CWA: U.S Ranks 25th In Broadband Speed 1% of connections meet FCC's 2015 goal of 50/20 Mbps Thursday Dec 16 2010 18:45 EDT A recent FCC study found that 68% of U.S. broadband connections don't meet the 4 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up standard recently set by the agency. In fact, the majority of connections don't even meet the 3 Mbps down, 768kbps standard. On the heels of that revelation, the fourth annual broadband speed report (pdf) from the Communications Workers Of America was released this week, which found the United States ranks 25th in the world in Internet connection speeds. The CWA, whose motivation in this regard is obvious given they would prefer more upgrades, greater deployment and more work, notes that only 1% of broadband connections currently meet the FCC's 2015 goal of 50/20 Mbps: quote: The U.S. continues to lag far behind other countries. The United States ranks 25th in the world in average Internet connection speeds. In South Korea, the average download speed is 34.1 mbps, or 10 times faster than the U.S. The U.S. trails Sweden at 22.2 mbps, the Netherlands at 20.7 mbps, Japan at 18 mbps, and even Romania at 20.3 mbps.
Consumers can be on slower tiers because that's all that is available, or they may be on slower tiers because that's all the speed they need. Consumers may also steer clear of faster speeds because U.S. broadband continues to be the most expensive among developed nations. Huge swaths of this country remain in uncompetitive rural markets, leading to companies like Frontier trying to charge $100-$100 for last generation DSL.The speedtests were collected via the Speed Matters blog, which provides an interactive map of their data here for those interested. |
ARGONAUTHave a nice day. Premium Member join:2006-01-24 New Albany, IN |
ARGONAUT
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 6:48 pm
Not going to happen.50/20 Mbps will not happen!
ISPs will not spend the money to upgrade. | |
| | | | | Ben Premium Member join:2007-06-17 Fort Worth, TX |
Ben
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:08 pm
Re: Not going to happen. That's probably most of it. Others include Paxio, UTOPIA, and that one service (I forget the name) in Chattanooga, TN. | |
| | | | |
Re: Not going to happen.The company in Chattanooga is EPB Fiber Optics. It's $70.00 for 50/50. | |
| | | | | crk2h join:2003-03-19 Murfreesboro, TN |
crk2h
Member
2010-Dec-16 9:35 pm
Re: Not going to happen.I am impressed with how much red there was in TN Here in Murfreesboro,TN we can get 50/10 with Comcast and I think they may even offer faster they just don't advertise it. I know there is a fiber system in Tullahoma, TN (www.lighttube.net) also offering a service like in Chattanooga and they have 25/10 for $60 and the 50/25 is like $150 | |
| | | | | |
to MonkeyLick78
Don't forget EPB likes caps but they won't speak about that publicly. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Not going to happen.said by battleop:Don't forget EPB likes caps but they won't speak about that publicly. On business but not residential. You sure complain a lot about a company you voluntarily buy service from despite having other alternatives. | |
|
| | | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536 to Ben
Premium Member
2010-Dec-17 12:04 am
to Ben
said by Ben: That's probably most of it. Others include Paxio, UTOPIA, and that one service (I forget the name) in Chattanooga, TN. All services only handfuls of people can get. | |
|
| | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
to FizzyMyNizzy
Lets not forget DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades on the Comcast end will also net that much speed. | |
| | | | |
Re: Not going to happen.said by Nightfall:Lets not forget DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades on the Comcast end will also net that much speed. Awesome those Docsis 3 speeds. Too bad one can barely use them due to the CAP. | |
| | | | | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
Re: Not going to happen.said by WernerSchutz:said by Nightfall:Lets not forget DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades on the Comcast end will also net that much speed. Awesome those Docsis 3 speeds. Too bad one can barely use them due to the CAP. I have blast right now and never hit the cap. Go figure. 250gb per month is quite reasonable. If anything, as the speeds increase, so will the cap down the road. Especially as more ISPs penetrate into the markets like they are now. | |
|
| | | jmn1207 Premium Member join:2000-07-19 Sterling, VA |
to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:Lets not forget DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades on the Comcast end will also net that much speed. I do not believe that any DOCSIS 3.0 consumer package reaches 20 Mbps for uploads. No Comcast service in my area is offered that meets the 50/20 criteria. Since the stats suggest only 1%, I'd have to think that Comcast was omitted, and rightfully so, due to the limits on the upstream capacity. | |
|
| jmn1207 |
to ARGONAUT
Yet they will probably spend more money than it would cost to get us close to this lofty goal by fighting municipal builds and paying for lobbyists to push policies toward stifling innovation and strengthening their dominant control over the market. | |
| | | |
Re: Not going to happen.It would be great (though impossible) to see an audit result of the total money spent on protectionism vs. the cost of wiring every home in the country with fiber to the home. | |
