Slashdot Mirror


US Adoption of 10 Mbps+ Broadband Nearly Doubles In a Year

darthcamaro writes "We all know that the U.S. doesn't have the fastest broadband in the world, but it is gaining 'fast' (pun intended). The latest Akamai State of the Internet report pegs U.S. adoption of High Broadband, that is, broadband with access of 10 Mbps, at 15 percent. While that number may not seem high, it's 95 percent higher than it was this time last year." Broad-stroke averages, though, mean less than whether your neck of the woods gets better Internet service.

172 comments

  1. The numbers by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I tend to doubt the numbers, but have nothing to base it on but my gut feel and conversations with people I know. I personally have access to "High Broadband", but am perfectly happy with my average 5Mbps as my typical use case doesn't involve a lot of video download. I'd much rather have symetrical 2Mbps for backing up purposes. 10Mbps would have very little benefit for me, and certainly not another $360/yr benefit.

    YMMV and probably does.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:The numbers by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mine is 1 Mbit/s. By choice. That's because I have never spent more then $19.99 for internet, and I don't want to start now. And yes I do stream video over that connection. It works just fine.

      A friend of mine didn't have broadband for a long time, and was stuck on dialup, but just got it a year ago. The gaps are slowly being filled in.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:The numbers by Urza9814 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just moved into a new apartment in Pawtucket, RI and the SLOWEST internet available to me (other than dial-up...if you can do dial-up via cable or FiOS -- I don't have phone lines...) is 15/5. I decided to go up one level and get 50/25. It's nice on the rare occasion that I'm hitting servers that will actually deliver those speeds, but that's not really all that often.

    3. Re:The numbers by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      I'm envious. Those upload speeds would be awsome. Curious... how much does each level cost?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:The numbers by Kergan · · Score: 2

      1 Mbps used to be considered very fast, back when the US was mostly on modems. Since when is 1 Mbps considered slow? Might anyone know the proportion of modem users nowadays?

    5. Re:The numbers by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2

      One of the local Cable companies here (charter) is offering 30M/6M for $30 a month. I think that's a 1 year promotional price.. but not too shabby. Of course, I live out of town a ways, and there is no cable in my neighborhood, so I'm stuck on 1Mb/s rural wireless.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    6. Re:The numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the rest of the world got 20 Mbps over the telephone lines. And probably way before then. So 7 years ago?

    7. Re:The numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more, what ISP's offer in terms of upload bandwidth/speed is pathetic, the racio is atrocious, 1/10+ u/d

      I refuse to buy any expensive cable/fiber service for that sole reason. Having 30,60,120+mbit down with only 1~10Mbit up is screwing the consumer deliberatly.

    8. Re:The numbers by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I have 25/25, it costs $480 a year. Since I do not have cable that is very affordable.

    9. Re:The numbers by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      1Mbps has been slow for at least a decade.
      In 2002 I had a 5/1Mbps connection and today 25/25.

    10. Re:The numbers by eliadsonet · · Score: 1

      High Broadband, that is broadband with access of 10 Mbps at 15 percent.

    11. Re:The numbers by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      The 15/5 is cheapest from the cable co -- it's $52/month plus $7/month if you want to rent a modem. The 50/25 is FiOS, it's $75/month which includes a modem/router combo (that is actually pretty decent, gives full ssh access, QoS tools, and a ton of other stuff I've never seen on a consumer router). Pricing gets a decent bit more reasonable if you want things like TV or phone service, but I have no use for either of those so I'm stuck with the absurd data-only pricing.

    12. Re:The numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Commodore64Love! No wonder you didn't get first post with that pokey slow internet access. If you wait long enough, the signature line for my post will load...

    13. Re:The numbers by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      I'm currently lucky in that I'm in a pretty small part of Cincinnati, OH that is currently served by Cincinnati Bell's fiber-optic service, so I get 10/2 service through them. The place where I find having the extra speed is nice is that I can better "multi-task". Previously, with slower-speed Internet offerings, if I was, say, downloading a large file (like a Linux distro .iso or game download on Steam or Direct2Drive), I could read webpages, of course, though they would load a bit slower, but I couldn't, for example, watch full-resolution Netflix or Hulu video (the resolution would downgrade pretty often).

      With the higher speed offering, I can watch HD video streams while downloading stuff in the background, or have multiple file downloads going and they'll all download pretty fast, etc.

      That's kind of nice - but I agree with the parent that it's not necessarily worth an extra $30/mo - but for me, the 10/2 tier on the fiber optic package is only $40/mo total, which is the same as I'd be paying for the lowest tier on Time-Warner Cable (which also offers comparable speeds), and I think is only about $10/mo more than I was paying for CB DSL (which was 5/1, IIRC) previously.

    14. Re:The numbers by glebovitz · · Score: 2

      I am in Brookline MA and we share Comcast infrastructure with Boston. I have 22MBs according to my tests, and Comcast promises me even greater speed if I upgrade to a DOCSYS 3 modem. My brother reports the same in New Jersey, and my other brother is getting 12 to 15 MBS from his provider in San Diego. A year ago, my connection was at 7 - 9 MBs, so things have improved greatly. My data bill has stayed the same.

    15. Re:The numbers by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Pricing gets a decent bit more reasonable if you want things like TV or phone service, but I have no use for either of those so I'm stuck with the absurd data-only pricing.

      We've got the tv/phone/net bundle, and the 25/25 FiOS portion is $35/month. 1/2way through a 2 year lock in, $125/month total.
      If *she* would let me, I'd easily drop the TV portion, and go with an OOMA or similar for phone.

    16. Re:The numbers by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I have the same data without the voice or cable and it only costs $40/month.

      Not sure how $5/month extra is absurd.

    17. Re:The numbers by Kergan · · Score: 1

      If by the world, you mean major cities in developed countries, you might have a point. Or then we must be traveling in extremely different areas.

    18. Re:The numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If *she* would let me, I'd easily drop the TV portion, and go with an OOMA or similar for phone.

      Moms can be so annoying, cant they?

    19. Re:The numbers by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      Interesting...they don't offer a 25/25 plan here (if they did I probably would have gotten that instead). The next plan down from the 50/25 is 15/5, and that's $60/month for data only. But from everything I've heard about FiOS it does seem that their pricing varies wildly by location (probably based on the competition...).

      But anyway, I can't get the pricing for data alone as part of the bundle, but internet is $75/month, while the same internet with 200-some TV channels is $85/month.

