This chart will infuriate anybody who pays for broadband in the US

Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
748
The internet was invented in the US, but we are at #16 in the average speed. :mad:

United States does not enjoy the fastest internet connections in the world, as this chart from Statista shows. That would be South Korea (which also has better subways). The U.S. also lags behind most of Scandinavia, Switzerland, Japan, Hong Kong, and even Latvia. Overall, the country places 16th in broadband speeds.

But at least we're paying less for broadband, right? Well, no. According to a comprehensive 2014 study by the Open Technology Institute, consumers in the US pay higher median prices for broadband access — and get less bandwidth for the same amount of money — than consumers in many parts of Europe and Japan.

This_chart_will_infuriate_anybody-ba81915200d0a9bf9a13629058398a4f


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chart-infuriate-anybody-pays-broadband-172130205.html
 
Same tired old BS. US has a lot of land, and if you live far off from a major population center, your broadband options are likely to be limited. This brings down our average in a way that doesn't apply to those other countries, and makes it essentially meaningless to compare speeds in such a way.

For those of us who don't live out in the sticks, broadband options tend to be pretty good. Of course pointing that out would ruin the click-bait headline. Most people in major cities here can get 100Mbps if not Gigabit, whereas the fastest average on that chart is only 20Mbps. Remind me again why we are supposed to be "infuriated"? :rolleyes:
 
Same tired old BS. US has a lot of land, and if you live far off from a major population center, your broadband options are likely to be limited. This brings down our average in a way that doesn't apply to those other countries, and makes it essentially meaningless to compare speeds in such a way.

For those of us who don't live out in the sticks, broadband options tend to be pretty good. Of course pointing that out would ruin the click-bait headline. Most people in major cities here can get 100Mbps if not Gigabit, whereas the fastest average on that chart is only 20Mbps. Remind me again why we are supposed to be "infuriated"? :rolleyes:

The grass is always greener.
 
I agree the rural nature of much of the US skews these numbers. I can get speeds much faster than any of those average speeds above and I am on the edge of the Twin Cities metro not central by any means.

What I do not have however is any choice in who I get that speed from. I have exactly one provider (Comcrap...I mean Comcast), if I don't go through them I'm stuck with below average downstream and almost un-usable upstream speeds. Choice not actual speed is the bigger issue IMO.
 
More than half of the entire South Korean population lives in the greater Seoul metro area, makes the "last mile" problem less of an issue
 
More than half of the entire South Korean population lives in the greater Seoul metro area, makes the "last mile" problem less of an issue

I lived 45 minutes away from Seoul 2 years ago. I paid $40/month for 100up/down. Now I pay nearly twice that for 1/4 the service
 
Yes, we get screwed in the US. Don't care so much about the speed, the cost and quotas are what piss me off.
 
Not really. The US is physically larger and more sprawled out big city wise than most of those countries IMHO. I'm just glad to have Internet sometimes. He'll I live 1 hour north of Atlanta and get 150 down with gigabit coming next year.
 
Except the US has a higher population density than Finland, nearly double that. Sweeten also has a lower population density that the US. Secondly, I don't live out in the sticks and have a whopping 2 choices for Internet service

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST

And it's not quite as simple as just population density. Comparing overall Area, Finland is 3% of the area of the US according to Wikipedia, and their population is 1.7% of the US. Yes, Finland has a lower population density, but it's still less spread out than the US. That being said, the US Census states that 80.7% of the US population lives in urban areas, and the assumption is that broadband is available in those areas.
 
That does not infuriate me at all.
If you want to do that, compare that list with the costs paid for that service level.
 
Next we will be talking about "2016, finally the year of the Linux Desktop?"
 
And it's not quite as simple as just population density. Comparing overall Area, Finland is 3% of the area of the US according to Wikipedia, and their population is 1.7% of the US. Yes, Finland has a lower population density, but it's still less spread out than the US. That being said, the US Census states that 80.7% of the US population lives in urban areas, and the assumption is that broadband is available in those areas.

