America's slow Internet infrastructure

[raasco]

Anybody have any thoughts about this? I'm not that surprised when you
look at the relationship between the government and business.
Other countries have asked the big businesses to find a better balance between
their pure profit taking and the infrastructure relating to their business and
the public they serve.

I remember moving to some suburbs in the Chicago area; every time there was a moderate
storm, the flimsy wires carrying the power came down, resulting in outages of an
indeterminate time. I asked one of the locals why the power infrastructure is so
third-world, and he responded that the power companies don't want to spend the money
to improve it. Other countries have seen plans between business and government
where programs have been undertaken to make the infrastructure competitive, safe,
reliable and modern.

I don't see that in the USA; it's too easy for certain businesses to have a monopoly;
people may moan about it, someone writes an article from time to time, but that's it.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow

0.01 ppd. Claimed.

Back on topic. I look at the size of the US and can't imagine it happening anytime soon. Look at all the the infrastructure here. It all need a serious overhaul.

 

[raasco]

Mine.

shit

 

[Rakehellion]

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.

Areas of high population don't have good internet either.

 

[Phoenix86]

shit

Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts Per Day: 0.01

Putting that one in the trophy cage. 😀

 

[13Gigatons]

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

An area near here just went the muni-fiber route and the speeds and price are dramatically better then Cable or DSL. It's sad that Americans are so brain washed.

Thread summation:

High Density areas can't have high speed internet.
Low Density areas can't have high speed internet.
The price has too be high otherwise the CEO can't live a lavish lifestyle.
We have to have a monopoly that is how capitalism works.

 

[Markbnj]

Areas of high population don't have good internet either.

You mean good as in "good value," or good as in "good infrastructure?" What high density population areas in the U.S. lack high-speed Internet?

 

[Fritzo]

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 an example of "hindsight is 20/20". That the time 1.5Mbps was INCREDIBLE...some computers couldn't even process data that fast. It seemed fast enough for quite a while and then some. Keep in mind this was the mid-90's and most people didn't even own a PC yet, but they were getting there, and a 28.8K connection was smoking fast.

 

[dmcowen674]

America's slow Internet infrastructure

Anybody have any thoughts about this?

I'm not that surprised when you look at the relationship between the government and business.

I remember moving to some suburbs in the Chicago area; every time there was a moderate storm, the flimsy wires carrying the power came down, resulting in outages of an indeterminate time. I asked one of the locals why the power infrastructure is so third-world, and he responded that the power companies don't want to spend the money to improve it.

I don't see that in the USA; it's too easy for certain businesses to have a monopoly; people may moan about it, someone writes an article from time to time, but that's it.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow

You answered your own question.

Americans are weak pussies that like to get screwed by their overlord Corporate masters.

 

[zCypher]

There is little incentive to give up big profit margins. The margins might be lesser with copper based last mile services like DSL compared to cellular services, but they sure are there. Why would they give that up? The cost to implement and maintain DSL infrastructure is enormous. Can they afford to? Yep, they sure can. But why give that up unless you have to? None of the shit load of employees holding company shares want to see money spent unless it has to be spent.

Having said that, as a consumer I would love to have higher speed lower cost options. I am with a reseller myself instead of any of the incumbent providers. It's cheaper and faster, but still pretty expensive ($65/mo for a 60mbps line with 75GB/mo limit - the unlimited one would be over $130/mo).

Being someone who works for an ISP as well, I can definitely see both sides. Your average person doesn't come anywhere close to maxing out their data caps (the provider I work for does not actually enforce/bill overages at this time, but that's beside the point). It's actually quite rare that I encounter a slow issue due to oversaturated upload/download usage, and even more rare that I encounter an account where they use more than 100GB in a month. And this includes TV+internet subscribers with multiple set top boxes, multiple wireless devices like laptops, tablets and cell phones. Not just talking about single users here. I'd say most people are in fact using relatively small amounts of data, even with today's increasingly media-rich web content.

I have had months where I used over a terabyte per month, but usually sit between 150-200GB (thankfully, I have unlimited usage during certain hours). But users like you and me only represent a fairly tiny fraction of the overall client base of an ISP. Excessive users that torrent non stop represent an even smaller number of total users.

