Slashdot Mirror

No thanks: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2138465750.png

That's right: Our cousins in the European Union have it No better than we Americans. Sure they have some states that are better, but they also have some crappy states (like Greece, Spain) that are a mere 1-2 Mbit/s

I am on ONO at Spain paying for the 50mb/5Mb plan, they offered me a month ago a upgrade to 75Mb/5Mb, the price was 1 year permanency more, same money. Just did that quick test for you http://www.speedtest.net/result/2132615837.png . ONO its a cable company pretty spread at Spain, so i call bullshit to your "facts" , care to provide any source ?

I don't think 54ms is all that bad.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2005573982.png

I think you mean 50Mbit/s :)

No, I mean 500Mbit/s :) If you're getting only 50Mbit/s, then you're not using the N standard and good hardware :) And to be fair, the major speed boost came with the latest generation of time capsule, we never got over 100Mbit/s previously.

The result while performing backup over wifi at the same time: http://www.speedtest.net/result/1952406137.png
And while I wasn't doing backup (historic entry when I tested things): http://speedtest.net/result/1539505358.png

I guess it wasn't as fast this time, but in any case it's well over 100Mbit/s and there may have been some clouding of my memories with the 500Mbit/s, but it's in hundreds in any case :)

I'm not "remote", I'm just not in the server room. When I'm remote, I use RDC from home to my office desktop and then make the X11 connection on that.

I think under remote I meant not physically connected. It doesn't really matter too much if you're 10m - 10km away assuming the amount of switches and backbone are reasonable so it's only your endpoint connection we're talking about.

I think you mean 50Mbit/s :)

No, I mean 500Mbit/s :) If you're getting only 50Mbit/s, then you're not using the N standard and good hardware :) And to be fair, the major speed boost came with the latest generation of time capsule, we never got over 100Mbit/s previously.

The result while performing backup over wifi at the same time: http://www.speedtest.net/result/1952406137.png
And while I wasn't doing backup (historic entry when I tested things): http://speedtest.net/result/1539505358.png

I guess it wasn't as fast this time, but in any case it's well over 100Mbit/s and there may have been some clouding of my memories with the 500Mbit/s, but it's in hundreds in any case :)

I'm not "remote", I'm just not in the server room. When I'm remote, I use RDC from home to my office desktop and then make the X11 connection on that.

I think under remote I meant not physically connected. It doesn't really matter too much if you're 10m - 10km away assuming the amount of switches and backbone are reasonable so it's only your endpoint connection we're talking about.

It really depends on 'to where you measure' and 'under what conditions' and 'what technology'. EG, satellite broadband will just have bad latency, period. Its the nature of the beast. And cellular/wireless can vary all over the place.

But for fixed, land-line connections? I'd say well under 50ms of latency for the last hop, so perhaps 125ms latency max to an in-ISP test server (giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming 75 ms latency to their test server because its somewhere in the middle of the US).

However, this is 'no traffic' latency: if you are doing a file transfer, BitTorrent, etc, the bad buffering in many networks can make the latency under load much much much worse.

It is also "no WiFi latency": your WiFi connection can introduce all sorts of problems, including bottlenecks etc. So it should be the latency you see when plugged into the wall.

Two other resources I'd recommend you look at: Ookla's Speedtest.net, which is a very good speed tester for latency and bandwidth, and Netalyzr, which is a very comprehensive network tester.

... no hosting services in iceland have ANY upload limits, they do-however have "download" limits, which means data from other countries _TO_ the server is metered, and quite expensive but ANY upload (from the server to the internet) is completely free.

Just a matter of making a deal, i'd reccomend contacting x.is and 1984.is.

Additionally, a 100 mbit connection at home in iceland is only like 7k ISK (~60 USD) with a 250 gb download (see above) cap and NO upload cap. (See: http://hringdu.is/page/yfirlit/ljos/ / http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhringdu.is%2Fpage%2Fyfirlit%2Fljos%2F)

Here's my speed (50/50 mbit connection, ~4k ISK (~30 USD) a month) http://www.speedtest.net/result/1801028229.png

p.s. data within iceland is not metered at all, up or down.
p.p.s. if you do hit the "download" limit, they don't charge you, they slow the connection down to ~4 KB/s so you can't keep downloading but domestic speeds stay the same all the time (so yes i proxy to friends when i go over my cap).
p.p.p.s. A friend of mine even runs an anime streaming site from one of those connections in iceland at http://fluffy.is/ it runs quite well and has for about a year now on the current connection.

