Slashdot Mirror
The Fastest ISPs In the US
adeelarshad82 writes "For a second year in a row PCMag partnered with Speedtest to find out the fastest ISPs in the U.S. The results were a product of 110,000 tests ran between January 1, 2012 and September 19, 2012. Collecting data for both download and upload speeds for each test, Speednet was able to calculate an index score for a better one-to-one comparison, where downloads counted for 80 percent and uploads 20 percent. Moreover, rather than testing the upload and download speed of a single file, the tests used multiple broadband threads to measure the total capacity of the 'pipe.' While the results at the nationwide level were fairly obvious with Verizon FiOS crushing its opposition, the results at regional level were a lot more interesting and competitive."
I at least think my ISP sends their bills the fastest. Not sure about the "pipe" speed though.
In addition Midcontinent has prices that aren't bad. Good bandwidth at a good price in a city with a population under 500. I would have never believed it before moving here.
As I have said repeatedly on here, in my area I have 2 choices: Comcast or Verizon. To get the lowest level of naked broadband service, 15/5, I would have to pay $75/month. From there, it's only how much they can squeeze out of you for minor increments in speed.
Despite this, the U.S. consistently ranks in the middle to the bottom in terms of speed, but always at the top in price.
So for all the talk about broadband penetration, who has what speed, etc, until real competition is injected into the fray or the law about one provider allowing another to use their lines at reasonable rates is enforced, surveys like this are relatively meaningless. If the cost of getting this supposed speed is too high, why bother?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
i'm on the time warner a la carte $50 10mbps plan. next year FIOS is coming to my building but i will most likely stay with time warner.
reason is that i get almost 100 channels free through the same cable so i can watch sports and my wife can watch american idol without the need for an antenna
my inlaws have FIOS in their neighborhood but they still have cable because FIOS doesn't carry their international channels. same for a lot of people. that's what the geeks can't figure out when these studies are done
I'd really like it if they could make this distinction. I understand that for the typical user, it doesn't matter much, but it feels really deceptive. I pay for a 3Mb/sec connection, I typically get a hair over 2 in burst speed and then about 1 for any download that takes more than 3-5 seconds.
some cable ISPs here are known for unthrottling connections as soon as the URL includes something like /speedtest/ - e.g. NetCologne
FIRST POST, CHECK It BItCHES
A claim like "Fastest internet connection" is amazingly dubious based on the data they are presenting. What they mean more specifically is "fastest average customer". While some providers may offer fast services at higher prices, the only thing we know for sure from this is how many people are in the upper/lower tiers on a given provider. Sure, coming up with an actual "Fastest provider" number is going to be pretty darn hard to do (you basically need a way to reliably throw away data from anyone not in the fastest service tier) they could at least be a little more honest about what their "Study" is actually saying.
You mean to say the Slowskys actually had a fast internet connection... This might lead to Mr Slowsky in a roadside ditch.
It's not what your Sig can do for you, but what you can do for your for your Sig.
I have charter at the 30/3 increment. it costs just under $50/month. If I wasn't bundled for another 14 months I think I could get by with a slower speed, as long as I can stream some Netflix, and play a bit of CoD, or Battlefield 3 I would be happy. 10MB would probably be enough for me.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
Speed is not as relevant as it once was. Caps are the big problem now for residential service. The providers are offering speeds in the 10's of megabits per second, but the caps are set so low that the service has no value for the money. There needs to be more competition in residential broadband or more regulation if there is not sufficient competition. The only way out of the caps is to order business service in my area (which I have done, but at $119/mo is quite expensive).
Both AT&T and Cox have caps in place for residential customers in my area. Cox has no cap (yet) for business customers.
If it can only be solved by regulation in certain areas of the country, then a moratorium on dividends or a 100% corporate tax on dividends of companies in areas with little competition might provide the necessary incentives to change things. Communications companies pay ridiculously high dividends to shareholders, and I'm convinced this is one of the roots of the problem. This money could be redirected over the long term to build a better Internet in this country, and the communications companies would stand to benefit from it.
There has been talk recently of the FCC investigating the cap thresholds, but that is just going to lead to a court battle in my opinion (at least in the past it has)
Where I live, I have two main options:
1) Verizon DSL at 768kbps
3) Time Warner at 3Mbps, 10Mbps, 20Mbps or 50Mbps
You can see why I'm happy that Verizon has the fastest internet in my region.
