America's ISPs Suck, And AT&T Sucks Worst

[S-F]

I'm tired of hearing about how "America's ISPs suck". I have Comcast Business. I can max out my download and/or upload speed at absolutely any time of day. Netflix, etc is certainly is not being throttled. I can download 5+ Terabytes a month and not get any complaints. When I call in for tech support, I almost never get put on hold, and when I need a truck to come out, it is usually here within an hour of hanging up the phone.

I had Comcast business. 50 meg. I switched to the residential 100 meg plan for about the same price. It Sucks! I saw consistently faster downloads with the slower plan! I have never seen more than 4 MB/s and usually that only lasts for a few minutes. I would see that steadily with Comcast Business. On the few occasions I had issues they had someone outside my house fixing shit PRONTO. They techs were giving me their numbers so I didn't have to go through the main office. One guy was up on a ladder replacing cable and connectors that he said looked old. I'm terrible about paying bills so I don't usually pay them until they call me and tell me they're going to shut me off. Well, I should correct that. Comcast Business would call me and tell me they were going to shut me off. Residential Comcast sends me a nondescript letter and then I wake up to no service the next day. Once when they called I couldn't pay them there on the spot because I was waiting for a new debit card to arrive. They were very courteous and waited a week for it. I've gotta switch back. Better service and better speeds. Still sucks spending $100 a moth for such skimpy asymmetrical bandwidth.

 

[BryanSTG]

My issue with this is that while we are constantly treated to articles talking about how bad US internet speeds are, compared to the rest of the world, but then when actual data transfer rates are posted the US ranks in the top 3 or 4.

There are several issues with this logic.

1) High speed internet access availability in the US is somewhat spotty not always an option.

2) Where available, internet speed varies greatly but averages out over the entire US. Speed reports and articles then reference this average, distorting the data.

3) Sure, you can purchase 100+ megabit internet connections but they are ridiculously overpriced; something many people cannot afford. The price is not proportional to the rest of the world or the cost of the product.

4) Just because ISPs advertise and offer 100+ Mbps internet definitely does not mean you can saturate it 24/7 365 with whatever traffic you please on whatever port you want. Despite what the TOS does/doesn't say you will likely hear from them and possibly have your service terminated. This is false advertising at best but closer to outright fraud.

 

[dr.kevin]

yep. ATT sucks for the price.

Can't wait to drop ATT. I'm bound by contract for one more month. For the same price, ATT gives me 12 mbit while time warner gives 50 mbit.

 

[sfsuphysics]

If you're in SF there are reasons as to why DSL / Uverse speeds suck. One is the local city government but mainly it's at&t cheap ass fault. Some of the COs still have really old hardware still setup and running ...9th Ave + Steiner Street all have outdated shit running in them and what new stuff is there is maxed out.

Local city government can be blamed for other options not expanding, but AT&T is pretty much to blame because they don't give a fuck about local infrastructure, I see the Uverse boxes around me, but either they're not lit up, or they haven't decided to run wires from the boxes to houses. Quite a few years ago, I complained about a DSL connection that wasn't working (phone was acting buggy too) the tech guy was just amazed at how old the wire was from the pole to my house, old 2 wire cable, not twisted pair of wires, two wires in a rubber sheathing that over time moved too much cracked and bazinga.

And while yeah there are some places that have 75Mbps Uverse apparently, for the most part they're restricting people to lower speeds because they can.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Cable really is the only game in town to give me what I wanted at a price that I wanted... well to be honest the only one to give me what I wanted. I have two choices really DSL and Cable, I have a couple of DSL choices but my distance from the CO, maxes out like so

This was through Sonic, which itself is a fabulous company, while they do have fiber, VDSL, channel bonding, amongst other neato technologies for $40/month at my location I'm stuck with this. I'm not sure what this would cost through AT&T, they're nice enough to show you their promo rates but not what the cost will be. I think $54.99 or so is what it would cost to get this.

