Jag brevväxlade med artickelförfattaren vid ITIF. Här är en del av mina punkter:
Focus of the discussion /in our interest group/ has been on the indicator 'Average Speed (mbps)' which gives a figure of 21.7 Mbps for Finland. Some members pointed out that there is a misplaced decimal point: the figure should rather be around 2 Mbps. A former director at Elisa and Finnet (two of the biggest teleoperators) stated that 512 Kbps is the most common connection type being sold by these companies.
By looking at your article, the reader will get clear clues to the real essence of the indicator: "We calculate average download speeds based on OECD data that compiles the advertised speeds offered by several major broadband providers in each country."
As the teleoperators have to advertize their products, it is of course easy for OECD analysts to collect data on advertised speeds. It is, however, quite obvious to us that such an indicator cannot be a valid indicator of 'Average Speed (mbps)'.
Apart from depicting actual average speed, the operationalization falls back on capacity being offered. Now that Turkki presents your table without quoting the source, I have a feeling that you should have given a better indication of the nature of the data in the table itself, e.g. by means of an asterisk or footnote in the heading of the table.
Members of the interest group also pointed out that a download speed indicator doesn't differentiate between symmetric and asymmetric capacity. In a audiovisually oriented context it really makes a huge difference if the operator delivers a 1 Mbps / 24 Mbps or a 2 Mbps / 2 Mbps connection (BTW I would choose the considerably lower ranked 2/2 Mbps option for my needs).
At the lower end of the spectrum, it's also essential to differentiate sold capacity from delivered capacity. I'm living in a region, where rural connections are fully dominated by a WiMAX service which in many cases seems to offer a fraction of the promised capacity. My colleagues are of the opinion that as bandwidths goes up, this dilemma related to terrestrial services will show up even more clearly.
Och detta är ett utdrag artickelförfattaren Daniel Correas svar:
In developing the ITIF Broadband Rankings, we aimed to create a composite indicator that better reflects broadband performance than penetration alone. As you suggest, our average speed component relies on advertised download speeds. We chose a representative provider for each technology in each country and used their advertised speed based on data from OECD reports. We arrived at a weighted average based on the share of the market that each technology has in each market.
Our indicator certainly has shortcomings. Certainly, we would prefer to use actual speeds, but based on the available data, we believe that this is the best possible methodology. Speed test websites, for example, unfortunately do not yet have reliable data for all 30 OECD countries. Though we are familiar with the issue of actual speeds not meeting the promise of advertised speeds, it is not one that is unique to Finland. That is to say it affects all countries and is not something we can account for until we have reliable data on actual speeds across the OECD.
To arrive at the final rankings, we took the standard deviation for each of the three indicators and added them together. We added 10 to the final scores so all results would be positive. | 
