North America’s broadband rankings continue to take a beating at the expense of countries deploying fiber optic broadband.  While the United States and Canada cope with aging landline technology and an uncompetitive marketplace that tells consumers they don’t need fiber-fast broadband speed, countries like Bulgaria, Lithuania and Estonia are lighting up 50-100Mbps networks that often charge lower prices than North Americans pay for 1-3Mbps DSL.

Ookla, a global leader in broadband testing and web-based network diagnostic applications, reports that the best performing broadband networks for speed, value, and performance are increasingly in Europe and Asia.  While both the United States and Canada used to be among the world leaders in broadband infrastructure, that is no longer true.

Some examples:

• The United States now scores 31st in average download speed, Canada is 33rd;
• In upload speed, America now ranks 37th, Canada a woeful 69th;
• Ookla’s Household Quality Index, which ranks packet loss and general reliability of home connections found Canada scoring 27th place, the United States 38th;
• At a cost per megabit, neither the US or Canada offers very good value.  The USA ranked 29th ($4.95 per megabit), Canada 33rd ($5.85 per megabit);
• Neither country does a great job delivering the speeds and service promised either.  The USA ranked 25th, Canada 32nd.

Ookla found that while speeds are rising in North America, they are not increasing nearly as fast as in other, higher-ranked countries.  Most of the speed gains in North America come from cable or limited fiber-broadband deployments like Verizon FiOS or community-owned fiber to the home networks.  Wireline ADSL service, which represented a larger proportion of home Internet connections in 2008, continues to lose ground to faster options from cable companies, community-owned broadband, and phone company fiber upgrades.  In eastern Europe, the Baltics, Russia and Ukraine, many of the dramatic boosts in broadband speed and quality come as a result of national fiber network upgrade projects.

While speeds in North America are gradually increasing, both the U.S. and Canada are being outpaced by many countries in Europe and Asia.

While providers in the United States and Canada often dismiss fiber as too costly, Ookla found fiber-based networks delivering some of the world’s best values in broadband.

For example, on a cost-per-megabit basis, Bulgaria’s new fiber networks deliver the world’s cheapest Internet service, at an average of just $0.64 per megabit.  The average broadband speeds in the country are now higher than 21/11Mbps.

Elion headquarters in Tallinn. Elion delivers fiber broadband to homes across Estonia.

Contrast that with average speeds in the United States (12.41/2.97Mbps) and Canada (11.95/1.70Mbps).  Other top scoring countries for cost-per-megabit include:

• Romania $0.97 USD
• Lithuania $1.11 USD
• Ukraine $1.17 USD
• Republic of Moldova $1.41 USD
• Latvia $1.80 USD
• Hungary $2.00 USD
• Slovakia $2.04 USD
• Hong Kong $2.26 USD
• Russia $2.51 USD

In terms of download speed, Estonia’s investment in a national fiber network is now paying dividends, with a dramatic increase in national average broadband speeds to 50/28Mbps.  As new cities join Estonia’s fiber network, speeds take a dramatic upswing.  Contrast average speeds in Saue (101.03Mbps), Viimsi (98.98Mbps), Tallinn (69.80Mbps), and Võru (65.58Mbps) with ADSL-rich Pärnu (12.55Mbps), Paide (12.40Mbps), Rapla (8.93Mbps), and Valga (7.71Mbps).

It is much the same story in other fiber-rich countries, where broadband speeds far exceed the averages in the United States and Canada:

Look what happens to Estonia's broadband speed rankings when it switched on its national fiber broadband network.

• Lithuania 31.65 Mbps
• South Korea 31.44 Mbps
• Latvia 25.42 Mbps
• Sweden 24.62 Mbps
• Romania 24.47 Mbps
• Netherlands 24.36 Mbps
• Singapore 22.94 Mbps
• Bulgaria 21.12 Mbps
• Iceland 20.53 Mbps

Despite all of the bad news, the cable industry’s trade publication Multichannel News tried to find victory in the jaws of defeat, noting things could be worse… if they ran traditional phone companies.

Cable operators delivered the fastest average broadband download speeds in 2011 — with major MSOs easily blasting by rival telco and satellite Internet services — according to data from independent testing firm Ookla.

For the full year, the six fastest residential Internet service providers in the U.S. based on average download speed were Comcast, Charter Communications, Cablevision Systems, Time Warner Cable and Insight Communications.

[…] Comcast and Charter delivered average download speeds of 17.19 Megabits per second, followed by Cablevision at 16.40 Mbps, Cox at 15.76 Mbps, TWC at 14.41 Mbps and Insight at 14.22 Mbps.

