Since you refuse to identify yourself, we can’t have a symmetrical bout of speculation about your motives. It’s really best for anonymous commenters to stick to the facts, but it never fails that the Big Smear comes from someone hiding behind a mask.
I think the more intelligent readers can understand this for what it is.
Mod note: Last warning. Stop replying to each other. This bickering is pointless.
Can I have the last word? Bird. Bird is the word.
In most major American markets, the telco either provides a 40+ Mbps (unshared) VDSL alternative to cable or is in the process of upgrading to one. In most of Europe VDSL is the best available form of broadband because only half of Europe is wired for cable. When people like Susan Crawford get misty-eyed about new fiber builds in former Soviet satellites, they fail to mention that these projects take place in nations that have no cable at all (there are exceptions, but this is the general norm.)
Seattle is a mess because it went halfway down to the road to a muni fiber ring before doing the math and realizing it made no financial sense; Tacoma is even more deeply enmeshed in an aging public network,
Across America as a whole, broadband outperforms unbundled foreign alternatives, except for those in urbanized nations that have been able to subsidize fiber to the high rise because it costs a fraction (one fifth or less) of the cost of wiring suburbia.
Don’t be silly, Glenn.
I didn’t realize you were a mod, no problem.
Hasn’t the notion of identity online been rendered /dev/null and void for at least a couple decades?
I suppose it’s possible that you are independent, but it’s remarkable how you invent facts, are generally inaccurate, typically bellicose, and always manage to support precisely the point of view that the lobbyists of telecoms use. That would argue that you are, in fact, carrying their water, but perhaps you are simply convenient to them.
For instance, the following (“40+ Mbps”) is just a bit of dreaming. No sensible independent broadband analyst with all the facts in front of him or her would possibly pretend that that is reasonable.
the telco either provides a 40+ Mbps (unshared) VDSL alternative to cable or is in the process of upgrading to one.
Bah ha ha. The FCC’s own overly optimistic reports and the telcos own public filings would rebut the “provides” and the “in the process” reminds me of Verizon’s legal commitment in the 1990s to provide fiber in Pennsylvania, which they sidestepped between lobbyists and political contributions and threats.
“Speeds up to” [imaginary number]
Seattle is a mess because it went halfway down to the road to a muni fiber ring
It did no such thing. That’s a total misrepresentation.
Tacoma is even more deeply enmeshed in an aging public network,
Possibly, but they pursue the strategy that made sense in the 1990s and buoyed it for 15 years.
broadband outperforms unbundled foreign alternatives, except for those
in urbanized nations that have been able to subsidize fiber to the high
rise because it costs a fraction (one fifth or less) of the cost of
wiring suburbia.
You carry so much water! The OECD and other findings, statistics, etc., bear no representation as usual to your statements.
Don’t be silly, Glenn.
If you ever used rigor with your comments, I would take you seriously.
via philly.com, March 13, 2014.
Verizon customers in New Jersey have paid $15 billion in surcharges in return for the telecommunications giant’s guarantee that it would deliver broadband internet to every resident of the Garden State by 2010.
Now, some critics say that Verizon won’t ever have to deliver on the promise. Four years past the deadline, wide swathes of New Jersey – especially in the southern portion of the state - remain without access to the fastest form of broadband - fiber optic service. One vocal critic says up to 50 percent of the state remains without and that Verizon is actively working to renege on its legal obligations.
Silly Glenn.
Wait, you are totally right.
Mod note: Reminder to keep discussions civil and to avoid personal insults.
I know! I’m so ridiculous with my using actual data and not asserting positions held by corporations as fact that are contradicted by publicly available data.
Do mod’s ever get tired of trying to enforce behavior utterly inconsistent with that which humans immediately default to when they’re 51% sure that their anonymity is intact?
What actual data did you cite? All I’ve seen is dismissals. The National Broadband Map says 10% of the USA can already get DSL at >= 25 Mbps, 80% cable, 23.7% fiber, and 6.35% wireless. They don’t report on a 40Mbps tier, but that’s what VDSL can generally scale to with pair bonding and without vectoring. AT&T says they have VDSL in half their footprint, and they’re targeting 100 markets for FTTH. You can read the numbers right here: http://www.broadbandmap.gov/download/Technology%20by%20Speed.pdf on page 4. That’s what it means to use actual data.
I don’t “invent facts” and if you see me saying the same things that people you don’t like say, maybe that’s simply because facts are facts. It’s not a conspiracy when two people independently speak the truth, is it?
You mumbled something about OECD, but they stopped collecting deployment by technology in 2009, so even the EC policy makers use Point Topic for deployment now.
If you have an actual source (other than your imagination,) by all means share it, but it’s ridiculous to assert that European broadband is anywhere close to the USA in NG coverage and speed.
It is never worth arguing you in any forum, because of your tendentiousness and apparent representation as accurate the most positive results from telecom. This is what I mean about academic rigor.
The PDF you cite includes the statement, “reported access to broadband speeds.” This data is only accepted by industry as useful. It is known to be inaccurate, and only lobbyists for the telecom industry rely on it.
“AT&T says”: AT&T says a lot of things, and people who repeat the positions of telecom firms without assessing whether or not through independent means these statements can verified are not engaged in a critical and complete view.