|
| |
to ARGONAUT
unless they charge you tons and cap your accounts as well. soon we will be a lot more screwed | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 6:53 pm
This lobbying brought to you by the CWAThat web site is provided by and supports the CWA's efforts to denigrate the company's they battle at contract time. Interpretation of results should be evaluated in that light. | |
| | coldmoon Premium Member join:2002-02-04 Fulton, NY |
coldmoon
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:09 pm
Re: This lobbying brought to you by the CWAsaid by FFH5:That web site is provided by and supports the CWA's efforts to denigrate the company's they battle at contract time. Interpretation of results should be evaluated in that light. Please explain how the agenda invalidates the results. From what I can see, they are dead-on as far as showing how badly the American "Broadband" customer is being served and are not getting any value for the money they are paying for said services. Don't shoot the messenger, fix the problems... JMHO Mike | |
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:14 pm
Re: This lobbying brought to you by the CWAsaid by coldmoon: From what I can see, they are dead-on as far as showing how badly the American "Broadband" customer is being served and are not getting any value for the money they are paying for said services.
Don't shoot the messenger, fix the problems...
JMHO Mike Did you drill down to zipcode level in their maps? Many zipcodes were not counted at all because they logged no tests. Other results were based on 1 and many others on less than 10 tests. Their results are no more reliable than the much maligned FCC zipcode based results. And as others have commented on - they are measuring PURCHASED speeds and not available speeds. | |
| | | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland
1 recommendation |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:56 pm
Re: This lobbying brought to you by the CWAsaid by FFH5:Did you drill down to zipcode level in their maps? Many zipcodes were not counted at all because they logged no tests. Other results were based on 1 and many others on less than 10 tests. Their results are no more reliable than the much maligned FCC zipcode based results.
And as others have commented on - they are measuring PURCHASED speeds and not available speeds. Congrats, you are correct. FYI every time I have double checked one of Karl's bash U.S. speeds, there was some problem with the data or interpretation of the results. I eventually gave up as not too many on this forum really care. Keep up the good work, if you don't mind. It is always refreshing to read someone who looks behind the data and interpretation. I applaud your effort. | |
| | | | coldmoon Premium Member join:2002-02-04 Fulton, NY |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by coldmoon: From what I can see, they are dead-on as far as showing how badly the American "Broadband" customer is being served and are not getting any value for the money they are paying for said services.
Don't shoot the messenger, fix the problems...
JMHO Mike Did you drill down to zipcode level in their maps? Many zipcodes were not counted at all because they logged no tests. Other results were based on 1 and many others on less than 10 tests. Their results are no more reliable than the much maligned FCC zipcode based results. And as others have commented on - they are measuring PURCHASED speeds and not available speeds. Hmm, so you are saying the Industry tripe that says an area is served by having just one person with a connection is also accurate? Please, the results this study presents are more credible than the ones the Industry likes to PURCHASE and then parade before Congress in an attempt to keep them from seeing the real story. Tell you what, when the telecoms and ISPs open their records and show what the real story is, then you will have a leg to stand on. Until then, your arguments against the findings of this study have no merit... JMHO Mike | |
| | | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 8:41 pm
Re: This lobbying brought to you by the CWAsaid by coldmoon:Hmm, so you are saying the Industry tripe that says an area is served by having just one person with a connection is also accurate Never said that, did I. said by coldmoon:Please, the results this study presents are more credible than the ones the Industry likes to PURCHASE and then parade before Congress in an attempt to keep them from seeing the real story. Are they? said by coldmoon:Tell you what, when the telecoms and ISPs open their records and show what the real story is, then you will have a leg to stand on. Until then, your arguments against the findings of this study have no merit... Pick the logical fallacies you used in your post. You used several: » www.nizkor.org/features/ ··· llacies/ | |
| | | | | |
to coldmoon
I will sell you a gigabit port into my core switch for 1000 dollars a month. I have 48 ports so if I get 48 people all in a 100 meter radius I can get a real internet connection | |
|
Ben Premium Member join:2007-06-17 Fort Worth, TX
1 recommendation |
Ben
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:15 pm
They're not asking the right question. There's no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of most, that we are indeed behind many other countries in this respect. However, they're not asking the right question.