Verizon Communications fared better than its telco peers with an average download speed of 12.94 Mbps, thanks to FiOS Internet, its fiber-to-the-home service that provides up to 150 Mbps downstream. And overall, Verizon had the highest upstream speeds with an average of 7.41 Mbps. Still, the company’s legacy DSL services dragged down overall speeds.

Behind DSL were woefully slower speeds from the nation’s wireless ISPs (which include 3G broadband from large companies like Verizon Wireless and AT&T), and perennially last place satellite Internet.

Moffett

Despite repeated claims by providers that consumers don’t need fiber-fast broadband speeds, industry analyst Craig Moffett at Sanford Bernstein tells a different story:

“Technology adoption is creating a feedback loop that increasingly favors cable’s physical infrastructure,” Moffett wrote in a research note last month. “As more people are served by higher-speed connections, more and more applications are evolving to take advantage of them. Customers with lower-speed connections are increasingly being forced to upgrade to higher speed connections… or be left behind.”

The conclusion reached by Multichannel News columnist Todd Spangler:

“The relative broadband speeds of cable vs. telco isn’t merely an academic curiosity: Major providers are increasingly touting Internet performance in their marketing as they fight for consumers’ dollars.”

Unfortunately for the cable industry, although DOCSIS 3 upgrades have afforded dramatic increases in broadband download speeds, upload speeds lag behind.  Fiber to the home networks are best positioned to achieve victory in the global broadband race.  That is important not only because it delivers consumer dollars to the best provider in town, but fuels the further development of the digital, knowledge-based economy North America increasingly seeks to lead.

Canadian taxpayers gift Rogers-owned Macleans magazine $1 million annually, just because.

The Tories running the Canadian federal government are on a mission to slash government spending.  In addition to budget cuts, Ottawa is about to start pink-slipping public service workers.  But executives at Rogers Communications, Canada’s gi-normous media conglomerate can rest easy knowing their corporate welfare payments are still safe from the government axe.

At a time when North Americans are abandoning print media in droves, it’s more than a little odd that Rogers is getting a government handout for a whole mess of magazines the company still prints and sells to an increasingly disinterested public.

It turns out the Canada Periodical Fund exists to throw nearly $71 million a year in subsidies to magazines ranging from the endangered to the ubiquitous.  Among the titles getting taxpayer handouts include those even Americans recognize.  Rogers is getting $1.5 million a year in free money just for printing Maclean’s.  They get the same for Chatelaine, Canada’s version of Reader’s Digest, and Canadian Living.

In fact, more than a dozen well-known magazine titles get a cool million plus from the federal government, just for… existing.

Ironically, Canadian Heritage defends the subsidy program as an effort to ensure “Canadians have diverse Canadian print magazines, non-daily newspapers, and digital periodicals.”  Canadian publishing, much like its telecommunications marketplace, is increasingly about as non-diverse as you can get, as a handful of giant corporations consolidate their ownership of most major print publications.  Transcontinental and Rogers together account for half of the top 50 magazines in Canada.  Smaller titles are fading through a combination of increasing postal rates and decreasing interest on the part of an online-0bsessed culture.

The Ottawa Citizen thinks it has all gotten out of hand:

The central problem with this government program is that big magazines don’t need government help and the little ones aren’t worth it. A really generous observer could see public value in Atlantic Horse & Pony, Modern Dog or Hardware Merchandising, but this is Canadian culture writ extremely small.

The magazine program clearly helps prevent a Darwinian reduction in the astounding number of Canadian magazines. Thus we have Big Buck Magazine ($40,521) a quarterly periodical devoted to deer hunting. Subscribers who enjoy pictures of dead animals might also like Western Canadian Game Warden ($18,626), Ontario Monster Whitetails ($8,488) or The Canadian Trapper ($5,303).

Farm publications are soundly supported, including Canadian Ayrshire Review ($12,319), Canadian Cattlemen ($158,952) and Cowsmopolitan Dairy Magazine ($16,504). It includes no sex tips, by the way. The biggest beneficiary is The Western Producer, a weekly farm newspaper that takes in nearly $1.6 million.

Religious publications also do well, including Canadian Mennonite ($152,957), Mennonite Brethren Herald ($85,590), The United Church Observer ($191,592) and Presbyterian Record ($156,373).

Even the satirical magazine Frank collected $57,517 from the taxpayers, surely one of its best pranks.

[…] The taxpayers might not get much value from the Canada Periodical Fund, but the Conservative government is making the most of it. In the Canadian way, the magazine and weekly newspaper grants have been turned into pork. Local MPs announce these silly little grants, using standard language about how the giveaway contributes to the economy and the diversity of Canadian content.

