UK Has Fastest Mobile Internet While US Lags Behind, Says Report (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Has Fastest Mobile Internet While US Lags Behind, Says Report (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @10:40AM from the check-your-internet-connection-and-try-again dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Verge: Content delivery network Akamai says the UK has the best average mobile connection speeds in the world. The State of the Internet report claims that British mobile users were able to get average speeds of 27.9 Mbps when connecting to Akamai's HTTP/S platform in Q1 2016, beating most countries in Europe by an average of more than 10 Mbps, and the United States' average speed by more than 20 Mbps. For comparison, the U.S. had an average connection speed of 5.1 Mbps, which was lower than Turkey, Kenya, and Paraguay, and on par with Thailand. Many European countries more than doubled the average U.S. speed, including Slovakia with 13.3 Mbps, France with 11.5 Mbps, and Germany with 15.7 Mbps. Algeria was only 2.9 Mbps slower than the United States' average with 2.2 Mbps, and they had the lowest average speed of countries included in the report. Akamai says its data shows that regular internet connections have continued to increase in speed, jumping 12 percent from Q4 2015 to 6.3 Mbps in Q1 2016, which is a year-on-year boost of 23 percent. Peak connection speed also rose to 34.7 Mbps, a 6.8 percent increase from the last quarter, and a 14 percent increase year-on-year. In addition, mobile data traffic is rising from just over 3,500 petabytes per month in Q1 2015 to more than 5,500 petabytes per month in the same period this year.

136 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Mine is even faster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:44 · Score: -1

first!
1. Re:Mine is even faster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  Second.
  TFA beat you.
2. Re: Mine is even faster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Neutrino!
3. Re: Mine is even faster by davester666 · 2016-06-29 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh. I tried for FP, but the Internet is so slow in Canada, this is the soonest the post uploaded.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Meanwhile, in Canada... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:47 · Score: 0

We're paying about 10 times as much for 10 times slower speeds with 100 times smaller monthly data caps.
1. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  So i take it you aren't LOLing at the Europeans anymore?
2. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  That other guy you are referring to couldn't possibly be Canadian. There was nothing passive-agressive about his posts.
3. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by aristotle-dude · 2016-06-29 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  We're paying about 10 times as much for 10 times slower speeds with 100 times smaller monthly data caps.
  What shitty carrier are you on? I get an average of 19 Mbps on Rogers.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
4. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Archangel+Michael · 2016-06-29 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it probably depends upon where you actually live. The USoA is a very large country size wise. If you put Seattle lined up with London, Florida would cover Israel. So, saying Europe is better would include everywhere in between.
  https://stevenglassman.files.w...
  Yeah, comparing Europe to America is complete apples to apples for all cases. /sarcasm
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
5. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by ArmoredDragon · 2016-06-29 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  Another thing to consider is that US carriers (except Sprint; Verizon currently doesn't but it was just leaked that they plan to do so to catch up with AT&T and T-Mobile very soon in this regard) now cover practically every area in the entire North American continent that isn't in the middle of BFE, and with T-mobile (and soon Verizon) there is no extra cost to do so. Meaning, you can roam to anywhere in North America and call to anywhere in North America, including data usage, at no extra cost.
  Meanwhile, European carriers typically only cover a small fraction of the landmass, and if you want to go from i.e. Portugal to Italy, you either have to pay roaming costs or buy another sim card and plan for another carrier.
6. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by William+Baric · 2016-06-29 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  The excuse of the US size is completely bogus. The percentage of the urban population in the US is 80.7%, while the urban population of Germany is 74% (yet Germany has three times the speed of the US). And don't get me started on price people have to pay for the bad service they get.
7. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Zxern · 2016-06-29 16:28 · Score: 2
  
  This is such a crap excuse. Take NYC for example, one of the highest population density cities in the world and yet you can't even get FIOS in most of the city. ISP's simply don't want to offer faster service. Verizon won't because they want to push you on to the wireless network, and time warner/charter doesn't want to lose cable tv subscribers to streaming services.
8. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 22:21 · Score: 0
  
  Starting January 1, 2017 there will be no roaming charges inside the EU. Hurray for regulation.
9. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Archangel+Michael · 2016-06-30 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  The reason why you can't get FIOS is because franchise agreements prevent competition. There is a new trend where the Municipality owns the infrastructure, and the competition is no longer for the last mile, but for services to be delivered.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
10. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Archangel+Michael · 2016-06-30 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Population of Germany 80.62 million
  Population of US 318.9 million
  US has almost 4 times the population of Germany.
  Size of Germany 357,168 km
  Size of USA 9.857 million km
  US has 27 times more land mass than Germany. US is 8 times less dense than Germany. Pretending that these things do not matter is a fools argument.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
11. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Computershack · 2016-06-30 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  and if you want to go from i.e. Portugal to Italy, you either have to pay roaming costs or buy another sim card and plan for another carrier.
  Not any more. Inter EU roaming costs have been outlawed by the EU.
  
