AT&T Says 10Mbps Is Too Fast For "Broadband," 4Mbps Is Enough 533
An anonymous reader writes AT&T and Verizon have asked the FCC not to change the definition of broadband from 4Mbps to 10Mbps, contending that "10Mbps service exceeds what many Americans need today to enable basic, high-quality transmissions." From the article: "Individual cable companies did not submit comments to the FCC, but their representative, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), agrees with AT&T and Verizon. 'The Commission should not change the baseline broadband speed threshold from 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream because a 4/1 Mbps connection is still sufficient to perform the primary functions identified in section 706 [of the Telecommunications Act]—high-quality voice, video, and data,' the NCTA wrote."
Seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
F your ISPs in the US and F your corrupted "FCC"
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
F your ISPs in the US and F your corrupted "FCC"
I agree, but not because of this particular issue. No matter what the FCC calls it or what the rates are set at we still have the same problem: Collusion among the ISPs to ensure that they have monopolies with little to no requirement to roll-out new infrastructure and increase services. This is just a smokscreen for the FCC not doing their jobs and taking care of the big stuff...
Until this is fixed all they are doing is arguing over whether the last peanut butter chocolate chip cookie in the cookie jar is peanut butter cookie or a chocolate chip cookie when what we really need is more milk...
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed - I suspect that the translation from AT&T is as follows:
"Please don't up the definition... we suck, and don't want to have to explain why we can't provide "Broadband" to the majority of our customers anymore."
The sad part is, I bet that all the other ISPs are silently cheering AT&T on. :/
Re: Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
it would be cute if that were the reason, but really what they want is to overcharge for video services and only by keeping broadband slow can they keep Internet video from entirely replacing everything else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yea well broadband isn't about basic web browsing. If thats all you want switch to dial up.
The FCC is saying they can't sell 4/1 there just saying "don't call it broadband" calling 4/1 broadband is trying to polish a turd.
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe if your running at 240p, 4Mbit isn't enough for 1080p (which is around 5Mbit) so even with their definition you can't enjoy youtube to its fullest either.
Dial up is (barely) enough to run a single VoIP session (assuming you are not using G711 at 80Kbps).
Of course this is all assuming a single user per connection at a time.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to my 10 megaBYTE per second downstream that still has trouble with YouTube sometimes. 4Mbps would be unusably slow on the modern internet, unless you turned off all media, and adblocked everything. Hell, 10Mbps would still feel like drowning in quicksand to me, even for basic web browsing...and I doubt I'm alone.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not your connection that's to blame for your trouble with Youtube.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is your experience, then your speed isn't really giving you 10m byte.
Seriously man. Something is wrong.
4Mbps is too slow and I think it should be raised to 6 or 8Mbps but that's so you can support some HD quality video since almost every consumer TV now has a HD quality.
Basic web browsing uses almost no data. A friend was able to browse through my lumia last night because her internet was down and 10 minutes of browsing and sending a couple emails didn't even show on the usage summary.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree. Can't remember the article, but somewhere recenly there was an article talking about the average web page size these days being about 1.7M, with 1M of that being images.
Try using a metered service sometime like a prepaid hotspot with 3G or above. You can blow through 100M easily in half an hour just looking at news sites with no video, just images and text.
Re: (Score:3)
Compression algotihms and the hardware to run them on have improved massively in the last 20 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How do you keep up with your own thoughts using them all at once?
Re: (Score:3)
If you're on a 4mbps connection, you probably aren't one who cares about 60fps or 4k video.....you just want to watch the cat fall over.
I'm ok w/ the definition of broadband being 10mbps. It doesn't stop anyone from selling a 4mbps connection --- as long as they don't call it broadband.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having more than 4 Mbps is nice, but not necessary for basic web browsing, youtube etc.
"Broadband" is more than "basic web browsing". Here is the proper, formal definition of broadband: I have enough bandwidth to get my work done even while my teenage daughter is watching a movie on Netflix.
Re: (Score:3)
I am sorry, but I would have to agree. Having more than 4 Mbps is nice, but not necessary for basic web browsing, youtube etc.
They really should make things better for the small busniessman and declare dialup as broadband also.
Lot's of people don't need anything faster, so why not?
Then we can all have broadband.
Sorry guys, but you are full of shit (Score:5, Interesting)
If you asked them not to change the definition because "broadband" technically refers to how data is transferred (10gbit ethernet is not broadband, despite the speed, it is baseband) then ok, you can be cpt pedantic.
