Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

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."

67 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Access by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re: Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most rural people can go out to their phone box and see that it is a network terminal. That means DSL is available there. But the DSL offered is a stretch of the imagination on definition of broadband. And it is expensive too. So this rural observation, that covers northern Ohio, southern Michigan, and eastern Indiana, tells me that $64 dollars a month isn't worth the shitty 3 Mbit "broadband" speed. Even those lucky individuals who get 10 Mbit, it still isn't work $64. Really lucky individuals who get 20 Mbit, isn't worth $64 but you can twist my arm a little bit. Are we starting to see the problem here?

      People don't get broadband because it is expensive and sucks.

    2. Re: Access by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      ISPs will also often serve one house in a zip code and then report that entire zip code as "covered." So your house might be listed as being able to get broadband speeds but in reality nobody in your area code - save for one lucky individual - can get those speeds.

      Either that or they'll promise "up to 100mbps" but only actually deliver 10mpbs. They aren't technically breaking their promise because your speeds definitely would go to 100mbps if everything lined up for you perfectly, but you won't ever really see those speeds.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re: Access by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Most "rural" people aren't even offered DSL.

    4. Re: Access by darkain · · Score: 1

      Pretty much this. I lived in the middle-of-nowhere Montana for about a year. The house had DSL, literally the only service available. The phone line quality on the poles was so ungodly shitty, service would cut out or have massive packet loss in just about any non-perfect weather condition. But, we counted as "having broadband service" despite it working very slowly and unreliably.

      But that's okay though, the internet gods forgave me. After moving back to the Seattle area, they blessed me with symmetrical gigabit FttH.

    5. Re: Access by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Up 'til a decade ago, the FCC used a bizarre system where everyone in a ZIP code was assumed to have access to the highest speed connection in use by anyone in that ZIP code -- typically an expensive business line of some surt. The resulting broadband penetration numbers were described by one of the FCC's commissioners as "Stunningly Meaningless".

      I believe that after being laughed at for long enough, they switched to some less ludicrous methodology. But I don't know what it is.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    6. Re: Access by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      3MHz is enough for people who don't watch much video. The bigger problem with DSL is its short usable range from the switch. Most rural farmhouses are not in DSL switch range even though the copper is there.

    7. Re: Access by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I could get 25/5 from comcast but it'd be $80/mo ...

      it's worth many,many dollars a month a month to me NOT to deal with Comcast ever again. I've been in and worked with the military, dealt with bureaucracies of all sorts, worked as an outside contractor in a government IT operation. I've never seen anything remotely like Comcast. I think Comcast staff meetings probably start and end with readings from Kafka's "The Castle". Needless to say, Comcast customer service leaves a lot to be desired.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    8. Re:Access by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The questions about why people who theoretically have access aren't using it will be interesting and hotly debated

      If they don't HAVE broadband, then they also don't have access to it ---- they might have the theoretical possibility of purchasing it, but they haven't purchased it..... Either because (A) The supplier won't sell it too them, (C) The supplier limits their use of it --- for example 2GB Data Cap then you're slowed to 600k, or (C) They're not willing to pay the price the supplier demands for it ---- That might mean that its too expensive despite their desire for the service (E.G. Monopoly local provider or Satellite broadband wants $600 upfront for a decent connection), or it might mean they're poor and can't afford much in terms of tech.

    9. Re: Access by mysidia · · Score: 2

      The FCC has a "summarization" method.... The country is divided into map squares, each of which is approximately the size of a county or half of a county. If ANY household, even just one or two in that entire geographic square has any kind of broadband service available, then the square is colored to available
        broadband speed based on the Highest speed available to ANY household in that square --- Also, when counting competition - the total number providers that can deliver qualified service to ANY house in that regional square count as providing service to that entire square.

      So there can be a few dozen rich folks paying $5000 a month or so for Gigabit internet in a certain county, and if these households are not all the same ISP, then as far as the broadband map will be concerned - 1-Gigabit service is available to every customer in that county (They will have the estimated number of households for that map square based on population density statistics - and count the number of estimated customers based on that), and there are at least 2 competing broadband carriers as well. At the same time 1-Megabit "broadband" may be available to 15% of the people in the map square for $30 a month, so when they go to compute the "Average price of broadband" for that area it's going to be close to $30. And if Verizon et al. have their way.... the availability of 4G Phone service counts as "broadband" as well

      That was the extreme example for how bad the broadband maps can be.

