Monday, August 05, 2013
WSJ points out that American-style competition in telecomm probably gets better results in bandwidth than does "neutrality" regulation in Europe
Take a look at the article in the Wall Street Journal Monday August 5, 2013, p A13 by Ev Ehrlich, “The Myth of America’s Inferior Broadband”, link here.
Ehrlich argues that competition has served American consumers relatively well, compared to some of Europe where service is often only around 20mbps and is regulated (the exception is Finland). America and South Korea are similar in their approach, he writes, offering a choice between DSL, cable, fiber optic and Wireless LTE. The latter typically functions around 20 mbps (as on my iPad when I’m out) in 4G mode, and could stand some improvement if one wants a lot of video (data transmission seems to cost lot more in LTE than cable in my own experience). I’m not sure what my Comcast Xfinity usually runs, around 50 maybe? Amazon Instant play and Netflix instant usually run without any stalls, as do private Vimeo screenings from movie distributors – because somebody paid for the better rate, where as YouTube “free films” do tend to stall more. Not an argument for legal “net neutrality”.
Ken Cuccinelli argues similarly toward the end of his book "The Last Line of Defense" (books blog, Aug. 1).