My broadband experience in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the US By Esme Vos

My broadband experience in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the US
By Esme Vos
Aug 21 2013
<http://www.muniwireless.com/2013/08/21/broadband-experience-europe-asia-latin-america-the-us/>
This is an article about my experience with broadband service during my travels in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the United States and what I consider to be the important factors (often ignored by commentators) that determine the speed and price of broadband in different countries.
In recent weeks, I have read several articles claiming that broadband service is better in the US than in Europe; others claim it’s the other way around. Some insist that the fastest and cheapest broadband is in Asian cities such as Singapore. The situation in the real world is more complicated than what these articles would have you believe. Even within a country, the speed and price of broadband service differ dramatically.
(1) In my experience, both in Europe and the US, the dividing line between lousy and amazing broadband is urban (dense) versus suburban/rural.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, my broadband experience has been vastly different from that of my friends who reside just outside San Francisco. From 2008-2011 I was living in an apartment building a few blocks from downtown San Francisco. This building was served (and continues to be served) by an ISP called Webpass. It provided me with the best wired broadband service I have every had. It was faster than what I currently have in Paris, which is fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) service (promising 100 Mbps downstream and upstream, but delivering barely 35 Mbps downstream). Webpass San Francisco consistently provided me with speeds of 60 to 70 Mbps downstream and 70 to 80 Mbps upstream for $45 per month (they are now charging $50 per month). You cannot get broadband speeds like this just south of San Francisco in the suburbs for $50 per month. Unfortunately Webpass serves buildings in the urban core; they don’t do suburbs. In a community called Redwood Shores (where Oracle’s headquarters are located and which is halfway between San Francisco and Silicon Valley), the best deal for broadband is Comcast, a cable company, where you can get 25 Mbps downstream/5 Mbps upstream (actual speed) for about $35. The most expensive Comcast package — 105 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream (advertised speeds) — costs over $115. You would think that the areas south of San Francisco where a lot of startups and tech people live, would have broadband service as good and cheap as that in San Francisco, but that’s not the case.
As I’ve observed, population density is an extremely important factor when one is in the business of delivering wired broadband. It’s the difference between being cash-flow positive or going bankrupt. That is why rural areas don’t have many high-speed broadband options and suffer from poor broadband connections, both in Europe and the United States, unless these are subsidised by the local or national government. Of course density alone is not a determining factor but it’s critical. Therefore, to say that broadband service in Europe is better than in the US (or vice-versa) is inaccurate. It depends on where you live.
(2) Another factor that determines the quality of the broadband connection (especially FTTH) seems trivial but is of critical importance: the nature of actual connection from the street into the building and into the apartment.
In Paris, I have a FTTH connection from Orange (France Telecom) that should theoretically give me 100 Mbps symmetrical speed. Shortly after FTTH service was turned on in our building, I was getting only 20-30 Mbps downstream so I called a technician from Orange to come to the apartment to check my connection. Apart from the stress of having to communicate with the technician in French, I was heartbroken to find out that the previous technician who had installed the FTTH box in the apartment (while I was away), had placed it in the kitchen close to the service door that leads to the rear of the building. This is far from the living room and as a result, the FTTH box has to be connected to a wireless repeater and it is from this wireless repeater that I am getting my broadband connection. Had the FTTH box been placed in the living room, my broadband speed would have been much better, according to the technician. Indeed, he moved the wireless repeater next to the door of the kitchen closer to the living room and behold, I started getting 30 to 40 Mbps downstream. But if I close the door, the speed drops down again. The apartment building was built between 1910 and 1930 in theHaussmannien style which means thick walls, kitchens separate from dining and living areas and lots of volume (high ceilings). The thickness of the walls means good sound insulation, but poor wireless transmission. After the technician departed, I inspected the connection from the kitchen to the stairwell and into the street. It looked very 19th century. Details, details. Alas, they all matter when it comes to the quality of your broadband experience.
[snip]

 

The ConnectED scheme: Proposed new $5 per year cellphone tax could be used to bring more U.S. schools online

The ConnectED scheme
Unwilling to ask Congress for extra funds to pay for high-speed Internet connections in schools, President Obama is instead looking to tack yet another charge on cellphones through the Federal Communications Commission.  The new program, called ConnectED, would expand an existing school-wiring effort and cost each cellphone user about $5 a year, said White House officials.
President Obama’s plan to bring high-speed Internet connectivity to 99 percent of America’s school students. The five year scheme was revealed back in June and at the time, there was vague talk about raising taxes on phone bills to help pay for the initiative – except it wasn’t clear whether this was fixed or phones, or when such a tax would be implemented, if at all.
That question has been answered today, and it’s cellphone users who will be paying. White House officials, quoted in the New York Post, say each phone user will end up paying about $5 extra per year on their bill, or around $0.40 each month. It’s unlikely to break the bank, but it’s enough to notice.
The FCC is considering completely reworking the E-Rate. The goal will be to reach President Obama’s goal of providing 100 Mpbs-1 Gbps of bandwidth to schools serving 99 percent of students, and to provide wireless access inside schools. Allocating funding based on enrollment is one proposal, but the FCC is also considering cutting the top discount level, eliminating telephone service from the program, expanding eligibility of fiber leases, etc.
To see a brief list of the changes that the FCC is considering
For those with more time, here is the full Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
It’s worth reading the comments of Commissioners Rosenworcel and Pai at the end of the NPRM, as they lay out very different visions of what the reform should look like. And the FCC really does read the comments. I think comments from school districts are especially powerful. It’s pretty easy to file comments online; here are the FCC’s instructions: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//userManual/ecfsmanual.jsp FYI, E-Rate comments should be filed in Docket 02-6.
Comments were due September 16, 2013.

