• 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.

why is broadband so slow in America?

R

RobCur

Banned
some people don't even have bb and are still on dialup. with sbc we have people with 192kbps/128k, 384kbps/128k, 768/128, 1536/128 and only the few fortunates have 3000/384k or 6000/600
it's sad, we're suppose to be the leader of technology but are beaten by other nations like sweden, korea, china,thailand, japan, asia, europe, canada, mexico, south america, hell even the eskimos in alaska have 10mb/10mb for only 29.95 a month 🙂.
 
<Ignorant American Centric View> DO those countries even have computers to use it? DIdn't think so </Ignorant American Centric View>
 
mexico and china have high speed, south america?

i get 256/3000 and am happy although i would rather have 1000/3000.
 
i had broadband in south america and it was slow as fsck. yeah, the speed out to the cable company was fast, but there are about no backbone lines running out of the continent.

of course, it was faster than AOL in ohio
 
Originally posted by: RobCur
some people don't even have bb and are still on dialup. with sbc we have people with 192kbps/128k, 384kbps/128k, 768/128, 1536/128 and only the few fortunates have 3000/384k or 6000/600
it's sad, we're suppose to be the leader of technology but are beaten by other nations like sweden, korea, china,thailand, japan, asia, europe, canada, mexico, south america, hell even the eskimos in alaska have 10mb/10mb for only 29.95 a month 🙂.
Click to expand...

out cabling infrastructure is the oldest. remember we invented the telephone and have the oldest infrastructure.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i had broadband in south america and it was slow as fsck. yeah, the speed out to the cable company was fast, but there are about no backbone lines running out of the continent.

of course, it was faster than AOL in ohio
Click to expand...
you call 512k/128k slow? in usa 384k/128k, 192k/128 is the norm 🙂
 
As someone else said, it's a big country. I would be willing to bet that the average person in the US lives much farther away from the local head end of the telco/cable company than almost anywhere else in the world. This makes high speed links harder technically.

Also remember that a lot of the countries with fast broadband are a lot more crowded, so it makes more sense to run high speed into a neighborhood than in the US where you might be 1/3 of the customers.
 
like 2% of teh people in china have BB, it has teh same problim teh US does it too damn big, Japan, korea and the like are tiney so running cable isnt that hard/expensive, they also dont have to deal with 100 diofferent companys offering it and fighting about stuff, same reasons they have better Cell phones
 
Originally posted by: RobCur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i had broadband in south america and it was slow as fsck. yeah, the speed out to the cable company was fast, but there are about no backbone lines running out of the continent.

of course, it was faster than AOL in ohio
Click to expand...
you call 512k/128k slow? in usa 384k/128k, 192k/128 is the norm 🙂
Click to expand...

For basic DSL (the cheap or lite versions)

Most regular in my area are AT LEAT 1 Mbits down.

I get 2Mb/386kb for 50 bucks. DSL
 
Originally posted by: RobCur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i had broadband in south america and it was slow as fsck. yeah, the speed out to the cable company was fast, but there are about no backbone lines running out of the continent.

of course, it was faster than AOL in ohio
Click to expand...
you call 512k/128k slow? in usa 384k/128k, 192k/128 is the norm 🙂
Click to expand...

yes 512/128 is like a snales pace when you are used to at least 2.0/256

My home cable line is 3.0/384 (29.99/m), at college we had 600k/1.0m for the dorms and houses and that was painfully slow, i liked the upload speed but 600k down sucked donkey balls

it was better then dial up but then again anything is better then that
 
Originally posted by: RobCur
some people don't even have bb and are still on dialup. with sbc we have people with 192kbps/128k, 384kbps/128k, 768/128, 1536/128 and only the few fortunates have 3000/384k or 6000/600
it's sad, we're suppose to be the leader of technology but are beaten by other nations like sweden, korea, china,thailand, japan, asia, europe, canada, mexico, south america, hell even the eskimos in alaska have 10mb/10mb for only 29.95 a month 🙂.
Click to expand...

