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!

2 Chinese ISPs Serve 20% of World Broadband Users

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the easier-to-choke-down-on dept.

The Internet 110

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "If you need a reminder of just how big China is—and just how important the Internet has become there—consider this stat: between them, two Chinese ISPs serve 20 percent of all broadband subscribers in the entire world and both companies continue to grow, even as growth slows significantly in more developed markets. Every other ISP trails dramatically. Japan's NTT comes in third with 17 million subscribers, and all US providers are smaller still. 'The gap between the top two operators and the world's remaining broadband service providers will continue to grow rapidly,' said TeleGeography Research Director Tania Harvey. 'Aside from the two Chinese companies, all of the top ten broadband ISPs operate in mature markets, with high levels of broadband penetration and rapidly slowing subscriber growth.'"

cancel ×

110 comments

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

ALIRIGHT CHINA POWER !! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079114)

Cat Power is better for all

Re:ALIRIGHT CHINA POWER !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079474)

I agree.....nothing like a good Cummins Diesel powered CAT.

Re:ALIRIGHT CHINA POWER !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079564)

How do you blindfold a Chinese guy? Dental floss!

Oh yeah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33080378)

I have to say, the BEST blow job I've ever had came from this Chinese chick at a barber shop I go to. I went in for a quick trim, and after the old Chinese dude is done he asks if I need ANYTHING ELSE, and eyes his Chinese helper chick. It was like an extra service for regular customers. Hair cut and blow job $15. No shit. Now I get my hair cut once a week.

Re:Oh yeah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33080440)

Getting a man's hair cut in China isn't always easy. I've ventured upon numerous barber shops over the years where no one was ever available to cut my hair, despite an abundance of leggy female stylists standing invitingly at the door. "The person who cuts hair isn't here today. You should go somewhere else if you want a haircut," said one buxom babe as I showed her my dried-out rock star mane. My first reaction was that business was so bad there was no need for a real hairstylist, and that the girls were all just friends hanging out or waiting for their boyfriends. It wasn't until I eavesdropped on a conversation between two American expats in a Beijing café one lazy winter afternoon that I started to understand what was really going on. In a flash of eavesdropping enlightenment, I figured out why certain barber shops stayed open until 2 or 3 am, even though they never seemed busy. As my brain turned into overdrive, it revved past an old cluster of information stored on my cerebral hard drive since 1983 - a memory from boarding school... 12-year old Johnny Pryce, a happy-go-lucky class jester, had arrived late for evening study and the college dean asked him to explain himself. "I got a haircut, Father." "Why did it take so long?" asked the priest. "Well, Father, I decided to get the whole works: a wash, cut and a blow job - all for five quid. It was great value." The room erupted with laughter, even though most of the adolescents didn't get the joke that Johnny never meant to make. They were laughing at Johnny's haircut, which made his rather comical head look even more comical than normal. And when the priest reached out to whack the back of Johnny's newly visible neck, there was even more laughter. Father O' Feely's chair slipped from under him as he overextended, and Johnny managed to sidestep the plump one's awkward swipe, aided by the aerodynamics of the new haircut. It was a seminal moment in my arrested development. The Johnny Pryce incident had got me thinking. "What if I could get a hair cut and a blow job at the same time? Wouldn't that be great?" This was something I wanted to try when I grew up, after becoming a professional footballer and a secret agent. Back in Beijing's Café Casanova, the two American sexpats were discussing the merits of morning visits to their local Wenzhou-style barber shop-cum-massage parlour. "It's great, dude. I just love to go there after a night shift to help me wind down. I get a happy end and I go home to bed. It's better than taking sleeping pills, man." A happy end? I'd heard about that in the movies. Was this what made Johnny Pryce look so happy as he arrived late for study all those years ago? I needed to investigate. But not before I finished eavesdropping on Chad and Matt. "Man, there was this day when me and some buddies who were visiting from Kansas wanted to get a happy end before heading out to the bars, but we didn't have much money. So I went in and bargained to get three happy ends for 75 Yuan each," said a proud Chad. That's a reasonable price for happiness, I thought to myself, as I twisted my ear even further around the corner to pick up on Chad's insights. "Then this chick brought me into a cubicle and started wrapping cling film around my Johnson. I think they were trying to save money on the real thing. I felt like tellin' the girl 'He's not a sandwich, you know, baby.' In the end, the cling film got all tight and creased and I was in real pain, dude. But I was laughin' so hard at the chick's face because she was in such a hurry to get finished, that I forgot. But the next day, man, I was in agony." Agony? I thought a happy end was supposed to be 'happy'... Cling film? Why cling film? Was it a Chinese thing? I needed to go undercover to find out. But if the barber girls knew I was the famous columnist, Randy Powers, it would be game over. I put on a dark high-necked t-shirt to cover up my lush lock of chest hair and slipped into an old tracksuit and dirty runners. I switched my mojo into neutral, to ensure the objectivity of my research, and made my way to the nearest barberless barber shop. As I entered the salon, I gave a quick inspection of all three 20-something girls seated on the red PVC sofa. Another lady, probably in her mid-thirties, sat in the barber's chair, exhibiting her superiority. She was the boss. I glanced back at my choice of hairstylists and chose the girl with the tight black mini-skirt, white boots and purple mohair sweater. She was petite but busty, with pouty lips and pale clear skin - her only blemish was slightly discolored teeth. "Short back and sides please," I said jokingly as she guided me into a small grimy bedded cubicle down the end of a narrow hallway and pulled the curtain closed. Her name was Ding. "Can you do that ding to me that you do to the other guys," I asked her in English, playing a cheap joke with myself. She didn't understand but laughed at my laugh to keep the atmosphere light. Ding started to massage me as I relaxed and waited to see what would happen. Eventually, after about five minutes squeezing my arms and slapping her cupped hands on my legs, Ding switched her attention to my major erogenous zone and asked: "Would you like a big airplane?" "What is she trying to say?" I asked myself. A big airplane? What's that got to do with massage? Reacting to the frown on my face, Ding made a hand motion to clarify what she meant. "Oh, so that's what you call it in China," I said. "Ok, let's give it a go, then." Ding helped me take my airplane out of the hangar, before suddenly shouting at her colleague in the cubicle next door to come and assist her. The curtain opened suddenly and in popped another mini-skirted hairstylist. "Look at this," said Ding to her friend. "It's very unusual, isn't it. Wow!" I'm very proud of my manhood, but felt a tad embarrassed at all the attention it was getting. It was like the whole massage parlour knew my business and was spreading the word. And when a sweaty fifty-something male client with an even sweatier comb-over stuck his head into the cubicle for a look, I decided I'd had enough. I pulled my trousers back up and made for the door. No happy end for me. Johnny Pryce had better luck.

