Broadband In U.S. Still Slower, More Expensive Than Everywhere Else

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
When it comes to broadband, no one pays more for less than we do. Hey, I guess that means WE'RE #1!

American consumers have gotten a mixed bag of broadband news this year. Between mergers and net neutrality it’s been a rough twelve months, even while some consumers have seen better connections and dropping prices. But the news for most of us is the same as ever: on the whole, Americans pay more, for worse broadband service, than our peers in the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
 
I'm thinking everywhere else has their broadband subsidized. No thank you, I'll take my super cheap <$100 a month 110Mbps Internet over havng the government pay for much of it for everyone.
 
Is this taking Canada into consideration? And Australia? This headline doesn't ring true.
 
Toronto is in the study, which you can see from the link in the article. It only looks good compared to Mexico City... otherwise its the same ballpark as the US.
 
jnmunsey said:
I'm thinking everywhere else has their broadband subsidized. No thank you, I'll take my super cheap <$100 a month 110Mbps Internet over havng the government pay for much of it for everyone.
Click to expand...

Except it was already subsidized. We paid hundreds of billions of dollars for fiber and got pretty much nothing for it.
 
jnmunsey said:
I'm thinking everywhere else has their broadband subsidized. No thank you, I'll take my super cheap <$100 a month 110Mbps Internet over havng the government pay for much of it for everyone.
Click to expand...

It was subsidized - for the providers

Then they turn around and give it to us sideways
 
Nothing new to see here, bad regulation and monopolies.

FCC just planning to come out with some more bad regulation soon to boot, Wheeler being a shill and all that, surprise surprise. Calling it common carrier while it's setup as almost the literal opposite of the name, doesn't get sleazier than that.
 
jnmunsey said:
I'm thinking everywhere else has their broadband subsidized. No thank you, I'll take my super cheap <$100 a month 110Mbps Internet over havng the government pay for much of it for everyone.
Click to expand...

Cox just doubled my speed to 50mb, although it's testing at getting over 60mb.

The speed is nice, but not $62/month nice (probably going up to $65 or more next year)

I'd be happier with half that speed for < $40/month, but they don't offer anything at that speed, only step below the new 50mbit speed is 5mb. I'm sure they are keeping it that low so anyone who even occasionally streams a movie has to pay for the higher package.
 
This is all determined by local politics. Find your local candidates that are supporting the monopoly by your local provider and work against them. Write a letter to the opponent in the election telling them to campaign on getting more broadband ISPs in the area. Comcast and Time Warner Cable have been well known huge donors for local campaign funds. The only way to get out of this is to vote out the people who keep their monopoly going. Allow for competition, and competition will come. A free market fixes the problem.
 
Another really, really crummy article on the subject. Where's the corroborating evidence? Who is advertising 500Mb/s connections speeds the US--where, and how much does it cost? In other countries, what are the bandwidth data caps? (Is it "great" to get an actual 1GB/s down for $20 a month if there's a 14GB/mo data cap & a charge of $10 per every 5GBs that is exceed each month? No--that is *horrible* service, actually--nothing but an empty gimmick, because no one will want a really fast pipe if he can't download much of anything with it for a decent price--duh.

Maybe one day we'll actually find a well-written article on the subject that isn't afraid of discovering that it isn't so bad in the US comparatively, nor so good elsewhere, comparatively. Maybe. Right now, it's just so much political fluff designed to kick up hazy voter angst. These articles contain almost no specifics and facts, remarkably enough. Great political propaganda, though...:D
 
dgingeri said:
This is all determined by local politics. Find your local candidates that are supporting the monopoly by your local provider and work against them. Write a letter to the opponent in the election telling them to campaign on getting more broadband ISPs in the area. Comcast and Time Warner Cable have been well known huge donors for local campaign funds. The only way to get out of this is to vote out the people who keep their monopoly going. Allow for competition, and competition will come. A free market fixes the problem.
Click to expand...

That's all great in theory, but a lot of the time both of the candidates (who have a realistic chance of getting elected) are getting paid by the same ISP monopoly. It's not high on most people's priorities when voting either, even those who follow the issues.

A lot of people don't care about the issues at all either, and will vote based on some bullshit political ad or name recognition. We have the government we deserve.
 
How does the concept of Internet as Road get lost to so many people.

One of the functions of the Federal government is to provide the basic infrastructure of the nation so as to facilitate COMMERCE.