Next up, I decided to do Comcast, $49.99 for 12 month rate, I can decide what I want to do after 12 months, unfortunately I'm going to get spoiled

Yes this is a speedtest site, yes the numbers by be artificially high, but bottom line is even if it is a bit inflated it still is 100Mbps+ for $50/month.

 

[rudy]

How much does that cost?

Last time I looked into you had to pay more for the same speeds as a consumer, but you also had to sign a contract and early termination fees could be up to $2000. I think I would have had to pay $200 / month and if I happened to not want them or move they would kill me for an early termination fee. They said it could be waived but whos going to bet 2k on Comcast reps?

 

[rudy]

Also the thing that a lot of people don't understand is a lot of smaller countries have dense population in a small number of cites. Does anyone in Sweden or Finland even live more than 20 miles from the coast? Do people who live in smaller towns get the same massive bandwidth? My problem with the USA is not that broadband that is good doesn't exists its that it is always going on in only the biggest or select cities. This is one reason I am close to supporting government intervention. Every 5 years people in in big cities get all new upgrades to their network. Meanwhile in the rest of the country, even pretty good sized cities are still stuck on 10 mb. And lets also take a look at what is even more important than speed, it is quality of connection. I know lots of people stuck in apartments with provided ATT internet that's on an SLA and while they get X speeds their ping is like 200, the connection is instable, but its up! In most cases I would easily take half the internet speed if I knew it was going to be stable and good ping.

All of this is why I am all for metered bandwidth. Tired of companies purposely throttling everyone because everyone thinks unlimited is so great. Metered bandwidth is the only way to get consumers to try and even the load on the network, give the ISPs incentive to build faster networks.

 

[Skripka]

Also the thing that a lot of people don't understand is a lot of smaller countries have dense population in a small number of cites. Does anyone in Sweden or Finland even live more than 20 miles from the coast? Do people who live in smaller towns get the same massive bandwidth? My problem with the USA is not that broadband that is good doesn't exists its that it is always going on in only the biggest or select cities. This is one reason I am close to supporting government intervention. Every 5 years people in in big cities get all new upgrades to their network. Meanwhile in the rest of the country, even pretty good sized cities are still stuck on 10 mb. And lets also take a look at what is even more important than speed, it is quality of connection. I know lots of people stuck in apartments with provided ATT internet that's on an SLA and while they get X speeds their ping is like 200, the connection is instable, but its up! In most cases I would easily take half the internet speed if I knew it was going to be stable and good ping.

All of this is why I am all for metered bandwidth. Tired of companies purposely throttling everyone because everyone thinks unlimited is so great. Metered bandwidth is the only way to get consumers to try and even the load on the network, give the ISPs incentive to build faster networks.

And I want a unicorn with rainbows.

Sure you can give them "incentive" to build faster networks but at best they will not turn them on until they see competition. See what suddenly happened in markets where Google Fiber got turned on.

And yes, broadband does only exist in large cities. Go out into farm country and all you'll get is dial-up or satellite. You will not even see 10megabit. Communities out there have wanted broadband, but ComCrap and TWC have bought laws preventing community broadband, and they refuse to build out networks there...just like in the 20th century with electricity.

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

There are several issues with this logic.

1) High speed internet access availability in the US is somewhat spotty not always an option.

2) Where available, internet speed varies greatly but averages out over the entire US. Speed reports and articles then reference this average, distorting the data.

3) Sure, you can purchase 100+ megabit internet connections but they are ridiculously overpriced; something many people cannot afford. The price is not proportional to the rest of the world or the cost of the product.

4) Just because ISPs advertise and offer 100+ Mbps internet definitely does not mean you can saturate it 24/7 365 with whatever traffic you please on whatever port you want. Despite what the TOS does/doesn't say you will likely hear from them and possibly have your service terminated. This is false advertising at best but closer to outright fraud.

Well the articles I am referring to look at actual data transfer speeds, not speed promised.

Yes the speeds average out across the US, although the last one I saw, linked on this very site, had breakdowns by state as well.