And they only get 20% of the internet? (5, Funny)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | about 4 years ago | (#33079116)

Or something like that.

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (1)

Soilworker (795251) | about 4 years ago | (#33079244)

Someone could convert both ISP prices and statistics to compare with our ISPs ?

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (2, Interesting)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 4 years ago | (#33079344)

On average, Internet access is ~30% cheaper in China than in the US, which is actually fucking expensive for China if you consider the average salary in China vs. average Salary in the US.

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#33079618)

Yeah well, They're catching up [msn.com] .. Yet another nail in our coffin

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (2, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#33081318)

Why another nail in the coffin?

If their pay catches up then they lose the competetive advantage and investment in the US becomes more viable again, surely?

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (1)

maxume (22995) | about 4 years ago | (#33081504)

People think economics is like a pie, and they do done wanna git theirs.

(Really, it is more like a bakery)

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#33082406)

That illusion must be maintained to keep the slave trade alive.

If there are no poor people, who will do the work?

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (1)

maxume (22995) | about 4 years ago | (#33082842)

What, which is the illusion? Is it what people think, is it the pie or is it the bakery?

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#33082880)

The pie.. there can only be one

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#33082360)

Because American are letting their wages and working conditions decline. They don't have to, but they are. It's like they've just given up... Acquiescing to whatever authority tells them to... "for the children" or "their own safety". Americans go down on their knees to it, while in China, where it is expected (by western standards), is turning out to be full of surprises. American politics has become a farce. And for such a young country, its demeanor is more like that of a grumpy old man that completely collapses with the slightest disruption. Or screams like a little girl when it sees a mouse, then wants to nuke it. A real flash in the pan it is turning out to be. It literally is crumbing before our eyes. China isn't putting the US into its coffin. The Americans put themselves there. The only thing they want is to beat up the kid, for the wife to bring the beer (Goddammit! You think it opens itself? WHACK!), and put on the game, and TV dinner hot and on the table precisely at six. It's like a demented version of the Honeymooners.

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (1, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about 4 years ago | (#33079938)

What constitutes broadband in China?

Its commonly claimed (usually with little in the way of statistics) that what qualifies as broadband in the USA would not be considered broadband in other countries.

(Usually the comparison countries are European, where there is a strong state funded telecom authority.)

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33080180)

My guess is they count all ADSL and Cable connections, which indeed aren't broadband necessarily.

My connection here in Beijing is 2M ADSL because i live in some very old building which hasn't been upgraded.(I can choose to join the 10M building-LAN, but I don't like shared connections.) Previously I have 50M Cable in Shenzhen, which is quite decent. I know that in my girlfriends village the maximum is 4M ADSL, regardless of how new your house is.

Although it isn't available to everyone yet, both cost and infrastructure wise, I would say they're steaming ahead at a very reasonable pace.

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079978)

People living in USA only get something like 1% of the internet, because Americans are rarely able to read any language other then English (and perhaps Spanish in some parts of USA).

Worse, people living in USA rarely visit English language sites from other parts of the world. E.g. There are excellent English language news sites from most parts of the world, giving the perspective of the local people and reporting about important stuff that get censored by the news media in USA (like the largest oil spill in the world, caused by American oil companies (protected by the US government/military and therefor very hard to do something about for the rest of the world), that has been going on since the 1960's in Nigeria, the reason people outside USA have very hard to feel sympathetical about any US trouble caused by the BP spill). But Americans stick with their own lousy news sites, giving them the same very skewed point of view as they are accustomed to. They don't even visit BBC News, despite being from a near identical culture and being the source of news that is in common for "everybody else" in the world (except for parts of the world where the BBC News site and radio broadcasts is actually blocked by the government).

And no, Google translate (and other automated translation services) only make things worse. The only language pair Google translate reasonably correct is French to English. If you already have som knowledge of Arabic, Chinese, Russian or Spanish, it may help you read those languages (but even for those languges it often mistranslates sentences into meaning something completely different in a fashion that makes it very hard to spot bad translations). For all other languages it is worse than nothing at all. E.g. it doesn't understand Swedish negations very well (very dependent on interpunctation in writing(*)) and translate most sentences to the opposite of what they originally meant.