Instead of asking what the current speeds are, they should ask what's available. For example, a user may have a package of say, 25/3 available to him, but he may decide that 8/1 is good enough for him at this moment in time.
So in this respect, things do appear grim. They just aren't as grim. | |
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: They're not asking the right question.said by Ben:Instead of asking what the current speeds are, they should ask what's available. For example, a user may have a package of say, 25/3 available to him, but he may decide that 8/1 is good enough for him at this moment in time. Exactly. My ISP has a few speed tiers available, but 99% of customers could care less about a faster speed if a slower one is available. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of these areas have faster speeds available and nobody cares about them. Who needs 4 megs, 20 megs, 50 megs for that matter? Not very many people. Most people don't need more than 1.5 megs.. In fact, a recent study (which might have even been reported by Karl on this site) determined that most users couldn't tell a difference once the speed was faster than 1.2 megs. Streaming video is changing the requirement, but why 20 or 50 megs? 5 to 10megs is still way more than adequate for the time being. In 2015, yeah, I'm sure things will need to be faster yet again, but we're still a few years away, so it isn't worth getting upset that it isn't available now in 2010. Another point, I'm sick of people "ranking" countries. I can't even begin to express how tired I am of people comparing the US to countries with the population density of South Korea or Japan. Anyone who does and tries to make the US look bad is an idiot. It truly is an apples to oranges comparison. | |
| | | Ben Premium Member join:2007-06-17 Fort Worth, TX |
Ben
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:43 pm
Re: They're not asking the right question.said by jcremin:Who needs 4 megs, 20 megs, 50 megs for that matter? Not very many people. Most people don't need more than 1.5 megs.. In fact, a recent study (which might have even been reported by Karl on this site) determined that most users couldn't tell a difference once the speed was faster than 1.2 megs. Where did you see that study? Who conducted it? I'd be curious to see it myself. I say this mainly because I can tell the difference between 1.5 and 16 (or even 10). Then again, I'm probably not a typical user. Even so, it still surprises me since Internet video is becoming more popular, and YouTube has had 720p or even 1080p video for a little while now. I do agree that most people don't have a need for the absolute fastest tier available to them, but 1.5Mbps does sound a little low. | |
| | | | IowaMan Premium Member join:2008-08-21 Grinnell, IA |
IowaMan
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 9:25 pm
Re: They're not asking the right question.You are correct. I subscribe to 3Mbps/256 for $29.95 because that is what I can afford. Even though I can get 20Mbps from Mediacom. | |
| | | | |
to Ben
said by Ben:said by jcremin:Who needs 4 megs, 20 megs, 50 megs for that matter? Not very many people. Most people don't need more than 1.5 megs.. In fact, a recent study (which might have even been reported by Karl on this site) determined that most users couldn't tell a difference once the speed was faster than 1.2 megs. Where did you see that study? Who conducted it? I'd be curious to see it myself. I say this mainly because I can tell the difference between 1.5 and 16 (or even 10). Then again, I'm probably not a typical user. Even so, it still surprises me since Internet video is becoming more popular, and YouTube has had 720p or even 1080p video for a little while now. I do agree that most people don't have a need for the absolute fastest tier available to them, but 1.5Mbps does sound a little low. I did a really quick search but didn't find the study I was thinking of. It was from probably 6 months ago or so. I did find this page, which didn't seem to be as in depth of a study (I just skimmed it quick and didn't read the whole thing) but appeared to have a similar conclusion: » gigaom.com/2005/12/20/ne ··· r-speed/Anyway, Yes, I'm sure you can tell a difference between 1.5 megs and 16 if you do video streaming or are are a power user. And if I remember right, the test wasn't focused so much on streaming video as it was on average surfing. But either way, I do you think you would notice much of a difference between 1.5 and 3 or 5 megs? Yes, I would think so.... Now how about between 5 megs and 16? I'm guessing most of the easily identifiable differences quickly disappear. Either way, my point is simply that the story cries "the sky is falling" because 1) we can't play the speed game on the same level as other countries, most of which are either very small or have insane population densities, and 2) we don't have 50 megs available today, even though nobody really needs it, and it is still 4 years from 2015. | |
| | | | | Ben Premium Member join:2007-06-17 Fort Worth, TX |
Ben
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 10:37 pm