I've seen some areas that have back end saturation, but those are not areas that have newer technology deployed (we're talking still being served by an ancient OC-3). I've yet to see any slow speed outages caused by back end infrastructure in any modern areas. There have been outages due to failures of various nature of course, but oversaturated back end infrastructure from insufficient capacity / oversold in areas with modern infrastructure? Not so much. In those cases the last mile really doesn't matter. Unless it's broken, you will still get the best performance the vast majority of the time. I have seen this on both cable and DSL in various locations (city and suburb). Most problems tend to be client side, and when that's not the case, it's related to the last mile. The network end tends to be vastly more reliable. So except for the poor saps in areas where the back end is still old and capacity starved, there isn't really an "infrastructure" reason for the data caps or for the low speeds / high prices. It's all business/economics reasons. Even the last mile is in most cases a BS excuse in modern areas. VDSL2 is able to reliably sustain at least 76mbps sync rates and they've used various methods to extend its footprint - yes, the technology won't work the same way, and it's going to be more of a pain in the ass to match the same footprint as cable, but regardless - they can and do do it. Even on a copper loop we're able to see average ping times between the ISP and customer of 5ms. That's mind-blowing. In short, the copper is a pain for maintenance, but is not really a reason for not being able to provide amazing performance. Fiber is obviously preferable, but has already been pointed out to be pretty costly to implement initially.

What I would like to see is more fairness between incumbents and resellers, and more resellers to force more competition. The situation between incumbents and resellers is pretty bad, and the end user is usually the one to take the hit.

 

[Fritzo]

There is little incentive to give up big profit margins. The margins might be lesser with copper based last mile services like DSL compared to cellular services, but they sure are there. Why would they give that up? The cost to implement and maintain DSL infrastructure is enormous. Can they afford to? Yep, they sure can. But why give that up unless you have to? None of the shit load of employees holding company shares want to see money spent unless it has to be spent.

Having said that, as a consumer I would love to have higher speed lower cost options. I am with a reseller myself instead of any of the incumbent providers. It's cheaper and faster, but still pretty expensive ($65/mo for a 60mbps line with 75GB/mo limit - the unlimited one would be over $130/mo).

Being someone who works for an ISP as well, I can definitely see both sides. Your average person doesn't come anywhere close to maxing out their data caps (the provider I work for does not actually enforce/bill overages at this time, but that's beside the point). It's actually quite rare that I encounter a slow issue due to oversaturated upload/download usage, and even more rare that I encounter an account where they use more than 100GB in a month. And this includes TV+internet subscribers with multiple set top boxes, multiple wireless devices like laptops, tablets and cell phones. Not just talking about single users here. I'd say most people are in fact using relatively small amounts of data, even with today's increasingly media-rich web content.

I have had months where I used over a terabyte per month, but usually sit between 150-200GB (thankfully, I have unlimited usage during certain hours). But users like you and me only represent a fairly tiny fraction of the overall client base of an ISP. Excessive users that torrent non stop represent an even smaller number of total users.

I've seen some areas that have back end saturation, but those are not areas that have newer technology deployed (we're talking still being served by an ancient OC-3). I've yet to see any slow speed outages caused by back end infrastructure in any modern areas. There have been outages due to failures of various nature of course, but oversaturated back end infrastructure from insufficient capacity / oversold in areas with modern infrastructure? Not so much. In those cases the last mile really doesn't matter. Unless it's broken, you will still get the best performance the vast majority of the time. I have seen this on both cable and DSL in various locations (city and suburb). Most problems tend to be client side, and when that's not the case, it's related to the last mile. The network end tends to be vastly more reliable. So except for the poor saps in areas where the back end is still old and capacity starved, there isn't really an "infrastructure" reason for the data caps or for the low speeds / high prices. It's all business/economics reasons. Even the last mile is in most cases a BS excuse in modern areas. VDSL2 is able to reliably sustain at least 76mbps sync rates and they've used various methods to extend its footprint - yes, the technology won't work the same way, and it's going to be more of a pain in the ass to match the same footprint as cable, but regardless - they can and do do it. Even on a copper loop we're able to see average ping times between the ISP and customer of 5ms. That's mind-blowing. In short, the copper is a pain for maintenance, but is not really a reason for not being able to provide amazing performance. Fiber is obviously preferable, but has already been pointed out to be pretty costly to implement initially.

What I would like to see is more fairness between incumbents and resellers, and more resellers to force more competition. The situation between incumbents and resellers is pretty bad, and the end user is usually the one to take the hit.

Are you kidding about the backend outages causing slow performance? It happens on a daily basis. Level 3 had a huge outage two weeks ago that drove latency up in Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana by 600%.

Look at all of the performance issues going on right now: http://www.internetpulse.net/

 

[13Gigatons]

This is an example of "hindsight is 20/20". That the time 1.5Mbps was INCREDIBLE...some computers couldn't even process data that fast. It seemed fast enough for quite a while and then some. Keep in mind this was the mid-90's and most people didn't even own a PC yet, but they were getting there, and a 28.8K connection was smoking fast.