However this is just you lying. 4mbps is not "enough" for the modern Internet. Currently I find the breakpoint to be about 20mbps. That is the point after which normal users won't notice much, if any, improvement. As such, that is my baseline for recommendation to people. 10mbps is serviceable I guess, but is a pain for video streaming. 4mbps would be a real issue, even low bandwidth streams wouldn't work well.
The minimum needs to keep rising. We keep finding more to do with our net connections. These companies are just whiny because they don't want to have to roll out FTTH, they want to keep doing DSL and pretending like that works.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm on 3mbps and unless I'm really pushing the quality of the video I find that the network isn't what's slowing me down. It's the software. Lately for some strange reason I've noticed that YouTube works better with Firefox than it does on Chrome. Some Chrome update in the past few weeks must have left in debug code or something. It chokes every 5 seconds, just freezes and becomes unresponsive. Firefox plays the video just fine. Once again though, I'm not pushing the quality. I guess if I were trying
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry guys, but you are full of shit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
> DOS machine
I didnt know George RR Martin was using Lynx and procrastinating on slashdot but now the many years between GameofThrones books start to make much more
sense...
Re:Sorry guys, but you are full of shit (Score:4, Interesting)
The minimum needs to keep rising. We keep finding more to do with our net connections. These companies are just whiny because they don't want to have to roll out FTTH, they want to keep doing DSL and pretending like that works.
Heh, I operate one site that has ~60 people connected to 1.2Mbps/300kbps satellite, which also carries up to a dozen phone calls in the evening. Would we like more? sure, but the current system already costs $5000 a month (which is a pretty good deal for raw satellite capacity). Does it suck to use? sure, but once you give up on things like Youtube and put some strong QoS in place, it's remarkably useable assuming a little patience.
The biggest killer? sites like Facebook going https by default. Facebook used to cache really well. As soon as they went https by default, my cache hit rate dropped 50% or more. (It's also a BYOD environment, so I'm not doing SSL MITM etc...)
Re: (Score:3)
My kids have practically no concept of TV, not because they're too good for it, but because it has been replaced by youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Your .sig is less persuasive in the context of your post; it sounds like you are practically on tin cans connected by string up there!
My kids have practically no concept of TV, not because they're too good for it, but because it has been replaced by youtube.
The site in question is actually in the US, north-central Washington State. The surrounding terrain is extremely rugged and federal wilderness. We've looked at fixed microwave, but that would require two self-powered mountain-top repeater sites (never mind the fact that one of them would actually have to be built in the Wilderness area, which would require an act of congress to approve). Also, conservative estimates put the price tag on the system at about $250k, and ongoing maintenance wouldn't be cheap
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of agree with you, but I'm not sure what difference it makes whether you call it "broadband" or something else. Is the issue that there are laws requiring them to provide "broadband" to cover certain areas?
I don't really care what you call it, but 4mbps by1 mbps is not "enough". At this point, Americans should be able to anticipate a 10mbps symmetrical "dumb pipe" connection to be available for their home or business, and at a reasonable price. Of course, someone always objects, "So you think AT
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are quite right to put "enough" in quotes. What I don't understand is, how you can seriously accuse anyone of lying (without quotes) on a matter as subjective as this.
Sure. And it will — when multiple providers begin competing with each other for each home [wired.com]. Until then, attempting to force incumbent monopolies to improve service will remain a losing proposition — they talk directly [politico.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
TFS mentions high quality video. You're not streaming high quality video with 10 or even 20Mbps.
Netflix recommends 5Mbps for HD streaming, so you are wrong.
Re:Sorry guys, but you are full of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
TFS mentions high quality video. You're not streaming high quality video with 10 or even 20Mbps.
Netflix recommends 5Mbps for HD streaming, so you are wrong.
When I called Netflix for tech support, they recommended 5MBps for HD streaming. However, their FAQ [netflix.com] do say 5Mbps for HD streaming. Also note that they call 720p "HD". As we get more devices connected to the network and higher resolutions become standard, we will need more bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly correct. Even right now, we can see the bandwidth adding up. Suppose you and the misses want to relax and curl up to a nice Netflix movie in HD, Junior is downloading updates for his game so he can log in and crush some dungeons or whatever they do now, Little sally is in her room IM chatting with her girl friends about the hot new kid and the neighbor guessed your wifi password
Re:Sorry guys, but you are full of shit (Score:5, Informative)
Using Blu-ray as the "gold" standard, you will often see h264 streams in the 15-30Mbps range with peaks at just over 40Mbps (audio and video combined).
