• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

America's slow Internet infrastructure

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
If you take away the large agricultural areas of the Midwest and the barren northern areas like the Dakotas plus Alaska the US has a population density about the same as France and Germany. If those countries can have super fast internet for a relatively low price it refutes the argument that the US has poor internet because of low population density.

The east coast from New Hampshire to Florida actually has a higher population density than many European countries. In fact, the area from Boston to Washington is not that far behind many Asian countries.

In other words, stop making population density excuses
 
Last edited:
It's so valid and meaningful to compare America to Hong Kong and Singapore.

Does anyone who writes on these topics actually get how large this continent is? How about comparing us to other continents, on average? How would that work out?

Some of the countries we get compared to in studies like this are smaller than New York City. It's just not a meaningful exercise. According to Akamai in a report last summer the global average was 3.x, and we were at 8.x nationwide.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...eeds-climb-to-3-1mbps-as-uk-tops-7-9mbps.html

The countries above us are all much smaller places. If you're going to measure averages speeds then the U.S. is always going to be dragged down by huge expanses of rural territory that just can't be covered with fast Internet using today's technology, or at least not at a cost anyone wants to bear.

You make a very good point. When I was in South Korea my internet connection was much faster then anything that I had when I was in New Jersey. Yet, I knew that South Korea is about the size of Kentucky.
 
Except most of the landmass is rural where hardly anybody lives, and the population density in most of the cities is exactly the same as in HK, Singapore, or even eastern Europe, all of which have higher average speeds than US. I can understand the density arguments when you're talking about boonies, but I cannot and will not accept it when we're talking about metro areas.

Wrong. HK's population density is like 17,000 per square mile. The NYC metro area is around 1/10th of that.

Even when you compare states to similar sized countries, you don't get the same population spread. Missouri is roughly the same size and same population as Uruguay. However, Missouri is mostly covered in counties with 1-10 or 10-25 people per square mile, while Uruguay is covered far heavily populated.

The infrastructure costs keep our "average" low. In almost any heavily populated area, you can get good speed internet.

However, the costs are ridiculous (except for compared to NZ and AUS, because they are getting fucked hard).
 
Well, the last mile is always tough, but the numbers say that the high average in the rest of the world is around 14 mbps. I'm personally 16mbps above that, with electric company levels of reliability.

Does that really suck? I'm seriously perplexed here, because these numbers really _have_ to be skewed down by our rural areas, and once you throw our rural areas in the whole comparison, on which the "Our internet sucks" mantra is based, looks silly.

You are the exception. I live in Dallas and the best I can get (outside of some very small areas that offer FIOS, which I found out yesterday you can't even get if you are in the area but rent the house) is 24Mbps which costs right at $100 a month for just internet. I currently have TWC's turbo plan which advertises 20Mbps, but I have never been able to pull more then 2.5Mbps from it (local loops suck!)
 
I live in one of those "barren" Dakotas. I currently have 30/5 with the options to go all the way up to 90/30.

I can't complain. Also side with the person above that the amount of Rural users isn't enough to skew the results. Though I do believe that the huge expanses of open land are what cost providers the most.
 
You are the exception. I live in Dallas and the best I can get (outside of some very small areas that offer FIOS, which I found out yesterday you can't even get if you are in the area but rent the house) is 24Mbps which costs right at $100 a month for just internet. I currently have TWC's turbo plan which advertises 20Mbps, but I have never been able to pull more then 2.5Mbps from it (local loops suck!)

Are you actually seeing 2.5 Megabits per second and not megabytes? If it is megabits (as that is what is the advertised speeds), I'd demand they fix it or refund my money. That is 1/10th what is advertised and completely unacceptable. I believe anything under 80% is grounds to have your bill credited.
 
I don't think comparing the size of the USA to smaller countries and using that as
an excuse holds much water. The country is broken down into independent states;
the can administer there own area and work with others states as necessary.

Neither do I believe the free market is always the best answer - not when there is a
massive monopoly. That's the way it's been, and the civilian infrastructure in the USA,
is probably 10 years behind other advanced countries.

