Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ITIF Senior Fellow Claims "America's Broadband Networks Lead the World"

Posted by timothy on from the att-clearly-breaking-the-curve dept.

McGruber writes "In an Op-Ed published in The NY Times, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF.org) Senior Fellow Richard Bennett claims that 'America's broadband networks lead the world by many measures, and they are improving at a more rapid rate than networks in most developed countries.' Mr. Bennett also says, 'the most critical issue facing American broadband has nothing to do with the quality of our networks; it is our relatively low rates of subscribership.'"

55 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. Re: "improving at a more rapid rate" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Only possible because they had further to go in the first place.

  2. What!? by willthiswork89 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are nations with 50 mbps for pennies on the dollar to our cost in America, not to mention absolutely no throttling or data limits. Wake up Richard Bennett! There are far too many monopolies in Americas internet connections and THATS the problem, no competition means they can do whatever the hell they want!

    1. Re:What!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yup, I'm on the same 1.5 Mbps, I've been on for years. It just costs more now. This guy needs a lashing.

    2. Re:What!? by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

      Akamai published the Q4 2012 edition of their State of the Internet report yesterday, and it's pretty much as expected: the trends that have been evident since 2010 are continuing. Globally, Internet connections are growing incrementally faster, and we see this trend in the U. S.

      The U. S. has picked up one place in the "Average Peak Connection Speed" that's the best measurement of network capacity, rising from 14th to 13th as the measured peak connection speed increased from 29.6 Mbps to 31.5 Mbps.
      In terms of the "Average Connection Speed," widely cited by analysts who don't know what it means, the U. S. remains in 8th place world-wide. but we're no longer tied for it as we were in the previous quarter; Sweden is right behind us on this one.
      In terms of "High Speed Broadband Adoption", the proportion of IP addresses with an Average Connection Speed greater than 10 Mbps, we remain in 7th place, but now we're tied with Sweden.

      http://www.hightechforum.org/u-s-broadband-speed-slightly-better-in-latest-akamai-report/

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:What!? by Cenan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, this guy is totally wrong because [insert my own personal anecdote here] !!!

      Yeah, this guy is totally right because [insert cherry picked data points here] !!!

      --
      ... whatever ...
    4. Re: What!? by Wovel · · Score: 2

      Many of the countries you believe are better have state run networks with no competition. The best have state owned infrastructure where providers compete with equal access.

    5. Re:What!? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2

      Yup, I'm on the same 1.5 Mbps, I've been on for years. It just costs more now. This guy needs a lashing.

      Yeah, this guy is totally wrong because [insert my own personal anecdote here] !!!

      The issue is that all of these personal anecdotes add up to a disturbing picture. I consider myself extremely lucky to be on 50Mbps for $60/mo with Charter on the West Coast. I've already come to terms with the fact that when I move next, it will likely be to a much worse service provider. Kinda funny how all of the free-market lovers refuse to break up these telecom monopolies, or at the very least regulate them into being dumb pipes.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    6. Re:What!? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that so long as you like vegetables and meat, somebody is going to have to live out there. Are you really saying that we should relegate our food growers to dial-up speeds?

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    7. Re:What!? by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yep, and if you read the details most of these cases are you get this speed only if you live in the center of the nation's largest city. and its not available in the entire city either

      most of the people complaining in the USA about broadband live out in the exuburbs or rural areas and want the gubment to pay for the infrastructure

      The gubetment already paid for the infrastructure. The telcos pocketed the cash for themselves instead.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    8. Re:What!? by ScottyLad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The author only compares America to other "developed" countries, but if I wanted the best Internet access, I would go so somewhere like South Korea, or anywhere in the Middle or Far East where the uptake of IPv6 and build-out of high speed access leaves Europe and America looking a bit last century.

      The whole article seems to be missing the fact that the developing countries are setting the pace these days.

