[mythtv-users] the US being, considerably less urbanized than either Australia or Britain

ffrr ffrr at tpg.com.au
Sun Feb 19 08:16:18 UTC 2006


Steve Hodge wrote:

>On 2/19/06, ffrr <ffrr at tpg.com.au> wrote:
>  
>
>>Yeechang Lee wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>DVB never made headway in the US because
>>>cable (including digital cable, functionally equivalent to DVB) and
>>>digital satellite so long ago captured the great majority of viewers,
>>>and because the distances are so much greater (the US being
>>>considerably less urbanized than either Australia or Britain).
>>>      
>>>
>>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'
>>    
>>
>
>Australia has a similar landmass to the continental USA and much lower
>population but a much larger percentage of Australian's live in an
>urban area: 93% v 81%. Essentially almost everyone lives in costal
>cities in Oz.
>
>Steve
>  
>

Yep, so most of Australia is less urbanised.  I think it's just I had a 
different interpretion of 'urbanised'.  I would use the term 
'centralised' instead, to describe how the population lives.  To me,  
spreading cities out into the country is urbanisation of the country.  
It seems that the original poster means the population is 'urbanised' 
but I meant that the country is less urbanised (if that makes any sense 
:-) )



More information about the mythtv-users mailing list