    20. Re:The numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cut the major city (ten or fifteen thousand should be more than enough to get those speeds) and that works I suppose. I guess 85% of US citizens do not live in a developed country then?

    21. Re:The numbers by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Major cities in developed countries? There are plenty of people with DSL in rural areas in Europe. Which isn't even the place with greatest broadband penetration that would be South Korea or Japan.

    22. Re:The numbers by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If you call they generally have more options than online. This is because they don't use their own call centers but contracted out ones that get paid based on sales so they are willing to make special deals. Also they offer better prices on longer term contracts.

    23. Re:The numbers by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      My ISP reports that 10+Mbps broadband is available in the area, but in fact only 6Mbps if you're just using it for data. Apparently that other stuff is available only for their bundled video package. I don't need that I can stream from anywhere, I'd rather just have the bwidth.

    24. Re:The numbers by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      1Mbps has been slow for at least a decade.
      In 2002 I had a 5/1Mbps connection and today 25/25.

      I had to switch from 56K modem when pages started bloating up. Ebay was horrible, some listings taking 30 seconds or longer to load. Slashdot is one of the slower sites to load, even at 6Mb/s

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    25. Re:The numbers by redneckmother · · Score: 1

      1Mbps has been slow for at least a decade. In 2002 I had a 5/1Mbps connection and today 25/25.

      Oh, but haven't you heard? HughesNet claims that their service is "high speed broadband" .

    26. Re:The numbers by geekoid · · Score: 1

      For certain definitions of video.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:The numbers by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I had 10/10 in 99.

      so 1Mb been slow for about 14 years.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:The numbers by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      I set up everything over the phone, since I didn't have any existing service so it would have been pretty difficult to do it online :)

      Of course, the pricing I gave for a bundle comes from their website...so if you truly do get better pricing and options over the phone that may mean it's even LESS than only $10 extra to add TV, reinforcing my belief that you get absolutely screwed with a data-only plan.

    29. Re:The numbers by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Odd that they don't have a "grandma" subscription, my choices here are something like 1/1 (or maybe 0.5/0.5, can't find it right now), 25/25 and 60/60 (and up to 400/400 if you're BillG), basically they want you using their system. It's not much but fine if you're only using it to browse, read mail and pay your bills online.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    30. Re:The numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which isn't even the place with greatest broadband penetration

      Proving his point.

    31. Re:The numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you are getting 22MBs and not 22Mbs? Even where I work I only get 200Mbs the highest I have seen here is 500Mbs that was when there was no one here. The B vs b is a major difference.

    32. Re:The numbers by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      10/2 is probably FTTN, not FTTH. I'm on an FTTN connection (Alcatel 7330 DSLAM) at just shy of 1km right now, so I could probably get 25/10 if I wanted, but I'm currently only paying for 12/1 (grandfathered plan they no longer offer), because it's adequate for my needs.

      Not that I'm doubting the possibility that you could be on FTTH, but the speed is incredibly low for FTTH... my provider goes all the way up to 175/175 right now for FTTH ($200/mo at that tier), and it's actually an OC-48 that they're installing for their FTTH customers, so plenty of room to increase that.

    33. Re:The numbers by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Since when has 300bps been considered slow?

    34. Re:The numbers by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Charter was $60(plus $25 in fees) for 30Mb over here, then the local ISP announced 30/30 fiber for $60 in the coming year, so Charter dropped it down to $45 for 6month intro and 1 year contract for new customers. One month before the fiber went live, Charter started a $30 for 30Mb for 12 months for new customers with a 2 year contract.

      I called up Charter and asked if I could get on that 30Mb for $30/month and they told me the $90/month($60+"fees") I was paying was a good deal.

      Needless to say, I will be switching(once the light up my neighborhood) over to 50/50 fiber internet with no datacap and they claim to be 100% net-neutral with no traffic shaping QOS or anything, for the same price. Did I mention the local ISP doesn't have any "fees", listed prices include EVERYTHING.

    35. Re:The numbers by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have 768k bursting to 1.5Mbps for a short time based mostly on what time it is, and it's just enough for Netflix (no buffering unless I try to do much other stuff at the same time) and not enough for many if not most video services for watching long programs. So 1Mbps is basically just enough to get by today...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:The numbers by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      and those european countries are the size of what we call a "state" here in the USA, to "leave the country" you hop on a train or rent a car.....

    37. Re:The numbers by RavenManiac · · Score: 1

      European DSL can be as fast as 40Mbps. In rural France, ours was around 15Mbpa, and very cheap.

    38. Re:The numbers by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      1 Mbit/s a decade ago wasn't even needed, since videos of that time were still mostly postagestamp-sized (in order to squeeze through dialup modems). 56k which I use when I'm traveling is definitely slow, because while you can technically access everything, videos don't really work. (You have to wait for it to buffer which can take several minutes.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    39. Re:The numbers by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Since when is 1 Mbps considered slow?

      Ever since Netflix started streaming HighDef video...?

      I'd be happy with 1Mbps internet service at a reasonable cost, but it's slower than the entry-level ($20/mo) cable/DSL service every where I've looked in the past several years. So, yes, that is a bit slow.

      500Kbps would be the bare minimum speed I'd accept, since streaming standard definition video (like Hulu / Netflix) at lowest quality would be out of the question below that speed.

      Higher speeds only become terribly useful with a shared internet connection. I wouldn't share my 1Mbps internet service, but Verizon's FIOS entry level 15/5Mbps speed service could be shared between a dozen people (eg., modest apartment complex) quite comfortably, and would result in a cost of well-under $5/person.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    40. Re:The numbers by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Modem usage has dropped to the point that many providers are dropping their modem banks/numbers for dial-up. Fractions of a percent, I'd say.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    41. Re:The numbers by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Yeah, more or less, FTTN is probably as good a classification as any. I live in an apartment building with like 40 apartments. I believe the entire building is serviced by a single fiber. However, I am also on the lowest speed tier they offer for the fiber service. I think it goes up to like 100/10 as the top tier, but that's pretty pricey. Inside the building, it essentially uses a high-speed form of DSL on the building's telephone lines to get the signal to each apartment - and television service over the coax lines.

    42. Re:The numbers by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think it is more to the issue, of more people getting off dial-up. For example my parents just last year got off dial up and to broad band (only 5 mbs too) but from 56k to 5mbs. raises the average up. that I get about 15mbs from my cable modem in my area, then you have the faster services that some people choose that offer 20+ mbs... so it adjusts the averages.