  (*) Google Translate has real trouble with languges that heavily depend on interpunctation in writing, like Swedish that use it to communicate tonality, stress and phonemes otherwise not writeable with the Latin alphabet.

Re:And they only get 20% of the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33081932)

html"> Nike air max refers to a variety of technology will be natural leather. artificial imitation materials help bring (surface) and in a variety of materials for the sole integrated footwear products. Nike air max [just-nike.com] is the dominant industry in a branch of anti shoes, is a seasonal product, is also the main industry in the variety of comfortable, lightweight and fashionable. As from late spring to early autumn season footwear leading products. The Nike air max [just-nike.com] are also be divided into male and female, they are suitable to all of you.

Nike air max [just-nike.com] are casual style with a combination of simple style, youthful. Passionate Nike air max [just-nike.com] are the inherent style and function, strong, dynamic rhythm more highlights an independent self-confident style. Throughout the development of popularfootwear in recent years the Isw. the 2010 spring and summer of Nike air max [just-nike.com] will show the following trends.

                                                       

Choice (4, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | about 4 years ago | (#33079130)

And I bet the two ISPs serve different regions, in which case citizens wouldn't even get to choose between A and B.

Re:Choice (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079186)

And does that really matter? These people have more important things to do in life than to argue about little things over their internet connections. Hell, a lot of asians just visit internet cafe and spend their time better otherwise.

Like it or not, this is one of the reasons why I think US will eventually fall. All of that bullshit about non-important things. I'm sad that it will most likely be China that will take over, but it really looks like that.

Re:Choice (2, Insightful)

creat3d (1489345) | about 4 years ago | (#33079276)

You seem to confuse American Idol/football stats with "accurate information on world affairs" or "unfiltered news on one's own country/government"... Do you work for the Chinese government or are you always this stupid?

Re:Choice (1)

elvesrus (71218) | about 4 years ago | (#33079748)

Just think. In China, the government actually pays you to be a pro China forum troll.

Re:Choice (1)

Urkki (668283) | about 4 years ago | (#33080478)

And does that really matter? These people have more important things to do in life than to argue about little things over their internet connections.

Competition is the only thing that is able to drive prices lower without creating shortages. No competition means higher prices. Higher prices means more time spent on working, and/or less money for other activities in life.

In other words, unless you consider doing more work to get money to be able to afford internet connection more important than the internet connection itself, yes it does matter.

That is wildly inaccurate (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33080538)

Competition is the only thing that is able to drive prices lower without creating shortages. No competition means higher prices.

That only applies to completely free markets (and sometimes doesn't even work there). It only applies there because with no competition, the companies can and will charge as much as people are willing to spend ("Oh? We are the only company that sells fuel in this area? Fuel that people desperately need. We can charge whatever the fuck we want!") and with competition they are forced to lower their profit margins.

A regulatory body can look at the cost of materials, etc. and say "You really would be able to offer the service for X... You arent allowed to charge more than X+Y at most. If you are too incompetent to offer the service for that price, we will find someone more competent.". Of course, you can call that a form of competition (and yes, competition can and needs to exist even in completely socialistic systems) and you would be correct... But I doubt it is the kind of competition you had in mind there.

Re:That is wildly inaccurate (3, Interesting)

Urkki (668283) | about 4 years ago | (#33080698)

Competition is the only thing that is able to drive prices lower without creating shortages. No competition means higher prices.

That only applies to completely free markets (and sometimes doesn't even work there). It only applies there because with no competition, the companies can and will charge as much as people are willing to spend ("Oh? We are the only company that sells fuel in this area? Fuel that people desperately need. We can charge whatever the fuck we want!") and with competition they are forced to lower their profit margins.

A regulatory body can look at the cost of materials, etc. and say "You really would be able to offer the service for X... You arent allowed to charge more than X+Y at most. If you are too incompetent to offer the service for that price, we will find someone more competent.". Of course, you can call that a form of competition (and yes, competition can and needs to exist even in completely socialistic systems) and you would be correct... But I doubt it is the kind of competition you had in mind there.

But how do you come up with X and Y? With sufficient lobbying/bribing, Y can be increased, since it's just arbitrary profit margin, essentially a cartel imposed by the government. Also in most businesses, X changes all the time, sometimes even rapidly. The regulatory body would need to be constantly re-calculating proper value of X, or there will be trouble one way or the other. And the people doing the re-calculating have no personal interest in getting the real value for X (unless you enter corruption, in which case they actually have interest in getting false value of X). And sometimes there will be somebody higher up that just comes in and says something like "I just heard that over there X+Y is this much, so it must be lower here because we are better than them, so make sure you calculate it so that it is", with no regard to reality.

Also, even though you'd imagine that businesses would still want to optimize to maximize profits, that's far less motivation than optimizing in order to not be driven out of business by more innovative competitor. Also, if any optimization goes to maximize profits, then the business owners benefit, unlike when optimization goes to lower the price (to gain market share from competitor).

In short, that doesn't work terribly well. Only thing that can determine correct value of X and optimal value of Y is the market itself. Your kind of regulation just doesn't work, and the longer the regulation continues, the farther it will drift from the optimum, and the more corruption will sneak into the system.

