Europe: breaking the internet, again
So I am just returning from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva -- a fantastic (in the sense of Jules Verne) and depressing (in the sense, would there really be a digital divide if the money spent on this were instead given to the developing world?) event. Some nits follow. Other thoughts later.
My message throughout was the importance of balance in IP. That invited many amazing moments of contact with an amazingly angry group of delegates from the developing world. As the US continues to force extreme IP rules down the throats of developing nations, it seems the developing nations just develop stronger and stronger anger at the US.
Nothing new. Nor is there anything good and new to report about the Internet in Europe. The Europeans have traditionally been committed to deploying the internet in the least convenient and most expensive way possible. Until this year, I had never been in a place that offered broadband access of any sort. Instead, the only access has been dial-up, from insanely expensive phones. At the Frankfurt Airport, for example, to dial a local ISP number, one has to use these phones produced by a company called CCC, which charges something like $2 simply to simply connect a telephone call. But because the phones were built in the 1920s, at least 50% of the time, that initial connection is lost. So $2 and $2 and $2 simply to retrieve your email.
The Frankfurt airport has now "progressed" to have wireless connectivity at least in the Lufthansa lounges. This is provided by Vodafone. Expensive, ok, but the insane "feature" of this system is that to access the network, you must have a cellphone that can receive an SMS. In the logon process, even though all charges are to a credit card, the system must SMS the password to a cellphone. And what if you don't have a cellphone that can receive an SMS in Europe (as is true of 90% of Americans in Europe)? No wireless access.
But most depressing was again WSIS. Here was a conference devoted to the information society. No expense was spared in this extravaganza -- glitzy video presentations through out, bags full of junk, etc. Yet despite the millions spent to bring thousands from across the world, the organizers decided not to provide robust and simple Internet access. There were kiosk computers which were constantly used. But if you tried to connect your computer to the wireless network provided by Swiss telecom, then you experienced the worst of wireless connectivity. First, to connect, you needed to have an access card. Each time I connected, it took me at least 10 minutes to get through the sign-on process. More than 50% of the time, the system didn't work at all -- wildly under deployed, despite the high cost of access cards (after an initial "free 2 hours" which was timed from the first moment you signed on, regardless of how much time you actually used). Then, if you were lucky enough to connect, the network was inevitably pudgy. The experience of everyone was the same: if this is wireless, then what's all the fuss?
Those whose interest it is to demonstrate just how amazing wireless can be need to do more on the business model under which wireless gets deployed. (Even in the US, where Intel is pushing wireless in every public place it can, the experience with the "pay as you go" systems is highly variable. I have an account with T-Mobile, which is expensive but has always been great. But each time I have tried to connect to an AT&T system, the connection has been European -- slow, unreliable, and usually failed.) If these businesses want to convince the world just how amazing wireless is, then they need to make it amazing -- simple, and fast. I don't pay (directly) for the air-conditioning at a conference. Nor do I pay (directly) for the lights, or bathrooms, or TV in my room, or even coffee at the conference. So is it really necessary to build these awful, expensive, and cumbersome pay-as-you-go wireless networks? Charge for coffee, but if you want to sell wireless technology, then give IP for free.
Which is what happened, eventually, by the end of the WSIS conference. Late in the day, Thursday, after I had repeatedly been unable to get onto the Swiss Telecom network, there appeared a new wireless network, named simply "freedom." Freedom was exactly that -- a direct wireless connection, without fees or https: signons, fast and simple, and all that wireless could be.
Finally, at the World Summit on the Information Society, we saw something about what the Information Society could be. But by then, most seemed to have left the conference, bored by just how boring the Internet in Europe seems always and inevitably to be.
Europe: I am an admirer in a million different ways. But please, don't blow the Internet again. Take every bit of advice that your telecom monopolies give you, and just ignore it. Those monopolies stifled growth in ICT in Europe once. Don't let them do it again.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (30)
Classic Europe: keep everything ultra-organised, then break it all with beauracracy...