The vast majority of the US lives in urban areas, but how many of those citizens have access to 100Mbit internet?
 
That does not infuriate me at all.
If you want to do that, compare that list with the costs paid for that service level.

I paid $40/month for 100 up/down when I lived in Korea 2 years ago. I get 1/4 the service for nearly twice the price in the US.
 
Yep, doesn't bother me at all. The USA is a bazillion times bigger than those countries in regards to vast miles of space. That takes a lot more money.

I make the same arguments in politics whenever someone says we should be like the Scandinavian countries for other reasons... :D
 
Yep, doesn't bother me at all. The USA is a bazillion times bigger than those countries in regards to vast miles of space. That takes a lot more money.

I make the same arguments in politics whenever someone says we should be like the Scandinavian countries for other reasons... :D

The argument falls apart when 80% of the US lives in densely pupulated areas. Even if you live in a densely populated area you have to choose between shitty internet service and slightly better internet service. When I lived in Korea 2 years ago I could choose between 5 companies; I chose one of the two fiber providers that gave me 100 up/down for about $40. Now I pay $70 for 30ish up/down. Yeah I'm kind of pissed for taking it up the ass from Charter.

I would agree with you if profit margins for internet service providers were slim and they offered good customer service but neither one of those are the case. I don't understand why everyone is satisfied with mediocrity in America when it comes to internet service.
 
Last edited:
The argument falls apart when 80% of the US lives in densely pupulated areas. Even if you live in a densely populated area you have to choose between shitty internet service and slightly better internet service. When I lived in Korea 2 years ago I could choose between 5 companies; I chose one of the two fiber providers that gave me 100 up/down for about $40. Now I pay $70 for 30ish up/down. Yeah I'm kind of pissed for taking it up the ass from Charter.

I would agree with you if profit margins for internet service providers were slim and they offered good customer service but neither one of those are the case. I don't understand why everyone is satisfied with mediocrity in America when it comes to internet service.

I don't know man, fat pipes really don't define if I have mediocre service or not to be honest.
My overall experience I'm sure I could nit pick at if I compare it to other countries, but I get 150 down/25 up and I'm pretty happy with what I have. Compared to all the other toys and shit I buy, I don't really fret about $80 a month for the amount of entertainment my cable gives me.
 
The argument falls apart when 80% of the US lives in densely pupulated areas. Even if you live in a densely populated area you have to choose between shitty internet service and slightly better internet service. When I lived in Korea 2 years ago I could choose between 5 companies; I chose one of the two fiber providers that gave me 100 up/down for about $40. Now I pay $70 for 30ish up/down. Yeah I'm kind of pissed for taking it up the ass from Charter.

I would agree with you if profit margins for internet service providers were slim and they offered good customer service but neither one of those are the case. I don't understand why everyone is satisfied with mediocrity in America when it comes to internet service.

80% living in dense populated area?
well, on other county, the cable provider gove umph discount on internet service only. the county is not dense. just getting hammer with new sub-divisions :D..

but.... I am living the other county that more 5X (minimally dense). well the only choice is TWC and ATT (and defunct clearwire)

luckily... the google fiber is comming to town, and all counties that gave permission to google fiber, having a big surprise months back, TWC and ATT bumped up the speed ha!!!

you can not compare S.Korea with US, where S.Korea is more governed by the authority :D ( 99% asian countries do).

back to my internet connection, they bumped from 16/1M to 50M/5M for free :D. thanks to google fiber aggresive tactic and the county that I reside.
I paid $42 total per month..
 
80% living in dense populated area?
well, on other county, the cable provider gove umph discount on internet service only. the county is not dense. just getting hammer with new sub-divisions :D..

but.... I am living the other county that more 5X (minimally dense). well the only choice is TWC and ATT (and defunct clearwire)

luckily... the google fiber is comming to town, and all counties that gave permission to google fiber, having a big surprise months back, TWC and ATT bumped up the speed ha!!!

you can not compare S.Korea with US, where S.Korea is more governed by the authority :D ( 99% asian countries do).

back to my internet connection, they bumped from 16/1M to 50M/5M for free :D. thanks to google fiber aggresive tactic and the county that I reside.
I paid $42 total per month..

