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