European ISPs Exaggerate Performance; US ISPs Slower But More Honest (itworld.com)

itwbennett writes: New studies of broadband Internet access across Europe and the U.S. published by the European Commission have found that European broadband Internet access providers advertised download speeds of 47.9 Mbps, but only delivered 38.19 Mbps, while U.S. providers delivered more or less what they advertised. But if you want fast fixed-line Internet access, you're still better off in Europe than in the U.S. Average DSL, fiber, and cable Internet speeds in Europe were all ahead of U.S. average speeds, and at lower prices.

Comments

The magic words being

[Goose In Orbit]

"up to"

ISPs can get away with pretty much any speed that way

Re:The magic words being

[aaaaaaargh!]

In a sense these speed tests do not really measure the important factors. I don't have a direct comparison, but I'm convinced that the network access is generally way faster for Americans than for most Europeans, even when we (=the Europeans) have nominally faster download speed. The reason is simply that most interesting servers are located in the US.

As an example, I have a 100 Mbps download / 10 Mbps upload fiber link for 40 Euro/mo., but in reality my download speeds tend to max out at 8-45 Mbps. In speed tests to nearby servers I do get near 100 Mbps, but I rarely need anything local anyway. (We also got an option of 200 Mbps in our country and I wonder what one would need this speed for, especially if the upload speed is not as high as well so it can't be used for bidirectional links.)

Re:The magic words being

[Anonymous Coward]

> even when we (=the Europeans) have nominally faster download speed.

Been there, done that. It's the students wandering from nation to nation, providing cheap laber but also buying Terabyte USB drives and saturating them with Bittorrent. I spent a few years working in the EU recently, and in *every flatshare* or B&B or cheap hotel I stayed at, there was always at least *one* idiot sucking all the available bandwidth with Bittorrent.

Re: The magic words being

[PopeRatzo]

I've been to Seattle, and it's probably better for everyone if they don't get faster internet.

I mean, five dollar coffee, utilikilts and grunge. Don't nobody need Seattle on the information superhighway.

The U.S. has tariffed rates.

[tlambert]

The U.S. has tariffed rates.

If they don't meet specs on their connection compared to what they contracted the connection at, then they will be crucified.

This is why, when I lived in an apartment 10 feet too far away from the LATE, the wouldn't give me DSL, and would only offer ADSL. This was in Silicon Valley, where presumably, we'd have good Internet connectivity. They simply weren't willing to risk the legal ramifications, should the sell it to me, and it be 1% too slow, and me taking them to court over it, and them losing their regulatory approval everywhere because of it.

It looks like Europe is either under-regulated, or under-litigious, compared to the U.S..

The slow U.S. rollout of higher speeds has more to do with 20 year amortization on equipment, which is standard practice in the telecom industry, and the fact that you only have to be better than the competition to lock up all the consumers in a given market, and there is little competition.

That, and the U.S. is *big* and sparsely populated for the most part, and Europeans have absolutely no clue at the distances involved, which is why they totally fail on the "public transportation in the U.S." and "Internet access in the U.S." and "Taxi service in the U.S." arguments (you can get a Lyft in Alta, UT -- population 389 -- but if you expect a taxi, don't hold your breath, or expect to pay for it to come out from Salt Lake).

Re:The U.S. has tariffed rates.

[serviscope_minor]

That, and the U.S. is *big* and sparsely populated for the most part, and Europeans have absolutely no clue at the distances involved, which is why they totally fail on the "public transportation in the U.S." and "Internet access in the U.S." and "Taxi service in the U.S." arguments (you can get a Lyft in Alta, UT -- population 389 -- but if you expect a taxi, don't hold your breath, or expect to pay for it to come out from Salt Lake).

For some reason a small cadre of Americans believe that they're different and special.

Let's ignore the sparsely populated areas for the time being.

Many of the big cities are as dense as European ones so there's just no excuse for stuff sucking in the cities. But it does.

Now let's get on to the sparsely populated areas. The USA has a higher population density than Sweden, and Sweden's internet is excellent, so it can't just be a population thing.

So what about land area? The USA is undoubtedly larger. In fact, the USA is about 20x the area of Sweden. But wait, the USA has 50 states! Looking that up... If Sweden was a US state, then it would be the third largest behind Alaska and Texas. So why do the remaining 48 suck? They are mostly smaller!

But what about the population density of the states?

Well if Sweden was a state, it would be the third largest and the joint 16th most sparsely populated.

So let's take Sweden as the example. It's on average larger and has a lower population density than most of the US states. So based on those, why aren't most US states individually better than Sweden?

And if you're arguing that it's harder in aggregate then you're literally arguing that economies of scale don't work.

The US is not particularly exceptional compared to Europe for the majority of it's population. There are some large, exceptional areas like Alaska, but they hardly count to wards the average stats because the number of people there is quite small.

And if you go state-by-state then it's really not all that different at all, because here are European countries that are harder to wire up than the majority of states yet have better internet access than the majority.

You have a severe case of Stockholm syndrome with your ISPs. They're crap, and it's their fault.

Re:I've been saying this

[Mr D from 63]

The EU also cheats the most on broadband emissions testing.

Sweden has been pretty good

[MarkusTenghamn]

I have lived in the US and in Sweden both in fairly newly built areas. I have also worked in various places related to IT and from experience the internet here in Sweden is much more reliable and faster than that of the US (Comcast). In the US I don't remember ever getting the speed I paid for and it was not unusual for the internet to be terribly slow at times or be completely down. Here in Sweden I currently pay for 100/100 internet and regularly get 95/95 or so which could be because of my own router/wireless etc. On good days it goes over 100/100 which is surprising :D recently I saw one area of Sweden where you could go from 100/10 speeds to 1000/1000 for an extra $20 which is super cheap.

This is a silly game.

[emj]

A part of Sweden called Norrland is about the same size as Kansas and has half the amount of people living there, and I still have 1 Gbps in my summer cabin there. But avarage population density has little to do with it, I think Svalbard would win that category though.. :-)

Backbone investment to remote places has just been very high priority in Sweden.