USA Broadband Speeds Sloooow by comparison

[vi edit]

Cram 1/3 of our population into the state of Montana and see how much easier it would be to distribute data.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Aharami
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: potato28
But considering that Canada has a much larger area than the US, how do we have higher speeds? :Q</end quote></div>

because 90% of your population lives within 100 miles of the US-Canada border</end quote></div>

Which has nothing to do with this argument since it's government mandated that our telecom/internet providers have to supply our small northern communities with the same speed internet access as urban/metro areas.

The fact is I've had 1.5mbps internet for almost 10 years.. and I can get 5.0mbps (when I'm at school) for 29.99 a month and download at over 650kbps, when it costs the same price in the states for a fraction of the speed.

The downtown core for my city is all prewired for high speed in every highrise, and the city provides free wireless throughout much of the downtown core.

I'm sorry dude but geography has nothing to do with it, rather we are much more inclined to keep pushing ourself as far to the forefront of technology as possible.

Actually, you're wrong. Geography does have something to do with it, yet it is only part of the equation.

Canada, along with most of the rest of the world were late to the game when it came to broadband. For the most part, the US and its companies spent heavily to bring broadband to the nation and it cost us dearly as early adapters. Since our infrastructure is already established with first gen equipment, it is costing us tons of money to upgrade to the newest generation of equipment to be able to supply everyone with faster speeds. This is the 2nd time Spidey and myself have had to make comments about this in this thread, and has been talked about extensively in others.

If it wasn't for the US and the rest of the early adopters, there'd be a much different face to broadband.

Good for your 5mbps for 29.99. Try 20mbps for $33/month where I'm at.

 

[spidey07]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Regs
And if you want someone to blame...look towards the FCC and our sluggish political system.</end quote></div>

LOL!

The internet has been allowed to thrive because of the FCC and our political system.

competition is good.:thumbsup:

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Accipiter22
winnnar.....notice anything about that map? I haven't even looked at it yet, but I bet the densely populated states will be by and far the highest speed wise</end quote></div>

the only anomaly I see after looking at the list is that Kansas is #2...maybe no one BUT the urban areas has internet?

not quite. i work for a wireless ISP and there are many others in the state providing internet access to people well outside of urban areas....but it doesnt compare to DSL or Cable when downloading.

but id really be surprised if all of them together had a customer base as large as that of dsl/cable in just wichita. the company i work for has, last i checked, somewhere around 1200 - 1400 customers over 6 service areas.

personally, ive got a 3mbps dsl connection, i can get 6 but....i dont need it. ive download a lot of linux ISOs and stuff from etree and archive.org, large live music shows and the like, but what i have is plenty for that. I dont need any of it *right this second* so i downgraded to save a few bucks a month.

i might care if i was torrenting loads of movies, or wanted to host a website on my own connection i guess.

 

[bleeb]

The US market is conducive to being taken advantage of and ripped off.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Regs
Japan has a whole...3-4 industrious cities tops? Outside their urban areas are lucky to have running water.

Wow....Just wow....
Your ignorance is quite amazing.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Cram 1/3 of our population into the state of Montana and see how much easier it would be to distribute data.

winnnar.....notice anything about that map? I haven't even looked at it yet, but I bet the densely populated states will be by and far the highest speed wise

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: spidey07
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Regs
And if you want someone to blame...look towards the FCC and our sluggish political system.</end quote></div>

LOL!

The internet has been allowed to thrive because of the FCC and our political system.

competition is good.:thumbsup:

Yeah. I have one communications company in my Area. I live in NJ btw. And my one communications company is likely going to be bought out by Comcast in the next year.

How many competitors are allowed to run phone, fiber optics, and digital wiring in your town? How many times has the FCC had to shut down a project because it could interfere with a radio signal?

 

[Spacehead]

I'd just be happy to have another option besides dial-up.

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: aries7
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by kranky:
If we ignore youtube videos and illegal downloading of media, is there any big advantage to 61mbps versus 1.97? What value does all that extra bandwidth really serve? I'm serious, I have FIOS going right past our house and I can't come up with one good reason to switch from DSL.</end quote></div>

Really?

Why do people upgrade their computers? What value does all that extra computing power really serve... the same can be asked. How you use the net is not the same as how someone else uses the net.

You could ask yourself: would the U.S. be missing out on anything if it pinned today's broadband speeds for the next 15 years?

Broadband is an enabler for higher technologies; bigger and better things. Some would argue that we don't need higher broadband speeds until those technologies started becoming mainstream ... but then we could argue if the chicken or the egg came first.

I think there's a real reason to upgrade computers - some people need the horsepower for games, some for photo/video editing (me), some do it just to get it done on their own terms before the inevitable system failure occurs. I still don't know why there's a burning desire to have more bandwidth unless it's for downloading media. Nothing wrong with that, but I can't see why it's that big of an attraction to so many people.

If the point of more bandwidth availability is to have the plumbing in place before there's a need for it, that's fine. I'll just wait until it has a use before I pay more than I'm paying now.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
winnnar.....notice anything about that map? I haven't even looked at it yet, but I bet the densely populated states will be by and far the highest speed wise

the only anomaly I see after looking at the list is that Kansas is #2...maybe no one BUT the urban areas has internet?

 

[goog40]

I'm kinda surprised California's median speed is so low, since it seems like most people would be clustered together near areas where there should be decent-high speed internet. I've tested around 13 Mbps with Time Warner and I'm happy with that, although 60 would be nice.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Regs
The only thing that is going to change this state is a civil war.

