Slashdot Mirror
Feds Help You Find Your Fastest Internet Service
jfruhlinger writes "Slashdot previously covered the National Broadband Map, designed by the US Federal government to illustrate where the 'digital divide' between those with access to high-speed Internet and those who go without. But, as blogger Ryan Faas points out, you can use it for a much more individualistic purpose: to find your fastest local wired or wireless ISP. Just plug in your name and address and you'll soon see what your options are."
We've upped our security, now up yours!
I'll start the betting pool now: how long before we start hearing reports of favouritism, reports of ISPs being given lower ratings because they host services the government doesn't like, and other sorts of corruption.
/tinfoil
Palm trees and 8
Checked my location, advertised speed and reality are not the same.
Thanks but try again.
I entered my address and got back no results (apparently my 2 providers disappeared). Then I entered my city and got back three providers, Cable, DSL, and Verizon. Only Verizon doesn't really provide broadband here (except for their 3G phone coverage), and they got the max speed laughably wrong on the other two. Our DSL provider is listed as offering 10-25 Mbps service, when 3 Mbps is the fastest they actually offer here. They're closest to the mark on our cable provider, but still wrong (listing 10-25 Mbps, when 12 is the fastest they actually offer here).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The National Broadband Map gives erroneous results. For example, it states that Verizon has broadband service for my address, but it doesn't.
Nice to see them using OpenStreetMap!
Why is this exactly in Your Rights Online? Are /.ers so afraid of entering their ZIP code anywhere?
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
That site says comcast offers 1 gbps service to my house.
That service would really useful if I had more than two high speed options to pick from. But I don't. And neither does most of the United States. And if I define high speed as more than 4 Mb/s, then I have one option: Comcast, which just happens to be the most hated company in America.*
Mid-level ISPs used to have to change everyone the same rates - it's was a rule. That got chucked in the early 2000s wave of deregulation, and immediately afterwards the big telecos gave the local ISPs impossibly high rates for upstream connection. They got bulk-pricing deals that were more expensive than the telecos, who also sold retail ISP service, was charging the public. And now, those ISPs are all gone. Meanwhile the big ISPs carved up the cities they wanted to serve, and that was that. Monopoly secured.
Verizon/Fios was supposed to be a solution, but guess what: no new fiber going down these days. Its not worth it to a company that has to hit quarterly revenue targets. And it never will be.
*According to polling of customers.
Who wants to bet that the popular explanation for the inaccurate information on the map is bribes? $50* to add 1MB/s to listed speed or remove .5MB/s from a competitors?
*amounts arbitrarily chosen
I typed in my zip code and it showed coverage on the map, half a state away (PA). Not even close to the same place. That does me no good.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
My ISP isn't on the list, and Time Warner Cable's speeds are grossly overstated.
Wow, my provider advertises 25Mbps!
I usually am lucky to get 200kbps...
Lists one of the local ISPs, gets the speed wrong, doesn't list the actual owner of the copper they'd be buying from.
I only have 2 local broadband options, but 78 sexual offenders are near by.
It works! I asked it for fast internet connections in my area and It told me to "go fish".
Another unnecessary government program. Long live big government!
Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
That shows 50-100Mbps through Comcast for my area, but such speeds are only available to business customers willing to pay $200 / month. Residential customers get a paltry 12Mbps.
The summary is wrong, but so is the site. It didn't ask for my name, the map it draws for my ZIP code is wrong, it doesn't report the proper speed for one of the providers, and actually fails to list my ISP altogether, which has been around before 6/30/2010. Pretty much what I expected.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Site is not encrypted, wants to know your location (firefox plugin said so) wants your name and your address and obviously knows your IP address....Seems suspicious.
The site claims that various providers offer speeds to my house that are about 3 times what they actually offer, and about 4-5 times what they actually deliver. If this site is based on voluntary reporting by carrier, they are lying. If it's based on anything else, I'd really like to know where all the bad data is coming from.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I have been bitching for a long time about the "competition" in the market is a race to the bottom rather than a race to the top. What I mean by this is that various providers, not only ISPs but wireless carriers of voice and data alike, are scaling the quality and quantity of the services provided in order to lower their costs. They are all playing a balancing act to see how bad their service can get before they lose too many income providing customers. And as one major player offers less, the others feel more comfortable offering less as well.
This results in a situation in which quality of service is a race to the bottom rather than a race to the top providing higher quality for lower cost as was the traditional definition of competition.