As for the "cost of the product" what is high/higher internet speeds worth? Whether you consider internet access a luxury or a necessity how much is to much?

I know of no one who wants to work for even a penny less them they they can get for their work, nor anyone who doesn't want their investments/retirement fund grow, yet these same people will complain like made over what others charge for their goods or services.

Finally, sure 100+ megabit internet connections are high priced, but how many people need anything near those speeds in their home?

 

[Scooter30]

I wish my local cableco (suddenlink) would get their shit together. They only offer 3 meg service while DSL offers 10. ugh.

 

[Skripka]

Well the articles I am referring to look at actual data transfer speeds, not speed promised.

Yes the speeds average out across the US, although the last one I saw, linked on this very site, had breakdowns by state as well.

As for the "cost of the product" what is high/higher internet speeds worth? Whether you consider internet access a luxury or a necessity how much is to much?

I know of no one who wants to work for even a penny less them they they can get for their work, nor anyone who doesn't want their investments/retirement fund grow, yet these same people will complain like made over what others charge for their goods or services.

Finally, sure 100+ megabit internet connections are high priced, but how many people need anything near those speeds in their home?

Two things:

A) Profit...ISPs are insanely profitable, making $$$ hand over fist. Don't start about the poor ISP not getting enough $$$.

II) We in the USA pay the more and get far less for ISPs than anyone else. And the only time that changes is if Google FIber comes into town. Then suddenly your rates go down and your speed doubles, like a Festivus Miracle.

 

[BryanSTG]

Well the articles I am referring to look at actual data transfer speeds, not speed promised.

Yes the speeds average out across the US, although the last one I saw, linked on this very site, had breakdowns by state as well.

Umm…that is exactly what this article is doing, looking actual data transfer speeds and breaking it down by city. The entire article is about US ISPs not consistently delivering the promised speed, having constant service degradation, and undermines your anecdotal evidence.

It doesn't matter if the "US ranks in the top 3 or 4" for transfer rates, as you claim, since the service and speed is extremely inconsistent. That is the AVERAGE national speed, which factors in the massive issues detailed in the article (AT&T's 0.1 Mbps).

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Also the thing that a lot of people don't understand is a lot of smaller countries have dense population in a small number of cites. Does anyone in Sweden or Finland even live more than 20 miles from the coast?

lol.

Population Density:

180th - USA: 35/km^2
194th - Sweden: 21.5/km^2
201st - Finland: 18/km^2

Only in the U.S. is population density an excuse.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

I just finished moving out of a place that could ONLY get AT&T DSL (or have someone resell you an AT&T DSL line at a markup).

I will NOT fucking miss it at ALL!

My brother's on UVerse, paying $200 for their top end TV+Internet package.
He's getting 7 down, and if he's lucky, 1 up. And actual connection quality is asstastic at best.

For that, much money he could get the top-end Comcast package, 100 Mbit Internet, all the cable channels and phone service.

I know it's cool to hate on Comcast. And yeah, they're a fucking huge company and abusing their position. But since I've set up Comcast Business at work, we've had exactly 30 minutes of downtime in 3 years. And all of that was shortly after the connection was initially put in.

 

[Bigbacon]

And I want a unicorn with rainbows.

Sure you can give them "incentive" to build faster networks but at best they will not turn them on until they see competition. See what suddenly happened in markets where Google Fiber got turned on.

And yes, broadband does only exist in large cities. Go out into farm country and all you'll get is dial-up or satellite. You will not even see 10megabit. Communities out there have wanted broadband, but ComCrap and TWC have bought laws preventing community broadband, and they refuse to build out networks there...just like in the 20th century with electricity.

Also doesn't help when the rural folks have ISPs like Frontier who squander millions of government funds to do nothing.

I got lucky where I live, frontier ACTUALLY laid fiber lines between the DSLAMS out here so we can actually get 24/2 bonded DSL. almost every other place around only has 1mb/192k DSL from frontier and they refuse to really do anything unless you live with in a 1/2 mile of a major road.

what really sucks is the county just south of ours has its own fiber network across the whole county and it is a very rural county.

