Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's New Study Finds 162.8 Million People in the US Do Not Use the Internet at Broadband Speeds, Up From FCC's 24.7 Million Estimate (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: A new study by Microsoft researchers casts a light on the actual use of high-speed internet across the country, and the picture it presents is very different from the F.C.C. numbers. Their analysis, presented at a Microsoft event on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., suggests that the speedy access is much more limited than the F.C.C. data shows.
Over all, Microsoft concluded that 162.8 million people do not use the internet at broadband speeds, while the F.C.C. says broadband is not available to 24.7 million Americans. The discrepancy is particularly stark in rural areas. In Ferry County, for example, Microsoft estimates that only 2 percent of people use broadband service, versus the 100 percent the federal government says have access to the service.
[...] Accurate measurements on the reach of broadband matter because the government's statistics are used to guide policy and channel federal funding for underserved areas. "It's a huge problem," said Phillip Berenbroick, a telecommunications expert at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit technology policy group. "The result is that we're not getting broadband coverage and funding to areas that really need it."
Over all, Microsoft concluded that 162.8 million people do not use the internet at broadband speeds, while the F.C.C. says broadband is not available to 24.7 million Americans. The discrepancy is particularly stark in rural areas. In Ferry County, for example, Microsoft estimates that only 2 percent of people use broadband service, versus the 100 percent the federal government says have access to the service.
[...] Accurate measurements on the reach of broadband matter because the government's statistics are used to guide policy and channel federal funding for underserved areas. "It's a huge problem," said Phillip Berenbroick, a telecommunications expert at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit technology policy group. "The result is that we're not getting broadband coverage and funding to areas that really need it."
There's a big difference between having access to something and being able - or inclined - to use it. Its like the difference between a food desert (somewhere with no accessible grocery stores) and people not being able to afford to visit the supermarket next door.
The questions about why people who theoretically have access aren't using it will be interesting and hotly debated, but at the end of the day it won't change the fact that, today at least, they're not.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Over all, Microsoft concluded that 162.8 million people do not use the internet at broadband speeds, while the F.C.C. says broadband is not available to 24.7 million Americans.
What does the term "broadband" refer to exactly?
What I know is that compared to what it was defined as in the early 2000s isn't the same today.
...for what can be called 'Broadband'?
I seem to recall they actually lowered the bar at some point.
Another question: Why is Ajit Pai such a deceitful son of a bitch? Was he born that way, or did he have to work at it?
The United States has two grouips of citizens: Americans and Mud People. Generally Americans have good broadband. Mud People on the other hand are parasites and their broadband is only what they can steal from hot spots and their neighbors. Mud People don't know a thing about Internet sppeds. They are too busy beating off to porn at 750 Kbits/s
I don't see why people not using their broadband would be a concern.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Because everyones using mobile and it satisfies there needs.
Who cares about content prioritization when you cannot get a decent connection to the network.
megacorporations like Microsoft are pushing for broadband, not because it provides a better internet experience for users, but because it makes internet bloat less perceptible.
Your Windows internet experience might only be used for Amazon shopping and Facebook, but the number of realtime bandwidth-intensive telemetry, tracking, and advertising connections required to deliver a profitable experience for content providers is what is really at stake. Without fast, unlimited internet, customers will increasingly turn to ad-block and route blocking software for known advertiser subnets.
Good people go to bed earlier.
That's where you lost me
My mother in law only has access to a Wireless ISP that provides her with around 3Mbps down and 1Mbps up. Works for her given she just uses it for iPad and doesn't stream video or much requiring more speed. But I do agree some areas of the US have limited access to broadband speed. Although I do know people who use a cellular option with good success.
Especially in rural areas.
Broadband -might- be available ( heavy emphasis on might ) but the costs for high speed internet out there are a bit high which tends to drive most folks away from it.
Example where my parents live ( US ):
5MB down - $70.00
10MB down - $90.00
25MB down - $110.00
Internet only. Advertised speeds you may, of course, never achieve. They have exactly one provider to choose from.
