Every development and progress in the tech world is definitely coming from the East. The West is losing out; America is losing out. They are losing out in internet speed and afordability too. New York Times article below compares the speed and affordability in some cities in the US and some cities in Asia;
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upshot/why-the-us-has-fallen-behind-in-internet-speed-and-affordability.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0&referrer=

America’s slow and expensive Internet is more than
just an annoyance for people trying to watch “Happy
Gilmore” on Netflix. Largely a consequence of
monopoly providers, the sluggish service could have
long-term economic consequences for American
competitiveness.
Downloading a high-definition movie takes about
seven seconds in Seoul, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Zurich,
Bucharest and Paris, and people pay as little as $30 a
month for that connection. In Los Angeles, New York
and Washington, downloading the same movie takes
1.4 minutes for people with the fastest Internet
available, and they pay $300 a month for the
privilege, according to The Cost of Connectivity, a
report published Thursday by the New America
Foundation’s Open Technology Institute.
The report compares Internet access in big American
cities with access in Europe and Asia. Some
surprising smaller American cities — Chattanooga,
Tenn.; Kansas City (in both Kansas and Missouri);
Lafayette, La.; and Bristol, Va. — tied for speed with
the biggest cities abroad. In each, the high-speed
Internet provider is not one of the big cable or phone
companies that provide Internet to most of the
United States, but a city-run network or start-up
service.
The reason the United States lags many countries in
both speed and affordability, according to people who
study the issue, has nothing to do with technology.
Instead, it is an economic policy problem — the lack
of competition in the broadband industry.
“It’s just very simple economics,” said Tim Wu , a
professor at Columbia Law School who studies
antitrust and communications and was an adviser to
the Federal Trade Commission. “The average market
has one or two serious Internet providers, and they
set their prices at monopoly or duopoly pricing.”
For relatively high-speed Internet at 25 megabits per
second, 75 percent of homes have one option at
most, according to the Federal Communications
Commission — usually Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T
or Verizon. It’s an issue anyone who has shopped for
Internet knows well, and it is even worse for people
who live in rural areas. It matters not just for
entertainment; an Internet connection is necessary
for people to find and perform jobs, and to do new
things in areas like medicine and education.
“Stop and let that sink in: Three-quarters of
American homes have no competitive choice for the
essential infrastructure for 21st-century economics
and democracy,” Tom Wheeler, chairman of the
F.C.C., said in a speech last month .
The situation arose from this conundrum: Left alone,
will companies compete, or is regulation necessary?
In many parts of Europe, the government tries to
foster competition by requiring that the companies
that own the pipes carrying broadband to people’s
homes lease space in their pipes to rival companies.
(That policy is based on the work of Jean Tirole, who
won the Nobel Prize in economics this month in part
for his work on regulation and communications
networks .)
In the United States, the Federal Communications
Commission in 2002 reclassified high-speed Internet
access as an information service, which is
unregulated, rather than as telecommunications,
which is regulated. Its hope was that Internet
providers would compete with one another to
provide the best networks. That didn’t happen. The
result has been that they have mostly stayed out of
one another’s markets.
When New America ranked cities by the average
speed of broadband plans priced between $35 and
$50 a month, the top three cities, Seoul, Hong Kong
and Paris, offered speeds 10 times faster than the
United States cities. (In some places, like Seoul, the
government subsidizes Internet access to keep prices
low.)
The divide is not just with the fastest plans. At
nearly every speed, Internet access costs more in the
United States than in Europe, according to the report.
American Internet users are also much more likely
than those in other countries to pay an additional
fee, about $100 a year in many cities, to rent a
modem that costs less than $100 in a store.
“More competition, better technologies and increased
quality of service on wireline networks help to drive
down prices,” said Nick Russo , a policy program
associate studying broadband pricing at the Open
Technology Institute and co-author of the report.
There is some disagreement about that conclusion,
including from Richard Bennett , a visiting fellow at
the American Enterprise Institute and a critic of
those who say Internet service providers need more
regulation. He argued that much of the slowness is
caused not by broadband networks but by browsers,
websites and high usage.
Yet it is telling that in the cities with the fastest
Internet in the United States, according to New
America, the incumbent companies are not providing
the service. In Kansas City , it comes from Google. In
Chattanooga, Lafayette and Bristol, it comes through
publicly owned networks.
In each case, the networks are fiber-optic , which
transfer data exponentially faster than cable
networks. The problem is that installing fiber
networks requires a huge investment of money and
work, digging up streets and sidewalks, building a
new network and competing with the incumbents.
(That explains why super-rich Google has been one of
the few private companies to do it.)
The big Internet providers have little reason to
upgrade their entire networks to fiber because there
has so far been little pressure from competitors or
regulators to do so, said Susan Crawford , a visiting
professor at Harvard Law School and author of
“Captive Audience: Telecom Monopolies in the New
Gilded Age.”
There are signs of a growing movement for cities to
build their own fiber networks and lease the fiber to
retail Internet providers. Some, like San Antonio,
already have fiber in place, but there are policies
restricting them from using it to offer Internet
services to consumers. Other cities, like Santa
Monica, Calif., have been laying fiber during other
construction projects.
In certain cities, the threat of new Internet providers
has spurred the big, existing companies to do
something novel: increase the speeds they offer and
build up their own fiber networks.

wat r they saying, they should be grateful, I download 600+ mb movies in 30mins upwards and they download HD movies in 1.4 mins, pesin wey get shoe no sabi wear am, but dat oda countries wey dey download HD movies in seconds ehhnn, make dem help Naija small nah abeg...

Hd movie in seven seconds............ Jesu!