“I don’t “invent facts””: “In most major American markets, the telco either provides a 40+ Mbps
(unshared) VDSL alternative to cable or is in the process of upgrading to one”: I don’t even have time to unpack this again. Perhaps you believe this, in which case you are once again carrying water for the telecom industry rather than looking at the collected data. The report you cite above is “reported” by the providers, not the on-the-ground data. The “Seattle is a mess” explanation is invented. There is no basis in reality for that statement. I have lived in Seattle for two decades, following the many years of the plan’s evolution and discarding, and it affected broadband firms here not a single bit. It had a sound revenue basis that has since been proven in other markets in which cities deployed fiber to the home.
“it’s ridiculous to assert that European broadband is anywhere close to the USA in NG coverage and speed.”: Again the strawmen. I said OECD, not European. OECD includes Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea in addition to European nations and Israel, and others.
“You mumbled something about OECD, but they stopped collecting deployment by technology in 2009, so even the EC policy makers use Point Topic for deployment now.”: You’re conflating OECD and EC here, and Point Topic conveniently doesn’t make its data available except for purchase. And now we switch from rates of speed (my issue) to “deployment by technology,” which wasn’t up for discussion.
As I noted earlier, when someone’s positions uniformly echo the chirpiest public pronouncements of paid employees of an industry, it is certainly a possibility that that person has formed the same evaluation in spite of evidence to the contrary. However, your lack of evaluation of non-telecom sources and dismissal of any data that doesn’t support your specific argument is hardly convincing to anyone but the executives at firms that pay to have this data distributed.
You fail to cite even as much as a single source of data, but you’re convinced the ones I’ve shown are wrong because they conflict with your intuitions and feelings.
Surely you have at least one database you can reference that supports your views; you’re a journalist for god’s sake, not one of these tragically hip blog readers who just knows the man is keeping him down. The PointTopic deployment data for the EC is published in the EC’s broadband reports, as you should certainly know; no subscription required.
You obviously keep avoiding my question. But, at this point I figure you just don’t want to answer it.
You missed the point of that article. Or, rather, you appear to be purposefully avoiding it.
I have no connection with the Heritage Foundation at all
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I find that a little hard to believe, but I’ll just leave it at that.
The typical Bennett approach has been exhibited here and I’ll let other readers see it.
Guns blazing, no data.
Then assertions, which include the misuse of data and inaccuracy I cited above in detail, along with restating telecom company talking points as if they are fact.
Then presentation of sketchy additional data and an assertion of authoritativeness which doesn’t back up his point.
Changing topics and advancing strawman. (Using EC when OECD was cited; saying OECD doesn’t gather data about a topic that isn’t the topic under discussion.)
Then, ignoring all the detailed rebuttals to his points (across two of my posts), including errors (Seattle), methodology (citing AT&T), etc.
Then, without replying, an assertion of ignorance on the part of anyone who challenges him.
I think we’ve already established that when presented with a reply you just point to other things that aren’t related — again, OECD was under discussion, not EC; the OECD does gather and present data about reported and actual speeds, etc.
I think we’re done, and thank you for allowing me to show your tactics once again in a public form.
It’s impossible to know what goes on inside anyone’s mind, but Richard consistently repeats the tendentious arguments of telecom companies without pointing out the obvious flaws that any network engineer would be able to — the use of “up to,” the failure of certain technologies, the uneven distribution of network capacity, the halt in deployment of fiber to the home by Verizon, the promises made by telecom firms that were broken repeatedly (Verizon), etc.
Anyone who looked at this field with an engineer and analysts eye would find much to critique alongside the praise, and would be using all the data available that show clearly the U.S. does not compare to most of its peers. Instead, Bennett cherrypicks and his arguments fall along the lines of corporate communicators.
“and a desire to elevate the tone of policy debates”: That’s hard to do when you enter every discussion in the manner you do.
Yes, but I’m not paid to be here.
shivers with delight
Ooohh! I’ve never been called “tragically hip” before 
Talk dirty to me some more!
As you well know, I wrote 75 page analysis of broadband in the OECD a year and a half ago that examined all the public data in detail and found that the clams that the US lags the other OECD countries in broadband quality, speed, and price are not supported by the data. So rather than wondering why I’ve reached the conclusions that the data lead to (that would be OECD data, plus data sets compiled by Akamai, SamKnows, ITU, Pew, and several others), I think it’s more interesting to ask why the people who insist the US is falling behind reach the conclusions they reach.
One stark example of the erroneous analysis is “Captive Audience”, the book that claims the US sits in 22nd place in average download speed. It turns out the source of claim is Akamai data from Q4 2009. What’s interesting is the Akamai data is refreshed every quarter, and by the time that book was sent to the publisher, the US had risen to 8th. Now 8th isn’t first place, and it’s unlikely the US will ever have BB as fast as Hong Kong, Korea, and Singapore for fairly obvious reasons. But a nation that moves from 22nd to 8th is clearly not “falling” in the rankings.
The study is called “The Whole Picture: Where America’s Broadband Networks Really Stand” and it was sponsored by ITIF. The easiest part of the analysis to grasp is the statements by Europe’s key broadband policy figures to the effect that the US regulatory model has outperformed theirs.