Only places where free market really doesn't work is markets where the goal is to minimize the business. For example health care, military, security: there the goal should be to minimize the need for that service, while business interest is to maximize need for their service. And another place for heavy regulation is business where there can be no competition for practical reasons, ie. "natural monopolies". But even in those cases, regulation doesn't work well, just better than free market would.

Re:Choice (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33079510)

Because of all the things Chinese citizens could possible complain about, which state-owned pipe to the great firewall to choose from is totally going to rank in the top 5?

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079590)

I'm sure general population is uncaring or doesn't even know of what they face.

VCP @ Webster

Re:Choice (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#33079650)

Well, a quick internet search pulled up 20 different ISP's [findouter.com] in China so it might not be as clean cut as A or B.

Re:Choice (4, Informative)

koxkoxkox (879667) | about 4 years ago | (#33079880)

Exactly, at least in the Beijing area where I live. They precisely delimited which area each company serve, and redirect you to the other one if you call them but are not in their area.

Re:Choice (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33080288)

I've lived in Beijing (4 different locations), Dongguan and Shenzhen.

In most cases you can choose from both Unicom(CNC) and Telecom. Just the older buildings typically cannot because, indeed, in the past, the market was divided. The real scam though is, that the many local/community/building ISP there are not allowed to peer with International ISP's. This means your International traffic will always go through Unicom(CNC), Telecom or, sometimes, China Mobile.

Re:Choice (2, Informative)

euyis (1521257) | about 4 years ago | (#33079970)

Actually there're choices - some time earlier the huge China telecommunications company broke up and became two separate corporations, with Netcom (later merged with Unicom as per orders from the government in order to "create more competition" and "optimize the structure") serving north China and Telecom serving south. They expanded into the rival's territories rapidly and actually competed with each other at the beginning, but the two biggest ISPs soon realized that competition was not a good idea for them and signed a "truce" restricting themselves to current distribution, for Telecom no further north and Netcom no further south.

And the "choices" are nothing more than different flavours of the same shit - you get the same shitty Internet (eh, Intranet with some access to outside) with different ISP advertisements (deep packet inspection & inserting HTML codes) fucking up your pages and trojan horse PPPoE dialers.

Re:Choice (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33081982)

China is not a third world Hispanic country like the Etadios Unidios, they have the best Capitalism in the world and competition is fierce.
Meanwhile in the old US de la A, WE FUCKED by oligopolies, cartels and the other things that made us become a joke in the whole world, and have a 15% Unemployment rate, and have a President showing up in Comedy Central...
So, I was a proud American, but know I am an ashamed American... If you proud of your flag while you get high in meth in your trailer or tent park in Idaho, just stuck the flag up yourself in that place you know...

Re:Choice (0, Offtopic)

DryGrian (1775520) | about 4 years ago | (#33083040)

That's funny. English is usually an American's first language.

20%? (0, Redundant)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 4 years ago | (#33079162)

20%? That's almost 1/5 of all broadband users!

Re:20%? (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#33079260)

I bet it's >75% of the infected/pwned machines if the logs from my servers are any indication......

Re:20%? (1)

Zantac69 (1331461) | about 4 years ago | (#33080206)

The rest are MMORG gold/item farmers.

How many ISPs are there in China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079178)

For all the complaining about lack of choice in a given area in the US, or other places, at least it's not the same company across the country.

BTW, China's percentage of the world population? About 20% last I heard. So really...does this article mean anything?

Re:How many ISPs are there in China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079922)

So really...does this article mean anything?

Your comment indecates yo are a moron.

Re:How many ISPs are there in China? (1)

M8e (1008767) | about 4 years ago | (#33080998)

BTW, China's percentage of the world population? About 20% last I heard. So really...does this article mean anything?

1. These two ISPs serve nearly 100% of chinas broadband users.

2. China has the same broadband penetration as the worlds average. (20% of the population and 20% of the broadband users!)

The view from the other side... (3, Insightful)

thej1nx (763573) | about 4 years ago | (#33079220)

The statement in the article could also be translated, less flatteringly, to "Rest of the world has already achieved adequate penetration of internet for most of their population, while China still has long way to go".

Keep in mind that in already saturated markets, like Tania Harvey says, growth of the market becomes pretty slow. Almost everyone in Japan, for example, already uses internet on PC or their cellphones etc. The companies may get customers to switch between them, but finding new customers is much harder.

Not to mention the "quality" of internet, one gets in China, what with half of it being blocked out/censored anyways. Long way to go before they catch up with the rest of the world.

Re:The view from the other side... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079246)

Just wait 'till those two companies merge... even bigger provider, even more censoring power.

Re:The view from the other side... (1)

Reason58 (775044) | about 4 years ago | (#33079430)

Not to mention the "quality" of internet, one gets in China, what with half of it being blocked out/censored anyways.

If half the internet is blocked then that means their connection is effectively twice as fast!

Re:The view from the other side... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#33079644)

Not to mention the "quality" of internet, one gets in China, what with half of it being blocked out/censored anyways.

Give Australia some time... They don't seem content to play second fiddle in that department.

Not just that (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33079834)

The Chinese ISPs don't give two shits about hackers. So there's all kinds of bad stuff floating around on them. Not only puts you at risk as a subscriber, but means you getting even more blocked. A company gets a bunch of hack attempts and mails the ISP saying "Hey, you've got a baddy on your network." Their reply is, and I'm not making this up "That's not our IP address," even though APNIC says it is. So then the company says "Fuck you," and shitlists the ISP.

