×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Only One US City Makes "Top Ten Internet Cities Worldwide" List

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the clicking-it-twice dept.

The Internet 240

An anonymous reader writes "A new report today has ranked the Top 10 'Internet Cities' around the globe, based on a set of five criteria: connection speed, availability of citywide WiFi, openness to innovation, support of public data, and security/data privacy. One might expect high-tech cities like San Francisco and Tel Aviv to appear on a list of 'Internet Cities,' but they don't. Indeed, no Middle Eastern cities appear here at all, and — due, largely, to the United States' poor Internet speeds — the only US city to make this ranking is Seattle."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

240 comments

American priorities (5, Funny)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 8 months ago | (#44680483)

Okay, that may be so, but can we get list of highest telco/cableco profit cities? I bet USA totally rocks that list.

Re:American priorities (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680549)

Suprised even one made it. THeres a whole lotta places in the world that are so far ahead of the U.S. in many ways...

Re:American priorities (0)

1s44c (552956) | about 8 months ago | (#44680939)

Maybe so but it helps to only consider one thing at a time.

I was amazed that Prague made the list. It's a lovely place to visit but it is the capital of an ex-communist country, and the last I heard the government telephone company still owned all the infrastructure.

It's amusing to see Amsterdam making the list. I've dealt with their ex-state phone company, KPN, and it's always a world of pain to get them to do anything.

Re:American priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680615)

'merica, back to back World War champions!

Re:American priorities (2)

buddyglass (925859) | about 8 months ago | (#44680813)

Well, for one, the U.S. has a higher HDI [undp.org] score than any of the countries whose cities made the Internet Top 10. Then again, I put about as much stock in the U.N. HDI data as I do the Internet Top 10.

Re:American priorities (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 8 months ago | (#44681161)

Because the base level of the USA is so low that growth is necessary/obvious?
Why would a country being decades of the US need/habe a high HDI score?

Re:American priorities (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681527)

Yes, about these World Wars where America claims to be the conquering hero. The first one (1914 - 1918) ended in a stalemate. The well dressed and well fed U.S. arrival in 1917 demoralized the Europeans into realizing it was in everyone's best interest to have an armistice: a situation where the warring parties agree to stop fighting. The hostilities remained, it was just a cessation while attempting to negotiate a permanent peace.

Then the U.S. convinced everyone to agree Germany was at fault, requiring them to pay everyone for damages and create only industrial factories limited to non war like production. With this huge debt hanging over their heads making them feel like suckers for agreeing to the Armistice, the U.S. compounded Germany's weak economic problems by subsequently causing a world wide financial crisis 10 years later when its stock market crashed due to U.S. banks making investments with little or no assets. People in Germany, especially the warring factions of unemployed veterans, that were becoming bitter psychopaths decided the war wasn't over. This time they were going to do it right.

The second one (1939 - 1945) was lost due to bad timing on a gamble that stretched thin the German resources, either sticking with the original plan to invade and conquer the British Isles, ignoring Russia and eliminate a U.S. foothold or go into Russia a couple weeks sooner as originally planned. The U.S arrival in 1944 was enough to keep the Germans from regaining their resources while fighting the Russians. The European scientists working for the U.S. made the Japanese defeat to easy. There is a theory, like the Germans, they wanted to surrender to the Americans to avoid losing to the Russians with or without the use of the two bombs.

Re:American priorities (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 8 months ago | (#44680639)

Actually, the really important metrics are less "how fast and how easily available", but how controlled, censored, and monitored?

I'll take my 30mbps, home-bound-connection-only service without censorship or monitoring (if it existed) over 200mbps or free city-wide-wifi anywhere that content is heavily filtered or monitored any day.

Re:American priorities (0)

number11 (129686) | about 8 months ago | (#44681241)

Actually, the really important metrics are less "how fast and how easily available", but how controlled, censored, and monitored?

