computer and the recu
ing monthly subscription Internet access costs are frequently mentioned as being important dete
ents within households for which affordability is an issue.
The most frequently reported reason for not adopting
oadband is the perception that
oadband is not needed [SALW12]. The U.S. has a significant percentage of its citizens who see little need and/or have little interest in having high-speed Internet access. Such perceptions persist among nearly 30% of the households in the U. S. The widespread nature of such thinking has the potential to undermine government initiatives to provide government subsidies for building out
oadband networks across the U.S. If potential subscribers do not see a benefit in having
oadband connections to the Internet, why should the government invest money to make
oadband networks accessible to them?
Table C5.1 Major Reasons for no Broadband in U.S. Households • Lack of need or interest
• Affordability
• Lack of adequate computer
• Unavailability of
oadband Internet service
In the U.S.,
oadband Internet adoption and use varies across demographic and geographic groups. Lower income families, people with less education, those with disabilities, Blacks, Hispanics, and rural residents generally lag U.S. averages for both
oadband adoption and computer use. Households with children in school, however, tend to have higher
oadband adoption and computer use rates than other households.
Internet access is a central focus of “digital divide” concerns within the U.S. and across nations around the world. The populations that are most likely to benefit most from Internet access are those that are least likely to have it. The potential for digital “have not’s” to be left behind economically still persists [ZICK12].
Broadband adoption rates around the world suggest that a compelling case can be made that
oadband can and does enhance people’s lives. However, these have to be communicated to American households without
oadband in a convincing manner. In the U.S., half of the households without
oadband access express very little interest in getting it. These Americans don’t go online because they do not perceive the Internet as relevant to them [ZICK12]. Needless, to say, as long as such attitudes exist, the U.S. will have a hard time catching up with the
oadband adoption and penetration rates that have been experienced by other countries around the world.
Source: http:
catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/catalog/academic/product?ISBN= XXXXXXXXXX#dw_resources
Sources
[HUFF] Huffington Post Canada. “Most Wired Countries In The World: Canada To Lose Top Social Media Spot This Year, eMarketer Says.” Retrieved online at: http:
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/29/social-media-rankings-canada_n_ XXXXXXXXXXhtml#s741908&title=6_United_Kingdom
[MAKI12] Malik, O. “Global
oadband zooms, U.S. penetration is over 80 percent.” Gigaom.com. Retrieved online at: http:
gigaom.com
oadband/global-
oadband-zooms-us-penetration-is-over-80-percent/.
[MOBI12] MobiThinking.com. “Global Mobile Statistics 2012: All quality Mobile Marketing Research, Mobile Web Stats, Subscribers, Ad Revenue, Usage, Trends….” Retrieved online at: http:
mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats.
[OECD11] OECD.org. “OECD Broadband Portal.” Retrieved online at: http:
www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html#Penetration.
[SALW12] Salway, D. “New Broadband Adoption Rate Study Released by Department of Commerce.” About.com. Retrieved online at: http:
oadband.about.com/od
oadbandadoption/a/New-Broadband-Adoption-Rate-Study-Released-By-Department-Of-Commerce.htm
[WEBS12] WebSiteOptimization.com. “1.2 Billion Active Mobile Broadband Users – Europe Leads World in Broadband Penetration – December 2011 Bandwidth Report” Retrieved online at: http:
www.websiteoptimization.com
w/1112/
[ZICK12] Zickuhur, K. and Smith, A. “Digital Differences.” Pew Internet. Retrieved online at: http:
pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences.aspx
MN503 Overview of Internetworking XXXXXXXXXXPage | 4
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Unit Code
MN503
Unit Title
Overview of Internetworking
Assessment Type
Individual
Assessment Title
Network requirement analysis and plan
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping)
This assignment is designed to assess students’ knowledge and skills related to the following learning outcomes:
. Explain human factors in achieving business and technical goals through planning and design.
c. Investigate and develop architectural internetworking design for the business and application domains.
Weight
10% of the total assessments
Total Marks
50
Word limit
1000 (approximately 4 pages)
Due Date
Week 7, Friday 4th May XXXXXXXXXXsubmit report on Moodle
Submission Guidelines
· All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date along with a title Page.
· The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Cali
i (Body) font and 2.54 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings.
· Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using IEEE referencing style.
Extension
· If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration Application must be submitted directly to the School's Administration Officer, in Melbourne on Level 6 or in Sydney on