Re: They're not asking the right question.said by jcremin:I did a really quick search but didn't find the study I was thinking of. It was from probably 6 months ago or so. I did find this page, which didn't seem to be as in depth of a study (I just skimmed it quick and didn't read the whole thing) but appeared to have a similar conclusion: »gigaom.com/2005/12/20/ne ··· r-speed/ Thank you for sharing that link. The information in that link is quite old. YouTube was almost brand new, and Netflix wasn't streaming video back then as far as I know. Although, some of the concepts posed in it are still relevant today. Comparing the Internet to the road system (a wonderful analogy that helps explain many Internet-related things), I suppose it's like saying that faster speed limits won't mean that people would drive more miles. Another thing mentioned in the article is still true today as far as I know. That many web servers limit the throughput to each individual user. I got my information from a forum for forum admins that I used to frequent, though it wouldn't surprise me if other web administrators do similar things. said by jcremin:Anyway, Yes, I'm sure you can tell a difference between 1.5 megs and 16 if you do video streaming or are are a power user. And if I remember right, the test wasn't focused so much on streaming video as it was on average surfing. But either way, I do you think you would notice much of a difference between 1.5 and 3 or 5 megs? Yes, I would think so.... Now how about between 5 megs and 16? I'm guessing most of the easily identifiable differences quickly disappear. Good point. Basically, you're referring to the concept of diminishing returns. I used to have a 10Mbps download speed. Later, it was upgraded to 16Mbps for no extra charge to me. While that extra speed does come in handy, the difference isn't as significant as when I switched from 1.5Mbps to 10. I actually posed this very question to some people, on this site. It was along the lines of "What do you ever need 20Mbps for? Isn't 16Mbps enough, since many web sites throttle the speed anyway?" The answers I got were basically along the lines of how the faster speeds can help in larger households, such as a family of four. It wasn't something I considered, since I live alone. said by jcremin:Either way, my point is simply that the story cries "the sky is falling" because 1) we can't play the speed game on the same level as other countries, most of which are either very small or have insane population densities, and 2) we don't have 50 megs available today, even though nobody really needs it, and it is still 4 years from 2015. For the most part, I've agreed with what you said so far, except that I think 3Mbps or 5Mbps is a more appropriate value than 1.5Mbps. However, anytime someone uses the population density argument, I always have to disagree with them. If it was population density, then nearly every metro area would have broadband speeds that rival those numbers, since some of these places have densities that are similar to some of these countries. There's more to it than population density. | |
| | | | | | |
jcremin
Member
2010-Dec-16 11:11 pm
Re: They're not asking the right question.said by Ben:Thank you for sharing that link. The information in that link is quite old. Sorry didn't look at the date, but as you mentioned, some of the concepts still apply. said by Ben:For the most part, I've agreed with what you said so far, except that I think 3Mbps or 5Mbps is a more appropriate value than 1.5Mbps. Yeah, more speed is always nice, but the US also has a lot of rural areas, and I can tell you from running my own rural ISP that it is very hard to push that much speed to everyone. You can't afford put a tower or DSLAM every mile for a dozen homes, so you have to rely on making technology focus on distance rather than speeds. In my area, it is quite expensive to deliver 1.5 megs throughout the area, and 5+ megs is impossible until technologies become affordable enough to deploy more often or can push the speeds farther from the hubs/towers/etc. said by Ben:However, anytime someone uses the population density argument, I always have to disagree with them. If it was population density, then nearly every metro area would have broadband speeds that rival those numbers, since some of these places have densities that are similar to some of these countries. There's more to it than population density. That may be somewhat true, but many providers that serve metro areas also serve more rural areas, so you have to take the overall density of the entire area they serve. Rather than charging really low prices in the city and higher prices in the rural area, they quite often charge one flat rate for their tiers so they can make national advertising and promotional materials easier. Because of this, the people in the city pay more than they would otherwise, but it causes the people in rural areas to pay a bit less. In the same way that many cell companies lose huge buckets of money on rural towers considering how little use they get, but they count on the money they make in the metro areas to make up for it because those people sometimes travel through rural areas and they want a carrier that can cover huge areas. But yes, there are a LOT more factors than just population density. Someone else (maybe in a different thread) points out that many countries heavily subsidize their infrastructure. Labor rates play a part. The list goes on and on.... | |
| | | | | | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland 1 edit
1 recommendation |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Dec-17 2:59 am
Re: They're not asking the right question.said by jcremin:That may be somewhat true, but many providers that serve metro areas also serve more rural areas, so you have to take the overall density of the entire area they serve. Rather than charging really low prices in the city and higher prices in the rural area, they quite often charge one flat rate for their tiers so they can make national advertising and promotional materials easier. B Imagine what would happen if Comcast, Verizon or AT&T charged less to people in high population density areas vs low population density areas. The FCC, state and local regulators wouldn't allow it, citizens would be screaming, and Karl would be leading the band marching against it. This is a no win situation. The U.S. counts internet access differently than some parts of Europe, some countries only count people as not having internet IF they CAN have internet but choose not to. These would be houses passed by a U.S. ISP, it wouldn't measure actual broadband penetration or access by ALL citizens of the OECD nation. This means those that have no access to internet aren't counted at all in some countries outside the U.S. The result makes internet penetration look a lot better than it is. Karl doesn't like to look into those shenanigans. In the U.S. we have many low population density counties, and serving them is costly. Large utilities who are forced to serve them must cover their costs from the higher profit urban and high density suburban areas. Our government generally at the federal, state and local levels likes to enforce a duopoly between cable and iLEC for the last mile to customer homes. That enforced duopoly precludes competition. I don't see the FCC, states or local governments changing their belief in a duopoly anytime soon. If AT&T knew back when cable was starting that it would compete directly at all levels of service with them one day, it is doubtful we'd even have the duopoly we do today. There is no magic in other countries, they have different cultures, and count things differently than we do. The very first thing that needs to be done is to compare apples to apples, all users in each country should be counted and considered as having or not having internet. Actual speed should be considered, not rated speed. I regularly pull down 4x my rated speed on speed tests. I read a post by nitzan once where he indicated great speeds in Japan, for JAPAN only traffic. Once he started to point his browser to the U.S. speeds became very slow. Gee, great speeds in country, or in region, but very slow out of the nation? Sounds more like a fast LAN with slow WAN, but Karl will ring that up every time as far superior service than we get in the U.S. Karl read nitzan 's post here - » Re: US broadband service is costly and constipated. 100 MB/sec in Japan, even 1,000 MB/sec, but once he goes out of country, 2 MB/sec. Wow, I am so jealous (NOT). Next caps should be considered. Is it really better to have "up to 25 MB/sec down" in France on DSL if you are in Paris and next to the CO but are capped at 5 GB, or if you live 8 blocks away and get 2 MB/sec down, does that still count if it's on the "up to 25 MB/sec down" plan? Karl, you love to write about this stuff, but please look deeper into the basis for many of the stats you love to cite, sometimes I think you enjoy regurgitating government broadband propaganda (from every country but the U.S.). Why does the rest of the world get a free pass? How about give the same scrutiny to stats from every country that you give to the U.S.? If you were equally skeptical about all the stats you cite, I think the U.S. wouldn't look quite so bad. Though that is just a guess. | |
|
| | | |
to Ben
Youtube buffers on my 10 mbit cable so Youtbe has its own issues. And its not just me - there is a song out there called "Buffer Buffer Buffer" | |
|
| | morph69 join:2001-09-03 Penetanguishene, ON |
to jcremin
I am a heavy data user. Live near the central office. have instead decided to use a third party reseller of bell dsl services at a simple 3 meg connection with no limits as opposed to bells faster speeds and capped service. | |
| | | | |
Re: They're not asking the right question.said by morph69:I am a heavy data user. Live near the central office. have instead decided to use a third party reseller of bell dsl services at a simple 3 meg connection with no limits as opposed to bells faster speeds and capped service. And I think that could very well be the way of the future... Slower unlimited speeds, or faster capped speeds. That way those who want stuff really fast right now can get it, but they can't do it all the time. And those who want to use their connection a lot, but don't need to download in faster than real-time can do that too. The next few years will be interesting. | |