Well, the US scores pretty bad on the "control" metric (DMCA, TOS against servers, throttling, etc.). Not too bad on censorship, unless maybe you try to put up a website for some organization on the government's current (and arbitrary) list of enemies. As home of the NSA and its kindred organizations (who sometimes lie in court about where their data came from), probably the most "monitored" of any country, though places like China and Saudi Arabia try pretty hard, too.

And I'd say the "data privacy" is just as important as "controlled, censored, and monitored". The US scores terrible on that metric.

Re:American priorities (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 8 months ago | (#44680711)

If you make the list about profit per user, Canada will be number one, far ahead everyone else including the USA.

Re:American priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681293)

Da, komrade! Capitalist swine.

Seriously? (3, Insightful)

Jethro (14165) | about 8 months ago | (#44680513)

There are close to 200 countries in the world. The US is mentioned one time in a list of Top Ten and somehow that's not enough? Please. There are at least 190 countries that don't even have ONE city mentioned.

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 8 months ago | (#44680533)

Those countries aren't the worlds biggest economy. Those countries didn't pioneer the Internet.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680565)

Those countries aren't the worlds biggest economy. Those countries didn't pioneer the Internet.

Surely Nashville should be on that list.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680709)

Those countries aren't the worlds biggest economy. Those countries didn't pioneer the Internet.

Surely Nashville should be on that list.

Except he grew up in DC.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680947)

Except he grew up in DC.

Now if only everyone else there would just grow up, too...

Re:Seriously? (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 8 months ago | (#44680611)

Be a pretty boring list if the top ten cities were in two countries.

Just cause something started at one place doesn't mean other places can't make it better. ESPECIALLY smaller places. The infrastructure in the US sucks, and we all know it. I don't see why we're at all surprised.

Re:Seriously? (1)

1s44c (552956) | about 8 months ago | (#44681009)

Just cause something started at one place doesn't mean other places can't make it better. ESPECIALLY smaller places. The infrastructure in the US sucks, and we all know it. I don't see why we're at all surprised.

Why does it suck? What's going wrong there?

Re:Seriously? (2)

mcl630 (1839996) | about 8 months ago | (#44681079)

Short answer: lack of competition in service providers

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

similar_name (1164087) | about 8 months ago | (#44681159)

I think that's because infrastructure doesn't lend itself to competition. With competition we might get 4 - 30mbps connections to each home instead of just 1 100 mbps connection. I know it's sacrilege in the U.S. to suggest that some things really should be handled by the government but infrastructure really should be. I don't need competing water mains or roads brought to my house. In the same vein, even an incompetent government can put up infrastructure cheaper than the private industry simply because a truly competitive market would require multiple infrastructures.

Consider, 4 providers, each putting up their own infrastructure. Not only are efforts duplicated, but the users are split. So each provider will only get about 1/4 of the subscribers in an area. Which means costs will be about 4 times higher. Not a very good system at all. Now, because infrastructure naturally monopolizes anyway, we wind up with a private company having a monopoly on infrastructure and we have what we have.

At least that's my humble view.

Re:Seriously? (1)

xevioso (598654) | about 8 months ago | (#44681441)

So you are saying that the government of the US, the same government that authorized the NSA to spy on it's own citizens, should be responsible for setting up our internet infrastructure? Am I reading you correctly?

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681179)

Long answer: Lack of competition in service providers, compounded by the expense of building infrastructure covering all that "flyover" territory where you've got 0.2 people per square mile, if you're lucky.

Europe and Asia are much more densely populated than the US, and your major population belts (east coast, west coast) are separated by 2800 miles of sparsely populated territory. So what costs more: 100,000 miles of fiber? or 10,000 miles of fiber?

Re:Seriously? (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 8 months ago | (#44680745)

Good thing it's not a list of either of those things then. Maybe include them on the next "what do I tell myself to make me feel better about watching the decline and fall of the American empire?" list

Re:Seriously? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 8 months ago | (#44680821)

One could argue omniprovident, and hus omni-interfering and taxing, government is the driver in the US's declin, like Europe's before t, and reduction in same in China's rise.