The problem is that Verizon, the only national company providing it to homes in the United States, stopped expanding to new markets a couple of years ago, or at least past the planned footprint. The existing 13.7 million customers get new upgrades (like the new 300Mbps "Quantum" option for $205 a month) and while Verizon expects to grow to 18 million FiOS customers eventually, after that, if you don't have FiOS, you probably never will.
Just sad. Europe and Asia are quickly leaving the U.S. behind. And no one has any plan to do anything about it. From internet pioneer to the back of the pack.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Paying 20€ per month for my 100/20Mbit uncapped, unthrottled fibre connection.
The competitor is offering 150/30 for roughly the same price.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy reading TFA.
If this damn page would load fast enough...
I suppose I should be pleased. My very local ISP gives me a consistent 15/15 for $40 - $60 when bundled with local phones.
I'd like to see $/per Mbit. That would be a way more interesting regional graph.
If only I could escape from this 10mbit for 45 a month hell.
And I hit 85/35 on my FiOS every time I've ever tested it. This is an average. You've got basically the best LTE connection in the country "regularly" and you're comparing it against an average.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
Google Fiber uses a PON network.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Or 20 Mbps with Sonic.net Fusion DSL. Or 200 Mbps with Webpass.
But go ahead, keep using a slow ISP and complaining about it on Slashdot instead of switching to a better provider.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Where is the broadband speed? 30mbps at max is not fast. Only becourse FIOS is the fastest does not mean its good. At least 100mbits I say. Like you could walk 99,999% over the street and not die. You are the best of the dead.. still does not matter.
Speaking of fiber, what about AT&T? The company did not make the top 15. In fact, the fiber-based AT&T U-verse service got an index of 7.9, putting it at number 22.
I'm really not surprised by this. One of the worst features of U-verse is that the tv and internet share the same bandwidth. After a little at home testing I found that my '18mbs' connection dropped by almost 6mbs per HD channel we were watching or recording. So while you pay for both, you can really only use one at a time. I promptly dropped their cable. The most frustrating fact is that we can't get Fios in my neighborhood. When we called to set it up while moving in the gentleman kindly informed me that if AT&T services my area Fios will not. Still trying to figure out how that is legal...
The second amendment is not the only civil liberty.
Gun control is authoritarian, therefore it is right wing.
It is the one thing that people who call themselves right leaning do that is left leaning, and the one thing that people who call themselves left leaning do that is right leaning.
I am extremely left wing and very pro 2nd amendment.
On economics, no I have spent years on history and economics. I am not mistaken or confused.
Unregulated markets are unstable and prone to catastrophic failure. Deregulation in critical sectors preceded both the great depression and the recent near depression that we are still not recovered from.
Not only that but right leaning lowering of taxes on the wealthy has been proven to fail in stimulating economic growth as happened prior to and during our recent recession. More money in the hands of the wealthy rarely leads to economic growth because they spend little and are likely to invest in safe investments. More money in the hands of the poor does stimulate the economy, because nearly 100% of that money is spent on goods and services, and in the hands of the middle class, that money is spent on goods services and for starting productive small businesses.
And then there is the FACT that right wing economic policy not only slashes consumer spending and productive investment, but it also historically increases government spending and amplifies the continuation of the debt cycle.
The only result of right wing economics in the long run will be the ruin of America and our takeover by another power.
Don't forget that Verizon FiOS is tiered, so not everyone is going to be on 300Mbps, in fact, very few customers will be.
It's still damning that very few customers can afford higher tiers when it doesn't cost any more to run than lower tiers.
How fucking stupid are you?
Both Hitler and Stalin were right wing authoritarians.
Actually, I get 59 down routinely with Cablevision/Optimum. Then again, I got a two-year, no-contract deal that gives me phone, cable, and their upgraded internet service for $85 a month. That includes a cablecard. When that deal is up, I'll either get them to extend the price, or switch to Verizon FIOS for a couple of years with no contract. Having real competition makes a HUGE difference. Looks like Verizon has given up on extending FIOS to any new areas, though. Look at Boston - no FIOS, and Verizon is not only not going to build it out, they're going to start requiring residential DSL customers to also pay for POTS.
I've heard that Verizon's percentage market penetration rate per mile of cable in the greater NYC area isn't good. Makes me wonder how long it'll be before they go to being an entirely wireless company, and they offload their physical network to other companies. If you're only grabbing 25% of the possible customers (for example), and the local cable company is at 60% or more, and you're having to maintain just as much cable, you've got an issue.
