Antarctica doesn't look to good.

Silly these reports its based on what ppl own not what people can get... To put some of the poorer countries in the top world averages when only a handful of the well off can afford internet anaways and because they have money they pay for faster lines so the averages are all to pot.

Like the UK 50% can get 100mb (virgin media) if they all wanting to spend the money to get this then according to the above we would be top, not cause we have the best net globally but because we have money to burn.

I Remember back in 1986, the U.S. (via Sprint and the 1st Signal Brigade) built South Korea's entire fiber network across the entire counrty from the ground up - no wonder.
And we are 26th?

That's the size of Illinois.

Not only their speed is superior, their costs are realistic. Their warcraft superiority is because they do not throttle games or anything whereas big brother allow ISP in North America to do so. Time are changing

We koreans don't pay more than 100 bucks per year for internet. Also, you stated that they should compare by cities. My statement is, he did indeed. Read again. He said all the top 6 cities are located in korea.

This is not real
in Bulgaria - 1600MBps is Internet for 3 EURO - the cheapest

hey 1977TA, South Korea's city 'Daegu' has the fastest internet speed in the world.What do you think about it?

Well, imagine 2 cars racing down a 10 mile stretch of road. The car that runs 220 mph is gonna crush the 160 mph car. Yes, 160 may be considered fast by some, but it's certainly not comparable or on par. For internet speed, America's not even close to Korea's league.

It is quite clear by now those arguments about the geographical size of the US is a red herring. Even the most affluent and densely populated areas on the east and west coast, that are just as densely populated as the densely populated areas in Europe and Asia, do not get any way near the level of service generally available in countries in Europe and Asia.

Not even the population per square mile in the US is a valid argument. Countries such as Sweden actually have significantly less people per square mile than the whole of US, 87.4/sq. mile in the US versus 53.8/sq. mile in Sweden. Yet, Sweden is far ahead of the US in terms of both subscription cost and speed generally available.

It is about time to acknowledge the fact that the US lags far and increasingly behind due to failed US politics. The government needs to get seriously involved in the internet infrastructure, both in terms of regulation and financing.

You guys are all talking about this as if those winning countries have better infrastructures and can deliver more bandwidth to their customers than countries lower in the list. This is not true. Where I live, everyone can get a 120Mb connection for a few tenners a month (I've got 50Mb myself) but not everyone chooses to do so. As long as people decide to keep their crappy low bandwidth connection then that doesn't mean the technology isn't there but it does have influence on the ranking in this list.