  --
  I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
12. Re: Meanwhile, in Canada... by dunkelfalke · 2016-06-30 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and people have on average 1.97 legs.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
13. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-30 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Comparing landlines to mobile coverage is not valid. They're different things with different limitations.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
14. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-30 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  But even "rural" areas of Germany are closer to real cities and more densely populated, in general, than rural America.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
15. Re:Meanwhile, in Canada... by ArmoredDragon · 2016-07-01 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Even if that were the case (which it's not; not yet anyways,) the EU is tiny compared to North America. Hell, the US alone dwarfs the EU.
Yeah, but by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:48 · Score: -1

Does UK enjoy the same amount of Freedom that America has?
Not even close!
***AMERICA!***
1. Re:Yeah, but by TechyImmigrant · 2016-06-29 11:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Does UK enjoy the same amount of Freedom that America has?
  Not even close!
  ***AMERICA!***
  Significantly more when you look at the details.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re: Yeah, but by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the freedom to have their tax dollars go nowhere. I don't think they want that.
3. Re:Yeah, but by Tablizer · 2016-06-29 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom to get ripped off by Comcast and the other ISP oligopoly bandits?
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
4. Re:Yeah, but by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  so far, and mostly thanks to EU who has stopped UK from going batshit crazy on human rights.
  but now Brexit has fixed that. so, I guess UK and USA will have the same level soon. and I don't mean that as a good thing.
5. Re:Yeah, but by OrangeTide · 2016-06-29 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's only because Brits don't enjoy anything. They have as much freedom as Americans, they just don't enjoy having it.
  The French have more freedom than Americans, but they only enjoy complaining about everything.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
6. Re:Yeah, but by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  Land of the CCTV and hate speech laws, and all while under the glorious dictatorship of the EU.
7. Re:Yeah, but by TechyImmigrant · 2016-06-29 12:36 · Score: 2
  
  so far, and mostly thanks to EU who has stopped UK from going batshit crazy on human rights.
  but now Brexit has fixed that. so, I guess UK and USA will have the same level soon. and I don't mean that as a good thing.
  Right.
  The EU human rights laws prevented a lot of human rights violations by UK conservative governments.
  It seems likely that Brexit might be prevented my parliamentary votes or a second referendum called because many voters were misled by lies during the first referendum. I certainly hope that is the case, since I'm British and European.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
8. Re:Yeah, but by ArmoredDragon · 2016-06-29 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  Does UK enjoy the same amount of Freedom that America has?
  Not even close!
  ***AMERICA!***
  Significantly more when you look at the details.
  How so? If the local government wants to censor you in a European country, they just have to label what you said as hate speech, regardless of whether or not it actually is. For example, it's illegal to collect WWII memorabilia in Germany, because it's considered "hateful" to do so, along with walking in any manner resembling a goose step.
  In the US meanwhile, so long as you aren't calling for somebody to be physically injured or killed, you can do or say whatever you want without fear of adverse government action against you.
  Let's also not get into the fact that pretty much everywhere you go in a populated area, your actions are likely being recorded on camera, and you have no right to defend yourself in the event of a home invasion.
9. Re:Yeah, but by William+Baric · 2016-06-29 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, democracy. This thing we all cherish, except when a vote doesn't go our way.
10. Re:Yeah, but by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-06-29 17:42 · Score: 2
  
  Does your snark apply even in cases of election fraud, Mr Snarky?
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
11. Re:Yeah, but by Christian+Smith · 2016-06-30 00:54 · Score: 2
  
  Does UK enjoy the same amount of Freedom that America has?
  Not even close!
  ***AMERICA!***
  Significantly more when you look at the details.
  How so? If the local government wants to censor you in a European country, they just have to label what you said as hate speech, regardless of whether or not it actually is. For example, it's illegal to collect WWII memorabilia in Germany, because it's considered "hateful" to do so, along with walking in any manner resembling a goose step.
  All the goose-stepping, WWII collecting Americans must be loving this thread....
  
  In the US meanwhile, so long as you aren't calling for somebody to be physically injured or killed, you can do or say whatever you want without fear of adverse government action against you.
  You must be so proud
  
  Let's also not get into the fact that pretty much everywhere you go in a populated area, your actions are likely being recorded on camera, and you have no right to defend yourself in the event of a home invasion.
  I'm not aware of a single CCTV camera within a 1 mile radius of my home. Plenty of council ones in the town centre, but not in the wider suburbia.
  Oh, and how's that mass surveillance working out for you?
  In the UK, at least, you can use "reasonable force" to defend yourself. But it's true, I can't use disproportionate force, like shooting someone dead for wanting to steal my TV. We grew out of that in the early 19th century.
12. Re: Yeah, but by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Mr Farage? Is that you?
13. Re:Yeah, but by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-30 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  That really depends on how you rank different aspects of freedom, and whether you consider so-called "positive freedoms" (healthcare, welfare, etc.) to actually be freedoms. It also depends on whether you are on the side of freedom of speech or on freedom from hate speech - depending on which ideological side you fall on, those will give quite different results.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
14. Re:Yeah, but by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-30 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  All the goose-stepping, WWII collecting Americans must be loving this thread....
  If you only believe in freedom for people you agree with, you don't believe in freedom.
  
  In the UK, at least, you can use "reasonable force" to defend yourself. But it's true, I can't use disproportionate force, like shooting someone dead for wanting to steal my TV.
  In the US, you can't shoot someone dead for *wanting* to steal your TV; in some states, you can shoot them if they *try* to steal your TV. Do you think you shouldn't be allowed to defend your possessions at all, or what would "proportionate" force look like to you? In the UK, in many cases you aren't allowed to carry anything that would actually help you defend yourself. I'm not even talking about guns; effective pepper spray and knives are banned in many areas.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
15. Re:Yeah, but by TechyImmigrant · 2016-06-30 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  >That really depends on how you rank different aspects of freedom
  Indeed it does.
  > (healthcare, welfare, etc.)
  I've tried both. Healthcare and welfare wins hands down, both as an individual and as an employer.
  > whether you are on the side of freedom of speech or on freedom from hate speech
  The EU rules do a pretty good job on this. The US has some good rules, but they get violated all the time and the highly litigious natures of the US does more to suppress free speech in the US than actual criminal laws do in either place.
  The US is pretty bad on stupid laws. Jaywalking, excessive copyright laws, alcohol laws etc.
  The industry that appreciates what I do is in the US, so that's where I am and the US or the UK are certainly not the worst places to live, but we shouldn't let that cloud our judgement of how free they are.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
16. Re:Yeah, but by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-30 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I wasn't trying to argue whether healthcare and welfare were good or bad, but whether you can call them "freedoms".
  