      --
      Philosopher (n) - a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity
    9. Re:What!? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The citizens already paid for the infrastructure. The telcos pocketed the cash for themselves instead.

      FTFY.

    10. Re:What!? by Shinobi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The fact that Bennet relies on the Akamai report is proof that he's writing a propaganda piece with only a fleeting touch of reality. The reality is, Akamai's figures for the nordic countries are grossly misleading, since Akamai's infrastructure here is appallingly bad, while it's quite extensive in north america, which skews the numbers a lot in the favour of the USA.

      Compared to LLNW and other competitors, Akamai is a brake for us over here, with LLNW for example allowing transfers in excess of 90Mbit/s, even during prime time, while Akamai hosts chokes at 25Mbit/s(if you're lucky....)

    11. Re:What!? by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole article seems to be missing the fact that the developing countries are setting the pace these days.

      Which is stated with a degree of surprise, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.

      In 'developed' countries, good enough reigns supreme. They may have state of the art infrastructure as defined by standards when the infrastructure was built. Getting tens of mbps to urban areas is 'good enough'. IPv4 is 'good enough'.

      In countries that have no acceptable infrastructure, they have the opportunity to start from the correct place as it is defined now.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    12. Re:What!? by sydsavage · · Score: 2

      I live less than 2.5 miles from my state capitol. My two choices for internet are $55/mo for 1.5/.75 DSL from CenturyLink, or $70/mo for "up to" 20/5 from Comcast. I don't want the gubmint to subsidize shit. But somebody needs to step in and break this duopoly. If tighter regulations on these two asshat companies is what it takes, so be it.

      Personally, I'd like to see the city turn the SCOTUS approved imminent domain laws on their head, and seize the infrastructure from these racketeers and then lease back wholesale access to any company that wants to provide service. Because unless Google decides to come to town, nothing is going to change, at least not for the better.

      The prices have continually crept up while bandwidth caps have been continually lowered along with the quality of service. At this moment, I'm waiting for the second day for a repairman to show up to fix a recurring issue of moisture in the ancient copper lines (so that's why they call it CenturyLink!) that causes no dialtone on the landline, and the DSL connection to flap from no connection to barely dial-up speeds.

    13. Re:What!? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      > Yeah, this guy is totally wrong because [insert my own personal anecdote here] !!!

      Argument by counterexample is a perfectly acceptable approach. It tends to be more effective when some clueless ass makes some really stupid general statement.

      The article was about one such ass.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    14. Re:What!? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > most of the people complaining in the USA about broadband live out in the exuburbs or rural areas and want the gubment to pay for the infrastructure

      Sounds like the Rural Electrification Act.

      Are you really prepared to declare that we are no longer civilized enough to make sure that no one is left behind in this country?

      The infastructure you are using right now or even the city you are living in likely is the result of the sort of "gubment" handout you are trying to whine about.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:What!? by poity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You bring up a good point

      I wonder what internet speeds European food growers get? What is the quality of service for livestock breeders in rural Spain and the Baltics; wheat farmers in rural Central Europe? Also, how far outstretched are the suburbs of Europe? In my mind, European cities tend to be more densely occupied and with greater zoning overlap than in the US -- a fiber line serving many businesses also branch out easily to apartments, whereas in the US you have many more instances of distinctly separate commercial and residential zones.

      Something else that comes to mind is how do the speed and service deteriorate as one moves out of the city centers? What speeds and quality of service do Europeans who live 10km away from downtown get compared to Americans who live 10km away from downtown? 20km and 30km away?

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    16. Re:What!? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kinda funny how all of the free-market lovers refuse to break up these telecom monopolies, or at the very least regulate them into being dumb pipes.

      I love the free market; yet I also very much agree that the telecom industry needs a massive dose of breakup and regulation. For starters, Cable companies (and Fibre Optic services like FIOS and U-Verse) need to be forced to share their infrastructure.