Re:The view from the other side... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33080362)

If you're going view this from the other side, then do so fully!

How many people in US would be bothered by a bunch of Chinese web sites being blocked in US? Not a lot I think. Most people won't even know.
How many people would be happy if they could view any and all sports online, in high quality, for free? A lot I think. Or if they could download music for free, without having to worry about any kind of penalty? Also a lot, I think.
And that's the Internet we have China.

Sure, it's not the "right" Internet in any idealogical way of thinking about it, but it's the "better" Internet as far as the average brain dead person is concerned.

Re:The view from the other side... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 4 years ago | (#33081094)

You are also theoretically missing out on the half of the internet that is porn (if the filters actually worked as well as claimed). And that means that for at least half the population, the internet experience is not "better".

Re:The view from the other side... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33080846)

"Rest of the world..." Does your world includes Africa, Middle East, or South America (the continent, not Texas). I guess most of your world, except China, also speak English as first language too, right?

BTW, just curious, are you American?

and 90% of the useless traffic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079232)

So who's the http://hn.kd.ny.adsl/ [ny.adsl] guy then?

Developing vs. Developed (5, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 years ago | (#33079254)

How is this really news?

At all levels, China's GDP continues to grow while western nations stagnate or creep forward. China is developing while the west has already developed it products and service offerings. Eventually, they will reach a saturation point like the west and slow down. But get ready to accept them as the 1# economic super power when that happens. Simply put, they have far more human resources to tap into. The only thing holding them back right now is local politics.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (2, Insightful)

MikeURL (890801) | about 4 years ago | (#33079456)

Planned economies can look positively brilliant while they are industrializing. We have the Soviet Union as a case study in how communism can raise up an entire nation from farmers to industrial superpower in a single generation. A stunning achievement by any measure.

Of course we have also seen how a planned economy can be a victim of its own success. Which way China will go is tough to say but betting on them fully industrializing seems safe. It is what happens after that point that isn't clear.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (2, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 4 years ago | (#33079642)

Your post should be modded funny. China's growth has only started when and to the extent to it opened it's economy to capitalism. It's nothing to do with central planning. It's to do with selling off its vast population as a cheap labor force for capitalist (initially mostly Western, Japanese and Taiwanese, and more recently Chinese) companies.

Btw, sure you can accomplish a specific goal in the short term if you turn a nation of 100 million into 100 million slave laborers dedicated to that goal, and sacrifice a few million lives in the process, but that strategy ain't gonna work for long. Can't believe there are still Stalin apologists around today.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (1, Interesting)

jandersen (462034) | about 4 years ago | (#33080962)

China's growth has only started when and to the extent to it opened it's economy to capitalism

Not quite - China has not "opened to Capitalism", they have merely allowed a free(-r) market to develop under Communism. Whether you believe it or not, China's economy is still tightly controlled by the central government - which is precisely why they haven't succumbed to the woes that hit Russia, where a few got obscenely rich and most of the rest fell on hard times - because Yeltsin, in his drunken stupor, just let go. Happily for the Chinese, their government have chosen a far more restrained and disciplined route, and their success is obvious.

Btw, sure you can accomplish a specific goal in the short term if you turn a nation of 100 million into 100 million slave laborers dedicated to that goal, and sacrifice a few million lives in the process, but that strategy ain't gonna work for long. Can't believe there are still Stalin apologists around today.

Let's not start this stupid mudslinging again; you know perfectly well that it has no truth in it. An just for your information: There is still a significant number of people in former USSR that see Stalin and Lenin as great heroes, and who feel that what they did was necessary for the greater good. I can't say that I agree, but I can understand it - Russia before Communism was a backwater with huge inequalities; Stalin et al introduced universal education and social security, at in least in the same sense that he persecuted opponents and sent them to Siberia.

And so on. You know, I don't have a problem with people criticising China and/or Russia - there are many real and serious problems, and there are many on different levels of government that are trying to block progress; but I really can't abide this sort of uninformed black-painting. Not only is it unfair and unreasonable on so many levels, but it also puts your own smug idiocy on display, and it quite frankly makes me cringe.

Here's a couple of definitions: Ignorant - that's when you don't know. Stupid - that's when you go out of your way to avoid learning.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (2, Insightful)

EEPROMS (889169) | about 4 years ago | (#33079686)

You are seriously deranged if you think China "with over 500 million people earning less than $2 a day" (higher than India) is a economic light for the rest of us to follow. The reality is China needs 12% growth just stop going backwards when compared to the west.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 4 years ago | (#33079928)

One piece of data for those thinking China is just about to take over: China GDP per capita $6,500 (slightly better than Namibia, slightly worse than El Salvador). by comparison USA: $46,000. As far as living standards go, China has a looong way to go and some major transformations on the way. Selling off your population as cheap labor force is only gonna take you so far. You pretty soon have to deal with the fact that the increasingly well off population starts demanding certain things that a totalitarian government is not well suited to provide. Planned economy can never compete with a true capitalist economies and pretty soon the communist party will have to either allow true economic liberty (as opposed to piecemeal like now), which inevitably will lead for demands for political liberty, or it will resist the change and stifle China's growth and cause more political problems for itself. Yoda: I see a great disturbance in China the moment meteoric growth slows down.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 4 years ago | (#33080276)

One piece of data for those thinking China is just about to take over: China GDP per capita $6,500 (slightly better than Namibia, slightly worse than El Salvador). by comparison USA: $46,000. As far as living standards go, China has a looong way to go and some major transformations on the way.