And in all of my bitching, I was calling for these telecoms (and ISPs) to be ruled as a utility to be covered and controlled by the various government utilities commissions so that they can be regulated in ways such as their minimum quality of service. (This already exists for POTS lines, so why not wireless phone service and other broadband services as well?) (And I still think this is a good idea, BTW)
But to use a national broadband study web site as a means of stirring up what I will call "positive growth competition" over "negative growth competition" is a complete win for the consumer. I only hope it catches on and that the reporting is fair and honest and free from the meddling of the telecoms who are exposed as being a "race to the bottom" competitor.
I rather expect this site not to last long under political influence.
Feds Help You Find Your Fastest Advertised Internet Service
db
I already knew this much though -- my torrent speeds are freakishly fast!! I see as much as 2MBps. It is rather sick compared to previous locations. But now I can see where in addition to my provider, there is Verizon (which I hate and will never willingly be a customer) and some wireless carriers delivering respectable speeds as well.
It is really good to know what my options are at any give time. It is also excellent to know what my options are when I am planning to move. Turns out I may be moving in 3 to 6 months and this will certainly help in selecting a new place to live.
Sure I could pay for 60Mbps, but 10 is all I need.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
Ok, color me creeped out. All I did was put in my zip code, and it brought up a map of the block I live on... Not sure where they pulled that data.
Nothing to see here
If you hit the Expand All link, you'll see details for each provider in your chosen area. Over to the left, there are links where you can up/downvote the info for each provider.
For my area, the providers were correct, but the speeds listed were for their fastest and most expensive service options - 100 Mbps for Verizon FIOS and Comcast DOCSIS 3, when the service most people choose is 10 Mbps or so.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
What about latencies? Those can be as important or even more important than download & upload speeds. Try doing VoIP over a 300 ms latency satellite connection.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Thanks guys someone broke the site. Could be the huge amount of traffic sent from Slashdot, wish we had a word for that.
If you look at mine, the local T1 provider is ranked "equal" to AT&T, and the local Cable Co (which is the best (non-business) option) isn't listed at all. And AT&T is only listed as a "Wireless" provider, which isn't true. And Verizon's Wireless is reported at 3-6mbps, which it's not, since we're still in the mobile dark ages.
And AT&T is completely full of shit. They claim to offer "up to" 3mbs, but you never get more than 1.5. Doesn't matter where in town.
If I wanted to read the press releases from all of these companies, I could do that myself.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Check out www.digitallanding.com, you can see what ISP's are in your area, see pricing, speeds and order...what exactly does this government initiative provide over this existing service?
Australia had a website for this purpose since 1998, which has proven to be *mostly* accurate over the years. It's primary pu
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool_%28website%29[/url]
I entered my office building into it. It's the most connected building in Manhattan, but according to the site, nothing greater than 25Mbps is available.
...get the entire area around my neighborhood listed as having 10mbps-25mbps speeds when they have repeatedly informed me that there is no possible option above 1.5mbps download in my area... Hmmm... Did the government just grab this data from their marketing info? LOL...
Loading...
Using my address, I see 6 ISPs offering >3Mbps service. All of that is completely wrong.
1) Verizon: 50 - 100Mbps.
When I tried to get Verizon DSL, they told me it wasn't supported in my area. The reality is it is a lower middle class area and many people on my street can't afford internet access. So they probably could provide it, but don't bother.
2) Cavalier Telephone: 50 - 100Mbps
Ironically, they use Verizon's lines. Their service was so bad it was getting to be less than the 384Mbps they claimed it was. I canceled a few years ago.
3) Clearwire: 10 - 25Mbps
This is a wireless provider, and I don't even think it can theoretically reach those kinds of speeds. I stopped by one of their booths at the mall and they can actually tell you the signal-to-noise ratio for a given address and they told me that service probably wouldn't work here. That is believable, since I don't get cell service at my house either.
4) Comcast: 50 - 100Mbps
I signed-up for Comcast business class internet and they called me and apologized and said their lines couldn't handle anything more than their low-end 3Mbps service. But it sure beat Cavalier Telephone so I went with it. But even at their "turbo-boost" they still only claim 12, so what the heck is with 50 - 100?
5, 6) T-mobile claiming 6 - 10 Mbps (wirelessly? I don't think so...) and Covad claiming 3 - 6 Mbps.
Perhaps I should switch to Covad for being the only one to make an honest claim.
If I bang in my zip code it returns sprint, and nothing else
never mind, ATT, Comcast, Charter, Clearwire, all the cel co's and the sat co's
the map was nothing but a huge waste of time and money and does not show anything other than incompetence, what was going to the ISP's website and typing in a zip code too fucking hard uncle sam?