I suppose their were just as many nitwits yapping about how the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system was all about letting the poor folk get around like the rich folk, and how therefore that was all bad and a waste of taxpayer money allowing the "takers" to be able to drive from city to city .... rather than understanding that this was also how Industry's Products were to get to market, how our Food was to get to market, etc, etc.

So I assume all the people who don't want a public utility internet also want to rip up the highway system, auction off the real estate and the "Private Sector" will most efficiently do with it what is most efficient for society.

Right?

Meanwhile back in the real world, it is clear proven beyond a shadow of a doubt Private enterprise will provide the internet it wants people to have NOT the Information Superhighway we need. So lets cut the pretense and get down to building the 100% coverage affordable high speed internet AND universal wireless cellphone system that provides 100% total 4G+ coverage of every square inch of the United States of America.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
How does the concept of Internet as Road get lost to so many people.

One of the functions of the Federal government is to provide the basic infrastructure of the nation so as to facilitate COMMERCE.

I suppose their were just as many nitwits yapping about how the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system was all about letting the poor folk get around like the rich folk, and how therefore that was all bad and a waste of taxpayer money allowing the "takers" to be able to drive from city to city .... rather than understanding that this was also how Industry's Products were to get to market, how our Food was to get to market, etc, etc.

So I assume all the people who don't want a public utility internet also want to rip up the highway system, auction off the real estate and the "Private Sector" will most efficiently do with it what is most efficient for society.

Right?

Meanwhile back in the real world, it is clear proven beyond a shadow of a doubt Private enterprise will provide the internet it wants people to have NOT the Information Superhighway we need. So lets cut the pretense and get down to building the 100% coverage affordable high speed internet AND universal wireless cellphone system that provides 100% total 4G+ coverage of every square inch of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Yes its amazing that some folks don't think past the noise that the likes of Fox News spurts out. Well I guess that's the point...they don't want them to think.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
How does the concept of Internet as Road get lost to so many people.

One of the functions of the Federal government is to provide the basic infrastructure of the nation so as to facilitate COMMERCE.

I suppose their were just as many nitwits yapping about how the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system was all about letting the poor folk get around like the rich folk, and how therefore that was all bad and a waste of taxpayer money allowing the "takers" to be able to drive from city to city .... rather than understanding that this was also how Industry's Products were to get to market, how our Food was to get to market, etc, etc.

So I assume all the people who don't want a public utility internet also want to rip up the highway system, auction off the real estate and the "Private Sector" will most efficiently do with it what is most efficient for society.

Right?

Meanwhile back in the real world, it is clear proven beyond a shadow of a doubt Private enterprise will provide the internet it wants people to have NOT the Information Superhighway we need. So lets cut the pretense and get down to building the 100% coverage affordable high speed internet AND universal wireless cellphone system that provides 100% total 4G+ coverage of every square inch of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Pinko.
 
I'm okay with this, with the pros we get from living in the US. Still, that doesn't mean I don't want it to change so that we have a better price-performance ratio.
 
Grimspoon said:
Is this taking Canada into consideration? And Australia? This headline doesn't ring true.
Click to expand...

I agree. These reports seem to report the best services avail in other countries as the norm. Akamai reports on internet speeds around the world every year and uses average connections and the US fairs very well.

I know my Friends in Canada pay much more than I do for slower speed and they have caps as well. My friends in Brisbane Australia pay about the same as I do but get half the speed and have data caps.

Reports like this just don't report the complete picture and seem to just want to paint the US as worse than it really is, but a huge margin.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
How does the concept of Internet as Road get lost to so many people.

One of the functions of the Federal government is to provide the basic infrastructure of the nation so as to facilitate COMMERCE.

I suppose their were just as many nitwits yapping about how the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system was all about letting the poor folk get around like the rich folk, and how therefore that was all bad and a waste of taxpayer money allowing the "takers" to be able to drive from city to city .... rather than understanding that this was also how Industry's Products were to get to market, how our Food was to get to market, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
You couldn't be more incorrect. The Feds provide the basic infrastructure for interstate highways. The individual states do the rest of the roads. And the Eisenhower interstate system wasn't build with "letting the poor fold get around." it was about getting troops and equipment around in case of war. It was a defense project. They were originally designed to be conduits for quick troop movement and as emergency evacuation routes in case of national disasters.

They became the primary method of how our food gets to market because they existed as it was a benefit on top of the original use..
 