  The EU rules do a pretty good job on this. The US has some good rules, but they get violated all the time and the highly litigious natures of the US does more to suppress free speech in the US than actual criminal laws do in either place.
  I'm going to have to partially disagree with you on this; I don't think hate speech laws are a good thing, as they're far too easily abused by those in power. I will agree that litigation does have a chilling effect on free speech, although I'm not sure it's worse than the criminal laws.
  The US certainly does have its fair share of stupid laws, but enforcement of those can sometimes be lax - which, admittedly, doesn't make up for the laws existing in the first place. I'm not sure what the jaywalking laws are in the UK, but enforcement varies drastically across the US. On the East Coast in particular, they really aren't applied; I've jaywalked with cops sitting right there before and nobody cared. I've heard the West Coast tends to enforce those quite a bit more; on the other hand, you can lose your driver's license in Germany for doing that, so at least it's not uniquely American. Alcohol laws are somewhat influenced by state; the drinking age is certainly too high though.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Population Density by Tablizer · 2016-06-29 10:50 · Score: 0

US population is geographically* spread out. It's generally more expensive to provide service to a spread-out population, and that should be factored into any rating system.
* I added that adverb to reduce the probability of fat jokes.

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, this. Next we're going to hear about how the U-Bahn in Germany is so much better than the bus system they have in Laramie, Montana! On the other hand, in my city of 60k I've been getting in excess of 10Mbit internet for two decades. Price has risen a bit, but bandwidth has quintupled and latencies and packet loss are down.
2. Re: Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.demographia.com/db-lonlanypar.htm
3. Re: Population Density by Tablizer · 2016-06-29 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's by city, not country. I would expect it to be cheaper to service cities, but semi-rural and rural areas have to be included also in the total, and often cities end subsiding rural areas in the US, for various political reasons. In short, rural areas "drag the rest down" in terms of implementation costs.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
4. Re:Population Density by epine · 2016-06-29 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  We're not even talking Idaho.
  How many LTE towers does it take to cover a McMansion suburb?
  Only one, if you use Texas-sized radio waves. (Bandwidth may suffer in your area.)
5. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  It's generally more expensive to provide service to a spread-out population, and that should be factored into any rating system.
  Yeah, I'll be a lot happier about it if the US gets an F for achievement but a C- for effort.
6. Re:Population Density by Tablizer · 2016-06-29 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  If you want a full picture of the situation, density should be considered. That may not matter from a typical consumer's perspective, but could from a political and national budget perspective.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
7. Re:Population Density by arth1 · 2016-06-29 11:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  US population is geographically* spread out. It's generally more expensive to provide service to a spread-out population, and that should be factored into any rating system.
  Please, not this again.
  This bold lie doesn't become more true by being repeated. Look at countries like Norway and Finland, where even if you discount the big cities, the remaining population is much more spread out than the US, and still has far better service.
  The reason is legislation. To be a player on the market in many European countries, you have to provide service also where it's not profitable. Not only population coverage, but geographical coverage.
8. Re: Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the insane profits US ISPs pull in every year I would say that is a non-issue. They've been paid so they should do the work.
9. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  This.
  Every time one of these stories pops up the same tired excuses are trotted out.
  There are plenty of countries with low pop density, but they still manage coverage just fine.
  The problem is that with the US monopolies, and non-interoperating cellphone standards coverage suffers.
  It simply boggles the mind.
10. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Finland is tiny, As is the populated areas of Norway. While they may be spread out once out of the city it is still not a difficult task (though definitely unprofitable) to cover the remaining areas.
11. Re:Population Density by I4ko · 2016-06-29 12:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  How is this moded insightful? Couple of years ago I spend two weeks in Cheshire which is a rural area, and got a SIM card that provided unlimited internet at up to 25Mbps for 15 quid for 30 days (prepaid in cash no questions asked, except is my phone unlocked which it is). There were some calls as well that I haven't used and didn't really bother with them. My iPhone 4GS at the time was consistently pulling around 13Mbps without LTE (which is about as fast as that phone can go as far as I can remember), and I tethered it to my laptop and watched 1080 Netflix in my hotel (about 5 to 8 Mbps needed). Most of Cheshire is middle of nowhere, enough so that I could easily recognize the pen test guys on the table next to mine. I got the same service in London for the following two weeks.
12. Re:Population Density by jon3k · 2016-06-29 12:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  USA: 9,833,517 km^2
  Norway: 385,178 km^2
  Finland: 338,424 km^2
  
  So the USA is >25x larger than Norway and Finland. You're also looking at aggregate population density. In the USA you have to average in the extremely rural areas with little to no coverage, like Montana and Wyoming which have 1/3 the population density of Norway. Or how about Alaska? Norway has 35x the population density. There will always be large areas in the US with little to no wireless coverage bringing down the average.
  