Most get a better connection / price via a smartphone / hotspot. ( assuming a tower is in the general vicinity )
I don't know about the broadband numbers, but I know lots of people who have marked their internet as "metered" in order to block Win10 forced updates.
We don't allow Win10 on our main network over privacy considerations. The Windows machines are placed onto a subnet separate from the other systems without direct internet access. We have to protect our tiny business from MSFT.
The US population is what, 350 million?
A LOT of commercial DSL lines are setup for CCTV or remote access to something, that use residential / consumer plans, so the results are skewed.
In 2015, the FCC upped the definition of "broadband" from 4 Mbps to 25 Mbps (https://broadbandnow.com/report/fcc-broadband-definition/)
In the New York Times article, statistical truth is obscured by political mission.
For $59/mo Internet only. Or $200 package from Comcast.
The Comcast intelnet only isn't available in my area. Got to buy the Cable package.
The point is the ISPS are all crooks and liars.
It's highly likely that many of those people are actually paying for a package that the providers label broadband, but actually isn't broadband speed, or, the cable loops are so congested broadband speed is impossible.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The FTC has three legally ensconced terms for tiers of service that can be used in advertising to describe speed
tier 1. top 1/3 of data rates "broadband"
tier 2. middle 1/3, "Frustrating"
tier 3. bottom 1/3. "time to find another ISP"
If we could just enforce these terms and require them in product descriptions then the problem would solve itself.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Might be good for something after all if they're going to nag the government about broadband speeds.
I'm not sure what broadband speed means these days. I use the minimum speed 10 meg dl I can get because I don't need the uber whatever the hell nonsense for 75 or 100 bucks plus per month.
And I don't use cable tv I use over the air digital plus roku and tubi-- also free. And I pay 60 bucks a month for 2 phone lines.
So basically, im cheap and it works.
Wake up America. The fox is in charge of the hen house.
My parents can pay for DSL; there's a DSLAM 800yds from their house, or they can use a cell phone. Cell phone is already paid for and works better than the phone company ever has.
Are they surveying people to find out what level of service they pay for OR are they measuring actual speeds? Put it this way, when I have 150 megabit service, I should be able to get all the streaming video I want without any bandwidth problems. But noooOOOOoooo.... "Insufficient bandwidth" errors come up about every two to three days. So is the internet infrastructure the real problem not the access to it?
Households don't want to spend $700 / year for cable TV and another $700 / year for high speed internet. That's 5 to 10% of an average household's take home income.
High speed is needed for video streaming and gaming for most people. If you go with over the air broadcast TV and, as most people are, not into online gaming, there's no need to get anything beyond low speed internet or use your phone's data plan.
In other news, Microsoft researches recently discovered the reason for 138.1 million poor reviews of it's latest operating system.
what the rural folk need is water lines. Their lines date back 60,70, sometimes 100 years. They're starting to have major health problems. What I don't get is why no one's talking about this. Maybe it's the $750 billion dollar price tag to fix our water infrastructure...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I have 3M/0.5Mbit DSL which is fine because I am not interested in streaming. AT&T would love to sell me fiber ( I had to tell them to stop the junk mail), but that will always cost more, and while the improved speed and page refresh latency would be nice, I ain't payin' for it.
Title really says it all. Ground reality is a heck of a lot closer to what MS is saying than the FCC.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Yes, we should do whatever we can to get them on broadband so they can be miserable Facebook users like the rest of us.
but then, only at the end, you say most people use another provider that is even faster.
When you compare plans from DSL and cellular providers, you usually find that DSL is slower at peak transfer (bits per second) but faster at sustained transfer (bits per month) than a similarly priced cellular plan.
A food desert is a place where many people lack access to fresh produce within reasonable walking distance. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service maintains a map of census tracts classified as food deserts.
Yes, there _is_ a big difference. The headline, though, pretends that there is _no_ difference. Utter bullshit.
So metaphorically sucking the cock of white masters elevates him above his station as chairman of the FCC.