Just because democrats are less right wing than republicans, but still right wing, doesn't mean that that the left supports infringing on liberties.
Not by the U.S. standard of left and right. In the U.S., the central planners are left wing, opponents of central planning are right wing. Stalin and Hitler were both big proponents of centrally planned economies.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Both right and left wing economics are Keynsian at their roots. The Austrian model is the only one that works - economies are more organic than formulaic because they are comprised of organic components.
Stop stealing my material, you talking monkey!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Or did they just have a crappy route to their test server? If I could make a living in Chattanooga TN and the wife be ok with it, I'd move in a heartbeat. The local city owned electrical company has HTTP on the cheap. Their base service is faster (50mbps symetrical) and cheaper than my base service with Comcrap: https://epbfi.com/enroll/packages/#/
Seriously wish that could happen where I live, but it will never happen. Sad thing is, the available ISPs and speeds are a factor in my choice of domicile. My wife rolls her eyes at that statement, yet she bitches when the internets are slow or don't work; go figure. I've got her on the same page now that we're on Comcrap and shit breaks on occasion. Who said it was impossible to get the wife on your side? I just use logic, point stuff out, and she'll come over to my side on things we disagree on in most cases. I just haven't gotten her on my side when it comes to guns yet, but I haven't made the effort to shoot down her lame arguments with facts yet; no pun intended.
The department of homeland security, the central point of the modern police state was a right wing republican creation.
Stalin was not a communist.
Hitler was not a socialist.
It is what people do that matter, not the words that people use as shields.
Consider its only in a limited few area's so how can be put under nationwide when its only in a few area's where as charter, comcast, etc are in every state?
Must be nice...if you can get it. The elephant in the room of course is most of us have NO choice and since we can't just abandon our families and move the duopolies pretty much have you by the balls.
In my area your "choices" are AT&T, which hasn't moved an inch in over a decade and you'll pay $45 a month for a top speed of 3.5Mbps down and a pathetic 700k up, and that is if you are lucky and the planets align, otherwise you are looking at 2Mbps down and as low as 200k up. Then there is Cablelynx which I believe is a subsidiary of Cox, where you get anywhere from 12Mbps down to 20Mbps down but you have a cap of just 36Gb for residential and 76Gb business (although those of us that were grandfathered in seem to have a LOT of leeway while those that came after don't) with prices of $65 for just bare cable and $120 a month for the bundle. Both of those are with 2 year contracts, no contracts you are looking at $90 and $150 respectively so your ass damned well better sign on the dotted line. Finally the newest is a WISP which I predict like the last 2 WISP attempts won't last long because they have a top speed of 2Mbps down and charge $90 a month for that on top of a $175 installation fee and their service is hit or miss with a LOT more miss than hit.
So as you can see the plans pretty much cut out the poor, not that anybody other than the WISP provides them service at all because the cable and DSL both end before you get even halfway across town and neither have ANY plans to upgrade shit or move a single inch, for example my mother can literally see both the cable and DSL junction from her porch but neither will run the whole block and a half to her home so she's stuck on the shitty WISP.
What we need is to open up the lines to competition, just as we did when we broke up AT&T and allowed dialup companies to compete on those lines. if they want a monopoly? We'll be happy to give it to them for running fiber to the neighborhood and hooking up those houses they've ignored for years. We even have a reason to grab those lines as we already paid over 200 billion in tax breaks and incentives to get the ISPs to run national broadband but all we got for all that money was a low res Goatse as they instead spent the money on more cell towers so they can gouge more money with cell plans than they can gouge out of home users. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see corps like AT&T get out of DSL entirely as they can make so much more money charging for every SMS and minute of usage whereas they would actually have to spend money to upgrade their aging lines to compete with cable.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Hitler ran the Nazi party. Nazi - translated to English it means National Socialist. That's left of center, son. Stalin was a Communist, that's even farther to the left. Sorry if the truth hurts, but the phrase "right wing authoritarians" - just doesn't scan. It's Socialism where the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few (sorry, Spock.)
Perhaps you fear liberty?
DHS has only EXPANDED even more under Obama. There is no opposition by the leftwing media exposing the increasing surveillance society like there was under Bush. This is part of the problem for today's (R) bad (D) good mentality.
Dozens of our Embassy's around the world are under siege and yet, the News is completely silent. If this was Bush, they'd have hourly updates on them. Hell, even Faux News isn't reporting it.