I've seen Netflix streams in full 1080p hit 7-9Mbps.
VUDU's HDX format will hit 10Mbps fairly regularly. They're the highest quality service I've used to date.
These services don't match physical media quality yet in an effort to work with as many users as possible. When I can stream multiple Blu-ray quality movies at once (not uncommon for a family to stream 2 or more videos to different rooms) I'll consider broadband infrastructure as "sufficient". Until then, there's plenty of room for improvement.
Where I live I could purchase service with 90 down and 9 up. Assuming I could fully utilize that (and I highly doubt I actually could which is why I've not upgraded), that could just barely do 3 Blu-ray quality streams. Not bad! However, I live in the middle of a large city, so I don't consider my options typical. I've also experienced plenty of nights where the 20Mbps service I do have is fighting upstream congestion and can't even pull 3Mbps from any video service. Not sure adding 70 more Mbps to my apartment is going to alleviate that.
So, 5Mbps will get you an average quality 720p stream. We can do better.
Re: (Score:3)
That is:
a) 5 Mbps only for video with nothing else using the connection.
b) & that assumes the speed from source to end point is actually equal to the rate quoted for the service.
That last point is the real stickler. Netflix and Google both show data that suggests few if any networks an end user in the US can buy can actually handle much more than ~2.5 Mbps on average right now from their service. So your connection can say '25/1' like mine, but youtube stutters regularly in SD... Which means they cannot
Re:Sorry guys, but you are full of shit (Score:5, Informative)
Since I didn't link to it before... Here is the average speed of a given stream to the end user for August 2014 in the US: http://ispspeedindex.netflix.c... [netflix.com]
Cablevision tops the list at a meer 3.11 Mbps...
Verizon DSL holds the bottom at 1.31 Mbps...
If you average those it is 2.21 Mbps as the mid point for US streaming speed...
Google numbers are very area specific, or I'd link to those as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You are by Internet standards (Score:4, Interesting)
6mbps is about as good as it gets. That's what Youtube and Netflix use for 1080p stuff. So that is the standard you need to worry about for streaming in general. Yes, I know that Blu-ray is higher bitrate, but little if anything streams at that rate. For the web, 6mbps is "high quality". You might not care for that definition, but it is what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Demographic (Score:5, Interesting)
4/1 is sufficient for my 2 year old daughter, my dead grandmother, and my cat who mostly just wants to chase the mouse around the screen. Pretty much everyone ELSE in the house wants more than that.
AT&T wants to sell the fantasy that people who want more bwidth really just want UVerse TV, not internet bandwidth. Which is false, anti-competitive and in a more rational world would involve lining them up against a wall and allowing "many americans" to stone them.
Re:Demographic (Score:5, Interesting)
You'll notice that whenever companies engage in discussions about this sort of thing, they seem to be talking about households of one person. I have no idea how 10MBPS would suffice in a house of, say, four people. If two people are watching HQ videos (netflix, youtube, etc), that's easily 8-10mbps *minimum*. Figure the other two are listening to music and playing online games and maybe you have a guest who is using skype or something... bandwidth just doesn't go very far in today's world, unless you're living like it's still the late 90s as far as your entertainment consumption and communication.
Re:Demographic (Score:5, Funny)
You'll notice that whenever companies engage in discussions about this sort of thing, they seem to be talking about households of one person. I have no idea how 10MBPS would suffice in a house of, say, four people.
Why, they're all gathered around the radio in the evening, while Father smokes his pipe and Mother does her knitting.
Er, TV, not radio.
Said someone once (Score:2)
Ask anyone still on Dial Up (Score:4, Interesting)
Give anyone 4 mbps connection who is living in an area that still has dialup as their only option, and ask them if its broadband. If someone works to bring 4/1 mbps connections to more areas, they should be able to advertise it as broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not that much different to bring 10 mbps to new markets. I'd rather see them roll out 10mbps to new areas than 4mbps
Re: (Score:3)
OK, so I have five plausible choices for reliable internet access where I live: Dialup at about 31.2kbps, EDGE GPRS, satellite, or one of two crappy local WISPs. The least crappy one gives me 5Mbps when things are going well. It's fine for one person, but when two people in a household are using it, the result is that at least one person suffers.