  I'm not saying that the USA has better broadband coverage but no one with any concept of delivering wireless service would try and compare these deployments. You have to provide wireline backhaul to all of these towers. It's not realistic to run fiber to ever rural place in the US. Personally I don't want to force wireless providers to provide service to the middle of nowhere at the same speeds as dense, urban centers. It's a waste of resources.
  
  I absolutely believe that we should be doing a better job but using Norway and Finland as a metric is absurd.
13. Re:Population Density by arth1 · 2016-06-29 12:31 · Score: 3
  
  Finland is tiny, As is the populated areas of Norway. While they may be spread out once out of the city it is still not a difficult task (though definitely unprofitable) to cover the remaining areas.
  Take a look at a map.
  Norway is 148,718 square mile.
  Finland is 130,666 square mile.
  Pennsylvania, which has awful coverage outside the big cities, is 46,055 square mile.
  Norway is about as big as from Maine to the tip of Florida, with around 98% unarable land. Yet coverage and speeds, as I said even excluding the big cities is far, far better than in the US.
  Rural Europe, far from cities has far better coverage than rural USA. That's indisputable.
  (To say nothing about the cities)
14. Re:Population Density by angel'o'sphere · 2016-06-29 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I don't want to force wireless providers to provide service to the middle of nowhere at the same speeds as dense, urban centers. It's a waste of resources.
  You are clearly one who does not understand the word 'bandwidth'.
  Or let me explain it a bit: if you have a town of 1000 people, and you want to give them all 1mbps guaranteed bandwidth, you only need a mere 1Gbps "backbone". And still statistically every one of them likely had 5-10mbps bandwidth available when he "wants it".
  For a city like NYC you neeeeeed zillllllions of Peta bps to connect all the people.
  Connecting a remote area wireless to the internet: is dirt cheap But there are not many paying customers.
  You got your logic completely reversed. I could connect a small village wireless via my DSL line to the internet and guarantee probably half an mbps for everyone. And obviously at night random people get 100mbps or more ... if only their phone could do that.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
15. Re:Population Density by arth1 · 2016-06-29 12:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You're also looking at aggregate population density. In the USA you have to average in the extremely rural areas with little to no coverage, like Montana and Wyoming which have 1/3 the population density of Norway. Or how about Alaska? Norway has 35x the population density. There will always be large areas in the US with little to no wireless coverage bringing down the average.
  
  You overlook that the coverage outside the metro areas is far, far better in Scandinavia than the US. Exclude the largest cities, and compare the remaining. Rural Scandinavia is far less densely populated than rural USA, and yet has far better coverage.
  The population density of the Northern Norway is approximately 1.66 people per mi^2. And an area that's 51,902 mi^2.
  That's a population density far lower than all the 48 contiguous states.
  If you subtract the Little Rock metro area, Arkansas has about the same area (49,089 mi^2) and a population density of around 45 people per mi^2. Yet Northern Norway has by far better internet and phone coverage and speeds.
  Judging by population density, it should have been the other way around.
  There's no way around it - if you factor in population density, the figures become worse for USA compared to Scandinavia, not better, as is so often claimed.
16. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  Believe you me, I am all about preventing greedy corporations from playing favorites with their customers, but like other posters I must point out that both of those countries are roughly the size of U.S. states, and have comparatively tiny populations. I think it's funny the world at large likes to mock Americans for their lack of knowledge of distant geography, and then they continually fail to grasp just how BIG the U.S. is. Where I live now, in an unknown borough of Philadelphia, I have a 150/25 line, but the rural backwater town I grew up near the Tri-State area had like a 5/5 connection as of 2005.
  The distribution is really that vast, and this is why averages fail to hold any meaning once the sample size gets large enough.
17. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  But it's not like the people in the middle wasteland are relevant. I mean, they got their bibles and stuff, am I right?
18. Re:Population Density by William+Baric · 2016-06-29 14:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, the US population is not more spread out. Germany, France and a lot of other European countries have a greater percentage of rural population than the US.
19. Re:Population Density by William+Baric · 2016-06-29 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Not exactly. What should be considered is only the density of covered areas. And when we look at coverage in the US...
20. Re:Population Density by allcoolnameswheretak · 2016-06-29 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  But the German public transportation system is so much better than in any US state.
21. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  Finland is tiny and therefore has far less paying customers to help your return on investment.
22. Re:Population Density by bumbledom3012 · 2016-06-29 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  We need better metrics. 'Average connection speed' just doesn't cut it. A metric that contains subscribers per square mile in it's denominator.
23. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  And you continue to overlook the fact that *Montana alone* is about the same size as Norway. (Then you have the other 49 states to cover.)
  There is simply no comparison to covering those places as there is to covering the United States.
24. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  No, you didn't. No carrier offers what you are describing at that price (and they didn't two years ago either when prices were even higher than now.)
  Why do people like you insist on just telling out and out lies?
25. Re:Population Density by Ash-Fox · 2016-06-30 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, you didn't. No carrier offers what you are describing at that price (and they didn't two years ago either when prices were even higher than now.)
  Three did actually. All you have to do is ask the sales guy for a better deal, they always have one better than the advertised price.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
26. Re:Population Density by Ash-Fox · 2016-06-30 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Next we're going to hear about how the U-Bahn in Germany is so much better than the bus system they have in Laramie, Montana!
  
