US ranks 28th in Internet connection speed.

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Naustica
Lack of competition is really hurting us IMO. We need a major third player to drive the prices down and to ncrease speed. Hopefully Clearwire or something like it can do that.

We should have a "public option" for internet service. The government will force the private sector to lower prices and improve service.

Oh god no. Just start doing what they did to AT&T; break up the companies into regional companies and let them fight over it.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I've been posting about the slide downward for years.

It's documented on my website DSLModemsDirect.com where I won the political battle to get Americans to be able to buy a DSL modem.

At the time the phone companies did not allow anyone to go out and buy their own DSL modem, you had to rent them from the phone company.

Google stalked you and you appear to be the real deal. Kudos for living the life most of us nerds dream of

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
Why would the guy lie about that? He is not claiming he has found the cure to cancer.

Because DuhMcowen lies about everything.

 

[OCGuy]

The fact that people dont understand why SK can have higher averages than the US boggles my mind.

 

[techs]

Let's end the debate over "population density" as the reason other countries have faster/cheaper internet.
New York City is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It has 4 or 5 different cable franchise covering different parts of the city. The Boston/New York/Philly/Baltimore/Washington strip is also extremely densly population.

Now, since each of these areas are served by a cable internet company THAT HAS A FRANCHISE FOR A PORTION OF THIS DENSELY POPULATED AREA, then why is there not much higher speeds and lower costs than the less densely populated states like Utah?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: techs
Let's end the debate over "population density" as the reason other countries have faster/cheaper internet.
New York City is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It has 4 or 5 different cable franchise covering different parts of the city. The Boston/New York/Philly/Baltimore/Washington strip is also extremely densly population.

Now, since each of these areas are served by a cable internet company THAT HAS A FRANCHISE FOR A PORTION OF THIS DENSELY POPULATED AREA, then why is there not much higher speeds and lower costs than the less densely populated states like Utah?

Age of infrastructure (buildings, conduits, not technology) and room to run new cable/fiber.

It is very well known to anybody that works in communications why population density are the main factors. Everybody knows this.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: techs
Let's end the debate over "population density" as the reason other countries have faster/cheaper internet.
New York City is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It has 4 or 5 different cable franchise covering different parts of the city. The Boston/New York/Philly/Baltimore/Washington strip is also extremely densly population.

Now, since each of these areas are served by a cable internet company THAT HAS A FRANCHISE FOR A PORTION OF THIS DENSELY POPULATED AREA, then why is there not much higher speeds and lower costs than the less densely populated states like Utah?

Because government granted monopolies destroy competition?

Sorry, the answer is less government, not more.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: techs
Let's end the debate over "population density" as the reason other countries have faster/cheaper internet.
New York City is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It has 4 or 5 different cable franchise covering different parts of the city. The Boston/New York/Philly/Baltimore/Washington strip is also extremely densly population.

Now, since each of these areas are served by a cable internet company THAT HAS A FRANCHISE FOR A PORTION OF THIS DENSELY POPULATED AREA, then why is there not much higher speeds and lower costs than the less densely populated states like Utah?

You're still off. Seoul has fucking 23 million people, NYC has 8 million. Not only that Koreans are like ATOTers and they are glued to their computers 24/7. People in NYC actually work.

Apples to apples comparison is Seoul vs Tokyo. If you want to get a closer but still not apples to apples comparison NYC, compare with Vancouver or Toronto.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: techs
Let's end the debate over "population density" as the reason other countries have faster/cheaper internet.
New York City is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It has 4 or 5 different cable franchise covering different parts of the city. The Boston/New York/Philly/Baltimore/Washington strip is also extremely densly population.

Now, since each of these areas are served by a cable internet company THAT HAS A FRANCHISE FOR A PORTION OF THIS DENSELY POPULATED AREA, then why is there not much higher speeds and lower costs than the less densely populated states like Utah?

Because it isnt a fucking charity, it is a business. They need to price their cable so that they have the correct balance of bandwidth use.

If they can sell it for $500/month, and people will pay it, then they do it.


What gives you the right to cheap internet access?

 

[JS80]

i love how these fucking reports say US is 28th and korea is whatever then don't provide the entire list.

 

[iGas]

Here is my result BC to Washington server speed test

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Naustica
Lack of competition is really hurting us IMO. We need a major third player to drive the prices down and to ncrease speed. Hopefully Clearwire or something like it can do that.

We should have a "public option" for internet service. The government will force the private sector to lower prices and improve service.

Oh god no. Just start doing what they did to AT&T; break up the companies into regional companies and let them fight over it.

I thought I remembered some musings about the analog spectrum getting freed up with the digital TV conversion and one thought was turning that into a 384kbs free wi-fi band available to anyone. I thought it was going to be government funded, but maybe it was a Google funded project. I found that intriguing. It's perfectly find for casual users just wanting to google a few things or update their facebook page, an improvement over dial up for those still on it, and decisive enought of a speed to encourage power users to subscribe to a traditional service.

That should provide some real interesting competition to the current ISP providers. It would certainly kill the Mom & Pop dial up/co-op ISP's. But should force the other players in the market to be more competitive.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: JS80

You're still off. Seoul has fucking 23 million people, NYC has 8 million. Not only that Koreans are like ATOTers and they are glued to their computers 24/7. People in NYC actually work.

Apples to apples comparison is Seoul vs Tokyo. If you want to get a closer but still not apples to apples comparison NYC, compare with Vancouver or Toronto.