The kind of omniprovidence built on memes that weight highly things like government-provided Internet, on top of, let's make something up, 92,475 other products and services. Anyone think that is an overestimate?

The more you step on its throat, the more help it needs, so the harder you step, and people flee with their money.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680791)

Africa pioneered humans. How come African cities aren't up there on the list?

Re:Seriously? (3, Interesting)

metrix007 (200091) | about 8 months ago | (#44680911)

The US is no longer the worlds biggest economy. The US hasn't done anything to improve the internet in quiet some time.

Unless you count surveillance and censorship.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Score Whore (32328) | about 8 months ago | (#44681433)

What is your basis for stating that the US is not the world's biggest economy? What divisions constitute an economy in your list? I know on wikipedia, for example, that the only thing bigger than the United States' GDP is the European Union. Comparing the United States to the EU seems a bit apples and oranges. If you are comparing supranational economies, then a more valid comparison would be the EU and the NAFTA countries. Which when combining the GDP of Canada, United States and Mexico, the total is several trillion dollars ahead of the EU.

Re:Seriously? (4, Interesting)

1s44c (552956) | about 8 months ago | (#44680989)

Those countries aren't the worlds biggest economy. Those countries didn't pioneer the Internet.

Those countries don't have the belief that they are better than everyone else. For example Sweden would not be offended by finding out it didn't rate highest in some arbitrary test.

Re:Seriously? (2, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 8 months ago | (#44681449)

Really, when I look at the list, the thing that strikes me is that a good chunk of the cities are from countries that have a small geographic footprint. For instance, to pull their rankings from the list of countries ordered by their geographic area:

Stockholm - Sweden - #57 in terms of countries ranked by geographic area
Tokyo - Japan - #62
Seoul - South Korea - #109
Vienna - Austria - #115
Prague - Czech Republic - #116
Geneva - Switzerland - #133
Amsterdam - Netherlands - #135

In every single one of those, a single backbone line running roughly the length of the country could be within 100km of the majority of the population. Of course, that leaves behind China's Hong Kong and Canada's Montreal, which are in the #3 and #2 largest countries by area (funny note: apparently there's a dispute about whether the US or China is #3, depending on whether you include territorial waters or not). But both China and Canada have the majority of their urban centers along a single line: China's biggest cities are along the Pacific coast (Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Macau), while essentially all of Canada's (with the notable exception of Edmonton) are a short drive from their southern border.

In contrast, the US has urban centers along the Atlantic seaboard (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington D.C.), Pacific seaboard (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle), Great Lakes region (Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee), Gulf Coast (Houston, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Tampa Bay), and then it still has some of its biggest ones scattered throughout the interior (San Antonio, Dallas, St. Louis, Las Vegas, Denver, Phoenix, Indianapolis). As such, the problem of servicing them is significantly more difficult, since there's no simple route that can provide coverage for them. That, in turn, pushes the per capita cost way up, and if the country as a whole has hurdles like that to overcome, it's no surprise that individual cities in the country aren't showing up on the list very much.

If anything, I'm actually surprised that any US cities showed up on the list, given the scale of the problem that the US faces in providing decent Internet.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680553)

yes but most of them don;t do the chest pounding of we r #1 USA USAUSA hurrdurr

Re:Seriously? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680735)

Because they have no justification or any reason to. The USA is the richest, mightiest, most powerful and influential nation in the world. Nobody else comes close.

Re:Seriously? (4, Informative)

1s44c (552956) | about 8 months ago | (#44681059)

Because they have no justification or any reason to. The USA is the richest, mightiest, most powerful and influential nation in the world. Nobody else comes close.

You be Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'

Richest - The US is so deep in debt it can't hope to ever pay it off.
Mightiest - Temporary. That will wane just like it waned for every other empire that has ever existed. Many of those previous empires controlled a far greater amount of the civilized world.
Most powerful - See above.
Influential - The US's world influence is already waning. The US moral high ground is shot to hell. The spying and warmongering have destroyed trust from the US's closest allies.