Enjoy

and as a non-Kansas City resident I would like to say "I hope you choke on your gigabit... that glorious wonderfull gigabit..."

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1705675097.png
Very few servers can handle 1 gig right now. They're better at dishing it out, but they're trash at taking it.

Of course, as a user, I'll just fill up my truck until it clogs all the tubes.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1750410854.png Paying like 70 us-dollars a month for this (never discovered a cap) including a pretty smart tv and phone triple-play. I love Canada but this research is plain wrong.

Well according to the screenshot from http://speedtest.net/, he got 60. But I could see that it would be a short burst. They need to use a bigger package for testing.

You get 2.5 times your advertised down speed at night or am I reading that wrong?

Correct, though possibly temporary.

It seems that my "Up to 7.5 Mbps" is more of an "at least 7.5 Mbps".

I was surprised by the numbers posted, retested and got very similar numbers.

This neighbourhood appears to be a couple blocks from Shaw Cable's trunk lines for Vancouver, where there are multiple 1-2 inch diameter "pipes" strung to the telephone poles, and 100 Mbps is available, so that might be one reason.

Just testing again, at 01h48 and... WOW, sustained over 30 Mbps download, though final score was 20.47 Mbps, nearly 3 times the advertised "up-to" rate. I'm shocked.

I wonder how SpeedTest.net calculates their speed score, as my most-recent test dipped under 20 Mbps only briefly.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1594919457.png

Go TekSavvy(, with kudos to Shaw's infrastructure)!

I use my wireless LAN in my home to connect to my "super fast" internet. It's only a problem during peek hours. Normally I get 95Mbps/80Mbps, but it seems the wireless is congested.

since you mentioned Romania...

http://speedtest.net/result/1551464284.png

Romanian ISP, metropolitan area, the server on the other end that i used to test the speed with is about 390 km/242 miles away (by road), about 300 km in a straight line.

costs me about 28 euro / 42 usd per month and it includes some basic cable tv service that i don't use (my parents watch tv, not me), a fixed land line phone and a mobile phone with unlimited minutes in their network (and very, very cheap elsewhere).
It also includes a 3G wireless usb modem (modem device cost=zero, in custody), unlimited traffic (fair use speed-capped) and also free unlimited 3G wireless data (fair-use speed capped, again) for my mobile phone AND tethering is allowed.

Voice/3G service coverage is not that good once you step out of the major cities/highways areas, but i have a backup phone for those situations, on a prepay plan with another provider, and i only refill it once every 6 months or so with 5 euro, just enough to keep the sim card active.

Fiber optic technology that can deliver 100Mbps and even gigabit speeds over wide area distances has been around for years, so the reason it hasn't reached your doorstep yet isn't because it hasn't been invented yet. What's been standing in the way of progress all this time are the large telecom corporations that exploit all those local loops out there, those last miles of ancient copper that they're always promising to replace with something better, but always find a reason not to. No, as far as they're concerned it's always better to squeeze the last dime possible out of your investment if you can, especially when there's no real competition (something most of us can also thank our local governments for).

If you need a bit of leverage, take my local government. I thank them profusely for what they've done for us (well, the Public Utility District). I also thank California, for allowing us to rape their pocketbooks some 10 years ago for selling them cheap power at ridiculously expensive prices.

But seriously, the fiber to the home is very possible, very doable. If anyone in the decision-making process/government is trying to tell you it can't be done, just point them to Grant County PUD. My actual bandwidth, at 8:34 PM local time: Speedtest result

I really would love to see more people have fiber optics to their homes. It'll force the ISP's to increase their pipes, and the internet as a whole will be better, I think.