A 4Mbps connection is enough to pay your bills and use Wikipedia, and to run updates or torrent at night, but it's still fairly frustrating. Life seems to begin aro
Re:Ask anyone still on Dial Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Give anyone 4 mbps connection who is living in an area that still has dialup as their only option, and ask them if its broadband. If someone works to bring 4/1 mbps connections to more areas, they should be able to advertise it as broadband.
That's like saying I should be able to advertise my bicycle as a car if I'm selling it in an area that is still using horses.
10 MPS would still leave us behind South Korea (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, well, when your whole country is the size of one or two of our states...
The US is pretty freaking large, and we're fairly spread out - even on the coast.
Wake me up when you can go to a random hovel in Siberia and get those speeds... because that would be a closer comparison than what you're saying.
Re:10 MPS would still leave us behind South Korea (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you measure speeds to Google only from houses in MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA? Speeds to Netflix from LOS GATOS, CA?
Connecting every point to every other point in Latvia is an easier problem than connecting the tips of Maine, Florida, Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Go on, tell me that Alaska and Hawaii are trivial, or how they aren't in the US, or how they shouldn't factor in to average speeds. Or tell me about how you can get a huge packet round trip from California to Hawaii or Alaska in under X milliseconds. I'm talking about every small town wired to every other one. That's nowhere near the same solution as Latvia.
Population density is not a great argument. But the solution doesn't just scale because the Alaska to Orlando problem is not just Latvia times a scaling factor.
Re: (Score:3)
The "but Ameruka is ruural" zombie hasn't improved with age.
And if people were only complaining about Alaska, that might be a good point. But they aren't, so it's not.
Go on, tell us how Alaska and Hawaii have anything to do with slow internet access in Manhattan and San Francisco. Or why countries FAR more rural than the Un
Wages (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because by technical definition... (Score:2)
And this is why I suffer the indignity of Comcast (Score:3)
Billions of dollars are at stake (Score:5, Interesting)
If the lower limit for the definition of "broadband" is increased to 10Mbps downloads, half the country currently receiving broadband [broadbandmap.gov] as required by the Universal Service Fund [wikipedia.org] will suddenly require massive capital improvements to upgrade service in remote areas. This has a knock-on effect for other ISPs advertising higher download speeds, which become a lesser value proposition when the minimum speed is raised.
Re: (Score:3)
By the standards of today, 4Mbps may satisfy the requirement to "receive high-quality ...video telecommunications," if
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't there versions (Score:5, Interesting)
Why all this silliness on a moving target. Much like USB 1, 2, and 3, network 'Category' notation and in a human-oriented alternative to the acronym soups for SCSI, PCI and other communication protocols WHY THE HELL AREN'T WE PUSHING FOR a standard that can keep pace and inform users trivially/ steadily:
Or some other ranges. I don't care about these specific numbers. I just hate that an ISP thinks they deserve to control the definition.
Re:Why aren't there versions (Score:4, Funny)
Because then you're promoting the idea or notion that they will name it "SuperSpeed Broadband3", "Ultra Broadband", and lastly "Super Ultra Mega-Broadband 2 Championship Turbo Edition +Alpha"
Man I hates these guys (Score:5, Insightful)
FCC: We're redefining what constitutes "high speed broadband", as the current description is about 10 years old.
TelcomLobby: We're good with what we have now.
FCC: Unfortunately no. Your networks haven't really grown in capacity for the end-user in several years now. And by the new definitions, your service won't qualify as "high speed".
TelcomLobby: We're good with what we have now.
FCC: No, that's what we're telling you, you're not.
TelcomLobby: Uh. Can we just bribe you not to make this change? It might affect our killer bottom line!
While I don't own a gun, it's times like these I wish I fucking did.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't own a gun, it's times like these I wish I fucking did.
... I'm glad you don't. I certainly hate them too, but you don't see me reaching for my rifle! Schmucks like you give gun-banners something to wield.
Look at this way (Score:2, Funny)
4Mbps = 400KB per second. Which means that the connection could transfer the entire contents of a personal computer's memory (640K) in less than two seconds.