The fact that google fiber coming to town brought automatic across the board bumps to your cable internet service only proves one point: Internet service in the US is kneecapped by Comcast ant ATT just because they can...let's not even get started with their piss poor customer service and bandwidth caps.

As I've pointed out earlier Sweden and Finland have lower population densities than the US does but they enjoy faster internet services than we do so population density is a moot point.
 
Last edited:
The argument falls apart when 80% of the US lives in densely pupulated areas. Even if you live in a densely populated area you have to choose between shitty internet service and slightly better internet service. When I lived in Korea 2 years ago I could choose between 5 companies; I chose one of the two fiber providers that gave me 100 up/down for about $40. Now I pay $70 for 30ish up/down. Yeah I'm kind of pissed for taking it up the ass from Charter.

I would agree with you if profit margins for internet service providers were slim and they offered good customer service but neither one of those are the case. I don't understand why everyone is satisfied with mediocrity in America when it comes to internet service.

BTW 20% of the US population is still greater than the Total population of South Korea, Finland, and Sweden combined. So those 60 million people who still expect decent internet out of the city would require a SHIT ton more money and resources.
 
So for shits in giggles to give a size comparison of internet needs in the US compared to Finland did this quick research. I found the the top four major cities in Finland list below with their population.

Major Cities in Finland Population, which by this map says they have pretty nice internet coverage - http://point-topic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/finland-bce-2011.bmp

Helsinki 558,457
Espoo 256,760
Tampere 202,687
Vantaa 190,058

Compared those to US cities of the same size. Hellsinki is very close to Milkwaukee (which is the 31st largest city in the US).

Helsinki compares to Milwaukee in size (ranked 31 in the US)
Espoo to Chula Vista California (Ranked 75)
Tampere to Fayeteville NC (Ranked 109)
Vantaa to Salt Lake City (Ranked 124).

Afterwards I compared distances from City number 1 to cities 2-4.

Hellsinki to each city is a respective
Helsinki to Espoo - 22km
Helsinki to Tanpee is 178.2km
Helsink to Vantaa is 20.4km
Average Distance - 73.53

Milwaukee in comparison is
Milwaukee to Chula Vista - 3418.4km
Milwaukee to Fayetteville - 1485.7km
Milwaukee to Salt Lake City - 2315.1km
Average Distance - 2406.4 (32.72 times more distance in comparison to Finland).

As you can see the populations expectations of internet would be the same, but the provider in the US has to put down a shit ton more cable to not even get cities in the top 31 of the US to get fast internet. I understand the desire to have fast internet speeds, and also I think capping data is stupid though from my group of friends I hate to say there's a higher chance it would be abused by the people I know. As a younger male growing up on the internet days, my group of friends were the type the was the problem. Downloading terabytes of data, bunch of porn, movies, anime, and pirated software. I understand in a way why capping data is there, but also understand why significant money should be charged for service.
 
Last edited:
The argument falls apart when 80% of the US lives in densely pupulated areas. Even if you live in a densely populated area you have to choose between shitty internet service and slightly better internet service. When I lived in Korea 2 years ago I could choose between 5 companies; I chose one of the two fiber providers that gave me 100 up/down for about $40. Now I pay $70 for 30ish up/down. Yeah I'm kind of pissed for taking it up the ass from Charter.

I would agree with you if profit margins for internet service providers were slim and they offered good customer service but neither one of those are the case. I don't understand why everyone is satisfied with mediocrity in America when it comes to internet service.