...did you see the YCDO/Youth Caucus booth? I heard it was quite the set-up, beside the CERN folk
After spending a year in Europe, I can corroborate the screwed-up-ness of their concepts of Internet and telephone access. However, some of it does make some sense. For instance, they use the GSM network, so while you say that any American with a cellphone can't necessarily use it in Europe, someone from any other country in the world can use it in Europe (or any other country in the world). Except America - for which he'd have to purchase an expensive tri-band phone. As for the pricing structure, it's hard for us (as Americans) to get used to the concept of paying for every single call placed. But that's because every number you could possibly want to call has a different tariff associated with it. Yes, it'll probably be a while until they figure out large-scale public-access WiFi, but neither have we. Also, it's typically Swiss that while they are one of the wealtiest nations in Europe, nothing seems to work intuitively. (Except the trains. They run like, *ahem*, clockwork.)
>Also, it’s typically Swiss that while
>they are one of the wealtiest nations
>in Europe, nothing seems to work
>intuitively.
Being Swiss, I'm wondering what you're hinting at. I have to admit that I never used any of Swisscom's wireless access points, so I can't comment on how intuitively they work, but I'm wondering what else you're talking about.
And, by the way, most Americans may not be able to receive SMS messages in Europe, but I don't know one single swiss person who doesn't have a cell phone, and all of them can recieve SMS messages.
"...but I don’t know one single swiss person who doesn’t have a cell phone, and all of them can recieve SMS messages..."
Fair enough, but he is talking about the lounge in an international airport - where you will presumably find lots of non-Swiss, or even Americans!!!
I look forward to the day when all GMS phones are tri-band by default (surely the chip price has got to come down sometime?- or is it a form of market segmentation as in DVDs - I wonder...)
WSIS and other such conferences are more useful for meeting like minded folks and NGOs and something will come out of such discussions and interactions than from WSIS per se.The Rio conference in 1992 was a catalyst for the nothern and southern NGOs to network better and build alliances. Apart from IP issues many scholars working in global communications and culture issues have pointed out the need to democratise communication and provide access to technologies (e.g community radios) to communities. see www.wacc.org.uk for articles/links .I think one has to combine IP issues with such perspectives.I would suggest The Information Society A Skeptical view by Christopher May, the title may be wrong but i know the author's name for sure. I know that some of his conclusions are controversial
still it is worth reading
Nice effort with engrish, Fons.
"force you into illegality to get access"?
Services like tollfreeisp and bamnet will be glad to provide nationwide access for you.
Beckman / LKM Could it be that an american intuition is different from a european one?
Re original posting: Someone telling it like it is... though the word curmudgeon does come to mind :-)
Two small suggestions and a comment for the xenofobic writer: 1) get youself a real GSM telephone with GPRS capability and you'll be able to connect from anywhere, even in the 3:rd world of cellular coverage, i.e. the USA!
2) Ask T-Mobile to start doing roaming agreements with the European WiFi operators so you can use your account during your international trips
Comm: Please read your own piece once again and start asking yourself why young people around the world are starting to hate you guys - you are so pathetically self-confindent in your belief that you come from the promised land - while the reality is another. In terms of telecoms, and for that sake Internet public access, you are noway better than any other place. Check the real figures and don't give us your nationalistic market bullshit. Do your homework before starting to talk. PS. Problably the network in Switzerland is using US made equipment... a reason for the poor performance? DS
The WSIS conference produced 2 documents: a Declaration of Principles and an Action Plan. Both are rather uninspiring, and full of bland, worthy, and unobjectionable statements. Incidently, they are in Word format, so when they say everyone should have access to information, do they just mean everyone who can afford a Microsoft license?
So I decided to write my own action plan, which says the 4 important aspects of an internet infrastructure are hardware, software, connectivity and content, and that developing countries should use cheap hardware, open source software, wireless connectivity, and enable users to create content.
dear professor lessig the mice are sorry that you had such a poor experience in europe. it reminds the mice of most of our visits to america. why americans cannot adopt the 220V standard used by most of the world remains a frustration.
but it is even a greater frustration why americans insist on building their own patchwork of home-grown cellular systems and haven't adopted GSM on a wider scale. cellular coverage on the whole of svalbard island is better than it is in many parts of america. american reliance on WiFi as replacement for a properly designed wireless communications system is telling. (and a little bit amusing.)
your experience illustrates something fascinating: the difference in perception and experience between americans and europeans when it comes to communications.
europeans have had seamless cellular coverage throughout most of the continent for more than a decade. today nearly everyone in europe has a GSM subscription. penetration rates in the mices' part of the world approach 80% of the population. to say GSM is ubiqutous would be an understatement. it is a necessity of life.
you are astonished that passwords are sent via SMS, the mice are astonished that your phone doesn't receive SMS, or that you would even consider this unusual.
