 | | Average U.S. Broadband Speed Now 6.6 Mbps WOW  a whole 6.6 Mbps I guess they don't look at satellite. | |
|
 | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Average U.S. Broadband Speed Now 6.6 Mbps "Granted this data is skewed by the fact users may be able to get faster speeds, but just don't want to pay the high price premium for it."
You clearly didn't read... I'm glad Karl added in that last line that he did because that all so important line shaped the entire discussion.
Time Warner and Comcast, two of the largest providers of internet service, offer speeds of 10mb or better. Verizon Fios, all be it is not a HUGE provider, also offers speeds way above 10mb.
The headline of "Average U.S. Broadband speed now 6.6 Mpbs is an example of making 1+1 = 3. It SHOULD state "the average speeds subscribed is 6.6 Mbps" instead. If you took the fact that most every major metro area (the spots where the majority of population resides) has speeds available far greater than 6, this would have a different result. As Karl correctly stated, there are people that just don't pay for faster speeds and are happy paying less for a far less superior service over what's available.
Honestly, I could care less how fast the speeds are that the average person is subscribing to because that's what this is about. It would be more appropriate to know what the average available speeds are overall. Even then, it still seems like a really dumb number to spend so much money on in the first place. If any money was going to be wasted, it seems it would be much easier to mandate that the lowest basic speed be 10Mbps by a certain time and stand by it as that's the only way we're going to push forward in broadband deployment. All these studies and surveys and data collecting is just a joke. | |
|
| | | | Re: Average U.S. Broadband Speed Now 6.6 Mbps "I'm glad Karl added in that last line"
Me too because I bitch about that every time we see this report.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by fiberguy:It SHOULD state "the average speeds subscribed is 6.6 Mbps" instead. If you took the fact that most every major metro area (the spots where the majority of population resides) has speeds available far greater than 6, this would have a different result.
There is a reason why the average U.S. broadband subscriber doesn't have those higher speeds and it's because the headline should state: Average U.S. broadband subscriber pays too much for too little! The price of those higher speeds is a lot less in some other countries. | |
|
|
1 edit | if they park another 4-6 satellites like ViaSat-1 and Echostar 17 in orbit, and have a total of 8 birds with 150+ Gbps throughput each, they could cover all rural consumers and those that live just out of reach from wired or fiber access. Nationalize them to keep the costs low and set data capping to match cable or fiber and the average would be 12Mbps or greater. ViaSat/Exede12 can deliver 20Mbps down and 4.5Mbps up. HN GEN4 can do the same as soon as they finish tweaking it. | |
|
| | | | Re: Average U.S. Broadband Speed Now 6.6 Mbps Nonsense. The most common internet use is web browsing. So the massive latency with satellite really slows web browsing down because you have to communicate which web page you want to look at next. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Average U.S. Broadband Speed Now 6.6 Mbps have you tried Exede12 or HN G4? They're fast.. not fast enough for gaming, but everything else you can do just fine.. | |
|
| |  Speed Increase
| |
|
| | Something's not right... Down 1.4% since last quarter? How does it go down? With the continued rollout of faster ADSL2/VDSL2, DOCSIS 3.0, Exede/Gen4, and fiber in various small markets, I have a hard time believing it went down.
Perhaps an even more significant trend is the switching from DSL to faster cable. There is no way the average speeds went down. | |
|
|  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Something's not right... its subscribed speed and yes it can go down when ISPs keep jacking up rates and putting low caps on people tend to what cheaper service if 100/100 was 40 bucks a month with no caps that would much a MUCH higher number | |
|
| | | | Re: Something's not right... I know it is subscribed speed. But to say it went down is a major stretch. The uptick in Hughesnet Gen4 and Exede customers alone should have pushed the average speed up. Combine that with the several million who went from slower ADSL to cable or FiOS or faster VDSL. And the people who upgraded to faster plans or had their ISP upgrade their infrastructure to deliver faster speeds at the same cost. The idea that it went down is incomprehensible.
