International Broadband Compaisons

766 views
719 views

Published on

Scott Wallsten from the Technology Policy Institute talks about international broaband comparisons a presentation to the Minnesota Broadband Task Force, December 2008

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
766
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
19
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
52
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

International Broadband Compaisons

  1. 1. Understanding International Broadband Comparisons December 19, 2008 Scott Wallsten [email_address] www.techpolicyinstitute.org www.wallsten.net
  2. 3. <ul><li>Per capita rankings of wired connections not meaningful: </li></ul><ul><li>Wired connections are one to a household. </li></ul><ul><li>Correct normalization is connections per household, not per capita. </li></ul><ul><li>OECD rankings, in particular, problematic also because: </li></ul><ul><li>Cannot measure business lines consistently across countries or over time. </li></ul>
  3. 4. Sources: European Community (2008); US Census (2007), Pew Internet & American Life Foundation (2008); National Internet Development Agency of Korea (2008); Impress/R&D Internet Media Research Institute (2007). See footnote 8 in Wallsten (2008). April 2008
  4. 5. OECD (and FCC) can’t count business connections
  5. 6. Total
  6. 7. Total Residential
  7. 8. Total Residential Business (implied)
  8. 9. U.S. Census: 81 million people have Internet at work Nielsen: 95% of workers with Internet access have broadband 77 million U.S. workers have broadband at work OECD/FCC miss about 72 million connections
  9. 10. 66 million connections (OECD) 72 million workplace 138 million U.S. wired broadband connections
  10. 11. Share of counted connections that are residential
  11. 12. Why is the U.S. OECD rank falling?
  12. 13. Household size. Countries with larger households will have fewer connections per capita.
  13. 14. Hermitopia population: 20 Grüphaus Republic population: 20
  14. 15. Hermitopia population: 20 Grüphaus Republic population: 20 2001 Internet
  15. 16. Hermitopia population: 20 Grüphaus Republic population: 20 2008 Internet
  16. 17. Korea Sweden Canada Denmark Belgium Netherlands Austria United States Iceland Japan Korea Sweden Canada Denmark Belgium Netherlands Austria United States Iceland Japan
  17. 18. When every household in every country has broadband, U.S. per capita rank will be very low
  18. 19. Sources: European Community (2008); US Census (2007), Pew Internet & American Life Foundation (2008); National Internet Development Agency of Korea (2008); Impress/R&D Internet Media Research Institute (2007). See footnote 8 in Wallsten (2008). April 2008
  19. 20. What about wireless broadband? (for one thing, per capita counts are OK!)
  20. 21. Source: FCC (2008) cable dsl mobile fiber satellite & fixed
  21. 22. Source: Nielsen Company (2008). Note: Lots of countries (like Japan) not included this survey!
  22. 23. <ul><li>Key empirical unknowns about wireless/mobile broadband </li></ul><ul><li>Elasticity of substitution between wired and wireless. </li></ul><ul><li>Actual speeds. </li></ul><ul><li>Latency. </li></ul>
  23. 24. Unique IP Addresses Per Capita Advantages of this metric : Includes all devices connected to the Internet—wired, wireless, household, business, etc. Disadvantage : Does the nature of IP addressing inflate U.S. numbers? Source: Akamai, State of the Internet , Q3 2008.
  24. 25. Source: Akamai, State of the Internet , Q3 2008. Unique “High Broadband” IP Addresses Per Capita “ High broadband” – connections with connections with at least 5 Mbps.
  25. 26. Speeds consider actual, not advertised
  26. 27. Source: Speedtest.net. Note: Korea measurement probably too low because Speedtest.net does not have a server there.
  27. 28. Source: Akamai, The State of the Internet, Q3 2008. Speeds Observed by Akamai, Q3 2008
  28. 29. U.S. Data
  29. 30. Source: FCC (2008).
  30. 31. Source: U.S. Census, Current Population Survey 2007.
  31. 32. Ten fastest states as measured by Akamai Source: Akamai, State of the Internet , Q3 2008.
  32. 33. Ten fastest states (download) as measured by Speedtest.net
  33. 34. Ten fastest states (download) as measured by Speedtest.net and their speeds measured by CWA (speedmatters)
  34. 35. Biggest speed improvements, Q2-Q3 2008 Source: Akamai, State of the Internet , Q3 2008.
  35. 36. Source: U.S. Census (2007).
  36. 37. Conclusions: A National Broadband Policy <ul><li>IMPROVE DATA </li></ul><ul><li>Require the U.S. Census to continue gathering data as part of CPS. </li></ul><ul><li>Gather better data on business broadband (BEA?). </li></ul><ul><li>Mapping? If you really want to. </li></ul><ul><li>2. GOT BROADBAND PLANS? </li></ul><ul><li>Require cost-benefit analysis of any proposal. </li></ul><ul><li>Study existing programs. </li></ul><ul><li>0. NO CRISIS! </li></ul><ul><li>We can take the time to make good policy. </li></ul>The Boring Recommendations
  37. 38. Conclusions: A National Broadband Policy Inconvenient recommendations <ul><li>2. IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE BROADBAND ADOPTION </li></ul><ul><li>Focus more on low-income people than on rural areas. </li></ul><ul><li>1. REMOVE ENTRY BARRIERS </li></ul><ul><li>Make more spectrum available. </li></ul><ul><li>Streamline rights-of-way. </li></ul><ul><li>3. IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE BROADBAND INVESTMENT </li></ul><ul><li>DO NOT subsidize all new investment. </li></ul><ul><li>Consider innovative approaches, such as West Virginia’s “reverse auction.” </li></ul>
  38. 39. Conclusion Relax. We’re OK.

×