This map isn't much help when every major market I've ever lived in has effectively had a broadband duopoly of abusive phone provider vs. abusive cable provider.
They list VDSL as fiber, which it isn't.
there's a little text saying "measured speed is on country level"
that's why at&t at the place i'm in, which only covers via EDGE, shows up as 1.5-3mb
Yeah because your post really improves it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What can I do if I think that the information about my address is incorrect?
If you see information that you believe is incorrect, please let us know. You can let us know if you believe the provider is not available at that location. Please remember that the search results show information about the census block or road segment. Generally, if broadband is available within part of a census block or road segment, it is available across all of that area, but not always.
Do the great unwashed masses really need to eck out that last 500KB/sec from their ISP? Does it really matter that "naughty farm animals" loads in 1/8 of a second instead of 1/4 of a second?
I know, Netflix, Hulu and more recently Amazon have finally made movies on demand practical, but past about 10 Mb/sec does speed really matter?
I recently called my ISP and asked to be reduced to the slowest speed they offer -- 15 Mb/sec -- to save money and because even as a geek doing geeky things, I still wasn't using a sizable fraction of the bandwidth (25 Mb/sec) I had before. And guess what -- the Roku box, and Netflix plugin for Media Center, continued to function just fine.
This doesn't stop the local competitor (who will remain nameless but starts with a C) from coming to my door twice a month with promises of blazing speed if I'd only switch to them. I try to explain that I really don't need that kind of speed, and they look at me like I had said I really don't breathe very much.
I suspect a lot of this "get the screamingist bandwidth you can afford!" is just marketing to consumers that don't understand what bandwidth buys you. (And doesn't buy you.)
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
It lists verizon DSL in my area at 3-6mbps.. ok that's right.. but comcast (which I have) at 50-100mbps... either it was just some company that did the test with whatever the top option is that comcast offers in the business. Class or something because I'm on a loop without many users and speakeasy shows about 20mbps max.. typically closer to 15
Why do they show you the "top 5 searches" ???
And how many times does "38 w 45th st new york, ny 10036" need to check what the .gov thinks his internet speed is?
To say it gives bad results is an understatement. I just plugged in my zipcode. The map doesn't even correctly show the area of that zip code. So that is epic fail number one. Then it lists one company AT&T that does offer service here and one I have never heard of that might actually offer service. Then it omits the local cable company that has been doing the Internet for a decade under the various names cable companies shift among and has been operating under for at least three or four years. Then they also omit Centenial Wireless who I know offers a wireless net option locally. Useless, like just about everything the Feral Government tries to do these days.
Democrat delenda est
Ok, the unknown company listed turns out to be an alias (Cequel) for Suddenlink Cable that I had never heard of so they are listed. The wireless provider isn't though and they do offer service here. They rent ya a little WiFi router with the traditional four wired ports on the back and a cellular modem embedded in it.
Democrat delenda est
Yeah because your post really improves it.
typical American looking at effects and ignoring their cause.
but not for Yvan256's waste of bandwidth my post would have never happened. take it up with him or wage futile struggle against inevitability. your choice.
So I go and input my address, it shows the options available- I have T-Mo for personal and Verizon for biz. The map thing told me 6-10 mg T-Mo -- what a crock. I get edge when I can even get a signal. for Verizon it was even worse. I have zero-NO SIGNAL and it told me I could get Broadband speeds! laughable at best. I lose my Verizon signal 2 miles from home every day coming home from work.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
We seriously spend $200 - $250M on this? Is there a better example of why it's time to scale back the government?
I wonder which Congressmen got the kickbacks for this one.
Funny, since I'm a Canadian living in Costa Rica. Typical internet tough guy, jumping to conclusions.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
We're between two big State Agency buildings and have some high density residential around us on surrounding blocks. One thing I notice is that the plans are sort of a mix between business of residential use.
Comcast says 100Mb - 1Gps - this field should obviously be labeled "100Mb or greater" - Comcast actually does offer business class DOCSIS 3.0 plans - but only the 50/10 plan for residential according to its website address drilldown. Moving over to their business class site address drilldown - NO cable whatsoever is available - even as I look at my Comcast/SMC gateway happily blinking away providing us a 12/2 link for our guest wireless and another building tenant has the same plan. WTG Comcast....Either way, we can't do better then 50, So 100Mb - 1Gb is wrong....but typical oversale/underprovide for Comcast.
DigitalPath - they claim 6-10 on fixed wireless but a network engineer friend who lives within 3 miles of my office had them for about a week - they couldn't provide any sort of stable service so he pitched them. Nothing larger then 2 story houses in his area, and we're surrounded by far larger buildings on 3 sides so I doubt their tower could even find us.