In the late 90's then SBC was promising to make 100mbps available to it's entire footprint. It's 2014 and they are still not even close. Why can't people accept that they are dragging their feet.

In some countries 100mbps is like dial-up speed.

 

[techs]

http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow

According to a recent study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. ranks a shocking 31st in the world in terms of average download speeds. The leaders in the world are Hong Kong at 72.49 Mbps and Singapore on 58.84 Mbps. And America? Averaging speeds of 20.77 Mbps, it falls behind countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Uruguay.

Its upload speeds are even worse. Globally, the U.S. ranks 42nd with an average upload speed of 6.31 Mbps, behind Lesotho, Belarus, Slovenia, and other countries you only hear mentioned on Jeopardy.

So how did America fall behind? How did the country that literally invented the internet — and the home to world-leading tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Facebook, Google, and Cisco — fall behind so many others in download speeds?

Susan Crawford argues that "huge telecommunication companies" such as Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T have "divided up markets and put themselves in a position where they're subject to no competition."

Fiber optic connections offer a particularly compelling example. While expensive to build, they offer faster and smoother connections than traditional copper wire connections. But Verizon stopped building out fiber optic infrastructure in 2010 — citing high costs — just as other countries were getting to work.



That says it all, imo

 

[Rakehellion]

You mean good as in "good value," or good as in "good infrastructure?" What high density population areas in the U.S. lack high-speed Internet?

Both. I live in Brooklyn and internet is a mixed bag. Some places have spotty reliability while your next door neighbor has a stellar connection.

 

[Greenman]

An area near here just went the muni-fiber route and the speeds and price are dramatically better then Cable or DSL. It's sad that Americans are so brain washed.

Thread summation:

High Density areas can't have high speed internet.
Low Density areas can't have high speed internet.
The price has too be high otherwise the CEO can't live a lavish lifestyle.
We have to have a monopoly that is how capitalism works.

It's interesting to me that you've become an expert on the subject by reading one article. What you need to do is come to the US, start an ISP business, and start putting in cable. All you have to do is dig up every street in your chosen city, lay in your cable, put it all back together, and start counting your profits as the money comes pouring in.

 

[88keys]

Seems more like common sense. Without competition there is zero incentive to provide you with better service. We're also to the point that people need internet, it's really not much of a choice anymore. The ISPs know that you'll pay for it regardless of the price just like the oil companies know that you'll pay for gas regardless of the price.

It's understandable that rural sprawls of land aren't going to get the best internet connection speeds nor the best options, but there is no reason that we should have so little choices and slow connection speeds in the more urban areas like the Northeast Megalopolis and likewise regions.

Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Energy, and now Big Telecom.

 

[mizzou]

how can you compare the infrastructure of a tiny footprint island nation to a sprawling megacountry like U.S.A.?

Of course we don't have the same internet speed of Taiwan.

A better comparison would be, what type of internet speeds does the interior of China, Brazil, Russia, and Canada receive?

I suppose you could break down major cities as independant nations, but overall....our country is god damn gigantic.

 

[techs]

how can you compare the infrastructure of a tiny footprint island nation to a sprawling megacountry like U.S.A.?

Of course we don't have the same internet speed of Taiwan.

A better comparison would be, what type of internet speeds does the interior of China, Brazil, Russia, and Canada receive?

I suppose you could break down major cities as independant nations, but overall....our country is god damn gigantic.

Yes, the US is big but not gigantic. Its because of the type of map we commonly use that makes the US look bigger. By size the US is fourth largest country. Without Alaska we are fifth.

The difference is the other very large countries ahead of us are places like Russia and Canada and China. Russia and Canada have HUGE very sparsely populated areas. So, in fact, does the US. Alaska and the deserts of the west plus the northern central US (Dakotas)

My point is that these large sparsely populated areas should be excluded when judging the size of the US internet areas. The few people do little to bring down the average. What should be measured are the eastern seaboard states and then a left turn and up the west coast. With an addition of the area around the Mississipi from the Chicago area to New Orleans. These areas are actually comparable to the population density of far smaller countries like some European countries. AND those countries have far better internet.

The basic fallacy in the US is huge that's why we have slow internet is fundamentally flawed. The US is one of the most industrialized countries with the bulk of our population living in relatively high density areas.

The Eastern seabord should have 100 Mb internet by now. The population density is comparable to other countries that are far poorer but have 30-70 Mb averages.

 

[techs]

Here's how you judge the population versus land area when figuring out if the US really has slow internet because of its large size.