      I really hate how the media white washes the Math for us. using Percentages and Averages... They really need to give us the average, and the standard deviation, that will at least give us a clear picture of a summary of the data.

      The average american Internet speed is 10mbs, with a standard deviation of 5 mbs. Tells me far more about how it is used.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    43. Re:The numbers by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      If that makes you envious, FIOS now offers 300 down, 65 up in my neighborhood. Its a standalone plan, and costs about $200 a month, but that just blew my mind. It appeared I could also increase my current 50/25 to 150/50 for about $20. My current 50/25 plan, all in with the "triple play" currently costs $100/month.

  2. Tied with the EU by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

    Our U.S. average is still tied with the EU average (13 Mbit/s). We're still # 2, just behind the Russian Federation, and way ahead of Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India, China, and Australia. (Countries of comparable continent-spanning size.)

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:Tied with the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to TFA the US is #12 in average connection speed, at 6,7 Mbps. There are just two countries in double digits: South Korea at 15.7 and Japan at 10.9.

      So even if you compare only across similar sized counries your numbers can't be correct.

    2. Re:Tied with the EU by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      >>>your numbers can't be correct

      (1) Mbps is not an SI standard measurement. Its use is incorrect. (2) Take-up your complaint with speedtest.net. They are the ones who have tested literally billions of connections. I am more inclined to believe people who did ACTUAL up and downloads over actual lines, then this study which appears to pull its numbers out of thin air. (BTW speedtest says Japan is approximately 22 Mbit/s and Korea is # 1 at 26 Mbit/s.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Tied with the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I don't think we're on the same level as Mexico, Brazil, India, China.

      Maybe comparable in sq Km; but you're comparing one of the most developed countries in the world, to one with such poor infrastructure that 60million people recently lost power. When was the last time the entire USA lost electricity?

      Also Canada and Australia have MUCH smaller populations than the US. (30m, 20m, and 300m respectively)

    4. Re:Tied with the EU by Desler · · Score: 1

      Akamai is one of the largest, if not the largest, CDNs in the world. Their figures are from serving a large fraction of the content on the web and from their extensive network monitoring. It is not 'pulled from the air'. Speedtest.net, on the other hand, is a biased sampling of people who are choosing to use the service. Akamai's data has no such bias.

    5. Re:Tied with the EU by doshell · · Score: 1

      (1) Mbps is not an SI standard measurement. Its use is incorrect.

      Maybe I'm not getting your point, but what does the SI system have to do with this? Granted, if you have to be formal, the correct unit should be "per second" and not "bits per second", since bits are just the result of a counting process and thus adimensional; but 1 Mbps, as commonly used, is 1e6 bits per second and not 1024^2, as is the case of other computer-related units that use the mega prefix incorrectly.

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
    6. Re:Tied with the EU by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Since when is Mbps != Mbits/s? Did I miss a boat, or was I misinformed all along?

    7. Re:Tied with the EU by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Speedtest is a biased sample. Those that choose to use the service are the people who are getting the higher end of the offerings for their area and they are making sure that they are getting it. The guy who got a 512 or 768 plan isn't testing out his awesome speed.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    8. Re:Tied with the EU by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Akamai has a bias on where and how well they are deployed, however. In the Nordic countries, they are atrociously bad compared to the competition.

    9. Re:Tied with the EU by NatasRevol · · Score: 2
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:Tied with the EU by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      Mbps has always been bit, not byte. They're just different ways of writing the same thing. You might make a differentiation between Mbps and MBps where the caps refer to megabytes. But typically, people use that when talking in megabits. Another form like MB/s would be more common for megabytes / sec. Using completely different looking forms is usually a lot easier than relying on caps to guess. We don't always do the same thing so it's always always always better to double check if it's not obvious from the context.

    11. Re:Tied with the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in Stockholm. In my "lower middle class suburb", 5 Mbps cable Internet is absolute bottom end, with the majority split pretty evenly between 24 Mbps ADSL and 100/100 fibre. All the buildings in my union have fibre to the door. I get 80-90 Mbps down / 15-30 Mbps up from/to most places in Europe.

      Bredbandsbolaget sell 250 Mbps and gigabit plans as well, but my suburb is, as I said, not quite trendy enough to be that well wired yet.

      Anyway, I seriously doubt that anyone who lives in this city has a 512k or 768k connection--because nobody sells anything that slow around here.

  3. Google fiber by symbolset · · Score: 1

    It won't take millions of connections at 100x the average to bring that average up.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  4. Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by neelwebs · · Score: 3, Funny

    10 mbps isn't enough. I want a gigabit!

    1. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Informative

      I remember when we got a T1 line at the school of business at my university. That was freaking fast baby and worth the $5,000 or so it cost a month (not sure on the price... I heard it second hand). Now 1.5Mbps is considered slow for residential (though I'd like the symetrical speeds over what cable provides). I cannot even imagine gigabit at home. What would that be for? When you want to get streaming netflix videoes on every TV in your house plus every fridge, oven and toaster?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I used to admin at a small college (about 1000 students, 25 classrooms) .. about 5 years ago when I left, we had 4MB of transit to the internet (we had 100MB to other universities in the state, we were all on one big network)

      Students would come in, and tell us how fast our internet was, and that their 5Mb cable modems were nothing in comparison.. They were shocked to find out that we only had 4Mb. We had a squid transparent proxy box, but the big difference was latency. A very, very low latency, slower connection will 'feel' much faster than a bigger pipe. People think a 100k web page coming back instantly is because they're on a big pipe. But it can come back just as fast over a 1Mb pipe, latency is the difference.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    3. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      When I went to university, getting 300KB/s downloads on the computer society machines was amazing (even more so because the bottleneck was usually either the 10Mb Ethernet of the last hop or the remote server). Moving out of university accommodation, my housemates and I decided it was worth paying extra for 1Mb/s. We stayed on the top tier for a while, then moved to the middle. When I got a place on my own, it was 10Mb/s. I recently moved, and my ISP won't even offer 10Mb/s in my new place, the slowest that they'll do is 30Mb/s. However, their upload speeds are much slower. The big advantage of the fibre connections is that they are either symmetric or a 1:2 up:down ratio. Even at a 1:10 ratio, with a 100Mb/s or 1Gb/s downstream the upstream becomes a useful speed. With something like a Freedom Box, you can host your own photos and videos, you don't need to upload them to a third party to be able to share them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      When you are trying to move large files you will notice the difference a fat pipe makes. I bet the college kids really thought your connection was fast because they were downloading movies and such from the other universities that you had that 100Mb connection with.