I think there are a LOT of factors we aren't considering. One is the fiber output across the USA. Once those billions of dollars are spent, you can't just add a few more strands ad-hoc. It has to be rationed appropriately amongst all the users & businesses, let alone the switch & router infrastructure. Second, the density of what amounts to a half-duplex network (like broadband) does put some physical limitations on how thin you can spread that to thousands of users before it hits fiber. New advancements in protocols (like DOCSIS 3.0) is helping there, but many providers need to shed their analog channels to free up the bandwidth, which is coming. Those who have FIOS available do get great speeds, no argument there, but the rest of the Cable/DSL/ISDN lines bring down the average.

And third....exactly, I mean exactly what do those speeds mean in those other countries? Is that the speed South Korea and Sweden get within their own country? Who cares right? What the hell is worth looking at there? A majority of the good stuff (at least from an American centric point-of-view) is in the USA and there are millions of people using those resources. Yes, those in other countries are hitting our servers here too, but I guaranfuckintee they don't have those speeds to everyone in the country coming across the pond.


As I've pointed out earlier Sweden and Finland have lower population densities than the US does but they enjoy faster internet services than we do so population density is a moot point.
I'm not getting the correlation. The opposite can be true as well. Less people in their cities means more bandwidth to go around.
 
Also another research.

According to this link - Finland has 5,117,660 Internet users on Dec 31, 2014, 93.5% penetration, per IWS.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm

This is the amount currently in the US - 279,834,232 from this website (http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/).

So there are currently 54 times as much internet users in the US.

Lets say only 3% had gigabit ethernet in the us, that would still be 3 million more than Finland TOTAL. (8395026 users).
 
Also another research.

According to this link - Finland has 5,117,660 Internet users on Dec 31, 2014, 93.5% penetration, per IWS.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm

This is the amount currently in the US - 279,834,232 from this website (http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/).

So there are currently 54 times as much internet users in the US.

Lets say only 3% had gigabit ethernet in the us, that would still be 3 million more than Finland TOTAL. (8395026 users).

Yep, and fiber is a finite resource (after provisioning). You can't just make a pair of fiber strands "go faster". For the same outlay of physical resources, Finland can handle a larger percentage of their population.
 
Same tired old BS. US has a lot of land, and if you live far off from a major population center, your broadband options are likely to be limited. This brings down our average in a way that doesn't apply to those other countries, and makes it essentially meaningless to compare speeds in such a way.

For those of us who don't live out in the sticks, broadband options tend to be pretty good. Of course pointing that out would ruin the click-bait headline. Most people in major cities here can get 100Mbps if not Gigabit, whereas the fastest average on that chart is only 20Mbps. Remind me again why we are supposed to be "infuriated"? :rolleyes:

Because due to how poorly the coms sector is regulated in the USA you are getting ripped off. Heck I live in a very small island that already has fiber coverage. Not all along, mind you, but 300/30 is not something to dismiss as bad. Because it isn't.

Having a lot of land means nothing when the problem you experience happens only on coms. Or, why does the USA have so cheap electricity bills? You could say that because of low density it should be super expensive... but it ain't. And that is due to good regulation. What about fuel?

BTW 20% of the US population is still greater than the Total population of South Korea, Finland, and Sweden combined. So those 60 million people who still expect decent internet out of the city would require a SHIT ton more money and resources.

Please learn how % works. Please.

So for shits in giggles to give a size comparison of internet needs in the US compared to Finland did this quick research. I found the the top four major cities in Finland list below with their population.

Major Cities in Finland Population, which by this map says they have pretty nice internet coverage - http://point-topic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/finland-bce-2011.bmp

Helsinki 558,457
Espoo 256,760
Tampere 202,687
Vantaa 190,058

Compared those to US cities of the same size. Hellsinki is very close to Milkwaukee (which is the 31st largest city in the US).

Helsinki compares to Milwaukee in size (ranked 31 in the US)
Espoo to Chula Vista California (Ranked 75)
Tampere to Fayeteville NC (Ranked 109)
Vantaa to Salt Lake City (Ranked 124).

Afterwards I compared distances from City number 1 to cities 2-4.