      The reality is the mapping technique can totally hide the last mile problem, because it's built on an assumption that was bogus from the start.
      Broadband providers are cherrypicking customers to provide quality service to and not serving entire geographic areas approximately equally like a public utility ought to.

    10. Re: Access by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Broadband should be a minimum of 25mb/s down 25mb/s up.

    11. Re: Access by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      "MS said only 16.2m"

      MS said 168.2m not 16.2m. And if broadband is available but 5-10x the cost of the same rate in other areas where usage is higher, it isn't really available in any meaningful way.

    12. Re: Access by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      I pay taxes, I ask for broadband to be an open access privately held utility with absolute net neutrality without exception. I'm prepared to do anything including organized and sanely administered armed resistance to get it. I get stuck with what you assholes are willing to pay, ask, and fight for.

      That's why everything goes further and further down shit lane.

    13. Re:Access by sjames · · Score: 1

      For many years in the '90s my neighborhood did not actually have broadband, but the cable company said we did right up until I tried to order it. That didn't stop them from carpet bombing TV and my mailbox with ads for it.

    14. Re: Access by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      My mother gets 1Mbit on her u-verse DSL, and lives in a town. That's still better than the standard DSL I had that was 768kbit, but still a whole lot less than my u-verse. She doesn't stream anything and just uses the web so that's fast enough. I wouldn't call it broadband though. She could get broadband, but it means having the cable company run a cable from the closest box and the final monthly price would be far outside of her budget.

      Not sure if mobile phones help here, the monthly cost on them for a data plan is outrageous everywhere, and most don't let you use it as a internet source without paying extra. (and mobile coverage is amazingly spotty if you're not in a big city)

    15. Re: Access by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I don't even get 25mbs down. I pay for 20Mbps but get 24. I used to have 12Mbps and I could stream HD TV just fine with that. I don't really see the need to go faster for the large increase in cost this would entail.

    16. Re: Access by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And it's always "call to check for availability", because they won't tell you what speeds you will likely get until you're on the hook with a heavy hitting sales person.

    17. Re: Access by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Do you want a truly neutral internet? Or do you want Net Neutrality(tm) loaded with loopholes and allowances for ISPs to censor speech and block unpopular content?

      Because it seems like those two things get conflated quite often around here.

      I want the first thing. But it seems like most everyone nowadays wants their content protected, but the ones they disagree with/find abhorrent/feel cognitive dissonance from or feel "uncomfortable" from to be blocked wholesale.

  2. Definitions please... by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Definitions please... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I suspect slashdotters wont be happy until broadband means being able to stream 4Kx4Kx4K voxel video to each member of the family.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Definitions please... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      What does the term "broadband" refer to exactly?

      The exact definition of broadband: My wife and daughter can stream two different movies while I can still get work done.

    3. Re:Definitions please... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      The exact definition of broadband: My wife and daughter can stream two different movies while I can still get work done.

      I like it, but it will never play in Washington - too practical and easy to understand!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  3. What are the 'official' criteria... by sgage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...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?

    1. Re: What are the 'official' criteria... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to the FCC, 25Mbps.

    2. Re: What are the 'official' criteria... by sgage · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I got along for years with 5Mbps DSL out here in the sticks. But for some reason, the phone company ran fiber up my Class 6 (not town maintained) dirt road, and as of this spring I am running with 300Mbps fiber. What a difference! But I would have noticed a big difference at 25Mbps, I'll bet.

    3. Re: What are the 'official' criteria... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      I think around 10-20Mb/s is where you start to hit diminishing returns. That's enough to stream HD and not completely kill everything else that you're doing. I remember as a student we decided to pay extra to get the entire 1Mb/s that our cable company offered (their standard package was 512Kb/s) for a shared house. It was a huge difference from the modem (56Kb/s in theory, 33.6Kb/s if I was lucky, 28.8Kb/s most of the time) that I was used to. I stayed on their fastest (and most expensive) plan until it hit 10Mb/s, and then stayed there as that gradually became their middle plan and then their slowest one. They upgraded me to 20, then 30 and 50Mb/s and I didn't really notice much difference except when I ran speed tests (the main thing was that their 30Mb/s plan, when I was throttled to 25% maximum speed for excess use, was still fast enough to stream HD video). I now have FTTP, but I'm on my provider's slowest plan, which is 54Mb/s. At this point, I notice upstream differences a lot more than downstream (copying 2TB to off-site backups took a few months), but that's not a number ISPs like to advertise.