AT&T - 1.5 - 3 ADSL. This is verified acurate.
T-Mo supposedly brings 1.5 - 3Mb. Wouldn't touch these fools.
Sprint/Clear - they claim 768K - 1.5Mb which is actually wrong. Their 4G tower is 7 or 8 blocks away and my Evo pulls 4G service from it - it's certainly faster then this.
finally, Volcano Internet - I have no idea why they're showing up here, last time I checked, they were a tiny ILEC with a small footprint in the foothills...far away from my office. Maybe someone bought them, like VZ bought Roseville Telephone and Frontier Communications. Says they can bring terrestrial wireless here - I doubt that's the case, since I do know what WISPs are nearby (Zeta Broadband, last time I checked) that would have LOS on us.
The bottom line is this map thing doesn't mention any sort of REAL internet - our primary backbone is an AT&T 20Mb Ethernet handoff...
entered my address, it lists no ISPs whatsoever... I am just going to say I live in the largest city in my state and there are at least one since I am using it to look at their site.
In Australia we have http://bc.whirlpool.net.au/
A one stop shop for Internet choice. Unlike the apparent inadequacy of the afore mentioned government service, this site actually give accurate information.
It fails to list my provider while erroneously showing one that does not serve my area.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I apparently already have the fastest internet service I can get... RR turbo at 15/1. I only signed up for it because it was advertised as 15/2 right on the site where I upgraded my service. After about 2 weeks of trying to explain to various people in the company that the service is advertised as 15/2 so I expect 2 mbit uploads, the best they could do was credit my account for free turbo for 6 months and absolutely could not offer me the service advertised. Sounds like bait and switch to me. Even made a youtube video about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIatnz01XaY
To add insult to injury, what I really wanted was RR extreme (Their 30/5 docsis 3 service) but even though its been on and off the ordering page on their web site, every time I try to order it my order gets cancelled because its not yet available right at my house. Never mind that Comcast, for as crappy as they are for other reasons, have like 95% of their nation wide service area covered with docsis 3 already and have for like 2 years.
If they'd get off their asses and actually make docsis 3 work, I wouldn't have had to deal with the bait-and-switch 2mbit/1mbit RR turbo shennigans.
Somebody should just sue them over this shit. Even if its not illegal to drag your feet on upgrading your customer's service, it IS illegal to offer a level of service at a certain price, and then refuse to honor the offer later. Credit or not.
Wrong in every city I know about. Massive FAIL. It even tells me the service I am using currently to post this doesn't exist.
Too bad the data is bogus. It claims that AT&T is offering 10-25meg down aDSL in my area. The most they7 are offering is 6, and that runs at less than 4.5 meg. I'm pretty sure that the cable company (Time Warner) doesn't deliver the stated 10-25 either, have not found a user around here that gets more than 8, usually less. And I can't find any links to allow one to report bad data. What a waste of tax dollars.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Verizon reports on that map that we have 50-100Mbps ADSL available, but the fastest they report when you sign up for service is 15 Mbps.
Not even close for here, misses the one cable option, listing only AT&T for wired.
Comcast reports 50-100 Mbps for my recent former address, when in reality 6 is offered, and 3 is delivered.
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/lat=42.2800204/long=-83.76964800000002/
Well, it finds my house just fine, but doesn't even list my ISP (the local cable company). Although it does make me feel good about my choice in providers, given that none of the other options are even half as fast as what I'm getting now. Speedtest.net already does this and does a much better job. The .gov site should just link there.
how hard is it to not talk for 600ms? ffs people
This either shows invalid data being provided by the industry OR their mapping software is junk. I live further than 18,000ft from the switching office yet for my area it lists the local telco (Frontier) as 3-6Mbps. However, the local engineer has already told me that my speed would be between 384K and 1Mbps...if I was lucky. I have worked on PC's in the outlying area and if you can keep the cheap, chinese-made modems working, yes you can make the 384K. IMO, for the $50 per month charge...they can keep their DSL.
Living in a rural area, I, too, do not have any of the published connection available to me. This map was compiled by the govt. simply asking carriers to provide coverage maps. Do you think any of them are going to tell the truth and possibly allow competition?
Do you wonder why no one wants to invest in providing you broadband? If anyone risked the investment, wading through the vast sewer of regulatory red tape and expense and risking all sorts of new ex post facto restrictions after the investment was sunk and irretreivable (all for the greater good, of course), and they wanted to reap a reward for taking the risk, people like you would accuse them of being as bad as those who commit forcible sodomy. Why would anyone want to bother?