  It's better than what is in the UK, Czech Republic and Poland too.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
27. Re:Population Density by cmseagle · 2016-06-30 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  "Most of Cheshire is middle of nowhere"? It's less than 20 miles from Manchester and Liverpool, both with a population of 500,000ish. If that's "middle of nowhere" by English standards, it only reinforces OP's point about population density.
28. Re:Population Density by Coren22 · 2016-06-30 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on how big that suburb is. A single tower can service a 50 km radius in flat land.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
29. Re:Population Density by Coren22 · 2016-06-30 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.att.com/maps/wirel...
  https://www.t-mobile.com/cover...
  https://vzwmap.verizonwireless...
  https://coverage.sprint.com/IM...
  What are you talking about? The only service with spotty coverage in PA is Sprint. Everyone else has coverage over most of the state, excepting the mountains in the north central portion of the state.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
30. Re:Population Density by Coren22 · 2016-06-30 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  It is so sad that Russia, a European country has so much trouble covering Siberia with 4g LTE signals. They are so terrible at cellphones, they should be ashamed.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
31. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Why the F is this still at +5? Please mod this "Misinformed", as it is ignoring the extremely small size and distribution of countries that could fit inside the state of Texas.
32. Re:Population Density by Computershack · 2016-06-30 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, you didn't. No carrier offers what you are describing at that price (and they didn't two years ago either when prices were even higher than now.)
  Yeah actually he did. I did on Three. And prices have gone up over the last couple of years, not down. Now paying £20 a month SIM only for 600 minutes, unlimited texts, unlimited data with 30GB of tethering.
  
  --
  I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
33. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  So the USA is >25x larger than Norway and Finland.
  I've never gotten the point of that comparison. Is there some crazy scaling issue that magically doesn't exist when you try to connect together different countries that don't happen to share a monoculture?
34. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 18:09 · Score: 0
  
  reduce the probability of fat jokes.
  Not really possible when the USA is concerned. "US" capitalised is a fat joke by this point.
35. Re:Population Density by jon3k · 2016-07-01 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  You are clearly one who does not understand the word 'bandwidth'.
  You clearly don't understand how cellular networks are built. If you have a town of 1,000 people spread out over 1,000 miles^2 you have to cover it with radios and provide backhaul to each one. Good luck running DSL with a population density of 1 person per mile. Do you know what a DSLAM is? Do you understand the distance limitations of DSL? Do you understand the range of a radio antenna?
  
  Connecting a remote area wireless to the internet: is dirt cheap But there are not many paying customers.
  Connecting a single area with a single radio is, assuming you already have connectivity to an upstream provider. Running backhaul all over the country is not cheap. At all. Do you not understand that extremely rural places don't have DSL or have extremely low speed DSL?
  
  On the opposite end, in very dense areas, you run into a completely different problem. And that's limited spectrum availability due to obstructions and user density.
36. Re:Population Density by jon3k · 2016-07-01 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  You overlook that the coverage outside the metro areas is far, far better in Scandinavia than the US
  That's because, quite honestly, no one in the US cares about coverage in rural areas. We don't have any interest in investing money into cellular service to cover mountain ranges and cow pastures.
  
  The population density of the Northern Norway is approximately 1.66 people per mi^2. And an area that's 51,902 mi^2. That's a population density far lower than all the 48 contiguous states.
  You'd have to compare that to a rural part of a single state in the US. You're taking a part of Norway versus entire state averages, many of which are as large as Norway. ALL of Montana is 7/mi^2. That includes cities like Billings with a population density of over 2,000/mi^2.
  
  But the biggest problem is assuming that you can scale up a system for a tiny little country like Norway to something the size of the USA. It doesn't work like that, in anything. It's much more difficult to manage at real scale. Meanwhile no single country on earth has ever done it, so I don't know what you base that assumption on.
37. Re:Population Density by angel'o'sphere · 2016-07-02 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  Do you not understand that extremely rural places don't have DSL or have extremely low speed DSL?
  In your fucked up country perhaps.
  However, it can't be so hard to build one.
  Point is: neither do I need a interconnected cellular network to connect it to "the internet" nor is it expensive in any means of the word to connect remote areas via DSL or better technologies to backbones.
  In your country it is simply not done as you have brain dead legislations.
  In my country every major telecom operator is mandated by law to connect even the remotest areas. And surprisingly that works in countries like Finland or Norway: without a damn need for a law.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
38. Re:Population Density by jon3k · 2016-07-02 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  However, it can't be so hard to build one.
  So you don't understand anything about building cellular networks, no country has ever built up a cellular network at the scale of the United States to those specifications but somehow you think you can scale up a network at 25x the size of a tiny country and deliver the same service and cost?
  
  Look no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.
  
  Point is: neither do I need a interconnected cellular network to connect it to "the internet"
  
  I don't know what you're trying to say here. You don't think that the cellular network has to be connected to the Internet? Why is "the internet" in quotes?
  
  In your country it is simply not done as you have brain dead legislations. In my country every major telecom operator is mandated by law to connect even the remotest areas. And surprisingly that works in countries like Finland or Norway: without a damn need for a law.
  You're comparing a country with 320 million people to a country with 5 million homogeneous people and you can't figure out why we don't all agree on something?
  
  Do you really believe that you could manage a country that is 64x the size of Norway and provide exactly the same services and have the same unified political will?
  