    5. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

      That's what kills me. I was recently able to upgrade my internet at home from 1MB down to 12 MB down satellite internet (God bless living in the middle of no-where). The issue now is that the latency went from ~300ms to ~750ms. So, when my family says, "The Internet is slower now, go back" I rage quietly inside and continue downloading like a crazy person.

      They only stopped because we had a careful talk about what a bigger, but longer tube would mean.

    6. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      it was a community (2-year) college.. no dorm rats. Very few people abused the bandwidth (but having a 100Mb pipe to kernel.org was really, really nice) We would have a few people go crazy with the downloads.. a very simple QOS setting on the router fixes that in a hurry.. (they can wait). Myspace was the worst, with all the streaming videos and music. Those that chose to ignore the access agreement and torrent away would usually find me walking up to them (politely) and telling them to stop.. (which was really funny.. There are 20 people in this big community area served by that WAP, and your the only one sitting in the corner so that nobody can see your screen, and looking around suspiciously.. of course your easy to find). One or two refused, (or hid better) and found their MAC addresses only redirect to a captive portal that says they are blocked until they have a 'chat' with the Dean of IT.

      Its amazing how much better non-technical solutions sometimes work for people problems.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    7. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well, streaming BluRay would be 54 Mbit/s, if we go to 4K then probably ~200 Mbit/s. So if mum, dad, son, daughter all watch on different TVs + overhead you're probably close but that's not the point. I do have a 60/60 Mbit line, it's not saturated or even close to it, the main difference is that things now finish faster. Download that Linux ISO? ...............done. I'm still going to transfer the same bits, so what does mean for my ISP? Averaged across everyone that probably costs them the same, only the cost of the last mile link matters. They doubled the speeds for no change in cost about a year and a half ago, but I doubt their traffic doubled. I'd like 1 Gbps because things would finish near instantly, if most people only use it in bursts then maybe they can, without it costing an arm and a leg.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's not like it was gameable in the first place.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Students would come in, and tell us how fast our internet was, and that their 5Mb cable modems were nothing in comparison.. They were shocked to find out that we only had 4Mb. We had a squid transparent proxy box, but the big difference was latency. A very, very low latency, slower connection will 'feel' much faster than a bigger pipe.

      Don't forget about the effects of proper queuing... After upgrading from a T-1 to DS-3 line, people were complaining about the horrible performance, and started yelling at management to upgrade to higher speeds, despited quite modest needs. I found that either Cisco's documentation was wrong, or the idiots at Verizon had explicitly disabled the fair-queuing on the router that was supposed to be enabled by default. Turning on that basic feature instantly improved performance across the board, and complaints stopped.

      Unfortunately, still no change in my company's policies about contracting-out critical work like this to outside "experts", to save money and get "better results."

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    10. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I cannot even imagine gigabit at home. What would that be for?

      How long does it take you to (rsync) backup your 3TB hard drive across the internet to an off-site server? Be sure to include that overhead for encryption...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had 50 Mbs with Virgin Media in the UK. With a good website I could download 500K /second. Other times it would be 300K or 64K for smaller websites. What the other website was hosted on then made the biggest difference.

      My university had a Gigabit link, but once shared across a campus with thousands of machines, ended up with everyone only getting around 25K to download documents.
      I could ssh into my home PC, use wget to get a document or demo, and have it downloaded in seconds, while my desktop PC would just chug away for several hours. For that reason, many staff preferred to work at home.

  5. Average != Median by MetricT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was reading about this on another site, and the average was reported as 6.7 Mbs, but 60% of users were 4 Mbs or below, which means that the median user is getting around half the speed of the average user.

    The average is a poor statistic for measuring bandwidth. It's like putting 9 hobos and Bill Gates in a room and saying that on average everyone is a millionaire.

    1. Re:Average != Median by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Same here in Norway, average speed is 12.8 Mbps and median speed is 7.2 Mbps. In fact, looking at the full table there's actually many <2 Mbps, few between 2 and 4 Mbps and then many between 4 and 8 Mbps again so there's actually a large fraction that's significantly slower than the median again. On the high side it's as expected a gradual decline.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Average != Median by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      The median is a type of average. So is the arithmetic mean, and the mode. When you say "average," I suspect you're thinking specifically of the mean.

      Hope this clears up any confusion.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:Average != Median by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the past, at least in most apartment complexes in Finland, the older people ruled over the younger people to not to get a gigabit connection (although that would've meant especially in older buildings that a new, cat5+ cabling would've had to been built). Though that gigabit connection would've payed itself off in a couple of years, since the price was a lot lower than the norm. that you get yourself from the ISPs.
      These days, the norm. connection is starting to be at least 24/1 Mbps, as they are marketing that with an HD receiver that has the ability to save up to 2500 hrs of stuff from tv.

  6. Lies, damn lies and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Up 95 percent" sounds super impressive until you realize that "up 100 percent" only means it doubled.

    Also, are these for households, or for all connections including businesses and non-profits? That's important because corporate IT equipment upgrade cycles are relatively predictable, but households tend to demand compelling content or functionality before upgrading their subscriptions.

    1. Re:Lies, damn lies and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Up 95 percent" sounds super impressive until you realize that "up 100 percent" only means it doubled.

      I instantly realised this, and still thought it sounded pretty good. What's your damage, Heather?

  7. Urban Only. by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    In the big city.

  8. is that real broadband or cell co broadband? by datapharmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am curious how much of this availability is due to high speed cellular, which while perfectly fast is pretty much useless due to ridiculous data caps. My choices at home are cellular, dial-up, or satellite. Satellite latency sucks, cellular latency is fine but the 5GB data cap is horrible and dial-up is well.... dial-up. I would hardly consider myself as connected to high speed broadband, but does this study count me as such?

    --
    Get a web developer
    1. Re:is that real broadband or cell co broadband? by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

      We're in the same boat. I use satellite with a latency of ~750ms. It sucks balls for on-line gaming, but for everything else, it's outstanding. Streaming movies/music, downloads, etc. You just can't on-line game. You do have to watch the bandwidth caps; they'll sneak those in on you. (luckily, my provider threatens the 15GB/mo. cap, but doesn't ever enforce it I think I'm at 850% of my allotted amount this month already).