Here's my results
http://www.speedtest.net/result/924009803.png (old)
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1378615604.png (new)

These are very typical of my line even during "peak hours". The problem with the theory that a users line just has to be good enough is that EVERY point along the pipe has to be problem free. No one company can guarantee that across the internet. For example, the route to skype's webserver (it was just an easy example, don't jump all over me for using a webserver as an example here please) is 18 hops away, and the path crosses the networks of four different network providers. Even if I have the best service possible (and I think mine is pretty darn good) I'm still at the mercy of every single pop along that path. Not to mention the unknowns if the packets travel through someone's ATM or something along those lines. It's just a concept that inherently can't be reliable enough in my opinion without some fundamental changes.
VOIP is a good way to save money if quality isn't extremely important; I pay $50 a month for my land line (all features + unlimited USA LD), and I could be paying like $35 a year with a voip system.
Unfortunately it's not good enough for me. I don't want my boss to get annoyed with any facet of me telecommuting and consider revoking the privilege. I don't believe I'm the only one that will continue to pay for a land line for quality purposes; and so I think that the idea of PSTN going away in less than 6 1/2 years is dubious at best. That is unless telco's are taking a loss on them.. which I also doubt. The voip based services I've tried (and ditched) so far are: Skype, Magic Jack, Bright House Networks Digital Phone, and vonage.

Here's my results
http://www.speedtest.net/result/924009803.png (old)
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1378615604.png (new)

These are very typical of my line even during "peak hours". The problem with the theory that a users line just has to be good enough is that EVERY point along the pipe has to be problem free. No one company can guarantee that across the internet. For example, the route to skype's webserver (it was just an easy example, don't jump all over me for using a webserver as an example here please) is 18 hops away, and the path crosses the networks of four different network providers. Even if I have the best service possible (and I think mine is pretty darn good) I'm still at the mercy of every single pop along that path. Not to mention the unknowns if the packets travel through someone's ATM or something along those lines. It's just a concept that inherently can't be reliable enough in my opinion without some fundamental changes.
VOIP is a good way to save money if quality isn't extremely important; I pay $50 a month for my land line (all features + unlimited USA LD), and I could be paying like $35 a year with a voip system.
Unfortunately it's not good enough for me. I don't want my boss to get annoyed with any facet of me telecommuting and consider revoking the privilege. I don't believe I'm the only one that will continue to pay for a land line for quality purposes; and so I think that the idea of PSTN going away in less than 6 1/2 years is dubious at best. That is unless telco's are taking a loss on them.. which I also doubt. The voip based services I've tried (and ditched) so far are: Skype, Magic Jack, Bright House Networks Digital Phone, and vonage.

But what do you use for Internet? Unless you are one of the lucky FIOS ones (lucky bastards) most places DSL sucks compared to cable, and I don't know about everywhere else but I know Cox will NOT sell you net without at LEAST basic included. I ended up just picking up a cheapo USB TV tuner just so I could watch the occasional documentary (I haven't watched TV since Firefly left the air) and to not feel so ripped about having to pay for basic cable that I otherwise would never ever use.

I have COX here in Arkansas and I have and only pay for cable internet. They even came out and placed a trap on my line to prevent tv signal. and I only pay $49 + tax for this speed. "http://www.speedtest.net/result/1263294364.png" I do believe if you were told you HAVE to include basic cable it was a flat lie. I was a technician for COX for 9 yrs and even when they rolled out cable internet in AR and KS they couldnt force you to get tv service (although most people didnt know this at the time).

Not sure why the above is marked Informative.

I'm on the 100Mbit service with Virgin Media and I get over 9Mbit/sec upload. Obviously you're never going to get equal download/upload capacity because you'd have businesses hanging their racks off them.

Proof: http://www.speedtest.net/result/1263005190.png

I go over the cap almost every month, I have not received a warning for going over, but I suspect it may be due to the fact I am under contract for 2 years of service. Netflix streaming on multiple devices will eat that cap away. I rarely download files. http://speedtest.net/result/1232680921.png

I also have Time Warner with FiOS available. My download speed is quite good even with the regular base service according to the website Speedtest.net I get a constant download of 10.36 Mb/s. Things could be worse

Yes, the US has rather slow broadband compared to many similarly-situated countries. Consider this ranking: http://speedtest.net/global.php#0

Interestingly, according to speedtest.net the US is slightly faster than Canada. I could speculate that the US's lag in broadband speed is due to the large size of the country and difficulty in providing broadband to rural areas, but I am sure that Russia has an even bigger problem in that regard and they are significantly faster (on this list). Also, this does not explain why even urban areas have embarrassingly slow broadband.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1127149169.png

or

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1127154522.png

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1127149169.png

or

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1127154522.png

And as brought out time and again, there are much less dense countries in the world that have bigger pipes and even metropolitan areas in the US don't get all that great of a broadband. Look at individual states and I would say most of the East Coast and West Coast is pretty densely populated but still many don't have broadband or very fast broadband. I don't think there are any providers in the US that provide more than 10Mbps other than those that can afford a business package.