  You really need to compare all of the EU to the US to really understand the political situation. We have people who live thousands of miles from one another who are all governed by the same federal legislation. It's nearly impossible to get everyone to agree on anything. You couldn't even keep the UK from leaving the EU for goodness sake.
Slashdot editors' daily checklist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:50 · Score: -1

1) Elon Musk dick sucking story
2) More bullshit about self-driving cars
3) SJW story about not enough women or blacks in tech
4) More SJW bullshit
1. Re:Slashdot editors' daily checklist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Close, but you forgot AI. That's every 3rd story.
2. Re: Slashdot editors' daily checklist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Throw in several Google and FB per day, along with a dupe every couple days. Bam, done.
HERP A DERP by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:50 · Score: -1

its because the USA is big! my favorite perennial excuse says derpy american. should we also talk cost? LOL american losers
1. Re:HERP A DERP by Archangel+Michael · 2016-06-29 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Such a awesome vapid comment. Posted by AC, because coward.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So what. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 10:54 · Score: 0

Is this the new measure for life satisfaction: ISP bitrates? Can the average consumer tell the difference between a 30 mbps connection and a 100 mbps connection? No, they can't, because most sites don't deliver anything above 20 mbps. These reports are stupid.
1. Re:So what. by bobbied · 2016-06-29 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hey now, my 50Mbps Verizon (err Frontier) connection is blindingly fast I'll tell you.... All the Speed Tests in the world prove it... But somehow, nothing seems to load faster.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:So what. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  You'd be spot on, if we here in the States were getting 20+ mbps on average.
  But we're not.
  The fact that websites are (allegedly) capped at 20 doesn't much matter when the country as a whole is hovering around 5 mbps.
3. Re:So what. by Coren22 · 2016-06-30 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  You get 50 Mbps on your cell phone? If not, then you are talking oranges in a story of apples. This is about 4G LTE speeds. Though I have to say, I have never wondered why my cell phone is so slow, it is usually way faster than I need anyways.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
4. Re:So what. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Watch your traffic patterns. Very unusual for a site to deliver faster than 20 mbps, especially sustained. You may get bursts up to 60, but those are either instantaneous and coming from very large providers (Netflix, YouTube, Microsoft, etc.) or a glitch in how your graph displays data. Most sites are served at around 5 mbps.
The USA is Huge by NerdENerd · 2016-06-29 11:03 · Score: 1

The UK is pretty small. I didn't see stats for Australia but I know I can get over 40Mbps in Sydney or Brisbane but drive from Sydney to Brisbane and and most of the way you are lucky to get 2G dialup speed for the 1000km journey.
1. Re:The USA is Huge by King-Raz · 2016-06-29 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, and in the UK, outside of the urban/suburban areas the mobile and wired internet are both atrocious. The Akamai study is not going to include people with *no* working mobile internet so should be taken with a pinch of salt
  
  --
  ~c
2. Re:The USA is Huge by OzPeter · 2016-06-29 11:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The UK is pretty small.
  Yeah and the US is large. But New York city has a higher population density than Tokyo, yet only a fraction of the internet speeds. So while you can argue that there is a large area with no or low speed access, you can't excuse crap service in prime areas
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
3. Re:The USA is Huge by larryjoe · 2016-06-29 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  The UK is pretty small.
  Yeah and the US is large. But New York city has a higher population density than Tokyo, yet only a fraction of the internet speeds. So while you can argue that there is a large area with no or low speed access, you can't excuse crap service in prime areas
  It would be really interesting to see the distribution of ISP speeds by country. For example, the Akamai report shows that while South Korea's average speed is 29.0 Mbps, the majority (58%) of South Korean connections are slower than 25 Mbps. Thus, there are perhaps some very high speed connections that somewhat inflate the average. Absent some representation of the distribution, perhaps the median speed would be more representative.
  It's also interesting to note that the study methodology is significant. For example, Akamai's methodology and results starkly differ from the FCC's findings, which estimates the average speed in the US at 31 Mbps in 2014 and quickly increasing.
  The distribution of speeds is dependent not only on technical infrastructure but also on pricing. A very large percentage of Americans have very high speed internet access offered in their area, but many may choose lower speeds due to economic affordability or the realization that higher speeds are not needed due to personal usage patterns or the existence of speed bottlenecks aside from the ISP (e.g., internet servers, multimedia protocols, etc.).
4. Re:The USA is Huge by Computershack · 2016-06-30 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and in the UK, outside of the urban/suburban areas the mobile and wired internet are both atrocious.
  
  Yet here I am in a small town of 11,000 people living in a county that is 1.5 times the size of London with only 1/20th of its population and I get:
  70mbps down and 19mbps up for my landline:
  http://www.speedtest.net/my-re...
  And for 3G speedtests in the same area I get 20.7mbit down, 11.97mbit up:
  http://www.speedtest.net/my-re...
  
  --
  I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
5. Re:The USA is Huge by joboss · 2016-06-30 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  England has one of the highest population densities in the world and quite a large population as well making it very attractive to mobile and broadcasting businesses. The chances are where ever you invest in the UK you'll get a return on your coverage. It's not as super dense in places though as for example Tokyo. Honestly, I expect that super density is actually worse because of contention, interference, etc. There's a sweet spot and the UK is fairly close to it.
/. Poll suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:09 · Score: 1

Can we have a poll on whether to remove the EU tag from stories about the UK?
1. Re:/. Poll suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Still needed here, study covers UK in comparison to many other EU nations.
2. Re:/. Poll suggestion by Samantha+Wright · 2016-06-29 11:18 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but it would be non-binding, and if more than 50% vote Remove, then the Slashdot editor who posted the poll will have to step down.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
3. Re:/. Poll suggestion by bobbied · 2016-06-29 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from the possible re-vote... I think we should honor their wishes and just pull the tag unilaterally. If for no other reason than to help scare other possible exit voters into voting to stay..
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
4. Re:/. Poll suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe, but we need to do something to stop people coming here from other sites and taking all the karma.
5. Re:/. Poll suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  Those people are creating karma! We'll all be worse off without them.
What good... by wbr1 · 2016-06-29 11:14 · Score: 2, Funny

..is fast wireless, when you packets cant brexit the island?