That's a good point. In the US, how many people actually think their speeds are slow enough to complain anyway? Sure on a tech forum with a bunch of bit torrent junkies and newsgroupers it's going to be a concern. But for the general public? It doesn't take much bandwith to google something, update a facebook page, or email pictures of your kids back and forth.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Because it isnt a fucking charity, it is a business. They need to price their cable so that they have the correct balance of bandwidth use.

If they can sell it for $500/month, and people will pay it, then they do it.


What gives you the right to cheap internet access?

I agree with this blunt, but rational argument.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: JS80

You're still off. Seoul has fucking 23 million people, NYC has 8 million. Not only that Koreans are like ATOTers and they are glued to their computers 24/7. People in NYC actually work.

Apples to apples comparison is Seoul vs Tokyo. If you want to get a closer but still not apples to apples comparison NYC, compare with Vancouver or Toronto.

That's a good point. In the US, how many people actually think their speeds are slow enough to complain anyway? Sure on a tech forum with a bunch of bit torrent junkies and newsgroupers it's going to be a concern. But for the general public? It doesn't take much bandwith to google something, update a facebook page, or email pictures of your kids back and forth.

They want the industry to help them steal IP faster, and they want it cheap. Now damn it!

 

[lupi]

Until someone goes and wipes out the fcc board members this isn't going to change. They make ruling after ruling to support the pseudo monopolies and against consumer interest; since outside of direct legislation enacted by congress they are the sole source of power in this, I'm not holding my breath on anything changing. I mean, it's not like the 10 year plan to change to digital transmission didn't work fabulous.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
Why would the guy lie about that? He is not claiming he has found the cure to cancer.

You don't know Dave well, do you?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: JS80

You're still off. Seoul has fucking 23 million people, NYC has 8 million. Not only that Koreans are like ATOTers and they are glued to their computers 24/7. People in NYC actually work.

Apples to apples comparison is Seoul vs Tokyo. If you want to get a closer but still not apples to apples comparison NYC, compare with Vancouver or Toronto.

That's a good point. In the US, how many people actually think their speeds are slow enough to complain anyway? Sure on a tech forum with a bunch of bit torrent junkies and newsgroupers it's going to be a concern. But for the general public? It doesn't take much bandwith to google something, update a facebook page, or email pictures of your kids back and forth.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want a connection that allows me to host a game with eight players and include voice chat, with enough left over for someone else in the house to be messing around on YouTube or Hulu.

 

[frostedflakes]

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people here don't want or need higher speeds. For example look at Verizon's take rate for FiOS, I think only around 25-30% of the residences they pass actually end up subscribing to the service, despite the fact that performance tends to be far superior to that of cable or DSL. If Verizon or other providers could install fiber optics and grab a larger chunk of the houses passed, I'm sure a lot more companies would be investing in this. But when cable, DSL, or even dialup is good enough for most people, there's not really much incentive to offer residences 50Mb connections. There's just not the same demand here for FTTH as there is in Japan, S Korea, etc.

 

[Modelworks]

The telecoms are at fault. They raised rates with the premise that doing so would allow them to provide better service, only the profits went to stockholders and not to infrastructure. Still waiting for that Fios in every home by 2006.
http://www.netaction.org/broadband/bells/

All of this has had a serious impact on America's digital future, which policymakers must address. If the Bells had rolled out the advanced networks that they promised to build?when they promised to build them?the vast majority of Americans would now have access to the Internet over fiber optic networks. The Bells had agreed to wire not just the lucrative high-income neighborhoods, but low-income and rural communities, schools, libraries and health care facilities. By failing to fulfill their promises, the Bells helped create America's digital divide. In the words of New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate Blossom Peretz:

"...[L]ow income and residential customers have paid for the fiber-optic lines every month but they have not yet benefited."

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: JS80

You're still off. Seoul has fucking 23 million people, NYC has 8 million. Not only that Koreans are like ATOTers and they are glued to their computers 24/7. People in NYC actually work.

Apples to apples comparison is Seoul vs Tokyo. If you want to get a closer but still not apples to apples comparison NYC, compare with Vancouver or Toronto.

That's a good point. In the US, how many people actually think their speeds are slow enough to complain anyway? Sure on a tech forum with a bunch of bit torrent junkies and newsgroupers it's going to be a concern. But for the general public? It doesn't take much bandwith to google something, update a facebook page, or email pictures of your kids back and forth.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want a connection that allows me to host a game with eight players and include voice chat, with enough left over for someone else in the house to be messing around on YouTube or Hulu.

But the average consumer doesn't do that. So you're basically stuck with FIOS until they do.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

I don't think it's unreasonable to want a connection that allows me to host a game with eight players and include voice chat, with enough left over for someone else in the house to be messing around on YouTube or Hulu.

A 2-3 mb connection would be plenty for that if not overkill.

 

[13Gigatons]

The REAL reason Telephone and Cable don't want users having faster internet speed is because it would eat into their TV profits.

The REAL reason Telephone and Cable don't want users having faster internet speed is because it would eat into their TV profits.

The REAL reason Telephone and Cable don't want users having faster internet speed is because it would eat into their TV profits.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
The REAL reason Telephone and Cable don't want users having faster internet speed is because it would eat into their TV profits.

The REAL reason Telephone and Cable don't want users having faster internet speed is because it would eat into their TV profits.

The REAL reason Telephone and Cable don't want users having faster internet speed is because it would eat into their TV profits.

So why is Comcast rolling out Docsis 3.0 to 80% of it's customers by years end? All the other MSOs are moving this way as well providing up to 100 Mbs. Don't let facts cloud the conspiracy theorists though.

 

[Scouzer]

Guess my 15/1 connection in rural Canada is pretty good.