Correction - We were the Technology Leader, now we are not even following. Sad indeed 🙁

Politics and Greed = Fall of Roman Empire all over again.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: RobCur
some people don't even have bb and are still on dialup. with sbc we have people with 192kbps/128k, 384kbps/128k, 768/128, 1536/128 and only the few fortunates have 3000/384k or 6000/600
it's sad, we're suppose to be the leader of technology but are beaten by other nations like sweden, korea, china,thailand, japan, asia, europe, canada, mexico, south america, hell even the eskimos in alaska have 10mb/10mb for only 29.95 a month 🙂.
Click to expand...

Correction - We were the Technology Leader, now we are not even following. Sad indeed 🙁

Politics and Greed = Fall of Roman Empire all over again.
Click to expand...
I agree plus a lot has to do with distance, many places in texas have a small population / square mile that it isn't profitable for the telco's to run the frame relay infrastructure to enable broadband. (starband type satalite feeds is the best they can get and man are they laggy, but still better than dial up) heck some people are still having pulp cable connections for phone service and .50-75 per minute standard long distance (most buy calling cards in bulk for the .05 per minute rate 😉
 
I'm in NJ. I have optimum online. Sometimes I can get 500Kbyte/s downloads, so that translate to 4mbps. not bad
 
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: RobCur
some people don't even have bb and are still on dialup. with sbc we have people with 192kbps/128k, 384kbps/128k, 768/128, 1536/128 and only the few fortunates have 3000/384k or 6000/600
it's sad, we're suppose to be the leader of technology but are beaten by other nations like sweden, korea, china,thailand, japan, asia, europe, canada, mexico, south america, hell even the eskimos in alaska have 10mb/10mb for only 29.95 a month 🙂.
Click to expand...

Correction - We were the Technology Leader, now we are not even following. Sad indeed 🙁

Politics and Greed = Fall of Roman Empire all over again.
Click to expand...
I agree plus a lot has to do with distance, many places in texas have a small population / square mile that it isn't profitable for the telco's to run the frame relay infrastructure to enable broadband. (starband type satalite feeds is the best they can get and man are they laggy, but still better than dial up) heck some people are still having pulp cable connections for phone service and .50-75 per minute standard long distance (most buy calling cards in bulk for the .05 per minute rate 😉
Click to expand...

That's an extremely poor excuse by the Telcos.

Do you realize if they just put the tiniest fraction of the gazzilion dollars in fraudalent profits back into the infrastructure for High Speed that excuse would have no basis at all, we would have High Speed to every location in the U.S and we woudn't be having this conversation?
 
You think Australian broadband sucks? In New Zealand, we use Australia as an example of a 'wired' country to demonstrate how bad OUR broadband situation is 😛

/on dialup because anything over 128k is too expensive
 
384k slow? Pfffft. That's fast enough for 90% of the internet users out there. For most people that use the net to check email, do some simple browsing, and watch the occasional streaming video it's plenty fast.

Unless you are constantly downloading porn videos, doing illegal activities like sharing music or videos, or are addicted to iTunes, a 384k connection is PLENTY fast.
 
Originally posted by: vi_edit
384k slow? Pfffft. That's fast enough for 90% of the internet users out there. For most people that use the net to check email, do some simple browsing, and watch the occasional streaming video it's plenty fast.

Unless you are constantly downloading porn videos, doing illegal activities like sharing music or videos, or are addicted to iTunes, a 384k connection is PLENTY fast.
Click to expand...

with 384k you have to wait for webpages to load, when i click i wanted it loaded i dont wanna have to wait

also useing outlook on 384 when someone emailes you anything over 300K sucks
 
with 384k you have to wait for webpages to load, when i click i wanted it loaded i dont wanna have to wait

also useing outlook on 384 when someone emailes you anything over 300K sucks [/quote]

Unless a website is HEAVY into flash then it doesn't take a long time to load up. And even if it does, I tend to avoid flash websites because flash sucks my balls.

And a 300k attachment on a 384k line will take under 10 seconds. If that is too much time then you need to reevaluate your time budgeting for the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top