 

[Mohonri]

Population Density:

180th - USA: 35/km^2
194th - Sweden: 21.5/km^2
201st - Finland: 18/km^2

Only in the U.S. is population density an excuse.

That's a bit misleading--that's an average, i.e. total population divided by square miles. It doesn't represent the distribution of the population, i.e. how much of the population lives in high-density areas vs sparsely populated areas.

Let's take Sweden: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Norden_pop_density.gif
Notice that 75% of Sweden's land are has almost zero population density. Now, compare that to the US: http://www.crisishq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/z_us_population_density_map_2010.gif
(the white areas on the Sweden map are roughly equivalent of the lightest shade of blue on the US map) There's a very large percentage of the US that has fairly low population density.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

That's a bit misleading--that's an average, i.e. total population divided by square miles. It doesn't represent the distribution of the population, i.e. how much of the population lives in high-density areas vs sparsely populated areas.

Let's take Sweden: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Norden_pop_density.gif
Notice that 75% of Sweden's land are has almost zero population density. Now, compare that to the US: http://www.crisishq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/z_us_population_density_map_2010.gif
(the white areas on the Sweden map are roughly equivalent of the lightest shade of blue on the US map) There's a very large percentage of the US that has fairly low population density.

Looking at colors on a chart isn't a very accurate way to look at it either. It leves more room for subjective, rather than objective interpretations.

Instead, lets look at actual data for urbanization:

- Sweden: 85.7%
- Finland: 84.1%
- USA: 81.4%

So, yes, both Sweden and Finland are more highly urbanized that the U.S, but we are talking by 2.7 and 4.3 percentage units respectively. This is marginal, and does not explain why they are TROUNCING us in internet connectivity.

The thing about the rural population is, that since they are less than 20% of the population, they also have less than 20% of an impact to the overall internet metrics.


What we have in the U.S. is a fundamental failure, not just in rural areas, but also in urban areas. It is less of a population distribution issue, and more of an economic one. ISP's have moved in and cemented monopolies in areas where people can afford to pay their inflated prices, and largely ignored areas where the under privileged (yet still able to pay for internet service if it were fairly and appropriately priced, rather than being a monopoly market)

The major ISP's and their investors want to spend as little as possible (while taking government grants to expand, but not doing it) and instead just sit on their lazy butts with local monopolies allowing them to treat consumers as cash cows, charging them as many as 5 times the appropriate price for their services in many places, and reeling in profit margins unheard of in just about any other market.

IMHO, we need some major trust busting action to completely destroy the system as it exists and rebuild it from scratch.

 

[bigyellocup]

I hate my 300/20 from time warner for only $60/month... What is this country coming to!?

 

[Wierdo]

That's a bit misleading--that's an average, i.e. total population divided by square miles. It doesn't represent the distribution of the population, i.e. how much of the population lives in high-density areas vs sparsely populated areas.

Let's take Sweden: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Norden_pop_density.gif
Notice that 75% of Sweden's land are has almost zero population density. Now, compare that to the US: http://www.crisishq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/z_us_population_density_map_2010.gif
(the white areas on the Sweden map are roughly equivalent of the lightest shade of blue on the US map) There's a very large percentage of the US that has fairly low population density.

Notice how internet service in New York, one of the largest cities in the world, sucks.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Notice how internet service in New York, one of the largest cities in the world, sucks.

Same here in Boston.

I get FiOS in the burbs (Medford) but when I used to live I. Cambridge (essentially grown togehter with Boston, only separated by a river) I had much worse Comcast service.

Even if the theory that population density necessarily means expanding faster internet service is easier is true, it is evident that there is much much more at play here. Local monopolies, avoiding low income areas, and treating internet like a cash cow are SIGNIFICANTLY larger drivers for the mess we are in.