      Personally, I'd move it all to a single owner model - perhaps (even likely) owned by the localities - where companies have to lease them from the owner. So AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc, won't have any ability to control the basic pricing or infrastructure - they'd all be forced to compete on the quality of their services instead of their infrastructure.

      It's time to realize that the internet Infrastructure really should belong to the people, and not be tied up in a wasteland of monopolies enforced by local governments - e.g. a small housing group should be able to get their own fibre optic line and split it among the group without having the county say "you can't do that because we signed this contract with company X and they have that sole right", that should all be illegal.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    17. Re:What!? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll just give you one example. My parents live out in a farmland area in Basque country in France. Their internet 5 years ago was better than what I had access to living in the middle of Silicon Valley. It was also cheaper. I can't talk much about quality, but their Skype video came over just fine and dandy. Anecdote and all that, but it really drove home how shitty the broadband system was and is in the US. Yes, you can pay for really, really awesome internet connections. But those are affordable only if you have a business that actually generates profit off of the Internet connection. Otherwise, you're completely at the mercy of a local monopoly or duopoly.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    18. Re:What!? by microbox · · Score: 2

      As soon as someone takes on a monopoly (say telecoms, phama, oil, coal), those industries dump a pile of money on the GOP who go around talking about big government getting in the road of small businesses. The GOP faithful like this because it makes them feel like they have political power. It is all rather ironic.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    19. Re:What!? by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The really sad part, is that without the rural electrification act, the people growing food in the US in rural counties would likely *STILL* not have basic electrical and wired telephone services, and the very pundits complaining about the proposed broadband equivalent, would be the most vocal about the issue. (Specifically, spouting the same arrogant ass vapor about how if those people want electricity and telephone service, that they should just move to the city!)

      How do I know this? I grew up in such a county, where 90+% of the land allotments are farmland, and the "cities" are fewer than 10k residents. The state of the power distribution system? Apalling. (If one of those precious cities these people go on about had service that interrupted power 50+ times a day, and had deleterious line noise 100% of the time that requires a line conditioner like where I grew up, they would be demanding the government "do something.") Telephone service? Laughable, and NOT maintained. Last I checked, there were still wire boxes from the 1950s, which only went in because of said act, still in active service, rusting away underneath hedgerows.

      The ONLY reason that such places even *GET* such service at all, is because of that bill.

      The people who bitch about "subsidizing the 'rich' lifestyles of rural people" would spout the exact same claptrap had the rural electrification act not passed, and was being discussed now, even though the 'rich' people they try to demonize would be using kerosine lanterns for light, lack any kind of climate control in their homes other than open windows and a fireplace (it takes electricity to run a furnace. Something has to power the thermostat, and the house blower.), and would be just a few shakes above 2nd or 3rd world shithole in livability.

      But they would damned well expect to find produce and beef at their supermarets.

      The unpleasant reality that the "people who live out in the country are rich!" Fallacy fails to address? The average pay per year for rural residents is at or below 50k. With kids. Eg "at or below poverty line" if they lived in the city that they rail about so incessantly.

      Yes, I'm a bit bitter about the issue. Because it pisses me the fuck off whenever I hear "move to the city then!" As an excuse.

      The real reason those fucks say that?

      Because by forcing more people into the already overcrowded city, the stand to benefit by that newcomer's taxes. They may not give it the rational thought to completely arrive at that conclusion consciously, but that is basically the crux of it. "What do *I* get out of the deal?"

      You get an america that isn't divided into economic disparites like fucking china, where you have people with broadband internet and moder housing in the cities, and people living in fucking mud huts on the farmland that can't even write. That's what assholes.

      The reason why rural america isn't like rural china? Acts like the electrification act, and now, proposals like the broadband act. Straight up, 100%. There were people without running water or indoor toiletry in the rural US in the 1950s, when that bill passed! The forced buildout *greatly* improved america.

      "Move to the city!" Indeed, assholes. I suppose you would say that to poor chineese people too, wouldn't you?