    2. Re:is that real broadband or cell co broadband? by afidel · · Score: 1

      You need to do some layer 4 traffic shaping to use your satellite connection for bulk download and streaming media and use your cellular connection for browsing and other latency sensitive activities.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:is that real broadband or cell co broadband? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a similar not, I wonder how much of that is due to the existing presence of DSL or satellite. There are plenty of places I've been to where the only option is DSL or satellite due to distance from a large city. People that just use the internet for Facebook and the like most likely wouldn't care about speed as long as a page loads within a second or two.

  9. Who cares? by CubicleZombie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Whatever gets me Netflix in high res is fast enough. As for general use, 384k DSL was fast enough. Everything else is just a marketing game between Verizon and Comcast, as far as I'm concerned.

    I would like it to be cheaper. Any way you slice it, it's over $100/month for high speed internet. That's IF you can get it. I know a lot of people who are still stuck with Dialup, even in the Washington D.C. suburbs.

    --
    :wq
    1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 a month? The full price I pay for Cable is $60. But if I threaten to disconnect and go to Clearwire (I know LOL like THATS going to happen), they give me a 6 month $40 price.

    2. Re:Who cares? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Not sure about Netflix, but iPlayer HD is around 3.6Mb/s, so you really need at least 4Mb/s to make sure that you can keep the buffer full. 10Mb/s lets you stream video without having to make sure that nothing else is touching the connection. 20Mb/s is enough for a couple of people in the household to be watching video at the same time. Oh, and iPlayer HD is only 720p - and the bitrate and quality was chosen because most people on residential connections could watch it. They could easily stream at four times the bitrate, given a large enough potential audience to justify it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Who cares? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      $100 a month?
      I get 25/25 for $40 a month.

    4. Re:Who cares? by sdavid · · Score: 1

      I'm on 6/0.8 mbps for $35, which is adequate for streaming from a variety of sources at 720p, with a little headroom for checking your email or browsing. That's adequate for me, and I can get reasonably priced 25/7 service from my provider. The real issue isn't speed, it's bandwidth. I'm in Toronto, and most providers provide a cap of some sort. The caps provided by Bell and Rogers simply don't cut it if you do stream TV at HD resolutions reasonably often. I recently changed from Bell to Teksavvy to get more reasonable bandwidth caps (they also have an unlimited plan, which so far I haven't needed). My point is just that you have to shop for a plan that fits your use pattern, and as CubicleZombie says, for most purposes I and I suspect most of us simply don't need a very fast line. I do, however, expect to actually use the speed I do have.

    5. Re:Who cares? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      I was going to state something similar. Just the sound on a HD video stream would probably be around 160 kbps. And definitely at least 96 kpbs. That leaves a maxium of 288 kbps, not even counting protocol overhead, to transmit HD video, which is just impossible. As a benchmark I tried watching Netflix on my phone, and even their SD stuff that my phone streams is about 200 MB for 45 minutes. Which is about 266 MB/hour which ends up being (according to Google conversion tools, eautiful it does weird units) is 605 kbps. 384 kbps would give a pretty low quality stream. I think that Netflix automatically adjusts the stream based on the bandwidth you have.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever gets me Netflix in high res is fast enough. As for general use, 384k DSL was fast enough. Everything else is just a marketing game between Verizon and Comcast, as far as I'm concerned.

      You obviously don't have a spouse and 4 kids who each want to stream different shows at the same time.

    7. Re:Who cares? by afidel · · Score: 2

      The live olympic streams are pushing about 6.5Mbps for 720p so there's obviously a use for that kind of speed.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work from home as a data analyst. I am routinely moving around 1GB files. My 5mbit upstream is not nearly enough to be perfectly honest.

    9. Re:Who cares? by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

      $100/month? My cable speed is 28 Mbs for around $60/month. I guess my Charter cable subscription is quite a deal!!! I actually do speed tests now and then and they range from about 14 Mbs to over 100 Mbs. I get flawless 1080i movies etc. from Netflix. I guess I should consider myself very lucky!

      --
      My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    10. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Run 12 machines on a home network, 3 of them streaming various media and tell me how far the 384k goes.

    11. Re:Who cares? by sdavid · · Score: 1

      True enough. With only me and my wife, simultaneous streaming isn't often a problem

    12. Re:Who cares? by yabos · · Score: 1

      Netflix's max bit rate is 6Mbps which looks pretty decent on a 46" HDTV from 5' away.

  10. How much is just 6 month contract renegotiation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    People are cancelling/renewing their broadband/cable packages every 6 months when the 'introductory' rates expire and their monthly bill doubles.

    New speeds offered, price stays the same...
    Is that 'adoption' or just being shoehorned?

  11. Akamai's widely skewed results by Shinobi · · Score: 2

    Akamai posts another widely skewed report, based on their own crap infrastructure, where they are subpar for some regions.

    In the Nordic countries, Akamai is a brake on everything, no matter what time of day you have to download anything via their infrastructure. I currently have a 100Mbit/s symmetric connection, and I get HIGHER download rates via Akamai if I use a US proxy than if I try a straight download. Same thing with any update services or games etc that use Akamai, Nordic countries get the shaft there too. I have a feeling that they are also underdeveloped in the asian regions, which would skew the results too.

    Some ballpark figures:

    Downloading an ISO via Akamai: Peak out at 16Mbit/s and averaging 11.3Mbit/s going straight, peak out at 29.5Mbit/s and averaging 15.4Mbit/s proxying to the US.

    Downloading an ISO via Limelight networks at Swedish prime time: Peak out at 97Mbit/s, average at 94Mbit/s.

    Downloading an ISO from SUNET's FTP at swedish prime time: Peak out at 98Mbit/s, average at 96Mbit/s.

    Some of my norwegian friends and colleagues are reporting similar experiences in how crap Akamai is for them, both privately and professionally.

    1. Re:Akamai's widely skewed results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know... Akamai has a _really_ beefy infrastructure.

      When you say you are "downloading an ISO from Akamai", what do you mean? Akamai doesn't provide direct hosting for downloads - if Akamai is involved it is transparent to you. If you are referring to their NetSession client, that's just essentially BitTorrent so yeah, you're not going to get throughput there that you'd get hitting some monster FTP site directly.

  12. Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage by oic0 · · Score: 2

    Well, nearly all. I got a surprise 100 dollar bill from ATT a few months ago for using more than my alloted 150gb. What good would 10Mbs do me?

    1. Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Nearly all? You mean nearly none?
      Time Warner does not, FIOS does not, Comcast does not.

      I think you mean just ATT does.