As for your assertions of Hitler and Stalin, I'll one up you and go Goebbels "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" And you're right, it is what people DO that matters, but why then are there no left wing protesters against Obama's Authoritarian Tendencies? It is because His is their kind of dictator, while GWB wasn't.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Did anyone else notice that upload speeds were labeled as "Averge Upload" for every chart?
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
The real truth is not in the names, but in the character. Sorry if the truth hurts, but just because you claim to be something, doesn't mean you are.
Man, I am so glad you posted that. I see all these discussions and benchmarks and reports where it seems like average speeds are in the double-digits, and I was starting to feel like Oliver Douglas climbing the telephone pole to manually hook up a headset every time I wanted to make a call. Now my meager 3.5 up / 300K down doesn't seem so bad after all. I'm out here in rural Wyoming where there's no hope of ever getting cable and DSL is an overpriced joke; a local wireless carrier is doing a superb job with what little infrastructure they can get.
That's Millhouse Electronics, for all the thousands of Cheyenne-area Slashdot readers (ha!) who need to know.
Actually, you can get Sonic.net Fusion in many parts of Santa Clara County.
As for SF not technically being in Silicon Valley, that's true but the distinction has become increasingly blurred over the past decade. Let's not pretend it's still 1995.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Living in AT&T land, I had their "premium" 6/0.4 DSL service. Then one fine day they poured a slab for the U-verse cabinet at the end of the street. Such a deal, phone/video/Internet! Actually, boys & girls, I only want the Internet. Turns out they suddenly lose interest if they can't sell you TV. Since I don't have a TV in my house it seemed silly to pay extra for crap-vision.
Then they started messing with my DSL service. Change the IP address up to three times a day. Really? You manage your network so poorly you have to re-arrange it that often? Of course not, we just want you to upgrade to our fine U-verse service (with TV, of course.)
Finally they made a decent offer for 18/1.5 service and I snapped it up. It's simply amazing, no - miraculous that my IP address hasn't changed since that day. I have heard they use (nearly) static addresses on U-verse to make it easier to distribute the video. But thank you, AT&T for the miracle in my life! At least, thanks for not messing with my IP address any more.
Grump, and after I spent a few hours writing my own DDNS software to cope with their former animosity...
One thing I notice is that the index rating weights in favor of download speed more than upload. That's IMO misleading. It's OK in a world where people only consume content, but in an environment that includes Skype or Google Voice for telephone and video calls, Google Hangouts, cloud-based storage like Dropbox or Google Drive, workers remoting in to the office using VPNs and remote-desktop software, and mobile devices using WiFi and an Internet connection as an alternative to the regular cellular network, upload bandwidth is becoming as important as download bandwidth. Rating ISP A significantly higher than B when A's upload speed is half of B's and A's downloads are only 20% faster seems to me to be misleading.
Also, if you have one of their older routers, your wifi speed will suck at 802.11g speeds(~28Mbps). You might have to get tech support to ship you a newer router that supports 802.11n to get faster speeds over wifi.
I wonder what it would take to get data like this into Gapminder.org. I want to compare connection speed to population density. I also want a version of the report where they exclude ISPs that effectively require a "bundle" with other services I don't want.
In the southwestern-most part of the contiguous KC metro area, I have a symmetric 18Mbps FTTH line with no caps, no throttling, and local phone service from SureWest for $58 after taxes. They offer up to 50/50 service here. I've had no problems with the service, and it has always provided me with the bandwidth I pay for, and sometimes more.
North of me in KC, KS, they will have Google Fiber rolling out their network.
West of me in Lawrence, Wicked Broadband has 10/10 wireless service, and is rolling out fiber service.
One thing I've noticed in my 59 years on this Earth. socialists and communists will always deny that anyone other than themselves are socialists or communists. And they will always say that nobody but themselves know what the terms mean.
According to some here on slashdot the Communist Party is not communist and the Socialist Party is not socialist. Say what?!?!
And the sky isn't blue.
The regional stats aren't correct. In looking at the regional winner for Georgia, I see it's Verizon FiOS. That would be news to VzT (Verizon Telecom) since they have zero presence in Georgia (AT&T, formerly BellSouth territory). People in AL, TN, SC and NC would also agree. My guess is that the numbers for Tampa (LEC is VzT) destroyed the performance for the rest of the ISP's checked in the other states.
I would love to see a similar test performed, at a higher level of quality, for ISP providers in data centers.