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 8 months ago | (#44681305)

With a little help from Bush's republican administration and his policies in support of freedom and democracy, such as patriot act and guantanamo bay, the terrorists won. The U.S. has wasted uncountable billions in useless wars, money which could have been spent in infrastructure, education and social programs, and it has lost all credibility as the leader of the free world. For the last 12 years, the U.S. has been busy dismantling its foundations in the name of the war against terror. 12 years not simply wasted, but actively self-destructive, especially on moral authority.
Well, not completely self-destructive. Some corporations and contractors in the business of war and 'security' have been making very happy profits lately, I suppose.

Terrorists are trolls. The U.S. has allowed itself to be trolled to epic proportions. They could never have caused so much damage, cost so many billions, if left to their own devices.

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 8 months ago | (#44681489)

God knows I'm not usually one to cite Jesus, but whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"? After 9/11, the World Trade Center should have been rebuilt and the muslim community in the U.S. should have been embraced and integrated. The message to terrorists and the world should have been; while extremists celebrate fear and death, we celebrate our freedom, pluralism and life.
It's amazingly hypocritical that the religious conservatives in the U.S. are often the first to favor a heavy handed, military approach to resolving conflict.

Re:Seriously? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681357)

Haters gonna hate. It's sad, the inferiority complexes Yuropeans and Canuckleheads have.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680841)

yes but most of them don;t do the chest pounding of we r #1 USA USAUSA hurrdurr

I'm pretty sure no American feels like we deserve to be on that list. The post's main traffic generating mechanism works by exploiting the American's desire for another guilt trip about his country's waning relevance. We've been on the decline for so long that it's practically become a part of our culture to be in decline.

Re:Seriously? (1)

rwa2 (4391) | about 8 months ago | (#44680603)

There are close to 200 countries in the world. The US is mentioned one time in a list of Top Ten and somehow that's not enough? Please. There are at least 190 countries that don't even have ONE city mentioned.

OK, here's another "Top 10 Internet Countries" from earlier this year made just for you:
http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-01-23/top-10-countries-with-the-fastest-internet.html#slide1 [bloomberg.com]

Spoiler: US is not on the list; Israel is.

But I've kinda learned from all the BuzzFeed lists spam not to pay attention to any of these lists.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 8 months ago | (#44680679)

I'm just saying we shouldn't be all surprised by this list.

Funny thing, when I lived in Israel the fastest "internet" you could get was a 33.6k modem, and even that couldn't stay online for more than a couple of hours, and the absolutely BEST ISP had ONE T1 line to the actual internet...

Re:Seriously? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 8 months ago | (#44680719)

Interestingly enough this list reads like a list of the biggest capitols on the planet. That makes the entire list far less interesting. The fact that you can get good internet in Stockholm is not nearly as interesting as how that compares to what you might see up in the fiords.

NO country has more than one city on the list, that includes countries that are elevated above the US in these metrics.

Re:Seriously? (2)

Jethro (14165) | about 8 months ago | (#44680763)

Here's my thing. I live in Minneapolis (more or less) and I can get consistent download speeds of 3 megs per second. Is it the fastest in the world? No. Is it MORE than enough? Yes, it is. So I don't have gigabit fiber to my house. So what? Sure, it'd be nice, and one day it'll get here and be considered slow. I can live with that.

Re:Seriously? (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 8 months ago | (#44680983)

Hmm who has the fastest average bandwidth across the entire country:

US 2013 Broadband average 6.6 x 300M = 181800000000
Israel: 2013 Broadband average 30.9 x 8.5M = 262650000

That's several orders of magnitude less.

Re:Seriously? (3, Informative)

Sique (173459) | about 8 months ago | (#44681181)

You don't exactly know what "average" means? Just a hint: It does not mean "add all values".