| | | | | |
Re: They're not asking the right question.said by jcremin:said by morph69:I am a heavy data user. Live near the central office. have instead decided to use a third party reseller of bell dsl services at a simple 3 meg connection with no limits as opposed to bells faster speeds and capped service. And I think that could very well be the way of the future... Slower unlimited speeds, or faster capped speeds. That way those who want stuff really fast right now can get it, but they can't do it all the time. And those who want to use their connection a lot, but don't need to download in faster than real-time can do that too. The next few years will be interesting. Yeah, sure. While now we have slower and faster speeds all CAPPED. I am sure we will see an improvement "real soon now" (TM). | |
|
| | RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY |
to jcremin
said by jcremin:Exactly. My ISP has a few speed tiers available, but 99% of customers could care less about a faster speed if a slower one is available. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of these areas have faster speeds available and nobody cares about them. Or want them but are not willing to buy them due to their being over priced (or having an excessive installation fee attached). As an example, my ISP Cablevision/OptOnline has 3 tiers - 15/2, 30/5, and 101/15 (for $40, $55, and $99). They will sell you either of the first 2 for a $35 install fee. To get the third tier, there is an extra $300 nonrefundable fee for them to decide if they can supply it to you and do the setup at the head end. This $300 fee acts more as an disincentive to ordering it than a real cost fee to handle the actual work to install. I have also seen cases where the cost of higher tiers are in the $150-200 range for speeds lower than other ISPs offer at under $100. Thus the tier is overpriced. | |
| | | | |
jcremin
Member
2010-Dec-16 11:45 pm
Re: They're not asking the right question.said by RARPSL:Or want them but are not willing to buy them due to their being over priced (or having an excessive installation fee attached). Not always true. A local DSL provider near me has the following packages available: 768k for $30/mo, 1.5m for $40/mo, and 10m for $50/mo. As a competing ISP, I have a fairly good handle on what percentages of people have which packages. And as a computer repair tech in the area, I am able to do some non-biased speed tests and ask questions without being a salesman. While I don't have hard numbers from doing a big study, I can offer my "estimates" which are close enough for the sake of argument. About 85% have the 768k based on the fact that it is cheapest. Many realize they can get twice the speed for only a little bit more, but just don't care. About 14% have the 1.5 meg service because they know that it helps for streaming videos and saw that it was twice the speed for only a little bit more. Most of them realize that they can get many times the speed for only a little bit more, but just don't care. They aren't willing to spend any more and don't really have any need for it. 1% are on the 10 meg package because of one of two reasons: 1) they are a very large business and need the bandwidth, and 2) they just wanted the fastest they could get and didn't care about price, even though they didn't need it. You have to admit, that based on the starting price of $30 for 768k, the other two plans are pretty reasonably priced. said by RARPSL:As an example, my ISP Cablevision/OptOnline has 3 tiers - 15/2, 30/5, and 101/15 (for $40, $55, and $99). They will sell you either of the first 2 for a $35 install fee. To get the third tier, there is an extra $300 nonrefundable fee for them to decide if they can supply it to you and do the setup at the head end. This $300 fee acts more as an disincentive to ordering it than a real cost fee to handle the actual work to install. And you are certain that neither the equipment or technologies used for the faster service add any additional hardware or labor costs? | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
to jcremin
"99% of customers could care less about a faster speed if a slower one is available."
*GASP* Blasphemy! You mean to tell me that the average user does not need that 1Gb connection with unlimited transfers of those rare Linux ISOs for only $19.95 per month? That can't be true! Every DSLR reader knows that slower speed tiers are unacceptable. There is no way my grandmother can survive on that pitiful 3Mb connection. | |
| | | | ••••
| | |
to Ben
said by Ben: There's no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of most, that we are indeed behind many other countries in this respect. However, they're not asking the right question.
Instead of asking what the current speeds are, they should ask what's available. For example, a user may have a package of say, 25/3 available to him, but he may decide that 8/1 is good enough for him at this moment in time.
