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.

30 of 172 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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?

    4. 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?
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

  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 NatasRevol · · Score: 2
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  3. 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. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  7. 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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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?