That's not how bandwidth distribution works. Several networks covering several states will often be routed through one of 10 different backbone providers. Here they are:

http://www.internetpulse.net/

If one of these networks has problems talking to another, it can make the Internet slow in several states.

For instance, ATT's main network hub is in Chicago. If you have ATT DSL or UVerse and do a tracert, you'll most likely hit Chicago, no matter what your destination is. The infrastructure to connect to these backbones are supplied by ISP's, and the ISP also has the responsibility to scaling the network down to customers to generate income. The "reaching the customer" part is difficult because every previous iteration of the Internet used some type of existing infrastructure that was deployed over the last 40+ years:

- dialup used copper telephone lines
- DSL used the same copper phone lines
- cable used cable TV lines (most major cities have had cable since the 60's)

Cable is in the best position currently because coax cable has the advantage of being a shielded high capacity cable- it can by default carry huge amounts of bandwidth, therefore it's still holding its own. DSL however is based on retro-technology that uses some McGuiver physics to get you a 6-7Mbs connection (if you're within range of the signal), so that's a dead end. ATT is doing some funny hybrid fiber/copper connection with their UVerse service, meaning they don't have to do full fiber runs from people's houses, but these connections max out around 25MB so that's also a dead end.

Verizon's FIOS is about the only truly next gen infrastructure that's being deployed on a large scale. Installing a brand new infrastructure in just a few years is incredibly expensive, so you are only going to see highly populated areas get this service for the time being.

In the mean time, keep watching wireless technology. 4G connections would solve a lot of our infrastructure problems in this country, but the data prices are being kept artificially high by the lack of competition (Sprint's 4G LTE network for instance costs nearly 75% less per MB used than their 3G network did). I have a feeling in 5-8 years we're going to start seeing 250-500GB caps on wireless networks.
 
In other words, stop making population density excuses

That's not the argument. The argument (which could well be wrong) is that our areas of high population density have good Internet, but they are separated by very large areas of low density that have poor Internet, and this drags the averages down.
 
You are the exception. I live in Dallas and the best I can get (outside of some very small areas that offer FIOS, which I found out yesterday you can't even get if you are in the area but rent the house) is 24Mbps which costs right at $100 a month for just internet. I currently have TWC's turbo plan which advertises 20Mbps, but I have never been able to pull more then 2.5Mbps from it (local loops suck!)

So you have 10 mbps more than the average of the country at the top of the Akamai list. If price is put into the equation then I come to entirely different conclusions, because our system is stupid and we get royally porked by monopolies. I thought the argument was focused on infrastructure.
 
That's not the argument. The argument (which could well be wrong) is that our areas of high population density have good Internet, but they are separated by very large areas of low density that have poor Internet, and this drags the averages down.

Based on our members complaints the high population density areas are not equal to other countries with comparable population density. At least that's what I seem to remember from a lot of posts. Of course some areas have things like FIOS but it costs a lot of money.
 
New York City 302 sq mi population 8 million

Singapore 274 sq mi population 5 million

sup?

That's a fair comparison, imo.
Average speeds ~30 in NYC, roughly half of Singapore. Significant, but it's not like 30 is exactly slow. I'm certain higher speeds are available in NYC (just not being paid for), no idea what's available vs. used in Singapore.

Like I said, room for improvement for sure, but it's not like people in NYC have substandard internet services.

edit: Singapore also has a lot move governing power compared to NYC, who has to deal with the FCC.
 
Last edited:
Average speeds ~30 in NYC, roughly half of Singapore. Significant, but it's not like 30 is exactly slow. I'm certain higher speeds are available in NYC (just not being paid for), no idea what's available vs. used in Singapore.

Like I said, room for improvement for sure, but it's not like people in NYC have substandard internet services.

edit: Singapore also has a lot move governing power compared to NYC, who has to deal with the FCC.

