The Japanese and South Koreans never stop bragging about how they have the fastest Internet connection in the world. Nor do they ever stop making fun of the Americans or the Europeans only switching out of dial-up years after they started using high-speed broadband. Surely, the ubiquitous Internet cafes with their hordes of online game-playing teenagers do show the need and existence of high-speed connections, but for the travelling foreigner only concerned with news and basic text-based information searching, the difference seems quite minimal.
In fact, if anything, living in Korea or Japan occasionally would make the foreigners feel like there is SLOWER Internet connection than they can get back home, for the contents they wish to obtain. After all, especially in the case of Americans and Europeans, their favorite sites from back home can only be viewed after the data travels thousands of miles below the Pacific Ocean, no doubt slowing down the processing speed. And it is doubtful that the foreigners, even after years of living in Korea or Japan, will start viewing the local sites predominantly.
Although the difference in speeds for accessing domestic and foreign sites is usually minimal, at times of emergencies, even differences of such slight magnitudes can be annoying. For instance, the earthquake that occurred on the East Coast a couple of days ago is sure to attract the attention of many American expatriates living in Asia (while, at least for a little while until they realize how insignificant it was). The first instinct would be for them to access American news sites, where they would promptly decide to watch the video coverage of the quake.
But often, as is the case for many of many acquaintances, the loading of the videos on these American sites, from access points in Asia, becomes unbearably slow at such times. Maybe the situation is exacerbated by above-average access of the same contents by users back home, but either way, the example shows that the ABSOLUTE speed of Internet connection is not something that really matters in determining how fast the Internet of a certain locale truly is to each individual user.
And added to the issue of accessing online information from the other side of the globe is the measure, taken by some countries, of restricting incoming/outgoing bandwidth from/to foreign countries. Purportedly used to "stabilize local connections" (whether it is in essence just another type of online censorship we do not have sufficient information to determine), the upper limits on how much online information to let in and out of the country can only make the connection even slower, not to mention less international-oriented.
In essence, what can be genuinely said about the difference in speed for online connections across different countries applies mostly to INTRANET, and not INTERNET. Of course, for likes of developing countries like India, the difference between the two may not be that big as both are significantly slower than US, South Korea, or Japan. On for censorship-heavy countries like China, the accessibility of the Intranet compared to the Internet can be so big as to make this whole argument pointless.
But, even with such exceptions, the original point of the question still stands. The Asian (mainly South Korean and Japanese) pride of having better Internet connections than America or Europe is often largely dubious and even completely unfounded. Surely they may experience faster page viewing for domestic sites at home, but never can accessibility to the EXACT SAME site (especially of Western origin) be comparable in an absolute scale. An insistence that the connection in Asia is faster under any circumstance is a reflection of Asian chauvinism rather than technological reality.
Unfortunately, the Asian insistence of better Internet may be taken as another poignant illustration of the growing and perpetually irrational sense of Asian pride. As noted previously, the rapid rise of Asia economically has not changed the pro-Western attitude of the individual Asians. Professing Asian superiority in some cases is just another way of suppressing Asian inadequacies like the tendencies for the Japanese to live in their own little worlds. Such delusional attitudes are not only unhealthy but also serves as burdensome mental obstacle to continued, realistic development of Asia.
In fact, if anything, living in Korea or Japan occasionally would make the foreigners feel like there is SLOWER Internet connection than they can get back home, for the contents they wish to obtain. After all, especially in the case of Americans and Europeans, their favorite sites from back home can only be viewed after the data travels thousands of miles below the Pacific Ocean, no doubt slowing down the processing speed. And it is doubtful that the foreigners, even after years of living in Korea or Japan, will start viewing the local sites predominantly.
Although the difference in speeds for accessing domestic and foreign sites is usually minimal, at times of emergencies, even differences of such slight magnitudes can be annoying. For instance, the earthquake that occurred on the East Coast a couple of days ago is sure to attract the attention of many American expatriates living in Asia (while, at least for a little while until they realize how insignificant it was). The first instinct would be for them to access American news sites, where they would promptly decide to watch the video coverage of the quake.
But often, as is the case for many of many acquaintances, the loading of the videos on these American sites, from access points in Asia, becomes unbearably slow at such times. Maybe the situation is exacerbated by above-average access of the same contents by users back home, but either way, the example shows that the ABSOLUTE speed of Internet connection is not something that really matters in determining how fast the Internet of a certain locale truly is to each individual user.
And added to the issue of accessing online information from the other side of the globe is the measure, taken by some countries, of restricting incoming/outgoing bandwidth from/to foreign countries. Purportedly used to "stabilize local connections" (whether it is in essence just another type of online censorship we do not have sufficient information to determine), the upper limits on how much online information to let in and out of the country can only make the connection even slower, not to mention less international-oriented.
In essence, what can be genuinely said about the difference in speed for online connections across different countries applies mostly to INTRANET, and not INTERNET. Of course, for likes of developing countries like India, the difference between the two may not be that big as both are significantly slower than US, South Korea, or Japan. On for censorship-heavy countries like China, the accessibility of the Intranet compared to the Internet can be so big as to make this whole argument pointless.
But, even with such exceptions, the original point of the question still stands. The Asian (mainly South Korean and Japanese) pride of having better Internet connections than America or Europe is often largely dubious and even completely unfounded. Surely they may experience faster page viewing for domestic sites at home, but never can accessibility to the EXACT SAME site (especially of Western origin) be comparable in an absolute scale. An insistence that the connection in Asia is faster under any circumstance is a reflection of Asian chauvinism rather than technological reality.
Unfortunately, the Asian insistence of better Internet may be taken as another poignant illustration of the growing and perpetually irrational sense of Asian pride. As noted previously, the rapid rise of Asia economically has not changed the pro-Western attitude of the individual Asians. Professing Asian superiority in some cases is just another way of suppressing Asian inadequacies like the tendencies for the Japanese to live in their own little worlds. Such delusional attitudes are not only unhealthy but also serves as burdensome mental obstacle to continued, realistic development of Asia.
Comments
Post a Comment