    2. Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      comcast has a 250gb limit, and centurylink has a 250gb cap

    3. Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I believe comcast only has that limit in select areas, those being the areas where they are a monopoly.

      Not sure about Centurylink/Qwest.

    4. Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      comcast has a 250gb limit

      That hasn't been enforced since mid-May, apparently.

    5. Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Cox cable has a 200GB "soft" cap.

      Sounds like most if not all...certainly NOT "nearly" none.

    6. Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a surprise 100 dollar bill from ATT a few months ago for using more than my alloted 150gb.

      What is your normal bill? $90? They charge $10 per 50GB over, which is reasonable--I would prefer that to being throttled (though an option would be nice). If you used more than 50GB over your cap that should not have come as a surprise.

    7. Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage by oic0 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of the change and used about 500GB. Sounds like a lot and my normal usage isn't that high, but sometimes it happens. Kids home from school, netflix, new computer and let steam re-download some games. Install some blizzard games which are huge and of course force you to act like a torrent while you are downloading unless you specifically disable it. Sometimes you just need more bandwidth and they dont exactly offer rollover gigs.

    8. Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage by Bengie · · Score: 1

      They charge $10 per 50GB over, which is reasonable

      Large ISPs pay based on 95th percentile. If you transferred 10TB during off-peak hours, it would be free for them. Depending on the time of day that you transfer those $50, the price could range from $0 to $1/mbit(rate that you transferred those 50GB). Since AT&T is both an ISP and Tier1 backbone, they probably have peering agreements everywhere and that 50GB was free.

  13. Pathetic by kat_skan · · Score: 2

    It's 2012. Broadband has been commonly available for fifteen years and the best we can manage is only 15% of us have service faster than 10MB?

    I wish the people who were creating all the make-work projects for the economic stimulus a few years back had been a little more forward-thinking and put people to work running fiber to as many homes as we could as a public utility. Lease bandwidth on it to anyone who wants to provide service, and use the proceeds to maintain and build out the network. If we did that, maybe come 2025 we won't be reading an an article about how awesome it is that all of 15% of us have service faster than 15MB.

    1. Re:Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit? I mean, seriously, I'm using 802.11b with an old router. If you're not downloading torrents faster than you watch them, who gives a shit if it's over 15MB?

    2. Re:Pathetic by yabos · · Score: 1

      But in the USA you can't have socialist government owned fiber. People would revolt!

    3. Re:Pathetic by kat_skan · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but at least we'd have enough bandwidth to televise it.

  14. Not just the cities by Alvarex · · Score: 1

    I've lived in the mid-west all my life, and over the past 10 years we've gone from dial-up only to 20Mbps download speeds at $45/month. It isn't just the big cities that are improving. Heck, they've dug up half my city (city by mid-west standards) over the past 2 years laying new cables.

  15. Tell that to my ISP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only thing that has gone up in the past 10 years for broadband were the fees in my neck of the woods.

  16. Id love any broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We only live about 30 minutes outside Tacoma, WA and we still have not broadband access. No cable or DSL. We are stuck paying 70$ a month for verizon wireless data service but with only 10GB per month limit. No netflix, limited amounts of youtube & online gaming and have to download windows updates, game patches and drivers at work then bring them home. I have a LG 3/4G usb modem connected to a cradlepoint wifi & wired router, works fairly well but would love to get real internet.

    1. Re:Id love any broadband by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You live 30 minutes outside the middle of no where, what did you expect?

    2. Re:Id love any broadband by murphtall · · Score: 1

      30 minutes from a city of 225,000 inhabitants is nowhere? For comparison I get 30meg cable speeds in said nowhere town of Tacoma.

    3. Re:Id love any broadband by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      By the standards of large cities, 225,000 is a suburb. a small one, at that. A suburb of a city like that is not likely to score very high on the list of targets for broadband development.

      It'll happen eventually, but probably not very quickly. I live in a suburb of a metropolitan area (22,000 in my town, the greater metropolitan area passed 1 million in the last census), and only last year did we get VDSL/DSL speeds over 5mbit. Cable was available with faster advertised speeds, but even that still caps out at 20mbit on a network that's horribly oversold, and where you'd actually see about 5mbit on average. They are rolling out a faster network, but slowly.

    4. Re:Id love any broadband by Bengie · · Score: 1

      My "City" is fewer than 20k people and we're getting symmetrical fiber internet 30/50/100/200 for $60/$100/$200/$300. No hidden fees, listed price is what you pay.

      Even a county in Minnesota got 30/30 fiber internet for $100/month, and they have an average population density of 5/mi^2. The ISP covers slightly over 1,000mi^2 and the area has slightly over 5,000 total people(Under 2,500 families?). They did this fewer than 8 years ago and have already paid off the fiber install and are now making profit.

      Incumbents are just trying to milk money from their old infrastructure. Seems to me that these small ISPs in the middle-of-no-where are supplying faster+cheaper internet.

  17. Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the geeks use the the oldest cell phone because it just makes calls, and the slowest internet because its the cheapest. Too many broke IT desk support guys in here.

    1. Re:Slashdot by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself, I have a Galaxy Nexus and 25/25. I bet more than half the posters are doing something similar. We just have a lot of vocal cheap bastards.

  18. who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

    and last time I checked the US packages were usually included in horrible and expensive bundles :(

    1. Re:who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They normally offer the same speeds without the bundle for about $10 extra.

      I have no phone, no cable, just internet and am paying $10 more than I would for internet if I had those, but those add another $50 anyway.

    2. Re:who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

      what do you pay?

    3. Re:who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      $40/month. Would be $90/month with cable and phone, by their billing $30/month for each service.

      It is a two year contract with FIOS. If I move to an area without fios I get out the deal for free. I am looking at buying a house, but I will not buy one without FIOS anyway.

    4. Re:who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

      ugh. 100/mo (with tax) seems crazy for telephone/TV/internet :( 40/mo seems marginally expensive for internet, but not as bad as what I've seen in some areas.

  19. Shameful by nine-times · · Score: 1

    This is good news, but it's also pretty shameful. First, that only 15% of people have this kind of access, but also that 10Mbps is considered some kind of achievement. I'm assuming that this means 10Mbps download, and most of the upload speeds are still under 1Mbps. I suspect the numbers would be much better if they Baby Bells hadn't mismanaged our infrastructure for decades.

    1. Re:Shameful by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I suspect the numbers would be much better if they Baby Bells hadn't mismanaged our infrastructure for decades.