From wiki:
In early September 2010, internet service providers in Singapore rolled out the Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (Next Gen NBN) service plans. The Next Gen NBN is Singapore’s nation-wide ultra-high speed fibre network. It offers pervasive, competitively priced broadband speeds of up to 1 Gbps at comparable prices to ADSL and cable connection. Deployed 75% nationwide as of August 2011, Next Gen NBN is on track to achieve its target of 95 per cent coverage by mid-2012.

Not exactly equal to New York City, is it?
 
From wiki:
In early September 2010, internet service providers in Singapore rolled out the Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (Next Gen NBN) service plans. The Next Gen NBN is Singapore’s nation-wide ultra-high speed fibre network. It offers pervasive, competitively priced broadband speeds of up to 1 Gbps at comparable prices to ADSL and cable connection. Deployed 75% nationwide as of August 2011, Next Gen NBN is on track to achieve its target of 95 per cent coverage by mid-2012.

Not exactly equal to New York City, is it?

No, and New York isn't an isolated area either. Singapore is also a pretty poor example, as they have a very good economy, one of the freest markets and little corruption. It also doesn't hurt nearly 1 in 6 households have at least $1 million in disposable, liquid income available. They also have 10 fiber provides, 6 of which provide residential services.
 
New York City 302 sq mi population 8 million

Singapore 274 sq mi population 5 million

sup?

That's a fair comparison, imo.

Not really given the scope of coverage offered by the ISP providers. I'd be willing to be the cost distribution for an ISP's balance sheet is a tad different from NYC to Singapore. TWC has to support a bit more than just the city of New York whereas an ISP in Singapore can be a bit more locally focused. Your monthly fees aren't going to support just the infrastructure of your city.

I'm not saying that there aren't issues but using Singapore is a poor comparison

I also wonder how they deal with TV channel costs. Do the monthly fees of Internet service soley go to providing internet service? I would doubt it if the income was needed for other areas - like paying for channel broadcasting rights. I wonder how much ESPN charges Singapore TV providers vs how much it charges TWC
 
Last edited:
The real reason America has such crappy internet on the whole is we have a large number of apologists who have swallowed the ISP's story about things like population density. They are whats holding back better internet.

/thread
 
The real reason America has such crappy internet on the whole is we have a large number of apologists who have swallowed the ISP's story about things like population density. They are whats holding back better internet.

/thread

There is a very big difference between saying Singapore is a bad comparison and being an apologist. Honestly IMO the reason is the lobbying the ISPs do to block competition and I don't think you'll see too many people say thats a good thing
 
There is a very big difference between saying Singapore is a bad comparison and being an apologist. Honestly IMO the reason is the lobbying the ISPs do to block competition and I don't think you'll see too many people say thats a good thing

Beyond the lobbyists its the substantial number of people who don't think there is a problem that allows lawmakers to continue the current system. Basically the isp's just have to have about 26 percent of the people on their side. The majority of the Republican party, in other words.
 
I felt this was applicable.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen.

This is part three of my explanation of how America went from having the fastest and cheapest Internet service in the world to what we have today -- not very fast, not very cheap Internet service that is hurting our ability to compete economically with the rest of the world. Part one detailed expected improvements in U.S. broadband based on emerging competitive factors, yet decried that it was too little too late. Part two explained how U.S. broadband ISPs are different from most overseas ISPs and how those differences make it unlikely that we'll ever regain leadership in this space. And this week's final part explains that this all came about because Americans were deceived and defrauded by many of their telephone companies to the tune of $200 billion -- money that was supposed to have gone to pay for a broadband future we don't -- and never will -- have.

I feel qualified to write about this because, for a short time, I was right in the middle of it. A key term here is video dial tone, which referred in the mid-1990s to the provision of video-on-demand and cable TV-equivalent service by U.S. telephone companies at (bidirectional!) speeds up to 45 megabits per second over fiber and hybrid fiber-coax networks. Much of the publicity back then was generated by an outfit called Tele-TV, which was a video partnership of Nynex, Bell Atlantic, and Pacific Bell. Howard Stringer, former president of CBS and current CEO of Sony, ran Tele-TV, which had some ambitious plans to deploy video service to millions of homes. The company twice asked vendors to submit proposals to build set-top boxes for this ambitious network. In those days I designed set-top boxes and in the case of both Tele-TV bids, my designs came in at the lowest price, first under the name of my own start-up and then under the Fujitsu brand after Tele-TV urged me to find a big manufacturing partner. I can't claim to have actually WON either time, though, because not a single box was ever built or paid for and Tele-TV went out of business without ever actually having been IN business. At the time I had no idea what was going on, but today I know and now so will you.