are things that bad in california?
you had trouble with WiFi connections in Geneva? the mice use WiFi in our home, on the street and at the airport we use GPRS and, increasingly available, the new 3G technology WCDMA. at 2 mbs the WCMDA link is as fast as our cable modem. GPRS is not only available at frankfurt airport, but at airports in over 100 countries....
yes, it is expensive, but europeans are not californians and they do not demand that everything be free. europeans are quite used to the concept that public services cost money and have to be paid for.
as a result of this fundamental difference in attitude, the communications network throughtout europe is far more advanced of that of the united states and canada. only south korea has a more advanced telecommunications system than tiny sweden has.
you just have to know how to use it and be willing to pay for it.
as a side note, the mice cannot help point out that contrary to the claims of the TCP/IP folks, GSM is the most successful invention ever. developed more or less concomitantly with TCP/IP, GSM experienced consistently faster growth than TCP/IP. today there are more GSM subscribers than TCP/IP users. in finland there are more GSM subscriptions than fixed lines.
no other consumer product has ever achieved this rate of growth. the PC does not even come close.
the GSM system is the greatest innovation ever, it has revolutionised the way people live their lives.... this patent encumbered, closed source, proprietary technology.
(think about that the next time some open source advocate says that "open source" is the only way the "internet" could have been created. there is more than one way to build a communications network!)
europeans have come to rely on the mobile communications network in ways most americans have yet to imagine.
when it comes to communications, it is american, and not european, leadership which has failed to deliver the goods.
just another point of view.
A quick note to the blind mice -
'consumer' is not the same as significant. TCP/IP is essentially used to harness previously isolated systems. The possibilities of connecting systems which began with the advent of TCP/IP remain so profound that the contours are not knowable at this point. Creating another communication network for people to use, regardless of its growth, remains a fairly well understood process.
I'm sorry this has spun so quickly into a Europe vs. America debate. That's the problem with posting with the flu. I don't think this is about the character of "Europeans" (a term that is clumsy itself). It is about the character of monopolies. As I said at the end, in my view, the problem Europe has always had is tied to following the "advice" of its monopolies. Just like the problems America has always had is following the advice of its monopolies. My plea was for them to release themselves from the control of their monopolies, not to release themselves from being European. As the husband of a German, that's the last thing I would want.
The story re cellular is more complicated than the gsm-ophiles make it sound, though I'll concede the static case -- ie, now it is much better. But again, that is beside the point. Access to the internet in Europe (but not Japan as I've posted over and over again) has always been worse than in America, and remains such. Why?
TCP/IP is essentially used to harness previously isolated systems. The possibilities of connecting systems which began with the advent of TCP/IP remain so profound that the contours are not knowable at this point.
it is an oft-repeated error that "connecting systems" began with TCP/IP when it actually began with signaling system seven. it was ss7 (built on top of the proprietary ss6) which enabled national phone networks to become interconnected.
the mice believe it is something of a mistake to hold TCP/IP in awe or to ascribe to it profundities or contours which are unknowable. it's just another communications protocol.
mr. lessig, it is perhaps an uncomfortable truth that the european "monopolies" created a far better communications system than that which the pro-competitive american policy produced.
it's ironic actually. in the 1980's the US had a nationwide analog cellular system (AMPS) while europeans lived with 4 or 5 different analog standards. but, by listening to the old monopolies, the situation was completely reversed by the 1990's.
in 1985 motorola was the world's leader in mobile phones, today they are hard pressed to remain in the top 10 and america is well-known as a backwater of cellular communications.
GSM - and the success of private firms like Nokia and Ericsson - is a direct consequence of the old european communications paradigm. counter-intuitive, but true.
one cannot deny the success of a system used by over 600 million subscribers in more than 190 countries.
this is not to argue that monopolies are always preferred, but to argue that they are always the problem is to ignore the facts.
Actually Europeans agree that the telecom monopolies have to go in order to catch up with the US.
For that reason, all monopolies in the sector were abolished in all EU Member States in 1998, leading to more competition, better service and lower prices everywhere. Even Switzerland, which is not an EU Member State, liberalized at the same date as the rest of Europe.
So the fact that the organizers of that conference failed to provide decent network access is deplorable. But it is not caused by monopolies in the sector.