I have WoW! for my ISP. The only one in my area that doesn't have a stupid data cap.

Pay $59 per month for 30/5. Stupid is what it is.

The only stupider thing is the what the cell phone companies charge for data.
 
WaltC said:
Another really, really crummy article on the subject. Where's the corroborating evidence? Who is advertising 500Mb/s connections speeds the US--where, and how much does it cost?
Click to expand...
If I had to guess these probably are business class speeds, and typically priced above what people are willing to pay for a residential internet speed.

Although there are companies that wire up whole apartments, as long as they have a certain number of units can give you gigabit speeds (as long as everyone in the apartment doesn't download at the same time :D)
 
griffinhart said:
You couldn't be more incorrect. The Feds provide the basic infrastructure for interstate highways. The individual states do the rest of the roads. And the Eisenhower interstate system wasn't build with "letting the poor fold get around." it was about getting troops and equipment around in case of war. It was a defense project. They were originally designed to be conduits for quick troop movement and as emergency evacuation routes in case of national disasters.

They became the primary method of how our food gets to market because they existed as it was a benefit on top of the original use..
Click to expand...

Don't confuse them with the facts.

Besides, that can't be true since all military spending is bad, and the federal government is there to help the poor. /sarcasm
 
cyclone3d said:
I have WoW! for my ISP. The only one in my area that doesn't have a stupid data cap.

Pay $59 per month for 30/5. Stupid is what it is.

The only stupider thing is the what the cell phone companies charge for data.
Click to expand...

$129 for 20/5 over here. And it's "up to" 20/5. "Up to" 8/3 would be $78.


Headlines is too sensationalized. Totally ignores the likes of my country, for example. It says a lot when US broadband speeds is already heaven for us.
 
daglesj said:
Yes its amazing that some folks don't think past the noise that the likes of Fox News spurts out. Well I guess that's the point...they don't want them to think.
Click to expand...

When I don't have some other garbage to spew and I have no idea Wtf I'm talking about then...

Just scream FOX NEWS!!!!

/+++++++
 
entropy13 said:
$129 for 20/5 over here. And it's "up to" 20/5. "Up to" 8/3 would be $78.


Headlines is too sensationalized. Totally ignores the likes of my country, for example. It says a lot when US broadband speeds is already heaven for us.
Click to expand...


Oh and besides the grammar error (headline not headlines), I also forgot to mention that those "internet plans" I listed earlier are also "limited in coverage". If the subdivision/village/area you live in is not listed in it, tough luck. So to be able to get those speeds to begin with, you might also have to change your house too.
 
That seems to be the way of things in this country. We also pay more for our healthcare, and it's the worst in the developed world.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
How does the concept of Internet as Road get lost to so many people.

One of the functions of the Federal government is to provide the basic infrastructure of the nation so as to facilitate COMMERCE.

I suppose their were just as many nitwits yapping about how the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system was all about letting the poor folk get around like the rich folk, and how therefore that was all bad and a waste of taxpayer money allowing the "takers" to be able to drive from city to city .... rather than understanding that this was also how Industry's Products were to get to market, how our Food was to get to market, etc, etc.

So I assume all the people who don't want a public utility internet also want to rip up the highway system, auction off the real estate and the "Private Sector" will most efficiently do with it what is most efficient for society.

Right?

Meanwhile back in the real world, it is clear proven beyond a shadow of a doubt Private enterprise will provide the internet it wants people to have NOT the Information Superhighway we need. So lets cut the pretense and get down to building the 100% coverage affordable high speed internet AND universal wireless cellphone system that provides 100% total 4G+ coverage of every square inch of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

One big thing here: Don't trust the government! That's why I'm a conservative libertarian, registered as Republican, for now, aligned with the Tea Party. If I have learned anything in my 42 years it is that I should never, ever trust those seeking power. They're in it for their own ends, not ours, and they will screw us over if they can get what they want for it, and what they want is power over us.

The bastard in the White House right now is there because he wants to be king. He's shown that well enough. He screwed us all over by misspending the stimulus package from 2009, $800 billion, right into his friends pockets, making sure it did absolutely no good for the economy. He wants to push over the economy with crushing debt so he has an excuse to suspend elections and keep his power.