    20. Re:What!? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Yeah well you sir are a very rare bird in the USA, at least from what I've seen. I've lived in several states across the south and if you can get double digit you are lucky, with the average being between 3 Mbps-8 Mbps. Also you find out quickly that not only are the ISPs simply bleeding existing customers for higher profits they sure as fuck ain't spending a dime on adding customers, much less adding capacity to those they already have. Hell when I was there several spots in Nashville couldn't get better than sub 1Mbps DSL if they were lucky, a few places could only get dial up.

      Like everything else in this country once you get to duopolies and monopolies development stagnates, all their money is spent on lobbyists to make sure nobody can compete with them, and the customers get to pay ever higher prices for ever worse and more capped service. Welcome to Amerika, where we pay lip service to free markets but in reality its as rigged as a game of three card monty.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    21. Re:What!? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      I'll throw in my own anecdote. I live in a college town that has grown by a good 35% in the past decade, how much has the cable and DSL expanded in that time? NONE, zero fricking feet! And before someone says I'm exaggerating nope, I know the subcontractor that does the cable and the manager of this area's DSL and neither have laid a single foot of new line, they ONLY replace broken line,why? Both the DSL and cable has cherry picked all the neighborhoods they want and in the case of DSL I was told they are purposely letting things go to shit so they can force more people on their crazy priced wireless phone and data plans.

      This fucked up situation has distorted the entire area, you'll have rows of nice buildings that stay empty while the price of an apt across the street in a shittier building reaches insane prices all because you can get Internet in the shitty building, all you can get across the street is dial up. Speeds are pathetic, most getting sub 6Mbps on cable and the dialup? If you hit 3Mbps you should probably make an offering to the gods for getting their blessing and as i said with the DSL their answer to every complaint is WILL NOT FIX, followed by an attempt to sell you a cellphone data plan.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re:What!? by dywolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok.
      Number of providers
      level of competition
      Cost per byte per month
      Accessibility (you yourself brought that one up)

      these metrics are going...slowly...and only when absolutely forced to.

      remember that conspiracy theory that intel was intentionally not advancing CPUs as fast as they could, in order to maximize profit every step of the way ? (or any industry really, they all have a similar conspiriacy theory)

      In the case of the telco's, it not a theory, it's completely 100% true.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  3. The Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Mr. Bennett also says that'"the most critical issue facing American broadband has nothing to do with the quality of our networks; it is our relatively low rates of subscribership." .. which would not be a problem if the service was as cheaper and more reliable.

    1. Re:The Point by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      which would not be a problem if the service was as cheaper and more reliable.

      No, it would not be a problem if America worked to create an economy where people aren't struggling just to get by. If you can't feed your kids much more than generic Cheerios, a computer and broadband ain't too high on your list of priorities.

    2. Re: The Point by Wovel · · Score: 2

      You think there are a lot of Americans struggling to get Cheerios?

    3. Re: The Point by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hail, time traveler! Welcome to the World of Tomorrow! I will give you a brief introduction on some important changes in society that have occurred since your time:

      • Michael Jackson died a white woman
      • New Coke turned out to be a flop
      • Berlin Wall has fallen

      Believe it or not, a black man is president of the United States now. We have computers so small that they fit in the palm of your hand. The top 14% of Americans own almost 75% of the wealth and have devastated the economy over the past half decade. The average income of a worker has remained about the same since your time, but the average CEO now makes 350 times the average worker. With so much wealth being sequestered among the super rich instead of being shared among the middle class where it would be used to keep the economy going, the US is on the verge of a complete financial collapse.

      Welcome!

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    4. Re: The Point by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      > You think there are a lot of Americans struggling to get Cheerios?

      If you think otherwise you have lived a very sheltered existence for your entire life.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re: The Point by reve_etrange · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't have to think or believe that a lot of Americans are struggling to feed themselves and their families, because unfortunately I have the luxury of knowing it. 14.5% of US families suffer from food insecurity. SNAP (food stamps) only provides $4 / day.