Actually Europeans agree that the telecom monopolies have to go in order to catch up with the US.
actually, dr. lenz, the mice believe that the decision by the EU had less to do with "catching up with the US" than with promoting internal trade within the community. by 1998, the average european had greater access to communications technology, at a lower price, than the average american has today.
(apparently, for people living in hotels this may not be the case, but this is a minority of the overall population.)
we do concede that since privitisation service, price, and coverage has become even better, but it does not follow that privitisation would have gotten us here to begin with, or would have played any beneficial role in the journey prior to 1998.
that the old, monopolistic, european telecommunications paradigm created the most important and successful innovation in telecommunications history is a fact which seems too easily dismissed by pro-competitive observers.
this is not to argue that state owned, or state-sanctioned, monopolies are always preferrable, but in some instances they produce a better result than more competitive alternatives.
Professor Lessig,
please spare us your attitude. A well educated person like you know well that Europe is slightly larger than an airport you visited, and that it consists of several sovereign states.
All countries in the western hemisphere did have state controlled telephone companies once. Their time has passed and most, if not all,
countries have replaced that model with a competition between several
telephone companies.
Wi-fi coverage is still lacking a business model, and you won't find free wi-fi (yet) in all hotels and conference centers neither in the US nor any European country. For-pay wi-fi is available on most of those places but is too expensive for my taste (which it is in the US as well).
Broadband coverage in Europe varies very much depending on which country you are visiting. Here in Sweden most of the rural areas is covered with ~10Mbit for a fixed fee of somewhere around $20-$40.
That is enough to make most Americans jealous but you won't see me with my nose in the air questioning American datacom policitcs.
Cogito ergo sum
Purchasing a tri-mode phone may not be an option for the budget jet set. I was just pointing to two services that provide a convenient solution to a common problem.
Also, I am not a xenophobe, I merely got sick when I read the post name-checking two prestigious B-schools and then proceeded to bitch about the unavailability of coffee as if it had anything to do with internet access.
Anyone want to discuss IP for a change?
I believe the point about TCP/IP is in the connecting of systems - true, making a distinction between 'voice' and 'data' at this point seems almost oxymoronic, but such 'predictable' things as Project Gutenberg are not conceivable within a pure telecomunnications framework - a telephone network talking to itself is not exactly revolutionary, but a network which itself grows in capacity/capability as its user base expands is not exactly a feature of previous telecommunication systems. Project Gutenberg offers the possibility of a universal library, both digital and physical. Such replacing of the law of scarcity is an example of 'unknowable contours' which the connecting of computng systems provides. (The sound of breaking business models is merely one of the more obvious symptoms of this - whether entertainment, software, or 'classic' telecommunications based on per unit billing.) Admittedly, TCP/IP as a communications protocol is not that groundbreaking - the possibilities which it offers are.
loving Germans as I do, I can't help but like the german version of mice. nice.
But Jonas, you are quite right. It is wrong for me to include Sweden. My mistake. Indeed, as I suggested, it's odd to talk about "Europe" at all when discussing policy, since there is such important policy difference between countries. But one place where there wasn't disagreement -- there and everywhere -- was telecom monopolies.
Professor Lenz suggests that problem is gone because the telecom monopolies were ended by EU regulation. But Canis points to the distinction that is still as sharp in the US as anywhere: between net-heads and bell-heads. My criticisms are of bell-heads, here and always. Indeed, if you read my stuff generally, usually more critical of US bell-heads than any.
Forigive me that I must do this here, but M. Decartes (Cogito ergo sum) has left no e-mail address so that I may respond privately. I don't know whom he thinks xenofobic [sic], but Jack Dalton is entirely correct that Europeans and Americans have different intuitions about the way things should work. That is not to say that one intuition is better than the other (though that statement is the prime fallacy of cultural relativism), but after having interacted significantly (as a young person) with both cultures and systems, there are things I feel work better in Europe, and things that work better in the U.S. For instance, 800-numbers in Europe are not free. One pays a per-minute charge for them. At first, I was appalled, but then quickly realized that there are no hold times and that service is much, much better. Many of my friends in Europe, after hearing explanation of how things that frusturated me in Europe work in the States, did agree that it seems to work better in the States. This was primarily in the realm of telecommunications and internet - I don't think much else works better in the States.
