And in the United States, the country that invented the Internet? It’s 5.1.

This according to a new study by the Communications Workers of America, which found that broadband speeds in the States are among the slowest of the 29 countries it surveyed. “Between 2007 and 2009, the average download speed in the United States has increased by only 1.6 megabits per second (mbps), from 3.5 mbps in 2007 to 5.1 mbps in 2009,” the CWA explains in its report. “At this rate, it will take the United States 15 years to catch up with current Internet speeds in South Korea, the country with the fastest average Internet connections.”

And no wonder: 18 percent of Internet connections in the States that the CWA surveyed revealed download speeds slower than 768 kilobits per second, which doesn’t even qualify as basic broadband according to the Federal Communications Commission’s definition.

That may soon change, now that the country has adopted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which includes a provision for a national broadband plan by spring of 2010 and grants of $7.2 billion to bring high-speed Internet to the hinterlands. But it will be slow going. It’s a long way from 5.1 mbps to 20.4.

We absolutely will offer MMS on iPhone 3G S in the late summer, once we complete some system upgrades that will ensure our customers have the best experience with MMS. These upgrades are unrelated to our 3G network. … We plan to offer a tethering plan but we don’t have anything to announce today.

– AT&T spokesperson Seth Bloom

Welcome news for folks who love the iPhone, but hate AT&T. The increasing prevalence of exclusivity agreements between wireless carriers and cellphone manufacturers, like the one between Apple (AAPL) and AT&T (T), is drawing some government scrutiny. Four U.S. senators are urging the Federal Communications Commission to review such deals with an eye toward determining whether they unfairly restrict consumer choice and hamper competition. In a letter, the four asked that the Commission specifically consider the following:

• Whether exclusivity agreements are becoming increasingly prevalent between dominant wireless carriers and handset manufacturers

 

• Whether exclusivity agreements are restricting consumer choice with respect to which handsets are available depending on a consumer’s geographic region, particularly for consumers living in rural America

 

• Whether exclusivity agreements place limitations on a consumer’s ability to take full advantage of handset technologies, such as the ability to send multimedia messages or the ability to “tether” a device to a computer for Internet use.

 

• Whether exclusivity agreements are manipulating the competitive marketplace between commercial wireless carriers. Specifically, whether the ability for a dominant carrier to reach an exclusive agreement with a handset manufacturer is inhibiting the ability of smaller, more regional carriers to compete

 

• Whether exclusivity agreements play a role in encouraging or discouraging innovation within the handset marketplace

An interesting list and one that seems to single out AT&T, though it doesn’t mention the carrier by name. Indeed, limiting “a consumer’s ability to take full advantage of handset technologies, such as the ability to send multimedia messages or the ability to ‘tether’ a device to a computer for Internet use” is exactly what AT&T will do later this week when the iPhone 3G S and iPhone OS 3.0 debut without the carrier’s support for their new tethering and MMS capabilities.

And then there’s this: The iPhone 3G S is compatible with high-speed packet access 7.2 technology, which offers theoretical peak download speeds of up to 7.2 Mbps. But AT&T doesn’t plan to begin deploying HSPA 7.2 until later this year and the company doesn’t expect to complete the rollout until 2011.

Finally, the company’s refusal to sell the iPhone in rural areas where it provides only roaming coverage certainly restricts “consumer choice with respect to which handsets are available depending on a consumer’s geographic region, particularly for consumers living in rural America.”

Clearly, if the senators responsible for this letter were looking for a case study for the problems with exclusive carrier-device agreements, they’ve got one ready-made in AT&T.

With U.S. broadband speeds lagging far behind European and Asian countries, Comcast is finally doing its part to bring the country’s lousy broadband Internet services into parity with those of other industrialized nations. You know, like Iceland. Or South Korea.

Comcast (CMCSA) plans to aggressively deploy its next-generation wideband service to 10 million homes by the end of the year, the company said Wednesday. Based on the ultrafast Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS), the service should provide download speeds far in excess of those currently offered by the company. It’s to be offered in two tiers. The fastest, Extreme 50, will provide up to 50 megabits per second downstream and up to 10Mbps of upstream speed. Price: $139.95/month. Ultra will get you up to 22Mbps downstream and up to 5Mbps of upstream for $62.95/month.

And what about the 150Mbps service Comcast CEO Brian Roberts demonstrated at the Cable Show last year? The one fast enough to download the entire “Encyclopedia Britannica” and “Merriam-Webster Visual Dictionary” in less than four minutes? Still a ways off, apparently.

PREVIOUSLY:

• The Median U.S. Broadband Speed? Finland’s Divided by 10

Still, it sounds promising. With downlink speeds in the 2-4Mbps range, Xohm is about twice as fast as current cellular broadband networks. Sprint’s service plans include a $25 monthly home subscription, a $30 “on-the-go” plan and a $10 day-pass program. All three require a PC card or modem and a subscriber agreement permitting Xohm to “use various tools and techniques designed to limit the bandwidth available for certain bandwidth-intensive applications or protocols, such as file sharing.”

So much for that “open network” promise. Well, at least Xohm is up and running, right? Sprint Nextel (S) first announced plans to deploy a nationwide WiMax network in August 2006.

Obviously. But hasn’t Comcast guaranteed those users access to a set service? And if they’re paying for an 8 megabit-per-second connection, shouldn’t they be able to use it whenever and however they please? And shouldn’t that connection always test out at 8Mbps? Or at 12 Mbps when “heavy users” who’ve paid an additional free for Comcast’s PowerBoost upgrade are “downloading large files like videos and games”? After all, that’s what they’re paying upward of $42.95 per month for, isn’t it?

Really, wouldn’t Comcast be better off investing in its network rather than punishing its heaviest users? Wouldn’t it be wiser to accelerate the rollout of that “wideband” network that will reportedly offer speeds of up to 100Mbps over the next two years? Or at the very least, work on consistently providing subscribers with the 6Mbps to 8Mbps it has promised them?