Caps don't play a role in average broadband speeds. | |
|
| | | elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Something's not right... no its not its the ISPs in bed with big media keep highspeed over priced | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Something's not right... It doesn't matter if they are in bed with the media and charging too much or not. There was enough progress made that it is virtually impossible for speeds to have decreased. For speeds to decrease people would have had to subscribe to slower tiers. There is no way enough people did that to reduce the average speeds. A single FiOS customer could potentially offset dozens of people switching to lower tiers. | |
|
| elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | doesnt matter if they price that speed out of reach for most people
most people dont want to pay more then 30 bucks a month
so any speeds you offer over the price might as well not even be there | |
|
 aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA | WoW!! The average speed surpassed the downlaod speed I had in 1998.(5Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up) | |
|
|  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: WoW!! in 1998 I was lucky if I had 33.6kbps | |
|
| | |
| FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | [delete this duplicate post] | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by aaronwt:The average speed surpassed the downlaod speed I had in 1998.(5Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up)
What did you have in 1998 that was giving you 5/1? .. and just what were you paying for that speed? | |
|
| | elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: WoW!! my guess is he had @Home which is what most of us where on in 98' i had speeds like and faster be for they put speed caps on the modems | |
|
| | | | I had @home sometime in the 98'-00' that was uncapped but it was pretty rare to see anything beyond 5-6mbps. I don't remember the exact price but it was in the $50 ish range.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: WoW!! i think we payed 30ish but then we bought the modem and took the pay for a year upfront deal which made it much cheaper | |
|
| | |
1 edit | I got @home in late '98 and I think it was 5/512. I paid $34. When @home was acquired, the speed went down to 3/512, then eventually got faster again over the years (15/1 now for $36). | |
|
| | | | | | Re: WoW!! Don't you mean '98? | |
|
| | | | | |
 SlickEnWPremium
join:2003-01-21
Seattle, WA | now i feel bad for being upset when I had to pay full price for comcast 30+ mbps tier. I forget how good I have it. | |
|
| | No mention of caps, bandwidth limits, rationing? How can the report be legitimate? Akami is a US company and might have ignored such a benchmark in the past, but times have changed, and it is obviously totally out of touch. | |
|
| | | Re: No mention of caps, bandwidth limits, rationing? They don't care about caps. This a report on average speeds. Not how much data you can use. | |
|
|
 dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
 ·Comcast
| No need for speed. I'm on Comcast's second to bottom Economy speed. Hell I'd go all the way to the bottom if I felt like chancing that my netflix might not be smooth. I really don't know what all the fuss is about all the mbps unless your doing business of some sort.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
| | 6.6Mbps is not bad at all. My family has 7000/896Kbps Centurylink and it is completely sufficient for the things they do. Sure we have 100/5Mbps Charter available, but we opted for the cheaper alternative. Also the fact that Charter won't bury the cable feeding my house is another reason we have yet to switch back to them.
If Centurylink were to get VDSL2+ or even bonded DSL service here we would certainly upgrade again. | |
|
| | | Re: 6.6Mbps is not bad at all. MAN I wish I could get 6mbs, or 10mbs, or even 40mbs with good latency.
For now I'm stuck at 3.3mbps. (still better than .5mbps over satellite or dial up though) | |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
 ·T-Mobile US
| Speeds are not so important if u have no use of them I rarely/sometimes download movies and usually I stream. For that, since Im only one in house using the Internt, 12mb is more than enough. For movie downloads, it doesn't matter whether it takes 30 min or 2 hours, I usually dont start watching right away after downloading. | |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Hard to believe The standard Comcast plan is 12mbps, and a LOT of people have Comcast. Add in the other cable MSOs, and I find the 10+ mbps number hard to believe. | |
|
| |  Re: this forum topic
What needs to happen though is DSL2 prices need to be more competitive with cable.
And more research should be done on how to make web SERVERS and databases faster. No matter what speed you have, some sites are just too slow. Would be nice if when you click a button the action is instantaneous. | |
|
 linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State
 ·CenturyLink
| Wow! Just wow What on earth is Akamai smoking? The average may be 6.6 somewhere in the United States but it is not in the rural USA where I live. There are still towns where the choice is dialup or possibly satellite.
NO one will ever know how bad it is or how expensive it is until we start talking about it. AFAIK there is no rural broadband forum. I wish Justin would and open one.
I have yet to decide if the biggest problem is no competition or telco refusal to service rural America. I live in an small isolated community where the city refuses to allow competition for the cable or telco. Joe Schmo either accepts crappy service from both or buys a business connection. In case the city gets their 'vig' from telco, cable, smartphones and satellite.
All we get is to foot the bill.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
 StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2
·CenturyLink
| Doing good here Not bad for the boonies.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! | |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| reality vs fantasy the speed would be closer to 25mbits and 100mbits on average in every major city by now if the incubment telco and cablecos weren't greedy and stingy at the same time.
having the tiers of alost any speed provisioning also misses the point that two of the major carriers cap and overage their data services which amounts to a usage based billing tier.
look forward to more of the same, except at HIGHER prices in the coming years.. this is not going to get much better any time soon. | |
|
| | avg 6.6 mbps Well, that's news to me down here in zip 77339 where suddenlink (aka suddenfail) is the monopoly cable provider. | |
|
|
|