If you don't believe me, ask a Hindu, or read about their religious texts.
It's the Windows Update/telemetry feedback system that gave them these statistics. Reporting back what the download speeds are, and making it difficult for them to send their lists of pirated files from everybody's computers.
Flyover states, screw em. If their way of running things is really so great, they can find a way to pay for it themselves.
We had the universal access fund, for this purpose, but they destroyed it.
Screw em
even if you just want to watch TV let alone if you want your kids to do homework, and give how big a disparity this is (it's 7 times more than the number Pai gave) I think it's pretty obvious Pai is cooking his books.
It's like that voter fraud going on right now in North Carolina. Nobody outside the GOP is going to say "We should investigate why a 61% Democrat district only polled for the Democrat candidate at 19%". There's noone alive who can't see that as fishy. And that's only a factor of 3...
For me, the question is, when are Americans gonna get tired of being lied to? Even if you agree with the results, doesn't it suck to be lied to all the time?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I think reality did, and the FCC just finally caught up. I'm on a 100 mbps line and I couldn't imagine going from that to 25 mbps let alone 4 mbps.
Put another way, could you go from 56k to 300 baud in 1995? How about 150 baud? Would you even consider that "Internet" at that point?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How does the Borg accurately determine just how fast someone's Internet connection actually is ? They must have incredible telemetry / spying going on, perhaps even on "updated" Win7 boxes, for them to determine location and network connection speeds for everybody in the US.
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
I also tolerate videos in 240p, and spend most of my time reading text. Compared to dial up, 768 is a huge difference. For me, 25/5 is not worth the extra cost. I am limited by brain speed at that point.
I live right on the edge of Ferry county. There are two providers if your not living in a town.One is satellite and the other is LOS to their towers. The LOS company has the best service but I can't see one of their towers so I have satellite with 10mbps advertised but it's more like 200kb if I'm lucky.
this is because MS took over your net and dld shit...like how else they tell what the fuck speed youhave...yaaaa fuckng peeping tom piece a shit spies
A vast number of Americans cannot visit your web sites with their multiple auto-running video ads and cannot do their software updates and installs with package managers that require an internet connection. Windows or Linux updates that take DAYS are not gonna happen.
People in "fly over" country (much of middle America, which unsurprisingly voted for Trump instead of all the morons in big cities that willfully hate and ignore them) simply value other things more than a high speed internet connection. If you live out where the air is clear and your neighbor is not the person above your cieling or on the other side of your wall, there's a very good chance that no telco will provide high speed internet at a reasonable price. AT&T and Verizon are NOT going to run fiberoptic lines to farm houses that are spaced miles apart along a country road no matter how much tax money you give them from Al Gore's slush fund. Gore knew that perfectly well, which is why he did not put any requirement into the legislation that would require them to actually do it.
Before the internet took off, people in flyover country could own computers and video games and they could buy their software by mail or in the city but then install and use the stuff on their computers and game machines with no problem. Now, when so many developers live in huge cities with easy fast net access, the developers heap scorn on anybody who cannot stream everything over the net. Same problem applies to services like Netflix - no highspeed means no streaming, which means movies are by DVD or BluRay. People who buy or rent physical disks and who do not do any streaming and do not do net-based installs and upgrades are not morons; they're people who live in places either ill-served or not at all served by internet providers.
The tech community needs to get out of its concrete, steel, and glass bubbles and re-aquaint themselves whith people who like clean air and open skies and lakes and rivers and mountains and praries. There's a whole lot to like about rural America, and much of it is worth more than a fast internet connection.
carriers tend to charge extra for use with a computer.
they also have a feature called "hot spot" that allows other devices to access the phone's internet connection via wifi.
Hotspot is the feature to which I was referring. Cellular carriers in the United States tend to charge extra for a plan that includes hotspot use, particularly one with enough hotspot use in a month to support multiple downloads of a multi-gigabyte semiannual upgrade to the next point release of Ubuntu or Windows 10.
Just a rounding error.