So in this respect, things do appear grim. They just aren't as grim. Do you honestly believe people in other countries such as the Netherlands are just more likely to purchase higher priced, higher speed plans? Has it occurred to you that maybe in the Netherlands the *lowest* speed they can get is 20+ mbps? | |
| | | •••• | | toro join:2006-01-27 Scarborough, ON |
toro to Ben
Member
2010-Dec-16 10:10 pm
to Ben
Well, I think they should ask not only what's available but for what price. A couple years ago I had the chance to surf on a typical residential internet connection in a city in Romania. They were getting 10M/10M (measured) for about a third of the price that I am paying for 5M/800K in Toronto, Canada. Plus they have no caps or overages (something that is quickly becoming impossible to get here). There were options for getting slower service (I think 6M/1M was the slowest) but the savings just didn't justify it, at least in my opinion (about 20% less). So give me a break, nobody can convince me the cost of providing Internet connectivity in a metropolitan area in Canada (with a fairly high population density) is higher than in a East European country. They big ISPs here are just greedy. | |
| | | •••••••••
|
1 recommendation |
Way offThese statistics are way off. How can you know what the max they are getting? They could be paying for a 1.5Mbs or lower broadband plans. | |
| maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
maartena
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:18 pm
24/3 is the fastests....24 Mbps down, 3 Mbps is the fastest available here for now. Time Warner is apparently launching a 30/5 service in the coming months, but at a price I am not willing to pay.
I don't see 50/20 happening before 2015.... Well... let me take that back: I don't see it happening in the "under $75" pricing tier virtually all areas, except those on FIOS. Since I just launched a 100/100 service at my work through AT&T fiber business, I am sure every house in this county CAN actually get such a speed, but you will have to pay the $3500 a month my company is paying for it.
In the more reasonable residential price range of $50 to $75 you won't be getting any 50/20 anytime soon. | |
| mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:21 pm
Hrm...You know I don't know if I can really agree with this, reason being is the fact that I looked up my zip code, and it said that there wasn't even 10Mbps + available, but yet Time Warner Cable has rolled out Docsis 3.0 to my zip code, and U-verse is also available, I only have 3 providers to chose from (TWC/Roadrunner, AT&T U-verse, or AT&T DSL) but 2 of those 3 offer speeds well above 10 Mbps (on U-verse assuming you are under 3,000 feet and have a good pair running to your home)
Does anyone else with higher than 10Mbps speed see this? Or am I just crazy? | |
| | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:24 pm
Re: Hrm...said by mmay149q:You know I don't know if I can really agree with this, reason being is the fact that I looked up my zip code, and it said that there wasn't even 10Mbps + available, but yet Time Warner Cable has rolled out Docsis 3.0 to my zip code, and U-verse is also available, I only have 3 providers to chose from (TWC/Roadrunner, AT&T U-verse, or AT&T DSL) but 2 of those 3 offer speeds well above 10 Mbps (on U-verse assuming you are under 3,000 feet and have a good pair running to your home)
Does anyone else with higher than 10Mbps speed see this? Or am I just crazy?
RaTtMaN They measure only those who took the test. And they measure only those speeds that were purchased. Their results have nothing to do with what is available. | |
| | | mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2010-Dec-16 7:24 pm
Re: Hrm...Ahh ok, thanks! | |
|
| | •••••••••••••••• | |
I doubt most of the non-major cities will see many majorcompetitors vs. the big companies so there will be little reason for the big companies to upgrade those areas
Thus, the speeds will lag laughably behind while the prices increase | |
| |
i agreethats the big issue with this telco company's. they don't see the big picture on doing broadband | |
| RR ConductorRidin' the rails Premium Member join:2002-04-02 Redwood Valley, CA ARRIS SB6183 Netgear R7000
|
What happened to the US?Remember when the US was the leader in new and leading technologies? (ie.computers, high speed rail, electronics, etc.) Now we follow, I guess when you're busy fighting stupid wars and giving money out to your oil buddies by the boatload, it's hard to invest it on your own country. | |
| | •••••••• | M A R S Premium Member join:2001-06-15 Long Island |
M A R S
Premium Member
2010-Dec-17 1:26 am
50/20!?!?LOL!!! | |
| | cork1958Cork Premium Member join:2000-02-26 |
cork1958
Premium Member
2010-Dec-17 10:15 pm
Re: 50/20!?!?said by Bobcat79:I want lower prices! $31.95/month is too expensive! 50/20!! Holy sheep s**t!! $40 is the most I'll spend for internet. | |
|
|
USA!USA USA USA USA USA
/sarcasm | |
| | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2010-Dec-18 4:48 pm
Re: USA!Patriotism is when corporate interests don't destroy our country by gouging consumers. | |
|
|
Speed testTheir speed test kinda stinks. I couldn't get full download speed and was only able to get about 1/4 upload out of it. It's kinda hard to get accurate results when your tools are garbage. | |
| |
Bobcat79
Premium Member
2010-Dec-17 7:22 am
I don't want higher speedsI want lower prices! $31.95/month is too expensive! | |
| |
10 years since FIOS landed 2003-2013top speed offered by the rest or the TELCO industry: 24mbits (2010). speeds offered by qwest: excuses.