That's funny. I'm writing this from my 30x5 mbit connection ( here is a link I just took so you know I'm not just blowing smoke: http://www.speedtest.net/result/1126878052.png ). Oh, and I don't even live in a major metropolitan area. I live in a mid income suburb (avg home value is about $120K).

Right now I pay Comcast $30 and $39 for two seperate 50+ Mbs lines (I get 63/14 mbs from each) in my home, I made a deal with them. If the FCC was controlling pricing I couldn't have made that deal.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1068127921.png

That's just one of the two, $30 a month.

Um... How?! Where? I would do volunteered prostitution for that connection!

There's a bit about regulation that really bothers me...

Back in the 90's, we worked out a deal with the local telco (GTE at the time) for extra iforgetwhattheyrecalledbitletusforwardmorecallsperline.

A few months later we get a call from GTE telling us we can no longer do that, since it was not covered by FCC rules or somesuch. Since there was no rule for it, they couldn't do it.

Right now I pay Comcast $30 and $39 for two seperate 50+ Mbs lines (I get 63/14 mbs from each) in my home, I made a deal with them. If the FCC was controlling pricing I couldn't have made that deal.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1068127921.png

That's just one of the two, $30 a month.

I have Time Warner Cable and I connect using Earthlink servers. I just went to Speedtest.net and checked speed. I get 10Mbs download and 0.449 Mbs upload. I guess I don't have broadband either

Speedtest.net has an excellent overview of global speeds, which agrees very much with this posted report, and also gives a good indication of speeds in other areas of the world.

Why can't we be as fast as South Korea?
What's the big hold up?

I recently switched from a 4G EVO (Wimax) to a 3G Vibrant (HSDPA) and here in Chicago the speeds are almost identical. With Sprint I got 3-6mbps with good reception on Wimax and with the Vibrant I get more like 2-5mbps with T-mobile's 3G HSDPA network. The Vibrant doesn't do HSDPA+ btw, just vanilla.

The difference is with the EVO I had to manually turn 4G on and off because its such an incredible battery drainer. I usually stayed on Sprint's 3G network which is CDMA and terrible, you'd be lucky to get 1 mbps and in my neighborhood I got around 80-100k. Not to mention switching from 3G to 4G on Sprint takes 30-60 seconds but syncing to HSDPA on Tmobile takes 2 seconds.

Don't dismiss T-mobile's HSDPA rollout, it may not technically be 4G but its just as fast and there's no $10 a month 4G fee like Sprint charges. The HSDPA+ devices are doing over 10-15mbps in real world scenarios, which is incredible. I have a feeling that Wimax is doomed on the cell side of things. Its too power thirsty and doesn't penetrate well through buildings using Clear's frequencies. The future is most likely LTE and HSDPA+ with Wimax focusing on laptop and stationary installs.

As long as we're bragging... :-)

But I guess you win in the price-value comparison... €25 is a bargain! I would like in on *that* deal.

As long as we're bragging... :-)

Here are my results from a few minutes ago: http://www.speedtest.net/result/985839676.png

Fiber to the home (free standing house/single family home, don't know the proper US real estate terminology), at approx $35 per month; that includes IP-telephony monthly charges, calls are extra but cheaper than ordinary land line. Even though I'm paying for 50/50 symmetric, speedtest didn't quite reach that in uplink, I usually see better speeds to a more reasonably located Swedish ISP.

So you are saying I probably shouldn't tell you that because of how they handle business class accounts, I actually get more than that most of the time? :D

http://www.speedtest.net/result/985434853.png

That is my actual result from a few minutes ago. It is fun for bragging rights, I'll say that. However truth be told other than Impulse and Steam downloads I notice no difference over 20mbps. Personally I'd take 20/20 if it were offered instead of 50/5. However currently they use 4 downstream channels with DOCSIS 3, but only one upstream channel. The equipment can handle 4 upstream channels, Cox just doesn't use more than one.

http://speedtest.net/global.php#0 is useful... but you need to drill down to your local area and ignore datacentre ISPs...