      Page with summary statistics
      2011 USDA study

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    6. Re: The Point by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Informative

      You think there are a lot of Americans struggling to get Cheerios?

      Yes, this is news? See here. The poverty rate has been going up for a bit now. And poverty is defined as $23,000 for a family of four. So yeah, there are a lot of Americans struggling to afford Cheerios.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    7. Re: The Point by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      No, I made the far better choice of getting a job that pays more than minimum wage when I was 15 and still in highschool. I saved my money to pay for college and got a degree, then I married a woman who shared a similar mindset. We still live with a roommate which some people have too much pride for apparently but it has cut our mortgage in half.

      Maybe the reason people can't get name-brand Cheerios (I don't anyway, waste of money) is that they make really poor life choices?

      Maybe not. It's amazing to me that there are still people who blame the poor for their poverty by saying they made bad choices. To be fair, I'm sure some of them did. But to be blind to the massive advantage wealth gives a person, and conversely the disadvantage of poverty, takes a special kind of obtuseness.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    8. Re: The Point by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, there are: 18% of all households in the US are in poverty, which is defined as being unable to afford food, water, or housing without government assistance. About 1.5 million households are in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $2 per person per day.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re: The Point by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I made the far better choice of getting a job that pays more than minimum wage when I was 15 and still in high school. ... Maybe the reason people can't get name-brand Cheerios (I don't anyway, waste of money) is that they make really poor life choices?

      Sometimes they made bad decisions. Sometimes they weren't making decisions in the same circumstances as you did, like:
      1. It was legal to work at age 15 where you lived. In a lot of places in the US, it's now illegal to work before you're 16.

      2. Someone was looking to hire an employee somewhere near where you lived. That's not common right now.

      3. That someone was willing to employ a teenager.

      4. You could get to your place of work. Maybe you had a public transit system, maybe the job was close enough to walk to, maybe somebody drove you, but somehow you were able to do that.

      5. You didn't have to drop out of high school to do the work, which means about 10-15 hours a week maximum.

      6. You had the parenting, educational opportunities, and equipment needed to have marketable skills, or you got above-market wages for unskilled labor. Frequently, unskilled labor gets minimum wage or close to it.

      7. You could save all the money you earned for college, rather than supporting your family with it. Many teenage workers use their money to help pay the family rent or keep their siblings fed.

      8. You almost definitely went to college when it was far cheaper than it is now. For example, if you worked 15 hours a week at $10 an hour for 3 years (age 15-8), you would earn about $18,000 after taxes. That's about 25% of 4-year tuition at your nearby state university.

      9. You and your wife probably didn't have to deal with: (a) serious illness or accident, either of yourselves or of someone you consider yourself obligated to care for, (b) a layoff of either of you in the recent recession, (c) a serious natural disaster such as a hurricane, tornado, or earthquake, or (d) a house fire.

      I'm not saying you didn't do the right things because you clearly did. What I'm saying is that you did as well as you did in part because you made the right decisions, and in part because you were lucky - you had parents, teachers, bosses, siblings, future wife, etc making decisions that gave you the chance to make the right decision.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    10. Re: The Point by Bengie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The world doesn't OWE you anything. About all minimum wage should allow is for you - only you - to have a place to sleep and enough food to stay alive. If you want to support anyone else (spouse, children, etc) and provide a quality of life above eating, sleeping, and going to work, then get a better job.

      The whole point of society is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The irony is that higher paying jobs are typically easier, in the sense that one should be doing what they're good at and getting paid a premium for those services. To tell someone to get a "better job" is like telling someone "you should stop being sick".

      Why do you think we have all of these social programs like public education, infrastructure, welfare, firemen, police, judges, military? Because they benefit us all.


      Implementation details of social programs make a huge difference on their usefulness.