Cogito ergo sum and "die Mäusle" (the mice) are correct, though, that we should attempt to set our ethnocentrisms aside (though they do not). There are reasons as to why things work differently here in America. One big one is that things like the electric and telecommunications infrastructure was developed and implemented first in America, then in the rest of the world. It is a fact of life that when something is done a second time, it is usually done better. Perhaps 220V and GSM and everything is better, but once an infrastructure is in place (as it was in America), it is awfully hard to change. The internet, through the fluiditiy offered by concepts like TCP/IP can change quickly, and often, as it does. Perhaps Europe is subconsciously waiting for us to figure the whole internet thing out, or more likely, they're trying to figure it out for themselves: what it means to them, and how they use and access it.
p.s.: I did own a tri-band GSM/GPRS phone which I used to access the internet all over the world. I do this primarily through T-Mobil (Germany), because they happen to own wireless providers in many, many countries. I only came back to the U.S. because I had to.
How is it that a worldwide summit can't set up simple wireless access while almost every university in the US has universal wireless Internet access at least in its libraries?
I hate European "wireless" too. I come from Finland and bought my first access point while living in California in the early 2001. In the US, wireless simply rocks. Find any Starbucks and you have T-Mobile which has worked 100% time for me. Walk around a bit and there is a good change you find free wireless somewhere.
When I returned to Europe at around the end of 2001, I was amazed. Everyone should have known by that time that wi-fi is nobody's business. Still, in most places, there either was no wireless or it was closed, secret, 'for business users only'. They told me I should try GSM data (an expensive dial-up joke) or GPRS (another stupid dial-up joke).
You think this should have changed by the end of 2003? Not a chance.
Ok, we now have a few cafes in Helsinki with wireless. But when I first tried to use them I had to first contact a salesperson of the biggest telco just to find out that in order to simply access the Internet in that cafe 'my company' should sign some four figure monthly subscribtion plan for all my employees. I was told there is no consumer markets around. Huh?
Just a few weeks ago I tried Vodafone's SMS authorized system at Paris airport. (They advertise it for example in the Economist and apparently think it will be big business someday. It isn't a real consumer system either since the access points are in the lounges.) Because I'm an European, I have a GSM phone with SMS and I was able to try it. Unfortunately, my SMS never returned the username and password. Ok, I go on and call Vodafone support. Someone answers friendly, seems to understand the system won't work and spells me a new one-time username and password - for free (this kind of service you may not find in the US where such support guys would typically give you 'Sir, I have no authorization to do that' etc crap) Anyway, Vodafone's wireless didn't that way either. He namely spelled me in bad english some 12 character random combinations consisting of letters and numbers for both the username and password. He repeatd them a few times but no access for me. Or then they were correct but the whole system just sucked. Oh well, fortunately my flight was about to leave anyway...
The requirement to have a phone capable of receiving an SMS in the Lufthansa lounge seems far more reasonable than the requirement to have a credit card with a US billing address, which has prevented me from using any of the (apparently) plentiful WiFi service available in US departure lounges. International terminals, indeed.
In my experience, as someone who lives in neither Europe or the US (but who travels frequently to both) the Internet is far more accessible to the random ad-hoc traveller in the former than the latter. Flu-encumbered and generated in the rain-shadow of e-mail deprivation your rantings might be, but it's entirely unreasonable to point at poorly-provisioned WiFi access at a single conference and draw conclusions about a whole continent. There have been plenty of NANOG and IETF meetings in the US over the past few years that should indicate that there is no Internet skills base in the US at all, if that logic is to be followed.
(side-comment to those who persist in describing tri-band GSM phones as expensive: this might have been true five years ago, but it's surely not now.)
I am not surprised to hear about your Swisscom Wi-Fi experience. I was speaking at a Wi-Fi conference in Munich last September and several conference attendees told me that they had wasted 29.95 EUR for the day to have access to the Swisscom Eurospot in the hotel where the conference was taking place. They all had problems connecting to the network and most got kicked off after less than five minutes. This is at a Wi-Fi conference!
As for your comments concerning Internet access in Europe, it is true that access has been much more expensive, historically, than in the US because of the dial-up costs (operators here charge you by the minute). However, with broadband being rolled out in a lot of places and a much more competitive telecoms market, prices for broadband access are coming down VERY fast. I've been living in the Netherlands for nine years now and I can tell you that things are not as grim as they were when I first got here. As for your mobile phone problems, maybe you should splurge on a Treo 600 for Christmas.
While I cannot comment on cost, I find your comments here to be in disagreement with your Wired article "Fiber to the People" Why should there be so many competing standards? Why doesn't the government sanction a non-profit to build a nationwide wireless network, then wholesale it to direct to consumer providers?