Instead of defining broadband (Score:2)
No longer able to advertise (Score:2)
Thankfully we don't have Bill Gates lobbying (Score:2)
Korea is now getting 8000 Mb/S, which is like 200x faster than 4mb/s.
I thought we were supposed to be a first world country. Why can't we compete with Korea?
Re: (Score:2)
Not Enough (Score:2)
Not only is 4/1 not nearly enough, it needs to be symmetrical. 20/20 is just barely servicable for a household. 100/100 would be adequate, but 1000/1000 should be the standard. These companies want to stay at 4/1 so they don't have to "waste" any of their cocaine/hooker money on infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't currently need symmetrical service, though I could see that changing soon if personal cloud computing and storage really took off. If people's entire library of documents, photos, etc. were in a dropbox type storage rather than on their own HD, people would start to notice how crappy normal upload speeds are.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is 4/1 not nearly enough, it needs to be symmetrical.
Does it really? I agree with the first part, but not necessarily the second. Let's say, 20/4 or 20/5, someplace thereabouts, as a reasonable minimum to be called "high speed" (what we should be using rather than "broadband".) And even that's insulting given a global comparison. Regardless, most of us really don't need to stream HD from our homes. Most people who need to do that need a SLA anyway. But 1 Mbps is horribly paltry these days, it makes it annoying even to send full-quality photos.
What AT&T says to the consumer.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The internet services offered from AT&T's website. Note that 6Mbps/3Mbps "is perfect for general Web surfing and emailing" While 12/18/24 Mbps is "for general Web use, as well as streaming music and video, downloading movies, surfing, and social media."
So AT&T, why do you say one thing to consumers and another to the FCC?
http://www.att.com/u-verse/shop/index.jsp
Internet Speeds and Prices
Dominate your online life. These are the speeds for connecting multiple Wi-Fi devices with less lag time, downloading video in a snap, and dominating your online opponents.
Plan NamesPrice
Power (Downstream speeds up to 45 Mbps) $81.00
Great all-around speeds for general Web use, as well as streaming music and video, downloading movies, surfing, and social media.
Max Turbo (Downstream speeds up to 24 Mbps) $71.00
Max Plus (Downstream speeds up to 18 Mbps) $61.00
Max (Downstream speeds up to 12 Mbps) $56.00
When you need reliable speeds at a great price, these are perfect for general Web surfing and emailing.
Elite (Downstream speeds up to 6 Mbps) $51.00
Pro (Downstream speeds up to 3 Mbps) $46.00
Re: (Score:3)
There are three levels of "Max"?!?
The FCC is not self-consistant (Score:4, Interesting)
If your an ISP filing FCC form 477 broadband **CURRENTLY** means the following:
Broadband Connection: A wired line or wireless channel that terminates at an end-user location
and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at
information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction.
While I don't have much of an opinion about definitions... 4Mbps vs 10Mbps there needs to be consistency throughout. The FCC should not get to pick and chose what broadband means based on where in law/rules the term is used.
I Agree (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy question to answer (Score:3)
4Mps and 640k (Score:2)
Should be enough for anyone . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Mps? k? What are these odd units I'm seeing here?
(also, that joke hasn't been funny for at least 10 years)
AT&T executive 45mph speed limit (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadband should be equal to broadcast quality (Score:3)
Right now, the transfer rate for 1080p blu-ray is a maximum of 40 Mb/s, so that should be defined as broadband download.
When 4K becomes a de facto standard, it should be increased to 150-200 Mb/s.
The FCC should be given the authority to regulate the terms: high speed, low speed, and medium speed for internet connections.
They should currently designate it:
HIGH SPEED: > 100 Mbs
MEDIUM SPEED: (10 Mbs, 100 Mbs)
LOW SPEED: 10 Mbs
ISPs should not be allowed to use any other qualitative terms to describe the speed of the connection.
If an ISP does not provide 10% of their download stream as upload bandwidth, they should be required to drop down to the next tier (for example, 200 Mb/s download with a 5 Mb/s upload should be described as "medium speed".
The whole "high speed broadband" term is archaic. It goes back to the day where ISDN (64-128 Kbs) or better (basically anything faster than dialup) was "high speed".
You should not be able to describe internet as high speed unless the speed is high enough for the most demanding consumer tasks, such as blu-ray streaming.
Not what their website said (Score:2)
On their websites they tried to encourage users to pay for the higher speed connections by saying they provide the speeds necessary for streaming video, video conferencing, and video games.