Hellsinki to each city is a respective
Helsinki to Espoo - 22km
Helsinki to Tanpee is 178.2km
Helsink to Vantaa is 20.4km
Average Distance - 73.53

Milwaukee in comparison is
Milwaukee to Chula Vista - 3418.4km
Milwaukee to Fayetteville - 1485.7km
Milwaukee to Salt Lake City - 2315.1km
Average Distance - 2406.4 (32.72 times more distance in comparison to Finland).

As you can see the populations expectations of internet would be the same, but the provider in the US has to put down a shit ton more cable to not even get cities in the top 31 of the US to get fast internet. I understand the desire to have fast internet speeds, and also I think capping data is stupid though from my group of friends I hate to say there's a higher chance it would be abused by the people I know. As a younger male growing up on the internet days, my group of friends were the type the was the problem. Downloading terabytes of data, bunch of porn, movies, anime, and pirated software. I understand in a way why capping data is there, but also understand why significant money should be charged for service.

Data caps are USA only. Why? Because the lack of proper regulation allows the providers to do whatever the fuck they want. And they get away with it.

Heck, downloads (all sorts) are even legal here, we have far better coverage than the USA and nobody has ever said anything about data caps. And... its also cheaper. But, if you think that you pay more than the rest of the civilized world for a worse service because people download too much stuff... it only seems that the marketing departments of the main providers is working, since you believe the shit they spout.



I think there are a LOT of factors we aren't considering. One is the fiber output across the USA. Once those billions of dollars are spent, you can't just add a few more strands ad-hoc. It has to be rationed appropriately amongst all the users & businesses, let alone the switch & router infrastructure. Second, the density of what amounts to a half-duplex network (like broadband) does put some physical limitations on how thin you can spread that to thousands of users before it hits fiber. New advancements in protocols (like DOCSIS 3.0) is helping there, but many providers need to shed their analog channels to free up the bandwidth, which is coming. Those who have FIOS available do get great speeds, no argument there, but the rest of the Cable/DSL/ISDN lines bring down the average.

And third....exactly, I mean exactly what do those speeds mean in those other countries? Is that the speed South Korea and Sweden get within their own country? Who cares right? What the hell is worth looking at there? A majority of the good stuff (at least from an American centric point-of-view) is in the USA and there are millions of people using those resources. Yes, those in other countries are hitting our servers here too, but I guaranfuckintee they don't have those speeds to everyone in the country coming across the pond.

I'm not getting the correlation. The opposite can be true as well. Less people in their cities means more bandwidth to go around.

You do know that there are servers all around the world, right?¿ You are terribly naive if you think that anytime a European or Asian is downloading something of the "good stuff" at decent (ie not USA-like) speed is using USA resources.

Also another research.

According to this link - Finland has 5,117,660 Internet users on Dec 31, 2014, 93.5% penetration, per IWS.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm

This is the amount currently in the US - 279,834,232 from this website (http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/).

So there are currently 54 times as much internet users in the US.

Lets say only 3% had gigabit ethernet in the us, that would still be 3 million more than Finland TOTAL. (8395026 users).

Please learn about %, please.
 
I agree the rural nature of much of the US skews these numbers. I can get speeds much faster than any of those average speeds above and I am on the edge of the Twin Cities metro not central by any means.

What I do not have however is any choice in who I get that speed from. I have exactly one provider (Comcrap...I mean Comcast), if I don't go through them I'm stuck with below average downstream and almost un-usable upstream speeds. Choice not actual speed is the bigger issue IMO.

I'm in the East twin cities suburbs and get 50Mb Comcast for under $70/month. No other choices, but no complaints either.
 
Because due to how poorly the coms sector is regulated in the USA you are getting ripped off. Heck I live in a very small island that already has fiber coverage. Not all along, mind you, but 300/30 is not something to dismiss as bad. Because it isn't.