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

25 years ago less then half of the US population had ever used a computer for anything and a substantially smaller number actually owned one for home use.

Of that number most never got online in any form, but of those that did it was at snails pace, the first 14.4k modem wasn't even introduced until 1991. The bulk of those who were online were on local bulletin boards or on AOL or CompuServe servers, but again this was a relatively small percentage of the US population but yet in 25 short years investment by these "evil companies and ISPs" over 80% of the US population has access to high speed internet and data demands continue to shoot through the roof.

Who hasn't invested where again?

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

The earliest number I could find is from 1993 and it said there were just over 14 million people worldwide were on the internet, and today it has over 3 billion users, 228 million of which are in the USA.

And even areas where the average speed is well below average they still access it at speeds far beyond what anyone could have dreamed of 20+ years ago.

 

[beowulf7]

I'm stuck on uverse... while TWC offers 200 Mbit internet, Uverse is stuck at 18Mbit. I've looked at bundles and they are comparable. 200 Mbit vs 18 Mbit. Let that sink in. AT&T has a "contract" with the complex manager that assures only AT&T is allowed to service our complex.

At least you have U-Verse! I'm stuck with AT&T's DSL with no other options for faster speed. As in no cable modem service.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

25 years ago less then half of the US population...

...and 25 years ago the fastest CPU money could buy was a 33Mhz 486.

Madonna's "Vogue" was topping the charts. No one had heard of Kriss Kross yet.

This was considered fashion:

Seinfeld was only in its second year. No one would hear of the show Friends for another 4 years.

This was still the latest and greatest in video game technology:

If you had a cell phone, it probably looked something like this:

The soviet union still existed, and we were technically still in a cold war, despite the berlin wall coming down the year before.

I'm sorry, but 25 years ago is a fucking eternity in tech.

OF COURSE we should expect drastic change in internet speeds in that amount of time. Anything less would be silly.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

At least you have U-Verse! I'm stuck with AT&T's DSL with no other options for faster speed. As in no cable modem service.

I feel you man. Just escaped that hell hole.

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

...and 25 years ago the fastest CPU money could buy was a 33Mhz 486.

snip....


I'm sorry, but 25 years ago is a fucking eternity in tech.

OF COURSE we should expect drastic change in internet speeds in that amount of time. Anything less would be silly.

First of all, I actually recently dug my 486DX-33 rig out of my parts pile, I'm going to strip the motherboard and videocard out of it, for keepsakes, and toss the chassis.

My point is, that cable and phone companies, as well as ISP, have invested billions and billions to get us to where we are, and then everyone turns around and complains about the companies not investing fast enough.

Sorry but I just think consumers have become so self centered and whiny and that more and more their complains are worthless noise.

As for pricing I pay $50 a month for 12M service (although I actually peak at 18M) which IMO is a steal, especially since cable or satellite tv alone, with no internet access, can be over $100 and that's without HBO or other paid channels.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

First of all, I actually recently dug my 486DX-33 rig out of my parts pile, I'm going to strip the motherboard and videocard out of it, for keepsakes, and toss the chassis.

My point is, that cable and phone companies, as well as ISP, have invested billions and billions to get us to where we are, and then everyone turns around and complains about the companies not investing fast enough.

Sorry but I just think consumers have become so self centered and whiny and that more and more their complains are worthless noise.

As for pricing I pay $50 a month for 12M service (although I actually peak at 18M) which IMO is a steal, especially since cable or satellite tv alone, with no internet access, can be over $100 and that's without HBO or other paid channels.

I hear what you are saying, but lets do an analogy here.


it is not uncommon for silicon fab plant to cost $3-4 billion to set up on a new process.


Since 1990 we have gone from:

800 nm (1989) -> 600 nm (1994) -> 350 nm (1995) -> 250 nm (1997) -> 180 nm (1999) -> 130 nm (2001) -> 90 nm (2004) -> 65 nm (2006) -> 45 nm (2008) -> 32 nm (2010) -> 22 nm (2012) -> 14nm (2014).