Because US love and US hate (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 8 months ago | (#44680777)

There are more than a few people out there who seem to think that there are two positions one can be in: #1 and utter crap, at least when it comes to the US. So if the US isn't #1 in something, then it is utter crap, a third world shithole, a loser, etc.

In come cases it is the overly zealous "We're #1" America lovers who really do think the US is the best EVAR at everything. They just can't handle second best at anything, ever.

In more cases it is people who like to hate on the US, for whatever various reasons, and thus see it as a way to say "See! Look at how bad the US is! It isn't the best! It sucks!"

It is very silly, but you see it on Slashdot plenty given that the site has a large number of users with poor world awareness and a dislike for the US (most of them being US citizens).

The same shit went on when there was a story about China having the #1 super computer on the Top 500 list, for the moment. Somehow the fact that the US has the the #2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 (half the top 10, in other words) didn't seem to matter. The US wasn't #1, so clearly they fail.

Re:Because US love and US hate (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 8 months ago | (#44680969)

That's a much more eloquent way of saying what I was trying to say, yes (:

I think it'd be nice if Americans in general were more OK with NOT being #1, and look at it as an opportunity for improvement.

Re:Because US love and US hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681333)

I'm not a General, but as an American I am okay with not being #1. Hurumph.

Re:Seriously? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 8 months ago | (#44681191)

The US also isn't your typical country. It's far more comparable to the EU as a whole than to any one EU country. We have

5 cities in europe (four of which are in the EU).
2 cities in north america
3 cities in east asia

Having said that i'm always very dubious of this sort of thing. I don't see anything in the article about how the critera were assessed and weighted. Nor any information on what citiees were assesed and didn't make the cut. I don't think this should be regarded as anything more than one reporter's opinion.

not a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680521)

the USA is headed back to the dark ages.

Arrogance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680547)

Why is it news that America isn't the best at something?

Based on what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680605)

I looked at the list and the description for a couple of the cities: as far as I can tell, this report comes from the Department of Pulling Things Out of Your Ass.

I'm in a hotel in Seattle right now... (1)

gbkersey (649921) | about 8 months ago | (#44680613)

And I can tell you the Internet connection here sucks..... :) My 4G hotspot is slow and the hotel's connection is slow... Less than 1/4 of what they advertise... Argh!

I live in Seattle. (2)

khasim (1285) | about 8 months ago | (#44680929)

I'm on Beacon Hill. Our Internet services vary from street to street. It's ludicrous! I'm stuck with a slow provider right now, but a "gigabit" provider is trying to get access one block away.

Why do you think we legalized pot? Your connection might be slow but you cool with it.

Re:I'm in a hotel in Seattle right now... (1)

Cidtek (632990) | about 8 months ago | (#44681193)

And I can tell you the Internet connection here sucks..... :) My 4G hotspot is slow and the hotel's connection is slow... Less than 1/4 of what they advertise...

Argh!

But how's the turndown service?

Nonsense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680617)

Seoul: No. I have several acquaintances there and none of them can connect to my server in Canada. USA residents and Europeans seem to have no problem. It's clearly filtered/censored, so shouldn't be on this list.

Montreal: Again, no. It's just a bit better than the rest of Canada, but is by no means ahead of the crowd on a global scale. Just like everywhere else in Canada, typical home connections are 5.1Mbit up and 1 down. It DOES have more wireless deployment though, both through Wi-Max (I think) modems and free Wi-Fi hot spots.

Re:Nonsense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681213)

But you do have lots of hot french canadian girls to look at in Montreal, so that kinda makes up for the wifi being less than "best in the world."

The US Isn't Trying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680621)

The only group in the US actually trying to improve internet usage is Google. Everyone else is intent to let telcom monopolies get more and more bloated.

weird list (4, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 8 months ago | (#44680641)

Seattle's connectivity is pretty abysmal, unless you live in the tiny areas of downtown Seattle serviced by CondoInternet.net. Other than that, you're lucky if you can get Comcast (trust me, there are FAR worse ISPs than Comcast).

