An O.E.C.D. economist acknowledged the nuances in taking into account government regulatory and related factors, and said it was hard to draw a single conclusion from the data. “I think we can say that a lot of the situation in the United States is a result of the lack of competition,” said Taylor Reynolds, an economist in the Internet and Telecommunications Policy section of the O.E.C.D. “In Europe we have adopted an unbundling strategy wholeheartedly.”

In other words, they couldn’t draw the conclusion you drew, that is was our “less rigid regs” that made us do better (remember, we’re still behind a number of European countries). Instead, the economist suggests that it’s the lack of competition in the U.S. that makes things more efficient, since “bundling” allows the creation of virtual monopolies for computing hardware, software, and services. The Europeans don’t allow bundling, so consumers have more choices over there than Americans do here. More choices mean a less-streamlined infrastructure, and is actually a good indicator of the health and diversity of the market.

The question is whether or not you think consumer choice is more important than protecting monopolistic practices, which is an entirely debatable point. Also, the study did not exactly debunk prior studies which were of a purely technical nature, and which will not go away.