Having a lot of land means nothing when the problem you experience happens only on coms. Or, why does the USA have so cheap electricity bills? You could say that because of low density it should be super expensive... but it ain't. And that is due to good regulation. What about fuel?



Please learn how % works. Please.



Data caps are USA only. Why? Because the lack of proper regulation allows the providers to do whatever the fuck they want. And they get away with it.

Heck, downloads (all sorts) are even legal here, we have far better coverage than the USA and nobody has ever said anything about data caps. And... its also cheaper. But, if you think that you pay more than the rest of the civilized world for a worse service because people download too much stuff... it only seems that the marketing departments of the main providers is working, since you believe the shit they spout.





You do know that there are servers all around the world, right?¿ You are terribly naive if you think that anytime a European or Asian is downloading something of the "good stuff" at decent (ie not USA-like) speed is using USA resources.



Please learn about %, please.


Sure send me a link wise one, I odn't mind catching up on it.
 
Because due to how poorly the coms sector is regulated in the USA you are getting ripped off. Heck I live in a very small island that already has fiber coverage. Not all along, mind you, but 300/30 is not something to dismiss as bad. Because it isn't.

Having a lot of land means nothing when the problem you experience happens only on coms. Or, why does the USA have so cheap electricity bills? You could say that because of low density it should be super expensive... but it ain't. And that is due to good regulation. What about fuel?



Please learn how % works. Please.



Data caps are USA only. Why? Because the lack of proper regulation allows the providers to do whatever the fuck they want. And they get away with it.

Heck, downloads (all sorts) are even legal here, we have far better coverage than the USA and nobody has ever said anything about data caps. And... its also cheaper. But, if you think that you pay more than the rest of the civilized world for a worse service because people download too much stuff... it only seems that the marketing departments of the main providers is working, since you believe the shit they spout.





You do know that there are servers all around the world, right?¿ You are terribly naive if you think that anytime a European or Asian is downloading something of the "good stuff" at decent (ie not USA-like) speed is using USA resources.



Please learn about %, please.


I actually am not trolling you either, I would love to represent the correct way to get numbers. I double checked my numbers earlier, please correct me on how I got the conclusion wrong. I would love to alter it to be correct.


Example 20% of 318,900,900 (current US population)

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=what+is+20%+of+318900000

Which I correctly said was over 60million

Also

3% of 279,834,232 is 8.4 million which I correctly said above

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...64.2541j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Is there a way I'm suppose to do it that's proper?
 
I actually am not trolling you either, I would love to represent the correct way to get numbers.


Example 20% of 318,900,900 (current US population)

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=what+is+20%+of+318900000

Which I correctly said was over 60million

Also

3% of 279,834,232 is 8.4 million which I correctly said above

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...64.2541j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Is there a way I'm suppose to do it that's proper?

You are completely missing the big picture. And sans, my point about %.

When we talk about density we are talking about population/sqm. In that sense, it doesn't matter who has the biggest absolute number. Why? Well, we could argue that fiber has a installation cost that is based on users AND mileage. Its obvious that you will not pay the same to connect two peers that are a door away, that if they are 2 miles away.

But still, the final cost per user is based on density. So, if you have a square mile with 5 inhabitants, or 1000 square miles with 5500 inhabitants... the cost per user will be higher in the first case. And even more so once we factor economies of scale.

Which is why I said what I said about %. Since Finland has a lesser density than the US, as claimed by another user, the cost per user will be higher for Finland. Which makes it even more curious that Finland has such a lead on the USA once you factor that both have low population density.

Why, then, the USA has such a shitty broadband access and service? Because of lack of competition. And this thread is living proof, because many users state their lack of choices from providers. Also, why do you think some users report that their service gets much better once google announces installments of fiber in their areas? Magic? Nope. Competition. Which is lacking in this regard in the USA for the most part.
 
You are completely missing the big picture. And sans, my point about %.