      The existing copper twisted pair infrastructure in the US is fine and very efficient - for voice. The US has far longer local loops than most other countries because of efficient consolidation of COs (as well as our low-density suburbs). Longer local loops means lower DSL speeds. No one was thinking of DSL when these decisions were made.

    2. Re:Shameful by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Not planning ahead is a form of mismanagement.

    3. Re:Shameful by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, people who take into account technology that hasn't been invented that will be used on machines that haven't been invented when they build big projects.

      It wasn't like building a damn where you know you are going to add generators in 20 years. This was not even on the board.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Shameful by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The existing copper twisted pair infrastructure in the US is fine and very efficient - for voice

      I don't know what "Efficient" is supposed to mean in this context, so I'm not even going to go there. But "fine" is something it isn't. In some areas, I'm sure the copper is nice. In former Pac Bell country, the copper is shit. It's been spliced and spliced again until it could be spliced no more and then they just start stealing pairs. They've stolen mine twice so far out here in bumfuck nowhere. At one end of my road you can get DSL, but not where I live, so I get some wacky wireless connection based on CDMA to the top of the local volcano to which they now pipe access in from four mountaintops away so that they can resell us a piece of something they get from an AT&T reseller because doing all this is cheaper than buying access in our town where just one company owns all the fiber in and out... AT&T. Uh, wait, what?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. 6 MBPS DSL here by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    It's enough for me, but I live alone. As long as internet radio, HULU, and the like work well at the same time it's fine with me. Of course, if I were still a gamer I'd have to move to St. Louis where they have 30 MBPS from Charter.

  21. Percentages are not enough. by aglider · · Score: 1

    50% increase over a few thousands in USA id not the same as 50% increase over 60M .

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  22. Bingo, seems like rates keep getting jacked. by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    I'm paying about 70 bucks for Comcast's slowest internet and basic-basic cable TV. Dropping TV would save me about 5 bucks. It's ridiculous.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  23. A lot of universities are rolling 100 Mbps or more by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    A number of large universities are rolling 100 Mbps or more to surrounding neighborhoods and cities, actually.

    Wake me when you realize that.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  24. Surewest in KC has 24/24 by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Great to have, but with that much bandwidth it's more an advantage with torrentting or any other multithreaded downloaded. I'm more psyched about the upload bandwidth for setting up a server. If Google ever runs to my neighborhood, I'd definitely be on it. And, I'm sure all those Google Fiber users helped out the average.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  25. Nobody cares if your puns were intended. by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1
  26. move to kansas city for 1000/100 mbs by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Google has installed fiber to everywhere. The "slow" speed is free and the "fast" speed costs $70.

  27. Had anyone daon a by geekoid · · Score: 1

    'who has the fastest broadband' comparison by population density?
    Comparing the entire US to smaller countries seems like just bad statistics. If a country has similar population and density to New York, then it should be compared to New York, not the US as a whole.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. Not here by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 2

    Here in the capital city of the state of california (go ahead and look it up, i'll wait), I have three choices for internet: comcast, comcast and comcast.

    Who this year decided they could raise rates and not offer any existing customer promos, so I had to pull the plug. Wife went into bestbuy the next day and signed up as a new customer. Since they were willing to offer promos to people with cable tv (I have directv), I'm guessing they're squeezing the cord cutters by raising their internet costs to make up for the lost cable tv revenue. Seems its a zero sum game after all. Five years from now instead of a $50 cable bill and $50 internet bill, you're going to have a $100 internet bill. Maybe $110 in my neighborhood.

    Speed is fine, but cost and choice are another matter that I think calls for a little more attention. Still way too many places in the US where you have a single, often expensive choice.

  29. sure, i can get faster speeds... by eagle1361 · · Score: 1

    But unless I'm willing to spend lots of money per month, I'm happy with my 6/1 connection

  30. Things change by tsotha · · Score: 1

    I hadn't looked into it in awhile. When I signed up for internet service 18 months ago the fastest plan was 6 Mb/s. Looked at it just yesterday and saw the fastest plan is now 50Mb/s.

  31. Still waiting on 1 GB/s Up/Down internet by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    If you can quell the hackers, P2P holds great hope for large scale war video games.

    You can do 64 players at once in a shooter with 1 mb/s internet, and with guns, this is reasonable. You can get more than 64 players at once if you have a main server which costs a lot, but this is not a feasible long term solution for most people because even if your game can sustain it, for how long?

    P2P with some tricks to not update players who are out of your range could probably do 10,000 players at the same time in a zone in a FPS at 1GB/s p2p without having a server that needs any more work than managing logins(aka most any computer can handle it with a static IP). I have an interesting melee algoritm for games with no or limited range attacks: You don't send attacks to players who are out of range of you, and you don't even update movement if someone is so far away, they can't get to you in the rate between updates :) At 1 mb/s up/down, you're looking at the ability to hold like 5000 melee players in the same zone in current technology. If you get to 1 gb/s up/down, you can have millions in the same zone with an action oriented melee game like Zelda or Tekken...

    But just as I started off, you gotta be able to quell the hackers in non traditional ways, otherwise they'll just ruin your game.

  32. Capitalism at any cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot imagine anything that would be more enabling to a country's economy than to have all its people linked to a high speed network. As libraries close and the cost of education skyrockets, future generations will look back in disbelief that anyone would have wanted to privatize such a fundamental element of society. The mind boggles as we cut off our nose. . . .

  33. Not if you're Time Warner by gelfling · · Score: 1

    7Mbps is super mega premium golly gee whiz you can watch every Twilight movie simultaneously I can't fucking believe what a great deal you're getting right now, sir, service.

  34. dumb value to pick by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    AT&T is mostly stuck at 6Mbps so they aren't close but Time Warner is conveniently hovering at 8 Mbps on most of their standard plans. Just a month or two ago they upped it to 10Mbps but didn't retroactively apply it to any customers, as far as I know, just did it for new ones. So that definitely throws off the numbers.

    1. Re:dumb value to pick by Targon · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between what speed they set customers to, and if there is enough bandwidth where you are to handle the demand. The big question is the way your home and building are wired, plus the connection from the building to the network, then how much bandwidth is available in your neighborhood. So, they may have applied it to you, but you just don't see it.