Percentage of urbanization:

Whoa. Despite being large countries the US and Russia have most of their people living in urban areas. Lots of subscribers in small areas. In fact some of the Asian countries with fast internet averages are doing it with many widely scattered people compared to the US

 

[Markbnj]

According to a recent study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. ranks a shocking 31st in the world in terms of average download speeds. The leaders in the world are Hong Kong at 72.49 Mbps and Singapore on 58.84 Mbps. And America? Averaging speeds of 20.77 Mbps, it falls behind countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Uruguay.

I'm not saying the conclusions are wrong, but the logical part of my mind still rejects those comparisons. The U.S. vs. Singapore, Hong Kong, Estonia? Those places are cities. Does anyone have average numbers for, say, NYC? Chicago? Los Angeles? I have no doubt we're still slower in a lot of places, and no doubt that our regulated monopoly model is at least partly responsible for it, but I can't get past the _obvious_ apples and oranges nature of these comparisons. You can't, imo, just ignore the size of the place you're measuring and comparing against. This is still physical infrastructure. Wires still have to be hung on poles from point to point.

While expensive to build, they offer faster and smoother connections than traditional copper wire connections. But Verizon stopped building out fiber optic infrastructure in 2010 — citing high costs — just as other countries were getting to work.

Internet services are, if I recall correctly, Comcast's most steadily profitable business. Verizon decided they couldn't afford to enter that business by continuing to build out fiber. The quote above makes it seem as if they were just lazy or something. If you read the reporting around the decision you realize that trying to work with hundreds of greedy local municipalities was a freaking nightmare.

 

[AViking]

I haven't lived in the US in enough years to really comment but I can still ask questions. Can you get 1000Mbps internet if you live in a big city in the US? I don't pay for mine, it's included in my rent, but looking online I think it costs about $100 a month here.

I don't think it's fair to ask that the entire continent of the US is blanketed in that fast internet, there's satellite for those that choose to live in a town of population 2000, but if you live in any metropolitan area you should be getting fast and affordable internet. Your home internet should be faster than your phone and balls cheap. For like $60 a month you can easily get 50Mbps/50mbps here. Our phones get an average of about 40-60Mbps so that way you're not suffering.

We also have mobile broadband where you get a 4G stick and a 10GB/mo cap for about $20/mo.

Then of course there's the bundles which makes the costs go down a lot. I'm just looking at internet though for comparison sake.

 

[Markbnj]

For like $60 a month you can easily get 50Mbps/50mbps here. Our phones get an average of about 40-60Mbps so that way you're not suffering.

We get 30/5 service from Comcast for a little over $40/month, so it's in that ballpark. Faster service levels are available if I want to pay for them, but 30 is more than enough. We don't live close to a tower, but still manage 15 or so over 4G on a good day, but we never need it around the house.

I was here when Comcast came around and installed back in 2002. The service was very slow and unreliable back then, but it improved dramatically over the years. Today the latency is very low, the throughput is extremely consistent, and it's more reliable than our electric power.

As a point of reference I live in the hills of NW New Jersey, about 50 miles from Manhattan.

 

[techs]

As a point of reference I live in the hills of NW New Jersey, about 50 miles from Manhattan.

Just an fyi. A while back I also had a 30/5 plan from Comcast. I read one day they had rolled out double the speeds and didn't tell anyone. I rebooted my modem and I suddenly had 60/12. So, if you haven't rebooted in a while you might want to give it a try.

 

[13Gigatons]

It's interesting to me that you've become an expert on the subject by reading one article. What you need to do is come to the US, start an ISP business, and start putting in cable. All you have to do is dig up every street in your chosen city, lay in your cable, put it all back together, and start counting your profits as the money comes pouring in.

You have just highlighted what is completely wrong with America's Broadband infrastructure. Most countries have a single last mile owned by a non-profit or the government themselves. They charge a line access fee of $8 to $15 then the ISP charges you another $10-25 for Internet access depending on the speed package you select. Most areas have at least 12 different internet providers. Speed, cost and reliability is much better this way.

The only downside is that the companies don't make BILLIONS in profit.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

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!)

Jesus dude, what part of Dallas are you in? TWC in Farmers Branch sucks compared to MediaComm back in Ames, IA, but I'm still able to consistently pull 16Mbit/s doing pretty much anything.

 

[Markbnj]

Just an fyi. A while back I also had a 30/5 plan from Comcast. I read one day they had rolled out double the speeds and didn't tell anyone. I rebooted my modem and I suddenly had 60/12. So, if you haven't rebooted in a while you might want to give it a try.

I just replaced my router and restarted the modem in that process. Didn't see any magic doubling 🙂. Maybe they mis-configured you for business class?