E-RATE WASTE & FRAUD

The Criminal N.S.A.

By JENNIFER STISA GRANICK and CHRISTOPHER JON SPRIGMAN
June 27, 2013
Jennifer Stisa Granick is the director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. Christopher Jon Sprigman is a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html
THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Lulled, perhaps, by the Obama administration’s claims that these “modest encroachments on privacy” were approved by Congress and by federal judges, public opinion quickly migrated from shock to “meh.”
It didn’t help that Congressional watchdogs — with a few exceptions, like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky — have accepted the White House’s claims of legality. The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, have called the surveillance legal. So have liberal-leaning commentators like Hendrik Hertzberg and David Ignatius.
This view is wrong — and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.
The administration has defended each of the two secret programs. Let’s examine them in turn. <snip>

Internet Archive Sues to Stop Dangerous New Jersey Law

Matt Zimmerman
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
ma***@*ff.org
+1 415 436-9333 x127
Internet Archive Sues to Stop Dangerous New Jersey Law
Putting Online Service Providers at Risk
Hearing Set for 10am Friday in Newark
Newark, NJ – The Internet Archive has filed a new legal
challenge against a New Jersey state law that aims to make
online service providers criminally liable for providing
access to third parties’ materials, conflicting directly
with federal law and threatening the free flow of
information on the Internet. A hearing on the Internet
Archive’s request for a preliminary injunction against the
law is set for 10am Friday at the federal courthouse in
Newark.
This is the second time that the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) is representing the Internet Archive in
order to block enforcement of a law that’s aimed at
combatting online ads for underage sex workers but instead
includes language that could put online libraries and other
service providers at risk. The New Jersey statute is an
almost carbon copy of a law successfully blocked by EFF and
the Internet Archive last year.
“The Internet Archive strongly supports law enforcement
efforts to combat child sex trafficking, but when lawmakers
aren’t careful, they can undermine the companies that
foster the production and exchange of legitimate online
content,” said Digital Librarian Brewster Kahle, founder of
the Internet Archive. “Our mission is to archive the World
Wide Web and other digital materials for researchers,
historians, and the general public. For us and others to
do this work, we need laws whose effects fall only on
lawbreakers so we can concentrate on the preservation of
history.”
The New Jersey law (section 12(b)(1) of the “Human
Trafficking Prevention, Protection, and Treatment Act”)
could impose stiff penalties – up to 20 years in prison and
steep fines – on ISPs, Internet cafes, and libraries that
“indirectly” cause the publication, dissemination, or
display of content that contains even an “implicit” offer
of a commercial sex act if the content includes an image of
a minor. Especially given the vagueness of the standard,
service providers would feel enormous pressure to block
access to broad swaths of otherwise protected material in
order to minimize the risk of such harsh penalties.
The New Jersey law squarely conflicts with both the First
Amendment and federal statute: Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act (CDA 230). The First Amendment
bars vague criminal statutes because of the obvious risk of
sweeping and improper application, as well as the resulting
chilling effect on behalf of people subject to the law.
Moreover, CDA 230 ensures that Internet intermediaries are
protected from liability for what their users do and
establishes clear national Internet policy to avoid a
confusing patchwork of state laws.
“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act requires
states to direct their law enforcement efforts towards
punishing criminals for their actions, not the providers of
the online services that they use,” said EFF Senior Staff
Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “The Internet is the greatest
tool for speech and communications ever invented, and it
can be used for everything from inspirational to criminal
purposes. However, targeting entities like the Internet
Archive and other service providers for users’ bad behavior
is enormously shortsighted and puts at risk the socially
beneficial content that their services facilitate.
Congress got it right: online speech is best protected when
the states leave providers alone.”
“Free speech is threatened when states pass vague and
draconian statutes like this one,” said Frank Corrado,
co-counsel with EFF on behalf of the Internet Archive in
this case. “It’s not enough to identify a serious problem
like sex trafficking. To fight it, especially when speech
is involved, the state has to be careful with its solution.
The state of New Jersey clearly did not do that here.”
Backpage.com, also a plaintiff in last year’s successful
court challenge to Washington’s law, has separately filed
suit asking the court to set aside the New Jersey statute.
For more on the New Jersey case,
Internet Archive v. Hoffman:
For more on the Washington case, Internet Archive v.
McKenna
:
For this release:
About EFF
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading
organization protecting civil liberties in the digital
world. Founded in 1990, we defend free speech online, fight
illegal surveillance, promote the rights of digital
innovators, and work to ensure that the rights and freedoms
we enjoy are enhanced, rather than eroded, as our use of
technology grows. EFF is a member-supported organization.
Find out more at https://www.eff.org.