  4. Uh no by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    America's broadband networks led the world in one respect; this is where we got widespread broadband first. We lag in every other regard. Miles of shitty copper used for services it can't really handle is not a metric to brag about.

    We get less for our money than almost anyone else, we have poorer penetration than almost anyone else... the former is because of corporate malfeasance, the latter is both because of that and because the USA is big. Nothing to be proud of either way.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. U S A! U S A! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're number 1! We're number 1!

    I suppose Mr. Bennett just disregards the 32 countries that have recently developed faster more modern networks (http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/). Make up some random metric, don't compare to all nations, disregard contradicting evidence, declare champion. Sounds like a good plan to me!

  6. True for some measures, but not others. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was trying to share some music I created with a friend in South Korea. He has a 1 Gbit Internet connection. He couldn't connect to my IP in Canada at my house. Americans would never have this problem.

    I'd rather have modest/slow speeds that connect to everything than blazing fast speeds which serve only approved government propoganda and vanilla pop culture.

  7. Re:Out of touch by Randle_Revar · · Score: 2

    He is talking about this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-west-virginia-library-runs-a-20000-cisco-router/

    I never hear anything to indicate it came out that fee though.

    --
    Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
  8. Re:U S A! U S A! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

    but but but but.. SOCIALISM!!!

  9. Re:Out of touch by sstamps · · Score: 4, Informative

    Where?

    I don't even have a library within 40 miles of where I live, let alone one with a $20,000 router in it.

    I pay the same universal service fees as everyone else, and I don't get anywhere NEAR the access as 99% of the rest of the country.

    My ISP is shit. SHIT. They WAY overcommit their crappy low-end ADSL lines (which constantly crash/go down), and have delayed any upgrade plans for YEARS. Then they have the unmitigated gall to go whining to the state legislature to block any attempts by our local municipality to seek out a better PAID-FOR solution for us.

    No, the problem with broadband in 'Murrica is all the goddamned crooks in the government-backed monopolies who pocket all the money we are forced to give them, both voluntarily, and at gunpoint, and then give us sweet-motherfuck-all in return.

    I couldn't be happier at this point if all the goddamned telcos died in a fire, painfully. I sure as hell wouldn't consider even pissing on them to put them out.

    --
    -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
  10. Many measures but.. by cjjjer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cost per MB maybe...

  11. Belgium is a great negative role model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This opinion piece holds up Belgium as an example other European countries are trying to emulate, but Internet service there is incredibly expensive and has tiny monthly bandwidth caps, worse even than Australia. Almost any European country is doing better.

    The opinion piece also omits France and the story of Iliad / free.fr, and UK, which every other thing I've read says are the best examples of good policy nurturing successful infrastructure investment and cheap, fast Internet.

    The actual global story is that countries practicing "structural separation"---meaning the company that maintains the wires is not allowed to provide service over them---have really cheap and fast Internet. Iliad made so much money selling DSL and TV-over-DSL in a structurally-separated competition-fostering market that they started digging trenches and laying their own fiber (..which is, well, not structurally separated any more, but meh, at least it's there). Meanwhile after winning concessions that further destroyed the already broken DSL competition in the US on the basis it would "incent" them to invest in fiber, vz halted FiOS rollout in 2010 because they can squeeze more money out of people on vzw.

    BTW, if you actually used the Internet at LTE speed, you'd use $240/hr of bandwidth. Pieces like this only quote the speed but ignore that the network doesn't actually enable any "broadband applications" like cloud disk or TV-over-IP.

    US is a great example of policy derp. The pollies can't keep up with the jackmoves of these sophisticatedly-skeezy US companies.

    1. Re:Belgium is a great negative role model by SilenceBE · · Score: 3, Informative

      This opinion piece holds up Belgium as an example other European countries are trying to emulate, but Internet service there is incredibly expensive and has tiny monthly bandwidth caps, worse even than Australia. Almost any European country is doing better.