Tacoma WA is the "#1 most wired city" (1)

themushroom (197365) | about 8 months ago | (#44680643)

...which is no longer such an awesome claim to make, especially since now Spokane (2nd largest city nowadays) is bragging about its 100 square block public hotspot.

Oh, the irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680645)

The server belonging to the organization ranking the top Internet Cities has been slashdotted. 503 Service Unavailable

No Middle Eastern city makes the list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680653)

That's a SURPRISE? For a region stuck in the Middle Ages?

Re:No Middle Eastern city makes the list? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 8 months ago | (#44680751)

Between the bling capital of the planet (Dubai) and the ubergeek capital of the planet (Israel), there should have been at least one middle eastern city on that list.

Re:No Middle Eastern city makes the list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681113)

Between the bling capital of the planet (Dubai) and the ubergeek capital of the planet (Israel), there should have been at least one middle eastern city on that list.

The bling in Dubai is for the 0.00001%, and there are less people in all of Israel than there are in quite a few cities - and probably close to half of those are economically-disadvantaged Arabs.

Seattle? Seriously? (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 8 months ago | (#44680681)

I work in Seattle. Here (at UW) our internet is pretty good, as you might expect - but the city as a whole is nothing to write home about. Of course there's a Starbucks on every corner, so perhaps the city scored well based on the availability of that AT&T free wi-fi...

Reading the article, it appears Seattle scored highly based, at least in part, on things they say they plan to do. And I must admit our local guys are very adept at talking a good game. But come on... they just killed the almost stillborn city-wide wifi network! Talking is basically all they're good at!

Re:Seattle? Seriously? (2)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | about 8 months ago | (#44680785)

I work in Seattle. Here (at UW) our internet is pretty good, as you might expect - but the city as a whole is nothing to write home about. Of course there's a Starbucks on every corner, so perhaps the city scored well based on the availability of that AT&T free wi-fi...

I assumed when I saw Seattle as the only U.S. city on the top ten list that the survey was a proxy for Starbucks density.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Seattle? Seriously? (1)

Wamoc (1263324) | about 8 months ago | (#44681203)

Reading the article, it appears Seattle scored highly based, at least in part, on things they say they plan to do.

If Obama saying he is going to do stuff (and not actually doing them) is enough to get him a Nobel prize, then why can't Seattle win this for saying they will improve things?

Is internet an indicator of 'good' ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680689)

Some Cities have more to do than to stay on the Internet all day long.....

I don't get the rating system (1)

hashish (62254) | about 8 months ago | (#44680703)

For example why would LTE be in a criteria for free and fast? Tokyo for example has great mobile coverage and speed, but not a lot of free wifi. Being a tourist having free wifi is better than no access because your phone cannot be used on the network or the cost is prohibitive. Maybe a better breakdown than what is in the article is required, because getting internet access in London is easier than Toyko; although the speed is not as fast.

Re:I don't get the rating system (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 8 months ago | (#44681371)

For example why would LTE be in a criteria for free and fast? Tokyo for example has great mobile coverage and speed, but not a lot of free wifi. Being a tourist having free wifi is better than no access because your phone cannot be used on the network or the cost is prohibitive. Maybe a better breakdown than what is in the article is required, because getting internet access in London is easier than Toyko; although the speed is not as fast.

The ratings are for speeds available to local residents. They were not concerned about accessibility for tourists.

I also noticed the lack of wifi hotspots accessible by non-Japanese in Tokyo regardless of whether they were free or not.

At least you could go to McDonald's or the Apple Store for free wifi.

Montreal? MONTREAL!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680715)

You're kidding, right? We have an oligopoly composed of Bell and Videotron. Most other ISPs just resell bandwidth from the two main monkeys. Choices are poor, speeds are slow, caps are low, prices are high. WiFi? Nothing special, when it works.

A joke of a list (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 8 months ago | (#44680721)

They list Montreal, and their primary reasons are laughable.