--
Silence is a state of mime.
Area by slowdeath · 2016-06-29 11:16 · Score: 1, Informative

The area of the UK is about 95K sq miles, about the same as the state of Wyoming. The 48 contiguous states are 30X larger than the UK in area.
So yeah it is a lot easier to deploy infrastructure when the amount you have to deploy is 30X less.
1. Re:Area by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  Population density in nordic countries is smaller than United states and still they have better connectivity.
2. Re:Area by nomadic · 2016-06-29 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  Cell towers are based on distance, not population density.
3. Re:Area by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-06-29 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's 1800 kilometres from Oslo to Tromsø. Wyoming measures roughly half that distance from corner to corner.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
4. Re:Area by wildstoo · 2016-06-29 19:46 · Score: 2
  
  But with 30x the customers, paying 30x the subscription fees, building larger infrastructure shouldn't be an issue...
  ...unless you're intentionally neglecting infrastructure upgrades because you have no real competition (as all your competitors are doing the same thing) and instead your profits are redirected to shareholders and C-Suite bonuses.
5. Re:Area by Ash-Fox · 2016-06-30 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  So yeah it is a lot easier to deploy infrastructure when the amount you have to deploy is 30X less.
  No it isn't, you can't just simply put infrastructure anywhere in the UK at all, there is already existing infrastructure and private land in the way. When it isn't, we've got places like three houses on top of a mountain in Wales or Scotland.
  Additionally, unlike the US, we deploy more infrastructure, what I mean by this is every 2nd street corner typically has a telephone cabinet where all the houses are linked to and it has a distribution point for more houses to be built in the area typically. Additionally, there will be a second cabinet next to it where the actual DSLAMs and other type of Internet providing equipment are hosted, rather than sticking it in an exchange, which is what the US does, leading to significant difficulties connecting new subscribers and bandwidth capacity problems.
  In some cases, we don't even have the cabinets connected by wire, we have them connected through microwave dishes in hard to reach areas such as mountains.
  We had a failure back in the 80s to do with darkfiber, where it didn't take off and was considered a failure. However, these days, a significant chunk of darkfiber is being used to connect exchanges to the cabinets and the exchanges themselves to other exchanges.
  Massive amounts of money was poured into this infrastructure, massive amounts of complications was encountered by the fact that you have already pre-existing infrastructure that is in the way and limited legal rights on where you could even put installations. It would likely be cheaper in most states to deploy per customer because you wouldn't have to deal with complex tunneling systems, ancient infrastructure (buildings, roads, tunnels) that could crumble if touched in the wrong way (particularly in places like London), plus being spread out more gives you more growth options for the infrastructure etc. Having a longer fiber connection without all that non-sense is simply not as expensive.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
And Post-Breakfast? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:18 · Score: 0

Hm? UK at Brunch? The little island it becomes again.
too soon? by originalGMC · 2016-06-29 11:24 · Score: 1

I would like to set up a wall around the UK isps. Instead of sending all our web traffic out of the country or to places like the EU, let's keep our traffic British.
Subject by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:24 · Score: 0

I don't care about throughput to the point of a pissing contest when I am so harshly limited by total bandwidth.
I prefer using wired by OrangeTide · 2016-06-29 11:37 · Score: 1

Wires are faster and you aren't broadcasting your traffic to everyone in the coffeeshop.
Despite everyone having faster home and mobile internet than typical US households, the US seems to make the most money off the internet.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
1. Re:I prefer using wired by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  This article is about mobile not wifi. Wired on a cellphone is not very practical.
2. Re:I prefer using wired by OrangeTide · 2016-07-01 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  I used to use wired phones with my 28.8K modem.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Somewhat misleading by jgotts · 2016-06-29 11:41 · Score: 1

This comparison is somewhat misleading because the entire UK is only about the size of 2-3 US states:
http://www.travelersdigest.com...
1. Re:Somewhat misleading by dave420 · 2016-06-29 22:25 · Score: 2
  
  And yet when you compare cities, the US is still way behind on internet access. This "but we so biiiig!" argument is just a pathetic excuse. The US telecoms market is rotten, yet some people don't want to accept that because of some weird patriotism or insecurity. It's sad.
A simple solution by OrangeTide · 2016-06-29 11:42 · Score: 0

Forced relocation of US residents so that wireless coverage is more efficient to provide.
We've done forced relocations in the US numerous times, so there is precedence here.
*Salutes Andrew Jackson*

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Akamai by 110010001000 · 2016-06-29 11:49 · Score: 1

Who cares how fast we can connect to Akamai? Worthless.
1. Re:Akamai by Mouldy · 2016-06-29 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of the worlds biggest websites are frontend by Akamai. From wikipedia; companies (past & present) include; Apple, Microsoft, Valve's Steam, BBC iPlayer, Rackspace, Adobe, Yahoo, ESPN, NBC, MTV, Hilton, etc etc. Akamai's own website says they handle 15-30% of the world's web traffic - which I don't believe is too far off the mark.
  