Interestingly enough, I checked to make sure I wasn't putting my foot in my mouth and it appears AT&T changed the way they advertise broadband on their site. I guess they were smart enough to change it so they don't look like giant hypocrites but that's clearly the way they had it set up less than a year ago when I wa
Meanwhile. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, other providers are testing 10_G_bps FTTD (fibre to the desktop) for deployment, because they see the future isn't in cable TV but in providing TCP/IP (Internet, basically) connectivity. That is 10x the bandwidth any one PC you can buy off the shelf can handle without adding in a 10GbE server network card. Yes, ten GIGABITS PER SECOND over epon/dpon.
AT&T and Comcrap are just whining and clawing because they know the future is here (streaming video on demand from providers that are NOT THEM) and they don't want it. They should do what my employer is doing and embrace the ISP side of the business as their meat and potatoes and treat cable video as gravy. Cable TV is not only a zero-growth industry, but a dying industry.
The Netflix Test (Score:3)
Congresscritters and the bureaucrats who make the decisions are completely incapable of understanding transmission rates and why 4 vs. 10 matters in the real world.
Instead, we should just tell them that any definition of "broadband" should at *least* pass the smell test of meeting the recommendations for Netflix's service, which is 5Mbps for HD and 25Mbps for Ultra HD.
A Netflix stream of course isn't a standard unit of measure, but it's at least an analogy they might understand.
Hah! Oh... Thanks... (Score:4, Funny)
Circular logic (Score:3)
... anything we're used to will be sufficient for what we normally do because what we normally do is limited by current circumstances.
By this logic, we wouldn't have needed electricity or indoor plumbing because at that time few people had wired their homes for electricity, owned light blubs, lamps, or had any of the appliances that use internal plumbing like toilets or showers.
The notion that standards can remain fixed because people don't rely on things they don't have is asinine.
Re:We really need (Score:5, Informative)
I live in the middle of the UK.
Just tried speedtest.net and I got:
ping 9ms
download 61.98Mbps
upload 3.04Mbps
This is Virgin Broadband using fiberoptic to the home.
Now I realise that some Americans think Europe is one huge socialist hell, but the monopolistic behavior of American ISPs to define the market by their own capability or inability is just jaw-droppingly bad.
And before anyone criticizes me, I like America a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. the US is very monopolistic. The only difference between Europe and USA is that we at least voted for our politics. You can't vote for economic forces like this. Hell, I hear they still use fax and checks in the US, and where paying by card still takes several seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was just about population density, then the USA would be rocking decent internet in any large urban-ish area.
I live in the UK in a suburb of the 10th largest city.
speedtest.net shows me
ping 8ms
down 127mbpx
up 1.4mbpx
this (including my phone and cable tv) costs about $70/month
obviously that includes 20% sales tax so a USA equivalent should be about $60.
does that sound like what you'd expect to get in a USA suburban area?
Re:We really need (Score:5, Insightful)
All of Europe is about 1/2 the size of the US. Size matters.
Area of Europe: 10.18 million km
Area of USA: 9.827 million km
So "All of Europe" is slightly larger than the USA, not "half the size".
The map you use as a citation is NOT a map of Europe. It is not even a map of the European Union.
Your apparent point, that ISP rates are proportional to population density, is also wrong. Remote areas of Finland and Sweden have very low population density, yet still have more bandwidth and better prices than some large American cities.
Re:We really need (Score:4, Informative)
Your apparent point, that ISP rates are proportional to population density, is also wrong. Remote areas of Finland and Sweden have very low population density, yet still have more bandwidth and better prices than some large American cities.
Norway here, I just have to gloat a little, since our numbers just spiked (Norwegian) [ssb.no] last quarter.
US population density: 32.43 pop./km^2
Norway population density: 15.6 pop./km^2
80,1% of households have fixed broadband
Mean speed: 23.1 Mbit/s
Median speed: 17.8 Mbit/s
No caps on fixed broadband
A few select areas already have gigabit, more are rolling out as new fiber nodes are ready while the old are mostly 100 Mbit/s. Actually one company has said they'll deliver 10 gigabit if anyone is willing to pay ($2300/month) but nobody's taken them up on that offer. If I won big in the lottery that'd be on my list though, lol.