A few thousand dollars could do wonders for most digital versions of small print publications, all without killing trees and wasting energy delivering them to a dwindling number of readers.  But giant-sized conglomerates like Rogers don’t need the handouts.  Not when the company enjoys a revenue largesse from its current holdings.  You cannot promote diversity handing out checks to companies that would like nothing better than to use the money to merge and acquire their way to an increasingly concentrated media marketplace.  Nobody has proved that better than Rogers Communications.

Motorola cable modem

A California federal judge has thrown out most of a class action lawsuit that charged Comcast with marketing broadband service plans without disclosing extra fees for cable modem equipment.

The head plaintiff, Athanassios Diacakis, claimed Comcast sold Triple Play promotions over the phone and in the media without mentioning customers would also have to pay additional fees to lease a cable modem.  Diacakis accused the cable operator of violating California’s tough false-advertising laws by not fully disclosing all fees and surcharges while explaining the promotion.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong disagreed, however, dismissing most of the plaintiffs claims.  The judge didn’t declare Diacakis’ claims untrue, but ruled they were insufficiently documented to proceed to trial.

“The [amended complaint] fails to specify when or where Comcast advertisements were viewed, the content of those advertisements, or which of them in particular Plaintiff relied upon,” Armstrong wrote.

Diacakis is free to submit an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with his class action case.

Comcast charges customers $7 a month to lease cable modem equipment, but invites customers to purchase their own cable modems to avoid rental fees.  Many customers do just that, choosing from several dozen approved models Comcast will provision for broadband customers.  The cost to purchase cable modem equipment ranges from $50-125 on average, depending on the cable modem selected.  It takes less than two years for purchased cable modems to effectively pay for themselves at Comcast’s current rental rate.

McDowell

Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is questioning whether Comcast misled the federal agency when the cable company acquired wireless spectrum it now says it had no intention of ever using.

McDowell was reacting to Comcast chief financial officer Michael Angelakis, who admitted this week his company really never had any interest in competing in the wireless space.

“Were they purchased under false pretenses?” McDowell asked.

Comcast has since sold their acquired spectrum to Verizon Wireless, which in Angelakis’ view makes sense.

“We never really intended to build that spectrum, so therefore it’s a really good use of that spectrum,” Angelakis said.

That admission puts Comcast in a difficult position, because FCC rules mandate that companies acquiring scarce wireless spectrum make a good faith effort to use it.  In McDowell’s view, had Comcast never intended to put the frequencies to use, the FCC probably would have disallowed the acquisition.

Verizon Wireless also plans to pick up unused spectrum originally acquired by Time Warner Cable in a deal that would let both companies cross-promote cable and wireless products and avoid head-on competition.

Both Comcast and Time Warner Cable have warehoused unused spectrum for several years.  Neither company appeared serious about building competing wireless networks, and with the spectrum off the market, would-be competitors couldn’t launch service either.

Verizon agreed to pay $3.6 billion to acquire the cable industry-owned spectrum, which it intends to use to bolster its LTE 4G network.

The FCC is now seeking public input on whether it should approve the spectrum sale. The Justice Department is also considering its antitrust implications.

When Massena, N.Y. town supervisor Joseph D. Gray balked at Time Warner Cable’s demands for a 15-year franchise renewal agreement, especially after the cable company never bothered to show up at a hearing on the subject, he thought he could send a message by supporting a renewal expiring after just one year.

But there was a reason Time Warner never bothered to show up to defend their performance in northern New York State over the last decade of increasing rates and unwanted channels shoveled at subscribers — they did really have to answer to local officials.

Gray assumed playing some hardball with the cable company might get their attention and bring them to the table to discuss the demands of local Massena residents he hears from all the time.  At the top of the list is a-la-carte cable — paying only for channels you want.

No deal.

Gray

Mr. Gray has since admitted in conversations with the Watertown Daily Times he is frustrated by the town’s inability to effect “any real change.”

This despite the state cable franchise law which declares communities have the right to establish and negotiate “cable-related community needs” as part of the final contract with cable operators.

In fact, the cable industry has spent millions lobbying federal and state governments to deregulate their operations, even though most communities are served by just one cable operator.  While phone companies have made limited progress competing in larger urban areas, most of upstate New York is left choosing between a satellite provider or a cable company — usually Time Warner Cable.

That lobbying paid off in the 1990s when the federal government swept away considerable government oversight of cable operations.  While municipalities technically still control the basic franchising process, those dissatisfied with service from an existing provider rarely find other companies willing to take over.  That leaves Massena stuck with Time Warner Cable, who isn’t giving an inch on how they package their programming.

“We can make some gains for the community. Can we get free service for a couple of municipal buildings? Probably,” Mr. Gray told the newspaper. “They continue to say there’s nothing they can do about programming, there’s nothing they can do about bundling.  That’s from the programmer.  Until we get … a la carte, where people get the channels they want, we’re never going to satisfy people.”