• 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 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.

I don't know how reliable their numbers are but testmy.net does list average speeds for different cities. Here is a list I pulled of the 4 largest cities in the US:
(All numbers are Down/Up in Mbps)

New York, New York: 14.9/4.4
Los Angeles, California: 22.2/3.2
Chicago, Illinois: 14.2/3.8
Houston, Texas: 22.9/6.7
 
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.

Thanks for mentioning this - it was the point I was trying to make in the OP.
For the good of the country Vs. the mega profits of the monopoly, other countries
have stepped in and mandated certain things about the way it should work to ensure
competition will flourish. The free market is not always best, should be obvious by now.
 
I don't know how reliable their numbers are but testmy.net does list average speeds for different cities. Here is a list I pulled of the 4 largest cities in the US:
(All numbers are Down/Up in Mbps)

New York, New York: 14.9/4.4
Los Angeles, California: 22.2/3.2
Chicago, Illinois: 14.2/3.8
Houston, Texas: 22.9/6.7

But, what is the average "available" speeds? Plenty of people opt for much slower than the highest available. That can easily skew the numbers.
 
But, what is the average "available" speeds? Plenty of people opt for much slower than the highest available. That can easily skew the numbers.

I don't think that really matters. The Average speed will be based on a price to avalibility scale. I don't think it really matters if everyone in America could have 1000Mbps bidirectional if no one can afford it. Or looked at another way, it is easy to advertise large numbers if you know you will only have to provide that for a very few people, and even then not reliably. As I've learned, every contract TWC does has a 'these speeds are not typical but possible' clause so they don't have to actually deliver those speeds.
 
I don't think that really matters. The Average speed will be based on a price to avalibility scale. I don't think it really matters if everyone in America could have 1000Mbps bidirectional if no one can afford it. Or looked at another way, it is easy to advertise large numbers if you know you will only have to provide that for a very few people, and even then not reliably. As I've learned, every contract TWC does has a 'these speeds are not typical but possible' clause so they don't have to actually deliver those speeds.

When we are talking about observed speed averages, what is available and what people are choosing is pretty huge. While pricing does have an effect on that, saying "area a has slower internet than area b" because area a has a higher population of people who can't afford the faster plan, opting for the slower speeds and bringing down the average. Then, take into account a country like Singapore, where 1 in 6 have at least $1 million USD in liquid assets (and a much higher number if you just use net worth). Obviously, far more people can afford the faster internet plans than in a place like Los Angeles or NYC.


Also, if you are getting less than 80% of your advertised speeds, you can complain and get it fixed or get refunded the money you paid. Bright House (owned by TW now) has done this.
 
Not sure what you guys are complaining about.

If you want faster, pay up for T1?

ALL service providers simply limit the actual speed that's already there, and charge you for "faster".
 
Isn't T1 only 1.5Mbps?

Also, if it was as simple as just paying for it then the prices would be competitive. What does my Gigabit service cost where you live? I can't get it where I used to live in the US. The fastest they have is 100Mbps in some areas and at my house I can only get 20Mbps last I checked with a much slower upload speed.
 
If you're not happy with your internet options just call up your ISP and have fibre run to your house. If they have some fibre within a couple of blocks you will only have to front $100,000+ to have it built out to you. There might be a bit of delay and inconvenience obtaining permits and tearing up the street to install the fibre lines.
 
Not sure what you guys are complaining about.

If you want faster, pay up for T1?

ALL service providers simply limit the actual speed that's already there, and charge you for "faster".

My fios is faster than a 1.5 t1, i got 50/25 for like 50 bucks a month.. with option to go 500/100 for 299
 
I don't know how reliable their numbers are but testmy.net does list average speeds for different cities. Here is a list I pulled of the 4 largest cities in the US:
(All numbers are Down/Up in Mbps)

New York, New York: 14.9/4.4
Los Angeles, California: 22.2/3.2
Chicago, Illinois: 14.2/3.8
Houston, Texas: 22.9/6.7

That would put those cities at or above the high range in the Akamai report from last summer. It's very hard to know whose numbers to trust. You would think Ookla would have access to a really broad sample set, but are they separating out just broadband connections, or is that across all access modes? Maybe it doesn't matter, but numbers like 70+ mbps stand out to me a bit. Akamai's numbers seem a little more realistic.
 
Isn't T1 only 1.5Mbps?

Also, if it was as simple as just paying for it then the prices would be competitive. What does my Gigabit service cost where you live? I can't get it where I used to live in the US. The fastest they have is 100Mbps in some areas and at my house I can only get 20Mbps last I checked with a much slower upload speed.

No clue

I don't upload or download anything (or much) so to me everything you guys are talking about is worthless.

:biggrin:
 
Isn't T1 only 1.5Mbps?

1.45 or something like that. I remember paying close to $1500/month for one back in the nineties. Of course it was a dedicated peer connection, with full bi-directional bandwidth, not a shared loop. Even so it seems absurdly slow and expensive now.
 
Isn't T1 only 1.5Mbps?

Also, if it was as simple as just paying for it then the prices would be competitive. What does my Gigabit service cost where you live? I can't get it where I used to live in the US. The fastest they have is 100Mbps in some areas and at my house I can only get 20Mbps last I checked with a much slower upload speed.