When we talk about density we are talking about population/sqm. In that sense, it doesn't matter who has the biggest absolute number. Why? Well, we could argue that fiber has a installation cost that is based on users AND mileage. Its obvious that you will not pay the same to connect two peers that are a door away, that if they are 2 miles away.

But still, the final cost per user is based on density. So, if you have a square mile with 5 inhabitants, or 1000 square miles with 5500 inhabitants... the cost per user will be higher in the first case. And even more so once we factor economies of scale.

Which is why I said what I said about %. Since Finland has a lesser density than the US, as claimed by another user, the cost per user will be higher for Finland. Which makes it even more curious that Finland has such a lead on the USA once you factor that both have low population density.

Why, then, the USA has such a shitty broadband access and service? Because of lack of competition. And this thread is living proof, because many users state their lack of choices from providers. Also, why do you think some users report that their service gets much better once google announces installments of fiber in their areas? Magic? Nope. Competition. Which is lacking in this regard in the USA for the most part.

So couldn't you say it was a big picture thing and not the %'s being off?
 
You do know that there are servers all around the world, right?¿ You are terribly naive if you think that anytime a European or Asian is downloading something of the "good stuff" at decent (ie not USA-like) speed is using USA resources.

Of course, but you'd be just as naive to think a majority of the content that Finland uses is contained within the borders of their small country. Sure, major companies have servers all over the world, but that doesn't mean they have a presence in Finland AND Sweden AND Norway AND the UK, etc.
 
I'm not even sure using population density over the entire country can be a valid comparison. At least here in the US, rural or low density areas aren't even serviced by the major providers at all. You're stuck with dial up, satellite, or now WISP. I've been in locations not far out of a significant city that couldn't get ADSL because it was too far from a switch.

I'm sure most countries are the same, so you'd almost have to compare population density of the cities themselves. Things like fiber are even heavily limited in cities. I've lived in cities with Verizon fiber, but it was never an option because they never came to our street.

Service providers are pretty much a monopoly in the US, which is why I think we pay more for less. They don't have to spend more to upgrade the infrastructure because there's no competition to do so. Our fastest here was 50Mbit, but that's probably only because Century Link is pretty aggressive against Comcast. They recently upgraded to 100Mbit, and I think that was only because Century Link was advertising locally heavily that they were bringing gigabit... to the metro up the interstate. It will be years before we'll see anything like gigabit or fiber in home in the town I live in.
 
My only ISP plans:

6Mbps $50
25Mbps $70
50Mbps $85
100Mbps $100

I live 10 miles from the main office give or take. I have the cheapest plan but I'll be going to the 25Mbps next month. 6 down 4 up is pretty disgusting with 3 people sharing it.
 
$49/month for 200/20mbps in Hawaii with Timewarner Cable

its $59/month for 300/20mbps!

no complaints here.

I wish I could get fiber or DSL with higher bandwidth but hawaiiantelecom is stuck in the stone age.
 
I live in a town with 1200 people in rural Iowa and work at the towns phone company. We have 850 DSL subscribers. The highest speed we offer is 10/1. Starting this spring we are going 100% fiber to the home. Hopefully we will offer up to 100/100. And increase speeds in the future. It will be a long process but at least we are trying to get things changed for the better.
 
The fact that google fiber coming to town brought automatic across the board bumps to your cable internet service only proves one point: Internet service in the US is kneecapped by Comcast ant ATT just because they can...let's not even get started with their piss poor customer service and bandwidth caps.

As I've pointed out earlier Sweden and Finland have lower population densities than the US does but they enjoy faster internet services than we do so population density is a moot point.

sorry, no comcast in my area :p... TWC is the king..
TWC is a lot better than comcast (where I lived in Atlanta, Georgia, :p)

as I said, in Asia, they are governed by the authority.
the funding is directly from the gov, and maintain by the gov.
the providers lease the backbone from the gov

that was my point. US Goverment does not have mandate to build and control backbones..
 
These are just average speeds and not everyone is affected.

I'm in canada on a 100/10 cable connection.
 
Back
Top