  So yes, end users should care about how quickly they can access Akamai's network.
  
  Disclaimer, I don't work for akamai but have worked with them on some of the larger (enterprise) clients I've worked with.
not a leader in everything by frovingslosh · 2016-06-29 11:54 · Score: 1

UK mobile Internet may be faster, but ours is more expensive.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:not a leader in everything by bloodhawk · 2016-06-29 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  mate you have no idea what expensive mobile internet is. I am from Australia, I love when I visit the US as what you consider expensive mobile internet is dirt cheap to us.
2. Re:not a leader in everything by will_die · 2016-06-30 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  If you think that you have not compared services. Coming from Europe I am paying under $10 more in the USA for 100Mbps and cable with some premium channels to what I was paying for 2Mbps. Cheap fast Internet and cheap fuel are great over here.
GCHQ by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 11:56 · Score: 2, Funny

UK has good mobile internet speeds because the GCHQ insists upon it. The better to spy on you, my pretties!
Apples and oranges by KenHansen · 2016-06-29 12:44 · Score: 1

*Europe* is a very densely-populated area while *America* has great swaths of sparsely-populated regions, some as big as entire European nations. What if we compare, say, New England to (Old) England? Is the disparity still as great? I think not...
1. Re:Apples and oranges by dave420 · 2016-06-29 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the disparity is still there. "Waaah we're massive so everything we do wrong can be blamed on us being massive!!!111eleventyone"
If I could show by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 13:53 · Score: 0

the map of North America which showed the precise location of every single cell tower for just one of the telecoms, it would be an eye opener for most.
The sheer number of towers are just staggering.
Consider the range of an LTE signal, now calculate how many damn towers it takes just to cover one State.
Multiply that by the cost to put up a tower, the fiber systems to feed it and all the other costs associated with it and you begin to understand just how expensive it is to provide all the coverage everyone demands.
Having supah-high-speed everywhere would be amazing. Just not cheap.
hahaha uk ..needs it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 14:16 · Score: 0

they need mobile net cause ...brexit
Makes Me Sick! by JimSadler · 2016-06-29 14:49 · Score: 1

I really loath seeing the Us so behind in so many things. Why the heck do we not wake up and see that the US has better technology widely distributed throughout our population than any other nation? And to make it worse we have people chanting that the US is number one, endlessly and stupidly. If people would get into reality and realize that we are having a huge problem then we could work towards a better solution.
1. Re:Makes Me Sick! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 17:55 · Score: 0
  
  LOLWHUT??
  Are you even capable of writing a sentence without immediately contradicting yourself in the next one?
2. Re:Makes Me Sick! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 22:48 · Score: 0
  
  The trick to making the US a great country is to make sure everyone is looked after and well educated. The different between Europe and America is that the guy who is resurfacing the freeway in Europe is significantly more educated and healthier than the equivalent American. He is going to care much more about the quality of the job he does, and do it better with less injury's and utilising better machinery/techniques.
  The secret to success is literally wisdom and health. If you have those two things there is literally nothing that can stop you becoming great.
3. Re:Makes Me Sick! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  We truly should loathe are country because we don't have 30mbit wireless Internet speeds. Everyone else in the world is so much better.
  Really though, how many places in the US have you visited? How many in Norway? How many in South Korea? The UK? Philippines?
  Yeah... you are just spouting off what your "teachers" or your "journalists" have told you and they don't know anymore than you do.
Define "Rural" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 17:14 · Score: 1

My office is in the Essex/Suffolk "bad-lands". I can't even get a phone signal let alone mobile internet.
I have 3.5 Mbit/s coming in over ADSL and about 500 Kbit/s out. That's as good as it gets for miles.
In the nearest town my connection craps out at about 13 Mbit/s (hypothetical - not theoretical!). But that's good enough for me.
matthew @ kuiash
my experience of uk is limited but... by choupette · 2016-06-29 19:19 · Score: 1

... from what I saw there, it's quite common to have a 3/4G connection as a main home connection. I live in France, and here, we all have optic fiber ,vdsl or adsl at worst, but I never visited any home where the main internet access is a 3/4G connection. That may explain a lot about the quality of the service.

--
-- moo
1. Re:my experience of uk is limited but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say that's not quite true. I'm British and have lived around the country and I'd say everywhere I've lived in the last 10 years has had a fibre or adsl connection. Even outlying places usually have dial up. I don't know anyone who has 3/4G as their main service apart from extreme rural areas in Scotland, Wales or Cornwall where there just isn't cable in the road, or even a road.
  It's reasonably common for people to only have their mobile as their only phone as opposed to a land line though. Even though they have to pay for a land line as part of their deals.
2. Re:my experience of uk is limited but... by Ash-Fox · 2016-06-30 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even know anyone who has 3g/4g as their home Internet connection and I live in the UK.
  At home I have two Internet connections. 100MBps VDSL2 connection provided by BT and a 200MBps FTTH cable connection from Virgin Media.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Squarely in the ranks by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-29 23:28 · Score: 0

of third-world country mobile Internet.
Non Comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-30 06:04 · Score: 0

But the UK also has shit tethered Internet, so...
What kind of average by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-30 06:46 · Score: 1

Is this a geographic average (were they testing areas in the middle of nowhere) or a population average? That'll probably make quite a bit of difference.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Good try UK! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:21 · Score: 0

Hello, I live in Ukraine. Our 3G is around 50-60Mbps.