Comments on: Sweden boasts the world’s fastest 4G speeds; US ranks a lowly 8th

By: Alison

Alison — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:58:16 +0000

where in the Akamai Q3 2012 report does it say the U.S. ranks 8th? I cannot find it.

By: Kevin Fitchard

Kevin Fitchard — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:25:30 +0000

Well, at least I’m “mostly right”. :)

Thanks for commenting, Richard

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:12:42 +0000

Crawford’s book wasn’t in galley proofs before the 2010, 2011 and early 2012 Akamai data came out David.

The story she wanted to tell conflicts with the facts, so deal with it. Check her Chapter 12, footnote 32:

“…And the Economist pointed out: “Having led the world in internet access, America has slipped over the past decade to 22nd (behind Latvia and the Czech Republic) with an average download speed of a mere 3.8 megabits per second (Mbps) compared with South Korea’s average of 14.6Mbps…” (“ The Difference Engine: Politics and the Web,” December 24, 2010).

That blog post uses Akamai’s 4Q 2009 report. My point is that American broadband speeds have risen in the rankings every year since then, so Crawford’s use of primary source data is utterly dishonest.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:24:57 +0000

Personally, I don’t set much stock by crowd-sourced apps that purport to measure network speed. There are too many variables involved in this approach for it to be anywhere close to accurate, mainly on the handset end. A user with the latest quad-core spiffy Android phone is going to record higher speeds on the same network as somebody with an older model, so there’s clearly a lot more going on here than network quality. In the Akamai mobile broadband measurements, some networks are pushing 40 Mbps, but that’s not a national average, just one provider.

There’s anecdotal evidence – some press reports – of cord-cutting in Japan from 100 Mbps FTTB to all-in for LTE, despite the allegedly low speed of LTE in that country.

Most analysts are still missing the point of LTE in any case. It’s value proposition is low latency IP over a RAN that can knit channels together out of disaggregated spectrum; it’s not just a faster radio, it’s a better system for IP that leads to disengagement from circuit switched voice.

What we need are some Akamai and SamKnows-style measurements that separate fast networks from slow handsets, and this batch doesn’t come close to the granularity that’s meaningful for comparative study.

By: David Mayes

David Mayes — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:15:14 +0000

22nd or 8th seems like mice nuts to me. The point remains that it is a significant competitive and political problem in North America as a whole. Obama’s SOTU point about decaying infrastructure is alive and well here.

Having worked with the telco mentality for years, the point about a new Gilded Age of Monopoly is at the heart of the problem.

http://mayo615.com/2013/02/12/why-net-neutrality-is-so-important-the-telecom-industry-and-monopoly-power/

http://mayo615.com/2013/02/08/urban-legend-of-free-wi-fi-for-the-masses-devil-in-the-details/

BTW, the Crawford book was likely already in galley proofs by the time the most recent Akamai report was released.

By: John Wentworth

John Wentworth — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:44:53 +0000

I don’t think it’s throttling, just the effect of more and more users on the same tower.
My t-mobile HSPA+ actually outpreforms Verizon LTE at this point.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:07:36 +0000

The footnotes in Crawford’s book mostly refer to blog posts and newspaper articles. Curiously, her claim that the U. S. ranks 22nd in download speed is supported by a blog post from 2010 that referred to a 2009 Akamai report.

The current Akamai report (3q 2012) says the US is 8th in that same category, but Crawford hasn’t seen that in a blog yet.

She’s a nice, sincere, charming person but poorly informed.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:01:36 +0000

Kevin’s analysis the reasons for the range of speeds available is mostly right: U. S. carriers are spectrum-constrained because the total pool of sub-3GHz spectrum is dominated by military uses. By most estimates, 60% of this spectrum is in government hands. With bits/sec/hertz roughly equal for all LTE installations and fiber backhaul in place, the speed of one network vs. another comes down to spectrum and tower density.

If PCAST had done its job, we’d be freeing some of this military spectrum for civilian use, but alas, all we’re going to get is some weak for of on and off sharing.

By: statusq3

statusq3 — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:59:40 +0000

Where do you come up with these numbers? I’m pretty sure I’m paying $10/GB at 9MBps in the US. :)

By: David Mayes

David Mayes — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:52:34 +0000

Reblogged this on mayo615 and commented: Further evidence that Yale Law Professor Susan P. Crawford is right about a telecom monopoly in North America that is throttling the Internet and endangering our economic competitiveness. Read Ms. Crawford's book, "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age." Professor Crawford is also being promoted to succeed Julius Genachowski, as FCC Chairman. I wholeheartedly endorse her.