    2. Re:dumb value to pick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a huge difference between what speed they set customers to, and if there is enough bandwidth where you are to handle the demand. The big question is the way your home and building are wired, plus the connection from the building to the network, then how much bandwidth is available in your neighborhood. So, they may have applied it to you, but you just don't see it.

      i agree the biggest problem is the way the home is wired my neighbor pays for the same speed as me but only receives about 10 meg and im averaging 50 and pay for 30 but i also didn't let the cable company wire my house i wired it when i had it built and my modem is the first connection in the house no splitters and quality coax cable of course i also own my modem its an SMC unit not one of their garbage lease units

  35. How are they measuring? by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't talk about how they're actually measuring the speed of a "connection". Is it all the concurrent bandwidth to a unique IP address? If so, they're not necessarily measuring my bandwidth, but that of me and a few dozen of my nieghbours, thanks to CGN.

    --
    I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    1. Re:How are they measuring? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Do they still NAT your entire neighborhood over IPv6?

    2. Re:How are they measuring? by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      IPv6 is a fantasy around here. My ISP has been testing it for as long as I've been with them (around 1.5 years), but not in my neighbourhood.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
  36. SDTV by tepples · · Score: 1

    For certain definitions of video.

    But these standard definitions (480p) are just fine for a lot of people.

  37. Setting up phone without a phone by tepples · · Score: 1

    I set up everything over the phone, since I didn't have any existing service so it would have been pretty difficult to do it online :)

    Then how'd you set up your phone service in the first place?

    1. Re:Setting up phone without a phone by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      cell phone. I don't have phone service through them.

  38. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i never realized speeds were so awful elsewhere i get 30/4 for 29 a month in Huntsville Alabama its generally faster though http://www.speedtest.net/result/2111259337.png

  39. Life in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been living in Japan for a few years now.
    Whenever I travel outside of Japan the things I miss the most (in order) are:
    - My toilet that does the cleaning for me
    - Fast and (very) reliable Internet access
    - Personal security
    - Kindness of people / service level
    - High quality public transportation system

    And the things I don't miss much:
    - High cost of living
    - Communication difficulties
    - Crooked teeth

  40. Calix 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calix 7 has probably contributed more to this trend than any other factor.

  41. Cost of relocation by tepples · · Score: 2

    I get 25/25 for $40 a month.

    Plus how much of a "setup fee" to relocate a family to an area where 25/25 for $40 a month is offered?

    1. Re:Cost of relocation by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      None, if you planned ahead. If you want to live in a cave in the woods that comes with costs.

    2. Re:Cost of relocation by tepples · · Score: 1

      To what methods of planning ahead do you refer?

    3. Re:Cost of relocation by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Not living in the middle of nowhere.
      Moving to a rural area then complaining about what an isp charges, caps and low speeds is moronic. It would be like complaining about the long drive to buy groceries. It is simply a function of desiring to live in an area without modern conveniences.

  42. Business-class connection by tepples · · Score: 1

    I work from home

    Then we can assume that your employer is compensating you for a business-class connection.

  43. Let's find whom to blame by tepples · · Score: 1

    Except building a road where you'll have to add new utilities in 20 years is just like building the dam you suggest. Not planning ahead is the fault of the city, which owns the roads under which conduit can be buried. If the city hadn't mismanaged its damn rights of way, the fiber company would be able to pull fiber to the home.

  44. How much is the setup fee? by tepples · · Score: 1

    The setup fee for that is however much it costs to move a family to Kansas City. How much is that?

  45. Let's look at the list of countries by density by tepples · · Score: 1

    Finland has half the density of the USA (source) but still better broadband offerings, I'm told.

    1. Re:Let's look at the list of countries by density by Targon · · Score: 1

      The lower the population density, the easier it is to offer higher speed connections. Also, if the government actually helps pay for the deployment of fiber, or even provides the backbone, that really helps. People forget that the US government hasn't done much, if anything to help in this area for a long long time.

      If you lay your own fiber, and have no other people using it, you can get full speed, and the more people using it means you need more fiber to handle the demand. I just don't see the US government paying for anything involving the Internet, unless it would be to provide broadband to very rural areas that will never be profitable. This is the same as towns with a population of under 100 people total having a school with a full faculty, where the local population would NEVER be able to afford to pay for the expenses of that school.

  46. Those Internet prices are so unfair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean WTF is with THOSE PRICES? I live in the undeveloped, small Romania and a 50 Mbps fiber connection is about 8$/month, while a 100 Mbps fiber connection is 11$/month where both connections have very low latencies. You people really (REALLY?) pay so much for those slow connections? You should make complaints to your ISP and tell them this is outrageous. Just saying.

  47. Here in the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inner city residence - 60MB line for under £20 a month. Yay!

    ...and then they closed Demonoid down. Booo.

    Don't know what to do with all those megabits now. The public facing sites are all a bit pants (pants in this context meaning rubbish).

  48. I for one welcome ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the second US user to get 10 Mbps+ broadband

  49. For all the critics... by Targon · · Score: 1

    I have noticed that Cablevision out on the east end of Long Island has boosted average speeds to many from the 7-13Mbps range(which already was decent) well upwards, with many seeing over 20Mbps over the past year. This is the sort of change that DOES help support the numbers getting better overall. While not every access provider is boosting speeds, there has been an effort out there to boost speeds, and to improve capacity on networks.

    What many forget is that to offer increased speeds, ISPs need to have excess capacity to handle bumping the speeds, and that is why progress has been so slow for many. How much does it cost to add more fiber in a suburban town so that speeds can be improved without hitting capacity limits on the main connection to that town? How about replacing older equipment, and do you increase speeds in just one neighborhood once the work is done to ALLOW for increased speeds, or do you wait until all the old equipment is replaced, and then turn on better speeds for everyone?

    I remember that back in 2002, Cablevision was still offering speeds of "up to" 10Mbps, which was boosted to 15Mbps in 2003-2004 as a part of the normal service. While not all areas have seen the increases we have seen out here on the east end of Long Island, the EFFORT to improve speeds can not be denied.

  50. No fault of one's own by tepples · · Score: 1

    Not living in the middle of nowhere.

    It might be (edge case #1) that someone moved to the middle of nowhere before a decade ago when broadband started to become a necessity and a factor as to where one might live. Or it might be (edge case #2, example from my extended family) that someone is not the head of household, and the head of household moved the whole household. So if one happens to have been living in the middle of nowhere other than through one's own informed choice to move, how does one find the resources to move out of the middle of nowhere? As I have made clear before, I know next to nothing about moving and therefore need help.

    It would be like complaining about the long drive to buy groceries.

    Or the lack/high cost of fresh produce in the city.

    1. Re:No fault of one's own by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Fresh produce is cheap in the city, farmers have to bring it in or let it rot in the fields.