It's sometimes useful to think of China as two countries; a somewhat-developed country of about 400 million, mostly in the coastal provinces, plus another 900 million rural peasants. There's a formal registration system ("hukou") [washington.edu] to enforce this division, tying peasants to their home area. It's not as rigid as it once was, but it's still in effect. Most of the economic gains are being realized by urban workers.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (0, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | about 4 years ago | (#33080628)

It's sometimes useful to think of China as two countries; a somewhat-developed country of about 400 million, mostly in the coastal provinces, plus another 900 million rural peasants.

And then there's the United States.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 4 years ago | (#33080476)

Actually, I think the only thing holding them back at the moment is the time it takes to actually put the infrastructure in place. For example they are building two new power stations every week, which is a lot by any measure, but it will still take them a long time to get all the power stations they need for their population.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (1)

troll -1 (956834) | about 4 years ago | (#33080648)

You're right, China does have more human resources to tap into. And so far they're doing a poor job of it.

Note the conspicuous lack of innovation from China. What do the vacuum tube, the transistor, and the integrated circuit have in common? They weren't invented in China. What do the Internet, email, and social networking have in common. They were all viewed as dangerous by the Chinese government.

Perhaps the most import thing we learned from Copernicus and Galileo is not that the Earth goes around the Sun but that government censorship can have a chilling effect on science, technology, and innovation.

Perhaps we can all ponder that while we're waiting for the next big thing from China besides paper and gunpowder.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (1)

tokul (682258) | about 4 years ago | (#33080988)

The only thing holding them back right now is local politics.

The only thing keeping them together is local politics. IMHO Chinese need strong ruler to keep them together or country might fall into smaller pieces like it did n times before.

Re:Developing vs. Developed (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 4 years ago | (#33081142)

For the average rural Chinese citizen they exist as a serf in an agrarian feudal society, as they have been for the last hundreds (thousands?) of years. The difference is that instead of some noble lord, they have the corrupt local appointed bureaucrat.

In most of china, the central government has no real influence in how the regional governors use their share of government income, so the bureaucrats take advantage of the situation.

2 providers for all those people?!? (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | about 4 years ago | (#33079268)

The more providers the better. That way nobody has a corner on the market and if you don't like your service you have options.

Re:2 providers for all those people?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079392)

Mod parent fucking hilarious! Or ignorant, I really can't tell.

China...choices..

Bahahaha!

Re:2 providers for all those people?!? (1)

superdave80 (1226592) | about 4 years ago | (#33079574)

I agree. They should get a little competition going between several ISPs. What are they, a bunch of communists?

Pfff (4, Funny)

BitHive (578094) | about 4 years ago | (#33079288)

I bet if they deregulate they could get that down to just one ISP.

Re:Pfff (1)

Mr_Miagi (1648543) | about 4 years ago | (#33080284)

I'm sorry, Warren G [wikimedia.org] doesn't live in China...

Define broadband (2, Insightful)

voss (52565) | about 4 years ago | (#33079290)

Do you define it as 256kbps(like the US did until 2 years ago), 1.5 mbps(at&t basic DSL), 10m(comcast), 25-50mbps(FIOS,uverse, next gen comcast)?

in the US there are plenty of users who cant yet get above 5 mbps.

Re:Define broadband (1, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33079390)

Broadband is faster than dialup.

Re:Define broadband (4, Funny)

adtifyj (868717) | about 4 years ago | (#33079552)

Broadband is faster than dialup.

You'll go far with definitions like that.

Re:Define broadband (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 4 years ago | (#33079464)

5mbps? Man, it'd take over 2 hours just to receive "5mbps"!

Re:Define broadband (1)

Macrat (638047) | about 4 years ago | (#33079508)

Do you define it as 256kbps(like the US did until 2 years ago), 1.5 mbps(at&t basic DSL), 10m(comcast), 25-50mbps(FIOS,uverse, next gen comcast)?

in the US there are plenty of users who cant yet get above 5 mbps.

I barely get 5mbs on Comcast. But still better than DSL.

Well technically (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33079872)

Broadband is any service where the line is shared with other services. So any speed of cable or DSL qualifies. The network is not the exclusive link, it rides on top of cable and/or phone. A certain, generally wide, part of the frequency range is used. Baseband would be what it is opposed to and that would be something like Ethernet. The entire signal is for the network. The signal goes all the way down to 0Hz.

As a practical matter, anything faster than a modem in a home is "broadband." Very rare to find faster baseband services (ISDN would be such a service) in a home.

Now if you mean what is high speed, well that's a different matter. Currently from my tests I'd say 10mbps is about the cut off to call it truly "high speed." Above 10mbps you don't notice much difference in normal use. Pages load immediately, videos play right away even HD. Basically you can scale the bandwidth up more and really not notice a speedup, other than for file downloads.

1-2mbps is about the lowest "non-suck" net speed. Below that, you are doing a lot of waiting.

This will continue to rise, of course, as more and more data gets on web pages. The larger the images, the higher the video, the more you'll need to keep the net feeling fast. However for now, I call it 10mbps the point of severely diminishing returns for everything except downloading large files. Of course that is becoming more common too.