Have you forgotten that he's been pushing the NSA for more internet surveillance? Do you not see that if they build an internet infrastructure, none of our data would be safe, for any reason? Can't you see that they can use that information to cut out political challengers and hold power even more solidly? With a federal internet infrastructure, one party, most likely the Democrats because of their assimilation of federal employees, would take full power, and nobody would be able to challenge them? With their philosophy, we'd end up in a full communist monarchy, like North Korea, slaves to the state, where we work for the state or we starve.

That's specifically why we should never, ever let them have power over our internet connections. Never, ever trust those who seek power. Take power AWAY from them.
 
Cmdrmonkey said:
That seems to be the way of things in this country. We also pay more for our healthcare, and it's the worst in the developed world.
Click to expand...

Being in the medical imaging / cancer research field for 17.5 years this one feels like a jab at all the hard working individuals trying to bring the best possible care to patients. Although I believe the US is far from having the worst healthcare in the developed world.
 
Sad all of this and no one giving any credit where due. Comcast just doubled the speed of most of it's residential customers for free, and they are in the process of getting all the old DOCSIS 2.x equipment off of their network so that they can dramatically increase speeds yet more within the next few years. Gigabit shouldn't be far off, and is totally possible with DOCSIS 3.x

I'm currently still stuck at 100Mbps (Comcast Business) but I downloaded over 3TB last month. For some reason I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off.

I'm also tired of seeing all the people living in bumfuck nowhere throwing off the averages for our entire country. Large areas of land where hardly anyone lives and it's generally prohibitively expensive to upgrade infrastructure isn't a problem that they have in Japan and South Korea... If you live in one of those countries, you're doing pretty good if the apartment you live in has more than one bedroom and you don't have to share a bathroom. The reality of broadband in the US is that if you live anywhere near a major metropolitan area, you're likely to have not one but multiple broadband options available to you for reasonable prices.
 
100/100 for $36 here. No data caps. My ISP refuses to store user activity on their servers for the government. And if you get hospitalized it's gonna set you back $13 a day. Max.
 
I pay $29.99/mo for 25/5 Mbit and I consider that fair (bringing my own modem) on Comcast (yes I talked them into a promo rate)... I would love 100Mbit+ but thats just ridiculous given what they want to charge when you know they have the available bandwidth... Its first world problems but I still digress...
 
dgingeri said:
One big thing here: Don't trust the government! That's why I'm a conservative libertarian, registered as Republican, for now, aligned with the Tea Party. If I have learned anything in my 42 years it is that I should never, ever trust those seeking power. They're in it for their own ends, not ours, and they will screw us over if they can get what they want for it, and what they want is power over us.
Click to expand...

23ia2j5.gif
 
In the UK I pay £25 for 50Mbs that tests at 60+Mbs no caps. This price is with no cable, Mobile or phone line. TV bundles are also reasonable.

In China I paid 16usd a month for 30Mbs unlimited.
taiwan was also good.

But in Canada... I can get 30Mbs with 300gb cap for 30cad
Never been charged for going over data caps
 
No edit button. Forgot to mention, in the UK I c an upgrade from 50Mbs to 100Mbs for an extra £5 a month.
But with only two users I really don't need it though I'm frequently tempted. W
 
Because I refuse to deal with Comcast, my only other choice is DSL. The best speed that I'm getting (Up to 15 Mbps down / Up to 3 Mbps up) costs me $67.99 per month minus a $10 discount. And, I need that speed because I connect to work from home via VPN on some days and dial out to customers via VoIP. The home phone service is also through the DSL via VoIP, and costs $24.95 per month minus a $5 bundling discount.
 
ya'll guys got;

1st World Problems! For real!

in the Philippines, it has the worst shittiest corrupted internet infrastructure thanks to monopoly of telecommunications (Imagine only two rival telcos that are rumored to be having a merger in future!)

Can't even make one clean mobile phone or skype call from UAE to the Philippines, can't even get worse than that!

Sorry for being OT

So rejoice 1st World Peoples!
 
jcagara08 said:
ya'll guys got;

1st World Problems! For real!

in the Philippines, it has the worst shittiest corrupted internet infrastructure thanks to monopoly of telecommunications (Imagine only two rival telcos that are rumored to be having a merger in future!)

Can't even make one clean mobile phone or skype call from UAE to the Philippines, can't even get worse than that!

Sorry for being OT

So rejoice 1st World Peoples!
Click to expand...

here's a reddit sub for it;
http://www.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/2aurzq/how_pldt_deliberately_keeps_local_internet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top