A valid revamping would be 15/15, 25/25, 50/50, 100/100. It's time to put to rest the asymmetric tiers and give the cable companies something to whine about. Suggested pricing $24.95, $33, $55, $95
BTW, I've seen NEW cables being run by cablevision in NYC... wonder if they are deploying new fiber or splitting nodes again, or if something might actually come of the deployment rather than harrassing telephone marketing. where is FIOS currently expanding to next in NYC (staten island only)? | |
| |
Union-backed "blog"...gimme a break this is entirely created by the people that would benefit from installing new and faster lines, who are backed/part of the AFL-CIO which is one of the worst organizations in the country. quote: © 2010 Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. 501 Third Street NW, Washington DC 20001 | All Rights Reserved
| |
| | |
Re: Union-backed "blog"...Spot on. | |
|
|
Twaddle
Anon
2010-Dec-17 12:48 pm
Need for Speed?Quoted: I actually posed this very question to some people, on this site. It was along the lines of "What do you ever need 20Mbps for? Isn't 16Mbps enough, since many web sites throttle the speed anyway?" The answers I got were basically along the lines of how the faster speeds can help in larger households, such as a family of four. It wasn't something I considered, since I live alone.
I have a household of 3 and each of us uses the one shared internet connection and believe me we could not stream a HD quality video /movie from NETFLIX and have an online gaming session and a download of a large update from Microsoft and expect that the download speeds/quality would not suffer if the pipe wasn't there that could supply the performance needed. I could not even get streaming at 3.0 mb at vga quality much less have all three of us hitting the router hard. Long story short, a fatter pipe is noticeable. I went form what was billed as High Speed Internet (1.5/384) to 18/1.5 and it made a world of difference and both are marketed as High Speed Internet. | |
| | nOv1c3 join:2006-11-08 Whitney, TX |
nOv1c3
Member
2010-Dec-18 5:01 am
Re: Need for Speed?Most important thing to me is Low latency ,I,m hearing all this noise about speeds but nothing about the quality of the lines Give me 10-20- 40 ms latency to any game server in the united states and be a happy customer for life
50MB line is total sh*t if you cant play a decent online game | |
|
|
sohnoh
Anon
2010-Dec-18 7:17 pm
The answere is. . . .?Quote " Money talks and BS walks". Who pays for those ones and zeroes when no one is using them? ISPs and phone companies are still living in the "measured rate" old telephone mentality. One pair of wires and what can we legally charge the customer? ? ? Maximum return on investment of very little! We maybe the only telephone (ISP) in town, but we screw everybody! How much dark-fiber do you think is running down every street in your home town? Bandwidth to spare, but have not figured out a way to over charge the public! Nothing has changed in 50 years. Yeah, I was a CWA member and then a manager (non-member) longer. The deck is stacked. Good luck with that! | |
| | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2010-Dec-19 4:41 pm
Re: The answere is. . . .?said by sohnoh :How much dark-fiber do you think is running down every street in your home town? Bandwidth to spare, but have not figured out a way to over charge the public! That's why we need more "last mile" competitors who will connect customers at a reasonable price. | |
|
|
Corporate GreedCorporate Greed Should sum this up. Once you eliminate this you will have more competition. | |
|
| |
|
|