[mythtv-users] the US being, considerably less urbanized than either Australia or Britain
ffrr at tpg.com.au
Sun Feb 19 04:54:53 UTC 2006
John Andersen wrote:
>On 2/18/06, ffrr <ffrr at tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>Really? Take a look at land mass and populations of Australia vs USA.
>>I might be wrong, but I can't see how Australia can be more 'urbanised'
>In North America, people live in the country to a higher degree than
>The density per sq mile in rural areas is way higher in the US than in
>Oz, or even Canada.
>Google earth is your friend. Point it to any random spot that would
>qualify under your definition of the boondocks in the US and zoom in.
>Unless its desert, you will likely find someone living within a mile.
I took 'urbanised' to mean that there are more urban areas spread
throughout the USA making Australia LESS urbanised, because it is mostly
areas of very low population.
We would say that population centres are more CENTRALISED, and that the
people living in the rural areas are even more remote (less people,
greater distances) and so satellite would be even more useful to
Australia. The small number of very remote users makes normal wired or
direct transmission infrastructure, much less attractive.
More information about the mythtv-users