Monopolies Are Bigger Than Cartels (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 4 years ago | (#33079316)

I don't know what the point of this story is. China's a mafia economy, Japan's is state capitalism, America's is based on cartels that compete within with each other, but primarily defend their mutual cartel from any newcomer. None of that is good.

A healthy Internet is one that's highly distributed, decentralized. The more ISPs per person, the healthier and more stable the Internet. The more Chinese it is, the worse.

Re:Monopolies Are Bigger Than Cartels (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079994)

You are mistaken. Russia's may be a mafia economy, China's definitely not. It's more like Japan's state capitalism.

You are also mistaken to assume that China ONLY has 2 ISPs - absolutely wrong. China probably has more ISPs than US or any other country. The original article merely states that two big ISPs from China have highest subscriber counts - not market share percentages!! Big distinction.

In fact, China's ISP industry, for quite a while anyway, suffers from hyper cut-throat competition and low capital concentration. Too many ISPs with too little investment capital.

You don't seem to know much about Chinese ISP industry (nor about Japan's economy or America's presumably), but very bold in making sweeping statements. Suggest you make statement on what a healthy Internet would to be (which you may qualify) but not what Chinese are or are not (which you certainly are not qualified).

Re:Monopolies Are Bigger Than Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33081194)

Okay, AC, I'll reciprocate. The point of the article is that two Chinese ISPs are serving 20% of all Internet users. This is a global figure. I don't care how many Chinese either or both of these ISPs are serving, the point is, they're serving 20% of the Internet population. That's a bad concentration of users. The goal of many of us, here, on this board, is for Internet usage to be distributed somewhat evenly between different providers. The fact that no other provider is serving 20% of the Internet population is a problem. The fact that the biggest percentage is being served by a state that outright declares its goals in favor of repression of facts is worse.

We're talking about 20% of Internet users being outright restricted in their speech. If I was having a conversation with four other people, I wouldn't want one of them to be constantly phoning their mom to check if they could say what they wanted to say. That's what Chinese censorship is about; say things that exalt the state, or say nothing. I don't want to even talk to people who are under such restraints. If the Chinese government wants people to talk about the day-glo unicorns that every peasant has, that's good for fucking them. I don't want to have to listen to it.

I live in a world where the truth is not an inconvenience that must be hidden. The truth is the basis for my life. I make decisions based upon that. And I'm happy to live in a country where that's not a problem.

China has 20% of the world's population! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079338)

So why is this news? It has 20% of the people in the world, so it has 20% of the broadband users .

Re:China has 20% of the world's population! (2, Interesting)

daveime (1253762) | about 4 years ago | (#33079466)

It's news because unlike other countries, which just talk about it, China sets a goal of giving every user Broadband access, then DOES IT.

Re:China has 20% of the world's population! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079778)

There's a huge difference between a broadband connection and a Chinese broadband connection...

Re:China has 20% of the world's population! (1)

thej1nx (763573) | about 4 years ago | (#33080550)

It's news because unlike other countries, which just talk about it, China sets a goal of giving every user Broadband access, then DOES IT.

You don't really understand what was said, do you? Or maybe you don't really understand how ratios and percentages actually work.

Let us see. United states for example, consists of 4.5% of world population and yet consists of 12% of world internet users. China consists of 21% of world's population and yet consists of mere 20% of world internet users. Clearly the internet penetration in USA is much higher(more than twice) of that of China.

Or take the neighboring Japan for example, which accounts for mere 1.86% of world population and yet accounts for 5% of world internet users.

It is a no-brainer that over-populated China, with the highest population in the world, would also comprise the highest number of internet users in the world. But when you take the ratio of internet users to total population, China contrary to its government's big claims and boasting, is still lagging far behind and has a long way to go yet.

And we are not yet even talking of how heavily censored that internet access is, in China i.e. how exactly does the populace benefit in their daily life due to said internet, as compared to say Japan, USA or EU again? For example, the Japanese use mobile internet to search commute routes, to find addresses, for shopping deals, communications, checking weather, banking and trading etc. and online entertainment in Japan at least is usually legal and paid for, and hence beneficial for the economy.

Compare this to China, where the major usage for internet is(surprise!), entertainment. And you are welcome to take your guess how much of it is actually paid for, as opposed to stolen/pirated. Owing to unsafe security practices, online banking/shopping is not as popular, since you will end up getting hacked. Add to that, the perception of the Chinese government, of internet being a mere propaganda tool, so much so that their ultimate stated goal is to have a 100% state-controlled Chinese intranet instead, while having honest-to-goodness war plans to attack, cripple and bring down the actual free internet.

Re:China has 20% of the world's population! (1)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | about 4 years ago | (#33080990)

While OP is clearly clueless, you should've sticked to explaining penetration percentages. The 20% mentioned is *not* the chinese total, but only the total of the two largest ISP's within China.

Re:China has 20% of the world's population! (1)

spamking (967666) | about 4 years ago | (#33081376)

Wouldn't you say that is easier to accomplish when the large majority of the population lives in more urban Areas? I don't have any stats, but I think I'd be safe to assume that the higher density populations in China is in the larger urban areas of the country. Thus making it easier to get the infrastructure in place for providing broadband.

The US is more spread out and doesn't have the infrastructure in place to provide broadband to "every user".

What does "serve" mean? (2, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about 4 years ago | (#33079420)

Does this mean as actual paying subscribers to a private residence?