      At work, I have a GigE local network that goes to a faster upstream connection such that the GigE link is the bottleneck if I connect to a relatively close Internet peer. I *very* rarely notice the difference between that and the speed of my home connection (though it is nice when I install a game that happens to be on a local CDN node and it's fast enough to warm up my SSD), most of the time the bottleneck isn't my connection.

      The point at which you hit diminishing returns is slowly edging up. 10 years ago, 10Mb/s was ample for anything. Now it's right at the slow end of generally useful. It's hard to tell the difference between 50, 100, or 300Mb/s unless you're actively monitoring the network.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:What are the 'official' criteria... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      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?

      His parents are Republicans, so it is likely he was born that way.

  4. "Use" or "Have"? by nagora · · Score: 1

    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"
    1. Re:"Use" or "Have"? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Because it frequently indicates that some company has checked a box - maybe even legally - on a solution they're contractually able to provide that doesn't actually work in the real world.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    2. Re:"Use" or "Have"? by James+Thompson · · Score: 2

      This. I "have" 25mb service, the fastest available in my area. As to the amount I can "use", I can't recall ever seeing a speed test break the single digits (today is a good day at 7.5mb down). I'm in a populated section of the DFW area with apartments and business building all around. When I complained I was told by the service tech that our neighborhood isn't that bad so don't expect service upgrades anytime soon. I'd switch providers if I could but outside of satellite providers, I have 0 options.

      I'm sure Pai's FCC includes me as having broadband when in reality I'm nowhere close.

    3. Re:"Use" or "Have"? by nagora · · Score: 1

      OK. I see. So it's the old "confusing terminology" trick that industries pull? Like USB 2 "Full Speed" was slower than high-speed.

      Or in other words: fraud.

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    4. Re:"Use" or "Have"? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      There's probably a lot of people who never use their 25Mbit service because they never use anything that takes 25Mbit. If you're just browsing web pages you don't even register as having used any significant amount of bandwidth. Even watch Netflix or Youtube in 1080p won't put you much over 5 Mbit.

      This is basically how I am reading the article. People pay for a service or the government mandates that a certain portion of people need broadband, but there's a lot of poeple who would be perfectly fine with even something like 1 Mbit service. Because their entire internet is simply email and facebook.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:"Use" or "Have"? by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      Jeez, what part of DFW? I'm in Addison / Farmers Branch and have no trouble doing 220/35 all day long with Spectrum.

  5. the real reason broadband is so important. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:the real reason broadband is so important. by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're not wrong that they're pushing for it due to business opportunities, but telemetry and advertising aren't the only business opportunities that come with fast internet. Everybody is hopping on the streaming media bandwagon. And if you're Microsoft instead of Netflix or Hulu, they provide services like azure and skype, office 365, all of which benefit from broadband.

      You're not wrong that increased access to broadband is good for megacorporations. You're way off base to imply it's one-sided, and especially in the implication that their benefit is entirely for services that go against the end-user interest.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  6. "...study by Microsoft researchers..." by DaveM753 · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's where you lost me

  7. Yep for sure some don't have access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  8. Money Talks by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 )

    1. Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A dishonest fuck would be someone attempting to equate cellular service (in a rural zone, no less!) with wired broadband. Apple != Orange.

      Captcha...heh: classify

  9. residential vs commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  10. Definition of "broadband" changed in 2015 by bartwol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Definition of "broadband" changed in 2015 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In 2015, the FCC upped the definition of "broadband" from 4 Mbps to 25 Mbps

      And the current FCC wants to lower that to 1 Mbps so they can claim everyone HAS broadband.
      AT&T wants to claim 90% of the US population DOESN'T have broadband so they can get government (read taxpayer) money to "improve" service (read dividends)

    2. Re:Definition of "broadband" changed in 2015 by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Oh Jesus Christ this is terrible. People who live in rural areas might have to stream their Netflix at 720P. Clearly what's needed is a lot of government spending.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    3. Re:Definition of "broadband" changed in 2015 by kb7oeb · · Score: 1

      I have 15Mb century link DSL That is fast enough for two 1080p streams, they are usually around 5Mb. It is fast enough for 4k at 9,11 and sometimes 15Mb What hurts most is the 896Kb upstream, I turn off wifi anytime I'm sending a photo message from my phone. I used to have 150Mb/10Mb from cox but when the price broke $100 around the same they instituted overage charges I switched to $45 dsl. Yes the upload sucks, but otherwise I don't even notice it most of the time and it has been reliable this past year. Giving cox the middle finger more than makes up for the reduced speeds.