They say Montreal does very well in speedtests because of... OVH. Wait, what? That's a dedicated server and cloud services provider, they have nothing at all to do with consumer broadband in Montreal. Maybe this is a positive for businesses, but it has zero bearing on your average Montrealer. The second reason is the Ile Sans Fil people, who install free wifi access points... except their coverage is non-existent. They've got 260 access points. There are at least that many access points in my apartment building alone; 260 access points in a metro area of nearly 4 million people means that you can wander the city and will probably never see an Ile Sans Fil access point. I've seen them on rare occasions, but never successfully connected to one (I've tried).

Including Montreal in a list of "top internet cities" pretty much invalidates your entire list...

There's a lot of that (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 8 months ago | (#44680943)

You find that many places post these amazing Speedtest scores. There was some ISP in Riga (Latvia) that was showing extremely high results... However when you do some more extensive testing it doesn't seem to bear out. So why is that? Well because they run their own Speedtest server and operate their stuff like a big WAN.

It is not so hard to provide a big link internal to your network. It is a lot harder (meaning more expensive) to provide enough backhaul to make it fast to the majority of the world.

I mean I can truthfully say I have a gig here at work. I can do a Speedtest to show it... to the Speedtest server in our datacenter down the hall. Off campus I still see good connection speeds, but nowhere near a gig, as we have only about a gig of bandwidth for the whole campus.

Most US ISPs don't offer big links to customer houses, but they do tend to keep oversubscription manageable so you usually get around your rated bandwidth. What you find is that places that offer off the charts Internet speeds for cheap prices are doing WAN like setups and there isn't the backhaul to support it.

Re:There's a lot of that (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 8 months ago | (#44681321)

Right, except OVH in Montreal is a datacenter. They really do have an obscene amount of bandwidth to the rest of the internet. The problem is that the "list" is counting a datacenter as a broadband ISP. They're not, they're a datacenter.

Plunking an enormous datacenter down next to a city doesn't suddenly make it a futuristic super internet city...

Re:A joke of a list (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681403)

have a look at the smaller isp. velcom, vif, electroniquebox ...

Re:A joke of a list (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 8 months ago | (#44681405)

Uh, yeah... this is a story about internet connectivity and not which cities are the best for people to leech off from free wifi. A lot of people have houses with wired internet service from an ISP that they "PAY" for.

Free, or Just Lazy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680725)

I keep on hearing from folks in San Francisco that the city should have free WiFi so that they can have an internet connection anywhere, rather than have to hunt for hotspots at cafes, etc. The odd thing is that these are the so-called media elites and startup whizkids, yet they apparently haven't heard of MiFi (from Verizon) or smartphones that creat WiFi hotspots. I figure they just want something for free.

Re:Free, or Just Lazy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680961)

Yes, people want something for free. Or at least don't want to pay the 100s of dollars per month that Verizon would charge for the services you list. Lots of people here believe that if everyone pitches in a little bit, we can offer service to everyone everywhere in the city. There's already a plan in the works to offer free WiFi in all city parks.

If we can provide free WiFi for everyone in the city for a couple of dollars per person per month, why would we want to all pay Verizon 50 times that for something similar?

Re:Free, or Just Lazy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681277)

If we can provide free WiFi for everyone in the city for a couple of dollars per person per month, why would we want to all pay Verizon 50 times that for something similar?

So it's not free after all?

Re:Free, or Just Lazy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681279)

Because you wouldn't "all pay" to Verizon, but you're forcing everybody to "all pay" for something they might not ever use, or not value, and something which is of no legitimate "need."

Telling people, "if you want wifi, buy it yourself," would make the lousy hipsters have to stop being "artisanal boba tea baristas," and get a real fucking job.

"B-b-b-b-but wait! My dream has always been to blog about local craft organic goat cheeses while knitting cute jumpsuits for cats to sell on etsy. I can't possibly do that unless the city forces everybody to pay for my wifi, so screw you, my dream trumps your right to dispose of your own income as you see fit. I can't be expected to pay for something I use!"