Or does this mean "providing internet access to" some large group of people who primarily use internet cafes, cell phones or some other shared access method?

Re:What does "serve" mean? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079916)

I think these are individual subscribers and broadband subscribers. The article quotes 55 M for China Telecom, which is about right.

By the way, a lot of earlier comments show staggering degree of ignorance - it's really sad. With the exception of content censorship issues, Chinese telecom, mobile and Internet businesses are amazingly vibrant and advanced, more advanced in some areas than US. While large telecom operators used to be monopolistic and bureaucratic, they have been rapidly deregulated and made competitive in the last 30 years or so. As a result, they have grown exponentially, not just customer head counts, but also in services they offer, revenue and profits. China Mobile, for example, has probably the highest market value of all mobile operators. (It's "capital market value in $", dear capitalist.) So if people still think of them as Soviet style planned economy and have "pity" on their consumers, your "sympathy" is misplaced!

Of course details are more complicated, and censorship is a big issue, not to take light of it, but in a whole, I think it's healthy for Americans to realize that Chinese economy of today is extremely open and competitive today for a large part of industries. In fact, it's common joke today to say that Republicans will be drooling if they could get China's level of low regulation.

That Explains It (1)

vgbndkng (1806628) | about 4 years ago | (#33079476)

I've been trying to figure out why everything I do online ends up in Mandarin. And to think I blamed my breakfast fruit of choice.

Pfft.. (1)

h7 (1855514) | about 4 years ago | (#33079544)

What matters is what you leverage it for, not how many use it- China has like 1.3 billion people right. And still it hasn't produced the great scientists, inventors, or respected companies. They are implementers and consumers, not innovators and are treated as such

Same here really... (1)

Aoet_325 (1396661) | about 4 years ago | (#33079626)

Hey! That's the same number of ISPs I get to choose from in the US!
Individuals in the US may not have much for options either but I do feel a little better that our gov has to work a little harder to spy on our net traffic than they do in China where it's all centralized for them in one of two places.

Re:Same here really... (1)

Wh15per (1526101) | about 4 years ago | (#33079724)

You get two ISPs? All we have here is... Comcast. Well, I guess I could do dialup somewhere.

Re:Same here really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079762)

I've got 3 here, AT&T, Comcast and the Electric Company. Guess which one goes up to 150 Mbps?

Not that I'd need that, but it's there if I want it.

Re:Same here really... (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 4 years ago | (#33080508)

Where I live in Britain, Sam Knows says I get to chose from the following:

Wireless - (not Wifi or HSDPA, it is a bit faster than that) - Now Broadband
Cable - Virgin Media
ADSL - BT, AOL, O2/Be Cable & Wireless, NewNet, Orange, Sky/EasyNet, TalkTalk and Tiscali (two sets of pipes)
HSDPA - O2, Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile, Three

Carphone Warehouse owns AOL, TalkTalk and Tiscali, so they have a total of four sets of pipes to my exchange

In addition, there are various virtual operators who use the pipes owned by the above companies.

New IPv6 because of China? (1)

drHirudo (1830056) | about 4 years ago | (#33079800)

This article once again proves the thesis that the world hunger will come when the people of China realize they are eating only the garnish. And that we will need the new IPv6 when the people of China realize that Internet is vital.

Fuckers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079856)

These fuckers are eating all the ip addresses.

20% of the world serves up 80% of the spam (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33079930)

Sounds about right.

Not really surprised... (1)

flyingkillerrobots (1865630) | about 4 years ago | (#33079956)

Given that China also has about 20% of the world's people, doesn't this article simply mean that China is more or less average?

Impossible! (2, Funny)

Ecuador (740021) | about 4 years ago | (#33080564)

The numbers simply don't add up:
-We know Chinese ISP's block all interesting content like pr0n.
-We know at least 95% of internet users browse pr0n almost daily.

So how can this be? :)

Re:Impossible! (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 4 years ago | (#33080870)

-We know at least 95% of internet users browse pr0n almost daily.

No, we know that at least 95% of slashdot readers browse pron almost daily.

What routers? (1)

Tanaka (37812) | about 4 years ago | (#33080634)

I can just see it now.... the first glimse inside one of china's ISPs... a single room, with a flashed WRT54G router in the middle of it.

I KNEW it! (2, Funny)

dave562 (969951) | about 4 years ago | (#33080900)

People have always tried to tell me that spam is automatically generated, but I KNEW BETTER! I knew, deep down in my soul that it was really millions of Chinese peasants, hooked up to TTY machines, flooding teh intarwebz with router clogging texts and Bayesian fooling, poorly constructed English non-sense.

Re:I KNEW it! (1)

ctchristmas (1821682) | about 4 years ago | (#33081288)

Speekeng of witch, A lady dide last nyte and left you ten trillyon american dollars! If you could just send me your adress, social security, name, phone number, and date of birth to konfirm youre identity, I can give you your moneys!

*Disclaimer - this is just a joke. Don't send me your information because I don't have shit for you and don't want it.*

Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33081180)

What a terrible summary. China ISPs serve 20% of broadband users, and Japan's top ISP only serve 17 Million!!???!!?. What does 20% acutally mean, or give us Japan's reading as a percentage of the world total.

That's Okay (1)

Kagato (116051) | about 4 years ago | (#33082350)

Sure, they have 20% of the broadband users. But after Red China Filtering they only have access to 20% of the internet. :)

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>