    4. Re: Definition of "broadband" changed in 2015 by Rujiel · · Score: 2

      What a false dichotomy. What's needed is for big players like AT&T to actually spend on infrastructure the taxpayer money they were handed.

  11. Paying For It...Don't Have It. by sycodon · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:Paying For It...Don't Have It. by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      Cable loops? In rural areas? Good luck with that.

      My only broadband offering is satellite. And the satellite providers know it and are actually pricing accordingly! The price points for packages go up or down drastically depending on your location (even within the same general area). In some cases they have removed all their low-cost plans and won't offer them to rural areas because they know they've got ya.

      Most people don't see a value in paying $70 a month for reasonable internet. Yet that's the cheapest and only option in my area that actually WORKS. The rest of the so-called broadband options (satellite companies as well) are so over-sold that you can't do anything with them in prime time.

      Pai is a liar and is doing to the FCC exactly what Trump is doing to the country. But hey, he's got a big cool mug he drinks from.

    2. Re:Paying For It...Don't Have It. by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Pai is a liar and is doing to the FCC exactly what Trump is doing to the country. But hey, he's got a big cool mug he drinks from.

      Because your life has changed so much for the worse in the last two years, amirite?

      I can only assume, based on your comment, that the fixed-line broadband companies were just beating down your door to run a cable a hundred kilometers out into the woods before November of 2016, but that dag-nabbed Pai and the BadOrangeMan came along and forced them to stop, right?

      For fuck's sake, not everything is political. Some things make little economic sense regardless of who is currently the government figurehead. Unless you're asking for someone else to subsidize your connection. Let me know when you convince the city water and sewer departments to run pipes out your way, then we can quabble about your choices in ISPs.

  12. THere are three legal categories by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    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.
  13. How are they measuring this? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    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?

  14. Screw broadband by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
    1. Re:Screw broadband by Puls4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh? Most rural people have a well, a septic field, and propane. What in the hell are you talking about water mains for?

    2. Re:Screw broadband by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      he thinks suburban is rural

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  15. It's a cost issue by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    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.

  16. Depressing, a hated co more honest than gov by DCFusor · · Score: 2

    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!
  17. The Internet-Bringing Us Closer Than We Need To Be by Abe677 · · Score: 1

    Yes, we should do whatever we can to get them on broadband so they can be miserable Facebook users like the rest of us.

  18. Re:This by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

    A cell phone's screen is also tiny, its operating system limiting, and carriers tend to charge extra for use with a computer.

  19. Bits per second vs. bits per month by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Bits per second vs. bits per month by tepples · · Score: 1

      When I compare them?

      For the avoidance of doubt: I intended "you" not to refer to Rockoon but instead to generic you , or plural you referring to Slashdot users as a whole.

      We are dealing with a specific persons specific comparison.

      In context, I read "Broadband" in nehumanuscrede's comment to refer to wired broadband, particularly in that the last line contrasts it with cellular Internet service, concluding that the intent was to compare wired broadband to cellular. Then I recalled similar comparisons in the past, many of which have concluded that cellular offers more instantaneous speed but less total data transfer over the course of a month.

  20. Food desert = no produce for 1.6 km by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Food desert = no produce for 1.6 km by tepples · · Score: 1

      In order to count toward not being part of a food desert, these "grocery or convenience stores that sell fresh fruit and vegetables" have to be within 1 mile* of people. In addition, a recently established grocery store might take a while to show up on the survey. For example, an ALDI store near me moved to a different shopping center, and the survey might not have picked it up yet. So which such "areas" are you talking about?

      * Or 10 miles in "rural" census tracts.

  21. Re:Mobile by tepples · · Score: 1

    The "I'm out of data for the month" complaints I read in certain online communities show that cellular alone is not satisfying everyone's needs.

  22. Given how useful broadband is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
  23. I don't think the FCC updated their defination by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
  24. You're all missing the real story by Big+Bipper · · Score: 1

    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.
  25. Re:This by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

    But they also have a feature called "hot spot" that allows other devices to access the phone's internet connection via wifi. You should try it some time.

  26. Hotspot costs extra by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.