The National Information Infrastructure as codified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 existed on two levels -- federal and state. As a federal law, the Act specified certain data services that were to be made available to schools, libraries, hospitals, and public safety agencies and paid for through special surcharges and some tax credits. Looking solely at the Federal side of the story, the so-called Information Superhighway still doesn't appear to have been a success, but it wasn't a criminal failure. Many schools and libraries were wired at considerable expense though the health care and public safety components never amounted to much.

It is on the state level where one can find the greatest excesses of the Telecommunications Act. All 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia contracted with their local telecommunication utilities for the build-out of fiber and hybrid fiber-coax networks intended to bring bidirectional digital video service to millions of homes by the year 2000. The Telecom Act set the mandate but, as it works with phone companies, the details were left to the states. Fifty-one plans were laid and 51 plans failed.

Failure is not foreign to the information technology business. Big development projects fail all the time and I have written several times about this and how those failures come to be and how they can be avoided. But I find it hard to remember any company or industry segment ever going zero for 51. This is a failure rate so amazing that any statistician would question the motives of those even entering such an endeavor. Did they actually expect to succeed? Or did they actually expect to fail? We may never know and it probably doesn't even matter, but one thing is sure: they expected to be paid and they were.

Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it.

In a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) report from 1994 there were requests from U.S. telephone companies to provide video dial-tone service at unprecedented levels. Bell Atlantic (now part of Verizon) wanted to install service to 3.5 million homes in its service area. Nynex (now also a part of Verizon) requested permission to install service to 400,000 homes. Pacific Bell (now part of AT&T) wanted to install service to 1.3 million homes. Ameritech (now part of AT&T) wanted to install service to 1.2 million homes. GTE (now part of Verizon) wanted to install service to 1.1 million homes.

Note that these applications were all prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 being passed, so they were covered under the prior 1934 Act. And by 1995 most of these applications had been withdrawn by the telephone companies, though the FCC oddly continued to act as though the applications were still valid.

What went wrong? First there were technical problems. Bidirectional 45-megabit-per-second service was going to be harder to install and more expensive than expected, though oddly more than one Regional Bell Operating Company tried to demur because of stated fears that the proposed technology would become obsolete, not that it was too advanced.

Then there were regulatory problems as the FCC tried to control deployment centrally while states and cities tended to view video dial tone as just another cable company to be taxed and regulated. Bell Atlantic switched its plans to MMDS (Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service -- so-called "wireless cable") as did GTE, but MMDS suffered from interference by trees and was never fully reliable, though some of that spectrum is today being redeployed for WiMax networks.

When the 1996 Act was finally passed, though, the idea of video dial tone had been converted to a justification for deploying ADSL. Where telephone companies had been promising EITHER 45 mbps bidirectional service OR at least the ability to carry HDTV (nominally 20 mbps) suddenly it was an acceptable alternative to substitute ADSL, which for most users would be limited to 1.5 mbps downstream and 128 kbps upstream, which isn't today considered adequate for any video service of higher quality than YouTube.

This could all be credited to technology misadventure and forgotten if it weren't for the money. The telcos played games with state utility commissions, cutting deals with the states to deploy new technologies in exchange for "incentives," which were new charges and new ways of charging customers. One typical ploy was to offer to freeze basic telephone rates for a period of years (typically five) then deploy a bunch of new services, which would be sold on an a la carte basis. The problem with this is that it applied analog economics to what were now digital services. The cost of providing digital services is always going DOWN, not up, so the telcos that might have been forced to cut rates instead offered to freeze them, locking in an effective multiyear rate increase.

It is an ugly story of greed and poor regulation that you can read in excruciating detail in a 406-page e-book that is among this week's links.