12 major fab rebuilds in that time frame.


At the height of x86 computers people paid an average of, lets say $150 for a CPU only (in whatever form it comes) every 2-3 years.

Now compare cable/internet service in which people are paying that same amount of money EVERY MONTH.

It' is not too much to expect them to improve their infrastructure every couple of years, especially since in many cases the physical infrastructure is already in place, it's just a matter of snaking new wires/fibers.

Now add in that the industry has taken grants numbering in the billions of dollars to run fiber across america, and failed to deliver, AND that we know from that leaked Comcast information that they have an obscene 97% profit margin in the current state, while fleecing their customers using the power gained from local monopolies.

I just don't see where it makes sense to be an industry apologist at this point

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I forgot my summary:

Staying current tech with capital.investments is expensive. There is no doubt about it. But the volume is there to pay for it in telecom, many times over, just like it is in the fab business.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

First of all, I actually recently dug my 486DX-33 rig out of my parts pile, I'm going to strip the motherboard and videocard out of it, for keepsakes, and toss the chassis.

Nice, BTW. I still have my sx25 in the basement. Motherboard and case are long since gone. (Was the same case I used for my 286. Replaced the motherboard when I upgraded.

That thing was sweet. No heatsink or fan needed. Add one - however - and it clocked to 50mhz.

I haven't had a 100% overclock since

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

Nice, BTW. I still have my sx25 in the basement. Motherboard and case are long since gone. (Was the same case I used for my 286. Replaced the motherboard when I upgraded.

That thing was sweet. No heatsink or fan needed. Add one - however - and it clocked to 50mhz.

I haven't had a 100% overclock since

That's awesome!

I upgraded my videocard to one of the early Diamond Stealth videocards, and every time I read someone complaining about the cost of RAM all I can think of is back when I upgraded the RAM in that system for the 4 1/4 MB simms to 4 1 MB simms at the price of $125 for each stick. LOL!

Although I got off easy, the same time my father in law upgraded his apple 2e to 1 MB of RAM and as I recall, the daughter card and the chips cost him almost $1000.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

That's awesome!

I upgraded my videocard to one of the early Diamond Stealth videocards, and every time I read someone complaining about the cost of RAM all I can think of is back when I upgraded the RAM in that system for the 4 1/4 MB simms to 4 1 MB simms at the price of $125 for each stick. LOL!

Although I got off easy, the same time my father in law upgraded his apple 2e to 1 MB of RAM and as I recall, the daughter card and the chips cost him almost $1000.

Jeez! I didn't know the Apple tax went back that far

 

[sfsuphysics]

That's a bit misleading--that's an average, i.e. total population divided by square miles. It doesn't represent the distribution of the population, i.e. how much of the population lives in high-density areas vs sparsely populated areas.

Let's take Sweden: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Norden_pop_density.gif
Notice that 75% of Sweden's land are has almost zero population density. Now, compare that to the US: http://www.crisishq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/z_us_population_density_map_2010.gif
(the white areas on the Sweden map are roughly equivalent of the lightest shade of blue on the US map) There's a very large percentage of the US that has fairly low population density.

The problem with comparing population density and saying the US is spread far apart is that it doesn't matter that the US is spread far apart, the service I have in San Francisco is independent of whatever service someone gets in NYC. Looking at that map of Sweden I see the highest density areas are greater than 250 people per km²... that's funny because San Francisco has a population density of about 7000 people per km², other large cities have equally large population densities too, where have they been doing fiber projects in the US? Hint: It's not in densely populated areas, it's mostly in suburban areas which by comparison are not very densely populated.

Speeds in the US have fuckall to do with population density for all except the most rural living of people, but then a vast majority of the people do not live in rural areas. Speeds in US cities are due to local regulations (red tape) and companies doing what companies do which is maximize profits. If cable internet didn't exist, we'd be lucky to have ISDN.

