In HK, I pay around $22/m (USD) for 100mbps. I can download from steam or apple at 5-6+ MB/s. I can download torrents at 10MB/sec. However, when I download overseas (which is most of the time), I might get 200KB/sec (unless it's from a serious player in CA).
The point? The high speed you hear about in Asia is a half truth. When you consider that some of the Internet doesn't exist here (Netflix, ...), high latency (for gaming) and geo-locked content (Kindle, ...), it's even less than a half truth.
Anyways, where NA has poor last-mile infrastructure, Asia has poor intercontinental infrastructure. It's currently a scarce resource, thus prices are high.
Asia has the intercontinental infrastructure, but the costs to connect are too high. SingTel, etc. all run monopolies that keep foreign networks out. Peering is a joke.
I really don't know how much more to add, but I'll try.
Transit (bandwidth) costs more there because:
1) Networks peer much less openly.
2) This is mostly due to the presence of state-run monopoly telcos.
3) That's why BW costs more.
4) Therefore, it costs more for AMZN to get transit in Asia.
5) This is why it costs more for AWS customers to use bandwidth.
6) This is why it costs more for you.
That's not talking about transit -- that's talking about consumer Internet connections, which are surprisingly cheap despite the same monopoly infrastructure but largely due to government price controls.
That monopoly infrastructure, however, is what keeps outside providers from making inroads -- you don't see anyone but SingTel in Singapore, for instance. Or anyone besides Malaysia Telecom in Malaysia, or NTT / KDDI / etc. in Japan.
Ah, makes sense, sort of. If there's government price controls, why was the internet monopoly company still increasing bandwidth when they are already leaders in worldwide bandwidth?
Great engineers? I have no idea. They make us look bad in the states though, so I say keep it up -- hopefully it'll motivate our guys to speed up my last mile.