Re: (Score:3)
Hungary here, I'm getting 120/15 Mbps for less than $30 a month in Budapest. I originally had 240/60 Mbps ($35) but it was not really worth it since most servers (and peers) can rarely deliver more than 90-110 Mbps at a time, even though it actually tested 248 on a [compteting ISP's] speed test.
Re:We really need (Score:5, Informative)
To add a bit to this:
Sweden alone is slightly larger than California, and less than a third of the population of California. Or, to compare with the US east coast: Take all of New England, and New York(the state), and Pennsylvania, then add roughly 4k km2 from another state, and you have Sweden. You have a large portion of people in some major metropolitan areas... And then there's a lot of people spread just about everywhere.
But Sweden has done a heavy investment into municipal and some nationwide infrastructure that companies can rent into to provide service, to the point that you can get fiber connections in places where no US ISP would even think about it.
Such as this place: http://goo.gl/maps/XYkNZ [goo.gl]
In that little village almost as far north as you can go in Sweden, with a population of around 300, you can get 100Mb/s symmetrical at a fairly decent price, even by Swedish standards.
Re: (Score:3)
The area of the EU, which is likely what the OP was actually discussing ...
The OP explicitly wrote "all of Europe".
The important part is the population density.
No! That is NOT important. Only the density is specific locations is important. It makes no sense for rates in downtown Philadelphia to be high because there is a lot of empty land in Arizona.
Re:We really need (Score:5, Interesting)
American expat in Switzerland here. Using Speedtest.net I get 246.08/15.21 Mbps. I pay the cable company the equivalent of $98 USD/month for 250/15 internet service (no data caps) and cable TV (my wife likes watching US sports, so we have the "all-inclusive" TV package that includes some US sports channels). I originally had the 35/5 plan, but upgraded to the 150/10. They discontinued that plan and switched me to the 250/15 plan, which was only $5/month more.
If I wasn't satisfied with them, Swisscom (major telco) and the electric company each offer fiber-to-the-home, with up to 1000/100 speeds and no caps. There's other options for DSL too, but not nearly as fast.
Comcast, a major US ISP, has a comparably-priced plan that goes from $89/month for the first year to $119/month for the second year and then up to $148/month thereafter. They offer a bunch of TV channels and 25 Mbps internet, plus data caps. That's absurdly awful.
As an American, I find it ridiculous that wholesale bandwidth in the US (e.g. connectivity in a datacenter) is dirt cheap and fast (as an example, Hurricane Electric offers 10GigE transit for $0.45/Mbps) but that retail bandwidth available to end-users is so expensive, slow, and limited by data caps and the like. Things really need to change.
1) Your map isn't Europe. 2) Size doesn't matter. (Score:3)
Have you seen a map of Europe? All of it, I mean. I have. Your map sure doesn't look like it. Apparently Poland is no longer European? Or Hungary? Or Finland? Etc.
Here's a slightly better example. [francistapon.com] Just eyeballing, it looks like all of Europe together (including places like Greece and Romania and Finland, etc.) is probably bigger than the lower 48 states of the US.
And please, stop
Re: (Score:3)
I max out my 75Mbps on a daily basis. I could, of course, live with a bit less, but significantly less and I'd need to find other solutions to some usage areas. For example, I upload full hard drive images to online storage as backups. It takes a good while already at 75Mbps. If I visit someone to watch a movie, I don't bring a selection of Blu-ray discs, I bring my Chromecast and stream a Blu-ray image from my media center at home. That's typically 30-40Mbps. I tried to upgrade my subscription, but it turn
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. I routinely transfer stuff with a rate of several megabtyes per second. Ignoring overhead, 4mbps would get me 0.5MB/s at most, and that's down. Upload would be 1/4 of that!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Steam says hello.
Games are large, these days, and I for one enjoy being able to download what I just bought at a reasonable speed.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure where you getting mobile out of this -- AT&T is talking about wireline service. They think 10 Mbps is too fast to be counted as wireline broadband.
It's also unclear why you feel entitled to make everyone use the Internet the same way you do.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't disagree about basic connectivity. I personally know plenty of people in those difficult last mile areas who would *love* to have a 4Mbit/sec downstream wired internet connection. But the difficult last miles are why we pay things like USF fees, we do things like grant monopolies, we provide tax breaks and other subsidies to those who claim they are going to provide that connectivity to the exurban and rural areas.
There was a high-profile examination of a similar situation, in New Jersey I believe