 

[sfsuphysics]

My point is, that cable and phone companies, as well as ISP, have invested billions and billions to get us to where we are, and then everyone turns around and complains about the companies not investing fast enough.

Don't forget though the cable and phone companies invested billions primarily for cable TV and making phone calls, it was just an added bonus that they found out can in turn get "high speed" internet through those same lines at the same time. Yeah hardware was needed at certain offices, but the cable going into my house is virtually no different than the cable that went into my parents house when they first got cable TV some 30 years ago. Cable companies have just been ahead of the game because they figured out how to cram more signal (channels) into one cable where as phone companies have been relatively stuck with the same old technology due to noise issues that increases with distance.

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

I forgot my summary:

Staying current tech with capital.investments is expensive. There is no doubt about it. But the volume is there to pay for it in telecom, many times over, just like it is in the fab business.

Yes they are, but we need to remember that not only do extensive upgrades take time to plan and be finalized and approved but they can be very time consuming to complete as well, and of course they are aiming at a constantly moving target and sometimes it can move by giant leaps (such as the difference between bandwidth needs for 1080p and 4k.)

 

[Ryokurin]

25 years ago less then half of the US population had ever used a computer for anything and a substantially smaller number actually owned one for home use.

Of that number most never got online in any form, but of those that did it was at snails pace, the first 14.4k modem wasn't even introduced until 1991. The bulk of those who were online were on local bulletin boards or on AOL or CompuServe servers, but again this was a relatively small percentage of the US population but yet in 25 short years investment by these "evil companies and ISPs" over 80% of the US population has access to high speed internet and data demands continue to shoot through the roof.

Who hasn't invested where again?

The problem isn't that they have not invested, is that money that was supposed to be set aside for rural customers largely wasn't used for that purpose. 53% of rural Americans lack access to broadband, yet we've all been paying USF fees, which are now an average of 11.4% our bills.

 

[beowulf7]

I feel you man. Just escaped that hell hole.

Did you move or did you get another choice of ISP at your residence?

Yeah, DSL sucks, it's fine for e-mail/Web surfing. But if Steam is doing an update or if I'm using Torrent (for the latest Linux distributions, of course ), I can't even surf/e-mail, etc. Yeah I can lower the threshold that Steam or BT use, but then it'll take me forever and a half instead of forever to download it.

First person to say "first world problems" will get an e-slap.

 

[bobdelon]

It's expensive to detach services . anyway, i am lucky. don't bother by this.

 

[DedEmbryonicCe11]

I'm stuck on uverse... while TWC offers 200 Mbit internet, Uverse is stuck at 18Mbit. I've looked at bundles and they are comparable. 200 Mbit vs 18 Mbit. Let that sink in. AT&T has a "contract" with the complex manager that assures only AT&T is allowed to service our complex.

It is the opposite here. The highest tier TWC offers to our neighborhood is 50/5 Mbit. Uverse offers 45/5 and 75/8 tiers. I have the 45/5 currently, which comes out at 50/5.6 in speedtests. I wouldn't call the Uverse experience impeccable. It's certainly not the FiOS I used to have... The downtimes have been minimal and short. I can't recall experiencing slower than normal speeds when it's up and running.

Without FiOS or Google Fiber in the area the only game changer that could happen is if AT&T decides to go through with selecting the Cleveland area for their Gigapower upgrades. It's on the list... But currently some of the older neighborhoods are stuck with the 18/2? and 24/3? plans due to olllld copper. I lived in one such area for a few months and at the end they started to offer the 45/5 plan *subject to you scheduling the tech to come out and testing if your copper could even handle it*. There just isn't the ISP competition here that I was used to in NoVA that pushed better speeds as free upgrades every year or two. We had FiOS, Cox, and Comcast (plus other smaller companies) all competing over a small but densely population area. Here.. the population density is almost as high but there doesn't seem to be the demand or the supply.

 

[topslop1]

Whatever is cheapest. $39/mo is most basic internet I can find. I'm going to call them up soon and talk to them about how we can figure out a way to get my bill down.