The RBOCs cut heads, cut spending, cut construction, increased depreciation rates, failed to deliver promised services, increased telephone bills, and had booming profits as a result. Then each mega-merger brought with it new contortions that inevitably led to poorer service and higher charges. Twenty-two percent of telco equipment, for example, SIMPLY DISAPPEARED. Penalties for missing service goals were often folded into merger payments, so instead of paying the states a penalty for not doing what they had promised to, the companies paid themselves.

As just a small example of the way the phone companies took advantage of ineffectual regulation, they charged an average of $1 per month per customer to run Bellcore, the research organization set up to replace Bell Labs after the 1983 split up of AT&T. But when Bellcore was later sold and the profits from that sale distributed to the telephone companies, not to the customers, ALL BUT ONE RBOC CONTINUED THE $1 CHARGE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT NO LONGER DIRECTLY SUPPORTED ANYTHING.

There are no good guys in this story. Misguided and incompetent regulation combined with utilities that found ways to game the system resulted in what had been the best communication system in the world becoming just so-so, though very profitable. We as consumers were consistently sold ideas that were impractical only to have those be replaced later by less-ambitious technologies that, in turn, were still under-delivered. Congress set mandates then provided little or no oversight. The FCC was (and probably still is) managed for the benefit of the companies and their lobbyists, not for you and me. And the upshot is that I could move to Japan and pay $14 per month for 100-megabit-per-second Internet service but I can't do that here and will probably never be able to.

Despite this, the FCC says America has the highest broadband deployment rate in the world and President Bush has set a goal of having broadband available to every U.S. home by the end of this year. What have these guys been smoking? Nothing, actually, they simply redefined "broadband" as any Internet service with a download speed of 200 kilobits per second or better. That's less than one percent the target speed set in 1994 that we were supposed to have achieved by 2000 under regulations that still remain in place.
 
Last edited:
Based on our members complaints the high population density areas are not equal to other countries with comparable population density. At least that's what I seem to remember from a lot of posts. Of course some areas have things like FIOS but it costs a lot of money.

But that is obviously not a factual basis for argument. That's just impressions. People don't speak up when things are working well.
 
The real reason America has such crappy internet on the whole is we have a large number of apologists who have swallowed the ISP's story about things like population density. They are whats holding back better internet.

/thread

I assure you, I look at the bills and quotes for doing what you ask daily. Apologies have nothing to do with it. We're currently doing $12000 worth of construction to get a fiber build out to ONE COMPANY right now, so they can pay us $129 month for a 80GB managed connection.
 
It's so valid and meaningful to compare America to Hong Kong and Singapore.

Does anyone who writes on these topics actually get how large this continent is? How about comparing us to other continents, on average? How would that work out?

Some of the countries we get compared to in studies like this are smaller than New York City. It's just not a meaningful exercise. According to Akamai in a report last summer the global average was 3.x, and we were at 8.x nationwide.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...eeds-climb-to-3-1mbps-as-uk-tops-7-9mbps.html

The countries above us are all much smaller places. If you're going to measure averages speeds then the U.S. is always going to be dragged down by huge expanses of rural territory that just can't be covered with fast Internet using today's technology, or at least not at a cost anyone wants to bear.

Yes, people need to compare the population density of the U.S. To some where like South Korea. You can then understand why their infrastructure is much faster.

For a lot of these companies the return on investment is just not there. Do we the use taxpayer money so Bob in bumfuck, North Dakota is able to stream netflix?
 
There is a very big difference between saying Singapore is a bad comparison and being an apologist. Honestly IMO the reason is the lobbying the ISPs do to block competition and I don't think you'll see too many people say thats a good thing
Exactly. There are a number of reasons why, population density IS a problem, just not the the only one. It's not even the largest.
 
Exactly. There are a number of reasons why, population density IS a problem, just not the the only one. It's not even the largest.

Singapore also is a very progressive nation when it comes to it's people. Look at their education system and how that was revamped. They need a modern infrastructure to support that and make it happen.
 
Back
Top