Tech Watch | InfoWorld Staff » TAG: Broadband

April 09, 2008 | Comments: (0)

High marks for U.S. Internet

TAGS: Broadband

Refuting conventional wisdom, a European study cited in this NY Times article claims that "Internet infrastructure of the United States is one of the world’s best and getting better."

The study, done on behalf of the World Economic Forum, looked at variables such as market factors, the political and regulatory environment, and technology infrastructure rather than just Internet bandwidth capacity and data transmission speeds. On this basis, the study found that the U.S. now ranks fourth in the world behind Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland. Last year the U.S. ranked seventh.

Still, some Internet veterans remain skeptical. The NY Times quotes David J. Farber, an Internet pioneer and a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University, saying "“If you are looking at broadband, we have a lot of problems. We are slow as molasses in deploying the next generation.”

Posted by Caroline Craig on April 9, 2008 10:25 AM

April 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)

U.S. lags in high-speed Internet

TAGS: Broadband

The U.S. has fallen to 12th in global ranking of high-speed Internet connections. We now lag behind many other industrialized countries in Europe and Asia, according to a recent survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that shows Iceland overtaking longtime leader South Korea for the top spot.

This is not news that U.S. businesses or Washington policy makers should shrug off lightly. This isn't just about bewailing our inability to download music and videos quickly. Without investment in our communication networks, U.S. businesses will soon be at a significant competitive disadvantage in developing new products and services and in creating new markets.

According to a story in today's WSJ (subscription required to access) the FCC's chairman has protested that the OECD's rankings do "not tell the full story" because the low population density of the U.S. made comparisons with high-density countries like South Korea unfair. But Iceland, Norway, and Sweden -- all of which ranked higher than the U.S. -- have even lower population densities than the U.S. and yet have obviously surmounted that obstacle to wider broadband access.

As recently as 2001, the U.S. ranked 4th in the OECD's survey, but since that time governments in many of today's top-ranked countries have aggressively promoted the next generation of broadband over fiber optics that will travel many times faster than DSL or cable. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, with its "unbundling" provisions, was meant to foster competition among Internet providers. But U.S. phone and cable companies have lobbied vigorously to roll back those requirement, claiming regulation is no longer necessary.

Tell us what you think is the right approach to this problem. Should the U.S. government be investing heavily in the country's communications infrastructure just as they would in a public utility like highways? Or is de-regulation of the telecommunications industry going to be sufficient incentive for the laying of fiber for a next-generation broadband?

Tell us -- and your legislators -- what you think.

Posted by Caroline Craig on April 12, 2006 06:58 AM

April 06, 2006 | Comments: (0)

Net neutrality takes one on the chin

TAGS: Broadband

A Republican-controlled House subcommittee has defeated a Net neutrality amendment that would have prevented broadband providers from offering higher-speed services to partners or affiliates. (For a dispassionate definition of "net neutrality," try wikipedia.)

Supporters argued that a net neutrality amendment to a telecom bill was needed to protect Internet users from large broadband providers that want to charge extra to give some Internet services priority over everyone else. But the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee voted 23-8 to pass the bill without the amendment, dismissing net neutrality concerns as vague and overblown.

The amendment had the support of companies such as Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, but was opposed by broadband providers such as AT&T and Comcast, as well as by conservative think tanks.

The fight has been brewing since late last year, and will also see a showdown in the Senate, where net neutrality legislation was introduced last month by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.

Does this spell the beginning of the end for a free Internet and the dawn of an era where users must subscribe to all sites to get acceptable bandwidth?

Or are supporters just so many Chicken Littles protesting the sky is falling? Would customers in fact get a better experience were content providers to pay to make sure their bits move faster, thus giving network providers incentive to build out their networks to accommodate them?

What about the potentially stifling effect on small startups trying to offer services on the Web, or the prospect of premium prices for faster networks slowing SAAS adoption?

Tell us where you stand on this important issue.

Posted by Caroline Craig on April 6, 2006 07:21 AM