      I must be living in a parallel Belgium it seems. I have 60Mbit/s down with no bandwidth cap (FUP) for 55 euro. That also includes cable/decoder + telephone with free calls within Belgium and free calls to mobile/European countries for certain hours. If I would bump that to 24/24 then it will set you back another 5 euro. My mobile internet costs me 15 euro and that includes 2Gb of traffic.

      The cheapest internet on cable (which is available everywhere) will set you back for 25 euro and that includes 30Mbit/s and a limit of 100Gb. VDSL2 that is available in most places : 35Mbit/s including unlimited bandwidth and that for the price of 35 euro.

      It is what you call incredible expensive and tiny bandwidth...

  12. Huh? by fullback · · Score: 2

    I don't live in the U.S. and I've had 100Mbps fiber for less than USD 50/month for so long that I have to stop to count... Let's see. It's been over 12 years, now.

    The U.S. does lead the world in cognitive dissonance, though.

  13. Re:Filthy sows need to become clean! by DeathToBill · · Score: 3, Funny

    The internet has become sentient and has taken the only sane course; it hawks crap PC cleanup tools. It sounds insane, but just think: How would you know? We all expect sentient AI to diagnose cancer and drive cars safely and run governments fairly and do all our work for us. Because that's what the run-of-the-mill sentient intelligence is like, right?

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
  14. Re:So what does it cost in USA? by Silpher · · Score: 2

    I live in the Netherlands and pay 40 euro's for 100/100

  15. This guy needs a vacation by Azure+Flash · · Score: 2

    I say rent him a small apartment in Tokyo with a paid 2 Gbps connection. Then we'll see what he thinks of America's great broadband.

    1. Re:This guy needs a vacation by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Betcha that the cost of the small apartment in Tokyo + the broadband >>>> my house and broadband.

  16. low rate of subscibership? by WillgasM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I, too, find it very difficult to sell inferior products at a huge mark-up.
    It sounds like all our country's Internet woes could be easily solved if ISPs just spent more money on marketing.

  17. What the US really leads the world in by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yet another article proving that the only things the US really leads the world in is massively overrating their own country while maintaining total blind ignorance of anything outside it.

  18. Oh Statistics! LOL by DarthVain · · Score: 3, Informative

    "they are improving at a more rapid rate than networks in most developed countries."

    Analysis: Most developed countries already have better networks, thus less room to improve. The USA having backwater level networks, are able to improve to a much greater degree as the current "Can with String Attached" technology is much slower than your typical 2400 baud modem.

    Joking of course, and exaggerating (is there anything else on Slashdot), but I always get a kick out of these PR type statements which are "technically" valid, but only because of careful wording. Also known as, statistics, is there anything you can't solve?

    Another way to look at this, you just won the "Most Improved Player" on your little league baseball team, Congratulations! Your kid is fat and untalented, and we all felt sorry for them, have a trophy for participation... (I say this as someone with a closet full of them!)

  19. America has the best broadband in the world. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    I agree, America has the best broadband in the world.*

    [fine print]* Where "The World" is defined as American and any country with worse broadband than America has.[/fine print]

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  20. He's right. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 2

    America's "Broadband" networks are far more profitable than anywhere else in the world.
    And in the land of the corporations and the home of the greedy scumbags, isn't that all that matters?

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  21. Re: "improving at a more rapid rate" by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    "Only possible because they had further to go in the first place."

    Yep. And here's another good one:

    '... the most critical issue facing American broadband has nothing to do with the quality of our networks; it is our relatively low rates of subscribership.'

    Absolute BS. Sure, it may be the low rates of subscribership, but the first part is wrong. The low rates of subscribership are due to low quality of service combined with outrageous prices.

    The fact is: other "developed countries" have better service for less money. If there is any one halfway good excuse the US has for that, it might be the cost of infrastructure in areas of low population. But some other countries (like Canada) have that problem too.