T1 was dedicated 1.5Mbps (precisely 1.544 Mbps) as well instead of shared. However, that bandwidth is low by today's standards...

Without a cable provider in one's area you are stuck with DSL or satellite. DSL is distance-based. At my old apartment even though right in a major city, I was limited to the lowest tier 1.5-2Mbps on DSL. Switching to cable I got 20-30Mbps at the time and now 50Mbps+.

The costs were practically the same.
 
It would be nice if other cities decided to do what Chattanooga Tenn. did and develop their own partially publicly funded citywide infrastructure that bridged the gap between fast backbones and the end user.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/t...eeds-business-development-in-chattanooga.html

“Gig City,” as Chattanooga is sometimes called, has what city officials and analysts say was the first and fastest — and now one of the least expensive — high-speed Internet services in the United States. For less than $70 a month, consumers enjoy an ultrahigh-speed fiber-optic connection that transfers data at one gigabit per second. That is 50 times the average speed for homes in the rest of the country, and just as rapid as service in Hong Kong, which has the fastest Internet in the world.

It takes 33 seconds to download a two-hour, high-definition movie in Chattanooga, compared with 25 minutes for those with an average high-speed broadband connection in the rest of the country. Movie downloading, however, may be the network’s least important benefit.

“It created a catalytic moment here,” said Sheldon Grizzle, the founder of the Company Lab, which helps start-ups refine their ideas and bring their products to market. “The Gig,” as the taxpayer-owned, fiber-optic network is known, “allowed us to attract capital and talent into this community that never would have been here otherwise.”


Imagine that the big tech metropolitan areas were beaten to the punch. Hopefully, Chattanooga serves as an example for other cities.




.....
 
Infrastructure will become irrelevant once I perfect my point-to-point neutrino modem.

Progress has been slow though; since I have no idea how to compactly create, target, or detect neutrinos. 😕
 
It would be nice if other cities decided to do what Chattanooga Tenn. did and develop their own partially publicly funded citywide infrastructure that bridged the gap between fast backbones and the end user.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/t...eeds-business-development-in-chattanooga.html




Imagine that the big tech metropolitan areas were beaten to the punch. Hopefully, Chattanooga serves as an example for other cities.




.....
I believe it was Chattanooga that was taken to court and found they couldn't use city funds to compete against Comcast and TWC. If it wasn't them, it was another municipality that tried it. The cable companies were up in arms that the city could subsidize the cost to build real infrastructure for the modern world and offer service with little impact on the tax payers.
 
Yeah so I just checked. My internet is fiber into the building and then the whole building pays for it as a unit. So we get 1000Mbps/500-1000Mbps and pay $20 each. They then made more money by charging for installation and the whole service is on a contract. Plus you can pay extra for other services if you want.

If you were to own a house and want the same service it costs a hundred and something a month plus installation. I know that the late fee for installation was a couple hundred dollars so it's probably something around there.

Pretty cheap.
 
I agree that streaming video is somewhat of a problem. It's explosion and "cheap/numerous" providers has damaged bandwidth almost as much as P2P and high connection number abuse.

My cellphone uses about 2.7GB a month thanks to a few hours of streaming music and constant Email it receives. I have no idea what gaming and streaming video at home is, but I'd say my phone uses more bandwidth on average than my home network...

I definitely would like to see bandwidth throttling enforced a little better. I've got about 13-14Mbs down and 3Mbs up at home and am pretty happy with it... It's only slow during primetime thanks to the apartment complexes a few miles from my place. (I'm assuming)
 
I believe it was Chattanooga that was taken to court and found they couldn't use city funds to compete against Comcast and TWC. If it wasn't them, it was another municipality that tried it. The cable companies were up in arms that the city could subsidize the cost to build real infrastructure for the modern world and offer service with little impact on the tax payers.
Chattanooga's fast ethernet was offered by EPB (Electric Power Board). My old neighborhood there was one of the first fiber to the home streets. I moved out of town after it went live, but it was screaming.

https://epbfi.com/

I put in my old address and it came back as TV + Phone + Internet for $125.44

I'd say that pretty much puts Comcast in their place....but having said that, I had very fast speeds on Comcast in that same neighborhood. I paid them for limited cable(13 channels) & cable internet for $49/month....I rarely had any issues. I can understand people's grips with them though, they don't exactly hire rocket scientists for customer service or tech support.
 
I agree that streaming video is somewhat of a problem.
Steaming video is not a problem, it is a legitimate use.

I definitely would like to see bandwidth throttling enforced a little better. I've got about 13-14Mbs down and 3Mbs up at home and am pretty happy with it... It's only slow during primetime thanks to the apartment complexes a few miles from my place. (I'm assuming)

My house uses 350GB of data a month pretty consistently. Almost all of that is steaming video. Between a 11 year old boy that watches Netflix constantly, a 18 year old that does Skype and Hulu almost 24/7, and me and the misses watching Amazon Videos I can only see our data usage going up. I might be in the top percent of data users but that is only because I'm an early adapter. ISP's throttling me is them stifling innovation in order to enhance their profits. If the early adaptors can’t use these services these services won’t become mainstream, and the ISP services know this.
 
Back
Top