U.S. has poor internet speeds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680831)

But I can watch TV shows on Hulu while downloading a Linux distro with Bittorrent. Am I missing something?

Re:U.S. has poor internet speeds? (1)

IANAAC (692242) | about 8 months ago | (#44681263)

But I can watch TV shows on Hulu while downloading a Linux distro with Bittorrent. Am I missing something?

I can't. Not even close (unless I limit bittorrent to next to nothing for download speed). It depends on where in the US you're located.

of course.. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#44680839)

Socialist countries heavily subsidize infrastructure at taxpayer expense, but either way, the bills have to be paid. I like my freedom and control over my income, so I don't mind paying going market rates. I realize it's not comparable to $10/mo for gigabit like it might be in stockholm because the other $60 is publically funded.

Tat said, I do believe the infrastructure could be improved, but that other things like rollbacks on data monitoring are more important.

Re:of course.. (1)

Sique (173459) | about 8 months ago | (#44681477)

For some reason I don't believe the $60 figure you are pulling out of your ass. For some reason I rather believe the $10 covering the whole cost. In my country, a telco based in a foreign country offers €10/mo. data plans for their UMTS based internet access. I don't believe this telco is somehow subsidized by my taxes.

Article divided up into 11 segments (2)

bmo (77928) | about 8 months ago | (#44680843)

Really?

>hit print button hoping it gives the whole article
>only first page

tmp;dr

Even Cracked only divides up their "top 10" lists into two pages.

--
BMO

Weekly "Time to blow the broadband lobby" Piece (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44680919)

Just that time of the week again, eh?

Another top 10 list (2)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 8 months ago | (#44680921)

Yet another "top 10" list. Can I get a list of the top 10 top 10 lists? Seriously, I'm tired of articles that amount to "someone's list of top 10 X will shock you!"

Criteria? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#44681027)

I find it interesting that support of public data.and security and data privacy are supposed to be part of the criteria they are never mentioned in the ratings.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681095)

No more than one city from any country made the list. Whether they admit it or not, that was likely intentional when compiling the list.

Seattle makes this list? (1)

ibgumby (2884079) | about 8 months ago | (#44681125)

I work in the Pioneer Square neighborhood (with the dark fiber in the street that I can't get access to) and live in a suburb just north of town. The telco's and cable companies have divided up Seattle's internet access map until it looks like like your viewing a kaleidoscope. It's horrible. That said, I do have a fairly stable 50/10 cable connection at work and a very stable 35/35 fiber connection at home. But those should be a 1g/100m connection at work and a 100m/100m at home for starters. Sure, we have a mayor who pays lip service to connectivity, and we have some fairly robust interconnects here with all of our high tech, manufacturing and universities but lots of other cities have those as well. What we lack is a cohesive plan to provide high speed wired (and I am talking gigabit here) and wireless connectivity to the entire city. We're still all about the public/private partnerships that lack any real impact (tiny pockets of zoom surrounded by slow pockets of doom). If Seattle is the only US city that made this list, then either this report is cracked or more likely, internet access in the USA is indeed in one sad, sad state of affairs.

Re:Seattle makes this list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681253)

If you read the details about why Seattle was added to the list, the city's thriving startup community and the forthcoming Gigabit Seattle project were taken into consideration. Still, it sounds like they added Seattle to the list begrudgingly, more for its near-future potential than its present state. I am hopelessly biased, since I live in Seattle and love the tech culture here, much more than Silicon Valley. If I can get gigabit to the home next year I am going to take advantage of it.

Only One US City Makes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681291)

It's not Kansas City?

The only US city to make this ranking is.... (1)

dohzer (867770) | about 8 months ago | (#44681399)

...listed right at the end of this sentence, and is the final word of the entire article so that you have to wait until the very end before you will know that the very city that was listed on the list is almost about to be written in a few more words and it is Seattle.

Montreal? Yes And No. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44681427)

It may have some great things going forward, but for a small company, things can get messy when falling afoul of "the language police".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...