Hmm... seems that Japan is not that advanced after all. Most of Finland has HSPA 3G network with 14.4mbps theoretical maximum for 14€/month uncapped for your phone with secondary data SIM and extra included USB data stick. Realistic rate is 6mbps/1mbps and 100+ms ping. I'm typing this using exactly that HSPA 3G connection, closest shop is 10 miles away and nearest city is 20 miles away. No wired or cable services available at all, only electricity line is coming to the edge of the property.

Here are speedtests for Helsinki (200 miles away in fact), London and San Diego... taken at 6pm, which is heavy usage time here.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/898400861.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/898402115.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/898409197.png

Hmm... seems that Japan is not that advanced after all. Most of Finland has HSPA 3G network with 14.4mbps theoretical maximum for 14€/month uncapped for your phone with secondary data SIM and extra included USB data stick. Realistic rate is 6mbps/1mbps and 100+ms ping. I'm typing this using exactly that HSPA 3G connection, closest shop is 10 miles away and nearest city is 20 miles away. No wired or cable services available at all, only electricity line is coming to the edge of the property.

Here are speedtests for Helsinki (200 miles away in fact), London and San Diego... taken at 6pm, which is heavy usage time here.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/898400861.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/898402115.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/898409197.png

Hmm... seems that Japan is not that advanced after all. Most of Finland has HSPA 3G network with 14.4mbps theoretical maximum for 14€/month uncapped for your phone with secondary data SIM and extra included USB data stick. Realistic rate is 6mbps/1mbps and 100+ms ping. I'm typing this using exactly that HSPA 3G connection, closest shop is 10 miles away and nearest city is 20 miles away. No wired or cable services available at all, only electricity line is coming to the edge of the property.

Here are speedtests for Helsinki (200 miles away in fact), London and San Diego... taken at 6pm, which is heavy usage time here.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/898400861.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/898402115.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/898409197.png

For the most part, if you have Sprint or Verizon, you're going to get at least ISDN-speed 1xRTT data just about anywhere in the country that's within a mile of the nearest paved road, and have decently reliable 3G EVDO service just about everywhere you're likely to care about unless you're a park ranger.

One of the best (Verizon) EVDO signals I have ever seen was while moored in Isthmus cove at Catalina Island, 26 miles off the coast of Los Angeles: Speedtest result

Where is Japan and its 1gbps broadband on that list? I call a load of BS and according to this graph the US isn't second.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Images/commentarynews/broadbandspeedchart.jpg

According to speed test the US isn't second either and their numbers are probably more accurate.

http://www.speedtest.net/global.php#0

Even though north america comes out on top as a continent most asian countries are above it. There are just a lot of poor countries that drag down the average.

I ran SpeedTests from me to various servers (to get the best comparison rates) and I get what Verizon's telling me I'm supposed to be getting - 25 mbps down, 10-15 up.

DSL Reports gives me less, but then again I never bothered to shut down Steam, Hamachi, etc.

If it makes a difference, I download from Steam at a max of 3 MB/sec (that's megabytes), so I think I'm getting my 25 mbps (megabits)

This doesn't really answer your questions, but ISP's can't provide reliable & fast service at today's prices because it eliminates their opportunities to charge customers more and more every time they provide an incremental increase in speed. They need to be able to raise your rates for improving your speed by a few Mbs here or there. If they don't they'll never be able to charge $250 a month for 100Mbs service.

I have Optimum Online 'Boost' service which costs me $60 per month. It's pretty fast: 17Mbs/5Mbs to the closest server and 13Mbs/3Mbs to a server across the country. I could get the 'Ultra' service but it wouldn't really make much of a difference for my needs. I have three clients who use the 'Ultra' service and they get great service.

This doesn't really answer your questions, but ISP's can't provide reliable & fast service at today's prices because it eliminates their opportunities to charge customers more and more every time they provide an incremental increase in speed. They need to be able to raise your rates for improving your speed by a few Mbs here or there. If they don't they'll never be able to charge $250 a month for 100Mbs service.

I have Optimum Online 'Boost' service which costs me $60 per month. It's pretty fast: 17Mbs/5Mbs to the closest server and 13Mbs/3Mbs to a server across the country. I could get the 'Ultra' service but it wouldn't really make much of a difference for my needs. I have three clients who use the 'Ultra' service and they get great service.