I hope PA or Ohio invades us soon. Potato launchers and firework sprinklers ... I don't care... use anything.

:laugh::laugh:

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: bleeb
The US market is conducive to being taken advantage of and ripped off.

Best post in the thread.

Even if we did reach 20mbits they'd charge us an arm and a leg for it. I get charged 40 dollars a month. Used to 30, but the decided to raise it without telling us because they gave us a whole .5 mbit boost off the existing network that didn't need to be upgraded.

 

[George P Burdell]

The USA trails other industrialized nations in high-speed Internet access and may never catch up unless quick action is taken by public-policymakers, a report commissioned by the Communications Workers of America warns.

The median U.S. download speed now is 1.97 megabits per second ? a fraction of the 61 megabits per second enjoyed by consumers in Japan, says the report released Monday. Other speedy countries include South Korea (median 45 megabits), France (17 megabits) and Canada (7 megabits).

Linky

There's also a table showing median speeds by state.

 

[aries7]

Originally posted by kranky:
If we ignore youtube videos and illegal downloading of media, is there any big advantage to 61mbps versus 1.97? What value does all that extra bandwidth really serve? I'm serious, I have FIOS going right past our house and I can't come up with one good reason to switch from DSL.

Really?

Why do people upgrade their computers? What value does all that extra computing power really serve... the same can be asked. How you use the net is not the same as how someone else uses the net.

You could ask yourself: would the U.S. be missing out on anything if it pinned today's broadband speeds for the next 15 years?

Broadband is an enabler for higher technologies; bigger and better things. Some would argue that we don't need higher broadband speeds until those technologies started becoming mainstream ... but then we could argue if the chicken or the egg came first.

 

[sao123]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: xSauronx
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Accipiter22
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Accipiter22
winnnar.....notice anything about that map? I haven't even looked at it yet, but I bet the densely populated states will be by and far the highest speed wise</end quote></div>

the only anomaly I see after looking at the list is that Kansas is #2...maybe no one BUT the urban areas has internet?</end quote></div>

not quite. i work for a wireless ISP and there are many others in the state providing internet access to people well outside of urban areas....but it doesnt compare to DSL or Cable when downloading.

but id really be surprised if all of them together had a customer base as large as that of dsl/cable in just wichita. the company i work for has, last i checked, somewhere around 1200 - 1400 customers over 6 service areas.

personally, ive got a 3mbps dsl connection, i can get 6 but....i dont need it. ive download a lot of linux ISOs and stuff from etree and archive.org, large live music shows and the like, but what i have is plenty for that. I dont need any of it *right this second* so i downgraded to save a few bucks a month.

i might care if i was torrenting loads of movies, or wanted to host a website on my own connection i guess.</end quote></div>

I bolded the true reason why... because the rate we charge for internet service... no one could afford a 25MB connection.

 

[potato28]

But considering that Canada has a much larger area than the US, how do we have higher speeds? :Q

 

[Fenixgoon]

japan has roughly the same area as california, yet has triple its population, IIRC

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Optimum Online isnt trailing by that much.

15 Mbps standard, 30 Mbps for $10 or $15 more.



* More speed with up to 30 Mbps for downloads and up to 5Mbps for uploads.
* Everything you need for your own website:
o Easy to use SiteBuilder tools - no HTML skills required
o Web hosting for your Web site (1GB of Web space)
o The ability to host your own Web or e-mail server - DDNS, Port 80 & Port 25
o Domain name registration
o 15 personalized e-mail addresses
(e.g. yourname@yourdomain.com)
o Up to $50 worth of Google? AdWords
o Plus much more - see a list of all the great features included in the web hosting package
* Send bigger attachments -- Up to 100MB per e-mail
* More mailboxes and storage -- 15 optonline.net mailboxes with 1GB each of storage space

I forgot to add, I would probably never find any use for the extra speed.

I don't see what I would accomplish, 15 mbps is fast enough, hell, 5 mbps is fast enough, for me at least.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BigJ
For the most part, the US and its companies spent heavily to bring broadband to the nation and it cost us dearly as early adapters. Since our infrastructure is already established with first gen equipment, it is costing us tons of money to upgrade to the newest generation of equipment to be able to supply everyone with faster speeds. This is the 2nd time Spidey and myself have had to make comments about this in this thread, and has been talked about extensively in others.

If it wasn't for the US and the rest of the early adopters, there'd be a much different face to broadband.

$200 Billion broadband scandal

According to that book, we've already paid for a 45Mbps broadband (to the home) infrastructure that we do not have, thanks to fraud on the part of the large phone companies in the US.

 

[YoungGun21]

HOLY CRAP! Just think about what we are missing out on? Why aren't these speeds offered here? Heck I'd be fine with like 25mbps!

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Accipiter22
winnnar.....notice anything about that map? I haven't even looked at it yet, but I bet the densely populated states will be by and far the highest speed wise</end quote></div>

the only anomaly I see after looking at the list is that Kansas is #2...maybe no one BUT the urban areas has internet?

That is because that's where all the major "pipes" are. IIRC Google has or will have one of the biggest "nodes" there ever.

 

[uhohs]

TWO THREADS FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS!!!!!!!1

 

[lyssword]

3,717,813 sq mi divide by 144,689 sq mi = 25.7 x 1.97 = 50+ mb. So the U.S still lagging if you divide by the area to cover, but only by a little
However I do agree that ISP's in major cities should REALLY step up in their speed