« The bleeding edge of barbecues | Main | The $1700 phone »
October 22, 2005
Broadband losers
The Americans, God bless them, think that THEY'RE being ripped off when it comes to broadband Internet. According to Salon magazine, they're being outstripped by practically every civilised nation.
It's all because the Federal Communications Commisions has allowed telecom monopolies to discourage real competition among broadband providers, "giving free rein over the market to the cable and DSL giants".
"The typical download speed of a DSL connection in the U.S. is 1.5 Mbps, while the average cable-modem connection downloads at 3 Mbps," says Salon. "These connections are adequate for streaming low- to standard-quality video, but are far too slow for applications like high-definition video. Furthermore, they pale in comparison to what is being offered in Japan, where consumers can download high-definition movies in less than five minutes."
How do you think they'd react if they lived in a country like Australia, where they had a REAL telecoms monopoly? Where they have typical download speeds that aren't just MUUUCH slower than those of the US, but aren't regarded by international authorities as genuine broadband?
Which is why we laughed hysterically at the Financial Review's story today that claims "a surge in broadband connections over the past six months has helped lift Australia's ranking on a global league table of advanced internet use". We've got 10.09 "broadband" subscribers per 100 inhabitants as of June 30 this year, according to the article. Umm, that's the same level Iceland reached at the end of 2002. And as we said, unlike Iceland's service, it's not real broadband.
The AFR, which apparently hasn't worked out the difference between broadband speeds in overseas countries - even those poor put-upon Americans - and what we're getting here, opines that the increase in connections has "cooled concern over an issue that has dogged the Howard government for years": ie, very poor performance in international broadband figures.
Sorry. It doesn't. And the Financial Review shouldn't be misleading its readers by suggesting otherwise. Personally, we'd like to see Ziggy Switkowski and his fellow booby, Senator Richard Alston, that song and dance act that presided over Telstra and national communications policy for far too long, publicly tarred and feathered. They've done the residents of this country a terrible dis-service, and seriously hampered our commercial prospects.
Posted by cw at October 22, 2005 02:28 PM
Comments
I totally agree, i have switched from telstra phone, foxtel and internet to optus better quality of service and better priced. who needs telsra?
Posted by: tim at October 22, 2005 08:42 PM
.. stoned, bashed, drawn and quartered - seriously - publicly.
Posted by: Stuart at October 22, 2005 10:35 PM
AbsoLUTEly right! I don't care how poor the level of service is in America, at least it IS a broadband service!! I am not paying through my nostril hairs for the privilege of this rubbish 256kb that THEY say is broadband. My 56k modem may be painfully slow, but until they offer something half-decent for the other half of the country NOT living inside the CBD, I aint buying the half-way house rubbish they are offering. GRRR
Posted by: Aragond at October 27, 2005 09:36 PM