The addresses are Speedtest.net and Pingtest.net. And yeah, I checked to make sure I got the capitalization correct.

speedtest.com is a squatter, and pingtest.com redirects to bandwidthplace.com, which looks awfully shady. Whois says it was registered by proxy, the Better Business Bureau has no record on that phone number, and neither does Google.

I wouldn't worry about charting the signal strength for 3G. You can be in a densely populated area showing five bars of 3G and your speed and latency can still be dog shit depending on how many people are hitting the tower, similar to your cable modem. It might be worth it to record whether or not you have 3G just to help map out your general coverage, but that doesn't mean you'll have great speed. Although, you can find something like that here.

As for speed I like to use a util called iperf for measuring speed from one device to another across a network. You may have to open ports on your firewall or setup a VPN, which will add unwanted overhead, but you will get a good idea of which carriers have the best speeds. You can also run the simple tests using other websites like here or here.

I've found that UPC in the Netherlands throttled torrents (other traffic is faster). Encrypting traffic does nothing (I guess they filter based on data volume per connection/port whatever). But I also use a VPN connection to work to securely move files of several gigabytes, and these connections were also noticeably slower... I guess this is a side-effect of the throttling, but I don't think they detect encryption but a more simple bandwidth detection.

NOTE TO SELF: just got the idea of creating a VPN connection to port 21/80, perhaps they are exempt, I'll try that out later...

But your mechanism of speeding up traffic (torrent/ftp/svn) over VPN does in fact work (I bypass the corporate firewall that slows things down by VPNin into another work location to get good speeds). Strangely even my ping times to google are improved over the VPN! But that might be because the other location has a pretty sweet fibre up-link.

I have fibre to my house connected to the 2 Gbit ring that my local government owns (i.e. I am a co-owner of this). I subscribe to a 100 mpbs service on my fibre and when I connect a laptop directly to the fibre hub I get over 85-90 mbps download speed. I am not sure why I didn't get full upload speed during these tests, but it doesn't bother me too much.

Now I am connected through a Buffalo Technology WHR-HP-G54 WIFI router, running Tomato Firmware so the actual throughput in the Buffalo is never more than about 40 mbps. But even when my s/w development team is here in the house, all 12 of them, nobody ever complains over bandwidth. (But we don't run torrrents all of us normally.)

Here is a link to an online test result: http://www.speedtest.net/result/264255518.png

I live in a suburb of Stockholm, Sweden. Our local government has built the local fibre infrastructure and I can subscribe to 100 mbps IP services from four different ISPs for about US$33/month.

speedtest.net, which means they are taking a direct sampling from the actual user connections - no politics involved

OK, I found the page you may be referring to, but what does that ranking actually mean? You said "we" are second, but that's a list of continents (North America is 2nd of 6 continents - sorry Antarctica).

But if you then click "top countries ranked by speed," the US is 29th.

Even so, what do those numbers mean? Is it just the average speed test result for people from that country? That would make no sense, since a country with no access except from the Presidential Palace with 1 GB Internet would win easily.

Macao should have the best internet ever! 48,000ppl/mi^2.

Seriously though, to illustrate your point:
Lithuania: 15.3Mb/s || 51ppl/km^2
Latvia: 17.4Mb/s || 35pp/km^2
USA: 7.7Mb/s || 32ppl/km^2
Kyrgistan: 5.6Mb/s || 27ppl/km^2
Sweden: 14.8Mb/s || 20ppl/km^2
Norway: 8.1Mb/s || 13ppl/km^2
Canada: 6.5Mb/s || 3ppl/km^2

The US generally seems to do about as well as undeveloped countries when looking at similar population densities. BUT it isn't the only 1st world nation on that boat. Plenty of other places that should be doing better (looking just at wealth and density) aren't. re: Italy, Thailand. Which leads me to believe there is a missing element. For example, Bulgaria is 10th worldwide though it isn't very dense or rich.

http://www.speedtest.net/global.php#0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

Hah, any country would like to have Internet like we have here in Latvia. http://www.speedtest.net/global.php Don't underestimate developing countries, we don't have legacy infrastructure to rely on.

World's fastest have been hovering around 60Mbps for quite a while now.

Huh?

271.16 down, 124.48 up

All 1645 apartments are wired up with 500 Mbps symmetric here.

We pay 6 USD/month for this service.