Neither the right nor the left want to legalize fully-automatic assault riffles (aka. "machine guns"), and neither side wants to entirely outlaw fire-arms, either.
Gun control is one of those "wedge" issues, like abortion, euthanasia, illegal immigration, and more., which both sides talk about continually, but neither side really wants to actually act upon, other than some token measures here and there.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You're oversimplifying to the point of meaninglessness. Socialists and Fascists may both prefer central planning, but the way in which they do so is diametrically opposed.
Democrats (left wing) are more of the Socialist bent, and Republicans (right wing) are more of the Fascist bent.
Right-wing'ers in the US most certainly still want central-planning, they just opt to give one company a de-jury right to monopoly control of an industry. They certainly don't want competition, that's just how they "spin" their actions, since publicly admitting to Fascism is political suicide.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Speed means jack squat if you are being throttled. My ISP is the fastest of my area. But they don't tell you about their Accepted Use Policy or whatever they call it now. Regardless if you are a 'heavy user' or not.
- -= Napalm means serious BBQ =-
OK, and North Korea is known as The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Holy crap, democratic republics are evil... wait... isn't the United States of America a democratic republic? Damn, I didn't realize we were so fucked as a country.
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
This is where political discourse goes wrong in this country. Was the Tea Party left-wing or right-wing? Was Occupy Wall Street left-wing or right-wing? Which one called for limited government? Which one called for more government regulation?
I will say this, the Democratic Party says they love the poor. I believe them, why else would they work so hard to make more of them? The Democratic Party says that the Republican Party loves the rich, and once again, I believe the Democrats, because why else would the Republicans work so hard to make more rich people?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"Deregulation" is code for letting big companies do anything they want. Republicans say they want lower taxes, but they really mean they want the rich to pay lower taxes, but they still want all the government spending to continue.
Name ONE president who has campaigned on "smaller government", and followed through. There are none. Regan slashed and burned a bunch of essential public services, then spent even MORE money on defense, eliminating any gains he claimed. This kind of pattern goes back as far as Thomas Jefferson...
You've made your bias quite clear... You're one of the "I got mine!" crowd, who just wants to pay less in taxes, and is happy to screw-over everyone else in the process.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
In Austin where i live, its basically Time Warner or AT&T, its like two really crappy choices. I've been a TW customer for years now, but this is the company that gave me 10/1.5 in 1998. Back then it cost me $40 a month, and I was a _REALLY_ happy camper. It got faster for a few years until I had ~15/3 in ~2000, then it started getting slower and slower until it was 8/.5, and TW added another tier, Turbo, so I upgraded and now I was only paying something like $55 a month for 20/2 with "turbo boost" which regularly would hit 30/2. That is pretty much where it sat until a couple years ago when they finally announced DOCIS 3, would roll out with a 30/5 and a 50/5 tier. By the time it was available it was only 50/5 and 30/2. Sure enough as soon as those came out turbo dipped to 18/1.5, now its 15/1.5, and i'm thinking I have to pay them $75 to get 30/2.
Bottom line, my internet isn't getting faster, especially when you consider the download rates. The price is slowly creeping up. At this rate by 2025, i'm going to have 25/1 for $300 a month.
So basically TW is fucking us, especially if you consider that a basic base DOCIS is 4 channel config is 177/122, or basically at 20M down I should be getting 13M up.
Um, that word 'FACT". I do not think it means what you think it means. Anecdote !=fact. Ditto for anything you expect us to believe 'just 'cuz I said so'.
Liberal economists aren't Keynesians (Krugman, for a moderate liberal; socialists for the opposite extreme), there most certainly are valid nonAustrian economic models. IANAE, but it sure seems to me that we're seeing another demonstration of how Austrian pure-play capitalism is as bad an economic model as pure socialism/communism. I prefer social engineering via regulated capitalism: Balance wins handily over either extreme.
That paragraph about gun control is a bread-n-circuses distraction to left/right economic positions, and as such matters as little as abortion (and is certainly not a litmus test for either part).
Everyone pays taxes (so of **course** you are affected by them despite not being a 1%er), but most of us in the US are paying less than we would have during the 50's, 60's, 70's. The social safety net is alive and well in Germany, despite it being the healthiest economy in the developed/1st world. But they're aggressively taxing businesses, then using the proceeds to keep manufacturing in-country.
Giving money to the poor is loaded language. The depression was **solved** by handouts and governmental borrowing/deficit spending (the government giving poor people money and jobs when nobody else would hire due to illiquidity of finances and markets).