For that matter why should the same company that runs the local telephone service be able to sell me the service? The network is owned by the people. Yes, yes, SBC, Verizon, Qwest and Bellsouth hold the deeds to the network, but it has been built with government assistance (think easements) and a regulated monopoly.
I've always found it odd that the ILEC's have to sell their service to their competitors the CLEC's. Why not explicitly separate the network management (to a non profit) and the customer service, instead of this fluggy system that everyone complains about?
If we're going to call communications services a commodity we should treat it like one. The water gets in the pipe the same way, but once it gets to my house I can do many different things with it. It should be the same with telecom, we should have pipe providers and shower head providers, but not one company that sells your water and the shower head that goes with it.
But I agree with you, not getting wireless service when its expected sucks, and so does the flu.
I was in Geneva this September and tried to use the Swiss Com network. Only one person in my hotel even knew what I was talking about and he only had 24-hour cards. I wanted the two-hour card (and that was because I misunderstood what the two hours meant). I was informed that I could get the cards from a Swiss Com office but they were not open when I got out of my meetings. I did get to one on a Saturday and bought some cards.
I had no problem using them but was stunned to learn that the clock started counting when you logged on and would not stop until it expired two (or 24) hours later. The system has a log out command but the clock still keeps running! In the US I use T-mobile where one's purchased minutes are being decremented only when logged on. There one can log on to pull email, log off, read and queue up responses, and then log back on to transmit.
In contrast to the Swiss Com service, the ITU meeting facility in Geneva has ethernet ports at each seat as well as Wi-Fi throughout the facility. ITU is the standards organization of the telecoms. How is it they did such a great job of providing service and Swiss Com did not? The problem seems to occur when one has to collect money. But Europe has had workable calling cards for a long time so the Swiss Com pricing model is even more strange. I did note that the log in screen allows one to enter one's Swiss Com telephone number to get service. Not having a Swiss Com number I couldn't try that varient. However it appears that one is only charged for the time logged in. It may be that the cards were an afterthought, albeit not a good thought
well, i hate to be xenophobic, but i think we've got the best wireless situation right here in NYC, http://nycwireless.net--not a govt or private business model, just a bunch of geeks who like to build access points and provide a free public service just because...it's nice to go to starbucks or a private wifi point in the airport, but it doesn't compare to going to Washington Square Park and logging in with the sun shining on your face...
my.02,
-david
One should never quote a URL from memory. The URL for MCI, the "logistical" organizer of ICT4D at WSIS, is actually www.mci-group.com, and not www.mci.com, as I wrote above. Sorry.
I recently setup wireless networking at two hotels in Canada used for a week-long scientific conference with around 750 attendees, most of whom were toting laptops and relatively heavy network users (e.g. CS grad students) - our average usage was around 5Mb/s but we had sustained periods pushing 12Mb/s (our uplink speed).
We haven't finished working out the full numbers but it was well under $5/person - less than the cost of providing coffee! We built it into the registration costs and could thus provide a simple open network and all but a few people were able to open their laptops and immediately start working.
This was fantastically popular; switching to a payment system would have destroyed most of that goodwill in the inevitable deluge of problems with compatibility and billing (with more than a small group it's inevitable that someone's bank will refuse a credit card transaction and either refuse to explain why or actually lie about it) and there'd almost certainly be complaints about pricing. Since our costs are so low we'd be either be grossly overcharging (=complaints) or making very small charges so the transaction fees and overhead would eat up most profits - just as if you were to try charging customers for air conditioning or electricity.
i fount this thread looking for where to use cheap, public internet service in europe, because i found that it was too expensive. i have read the hole thread and appart of laughing of the American-European fight, i found no actual response to my problem, and it is not a complain, i know this thread was not made for answering my questions, but i would like to make a comment.
I live in mexico, my country is supposed to be a 3rd wold, old crappy place, but i can found not further than 2 blocks away from my home or any other place (even the worst and poorest places) a place to use internet for $1 USD per hour, thats the price you have to pay for 10 minutes in any place in europe, without noticing that the connection speed is slower so are the PC's (in europe).
i dont know, maybe ther is a sophisticated network service, but if thats the case you should tell us (foreginers) how to use it and whare is the best place to do it.
i want to make clear that i'm not complaning but looking for advice for somthing that, for me seems to be a problem.