Well, that and Hitler.
Likewise, the stimulus worked this time around, although Krugman and other economists are building up plenty of evidence that more would have been better. The US House's Republican plan of Austerity economics aren't helping and seem to be pushing toward rekindling another Recession.
Grants and other 'given' money helps the weak/infirm/old survive with dignity and helps the children of the poor and helps people bootstrap themselves out of poverty. Tax breaks for the wealthy, OTOH don't trickle down nearly as well as Reagan and the Heritage Foundation pretend.
Government inefficiency is a bogus meme: Social Security has repeatedly been analyzed and scored better than private pensions for their operational efficiency. Ditto many other government programs -- you've fallen for a conservative talking point there. As for them being the least efficient means of putting money into an economy, nothing could be further from the truth: A $1 tax increase diminishes your personal spending less than a buck, since you (as a healthy middle-class wonk) were investing/saving part of it. OTOH, a buck in the hand of anyone near the poverty line gets spent that week. All of it. Every time. By the time that welfare buck cycles twice through local economies (once if it went to WalMart or other corporations that suck the profits out while they pay their staff less than a living wage), it's usually kicking the ass off the fractional buck given to you or me.
As for that founding fathers quote: it's one great man's opinion, taken out of context and across 200+ years. Relying on it as gospel is your most absurd prose of all. I honestly can't imagine a quorum of flaming liberals like our founding fathers liking Washington or Wall Street or most of your other claims.
Ya wanna fix the economy? Change international trade regulations, reinstate a steeper progressive tax structure, and stop spending half our taxes on war. Then, maybe we could stop pretending like the only options for healthcare are the extremes being debated and start emulating nations whose healthcare laws are working better than ours (Frontline did a nice show a few years ago comparing US, Germany, the UK, Japan and another nation's, for reference). Then let's talk seriously about the long term -- we can adjust retirement rules and tax rates (raise the ceiling, set different rules for knowledge workers and blue-collar jobs that literally physically wear out the people doing them by 55 -- the number of unemployable old construction workers at your local homeless shelter sho
Marx had a slightly different conception of democracy in mind
Even Toqueville's definition is at odds with the contemporary Democratic thought, though both would probably admire a broad middle class society.
Politics is too complex to be controlled by one sentence definitions. After all, the fundamental break between a liberal and a conservative is that the liberal believes that we should aim for a "a government of laws, not of men" and a conservative tends to believe that such an aim is not only impossible, but counter productive as well. This is philosophy, not lexicography.
Also known as The Slowest ISPs in the World.
I am left wing and I want to legalize fully automatic assault rifles.
Holy cow, all of you need to get your butts *quick* over to the Dictator's Handbook http://dictatorshandbook.net/ and have a quick read. Nobody calls theirself a dictator anymore. There are too many creative ways to be "democratic."
That's the game, of course.
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
Hell don't feel bad as I'm in the center of a college town with over 30k when the classes are in and even in the center of town with all that college money that's the best you can get.
The simple fact is thanks to crony capitalism we're gonna end up on the short bus to the information superhighway because the megacorps are taking every dime they make and either pocketing it or spending it on more cell phone towers where they can gouge by the minute. In my own area AT&T hasn't moved a single foot nor boosted their speeds in many years, half the town is "if you are on this side you can get cable or DSL, that side of the street can't" and my mom can see both junction boxes and can't get anybody to run it the whole block and a half. Hell I offered to just pay for the damned cable and they wanted $50,000 AND a 5 year contract to run a single block!
So while supposedly "backwoods" countries like Romania get 50Mbps+ we'll be lucky if we get more than 6Mbps anywhere but one of the megacities like NYC, we're just being royally fucked by the ISPs.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It hasn't been rolled out yet. But I can't wait!!! I'm glad they picked a civilized city like Kansas City.
If you're getting 3Mbps with Sonic, that's pretty odd. Everyone I know who has it gets at least 10Mbps, often quite a bit more than that.
I bet it's a wiring issue in your building. Have you upgraded to twisted pair, or do you still have old-school phone cables?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Latency has a greater impact than raw throughput when it comes to anything interactive and they don't necessarily correlate. For example Comcast vs. Centurylink here in OR. Comcast is the fastest and Centurylink the slowest. Yet Comcast routinely has ping times of 80-100+ms where Centurylink gets around 20-30ms ping times (using the same google ip as an example for testing). The difference is noticeable.
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus