If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   FCC says Internet providers are within 90% of advertised broadband speeds. AOL: "What's broadband?   (in.reuters.com) divider line 40
    More: Interesting, Internet Provider, Federal Communications Commission, internet, Verizon Communications Inc., U.S., Cablevision, Charter Communications, Cox Communications  
•       •       •

885 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Jul 2012 at 10:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-21 10:24:02 AM
Within 90%?

Does that mean they deliver about 10% of advertised speed?

That sounds about right.
 
2012-07-21 10:50:29 AM
Keyword: buffering
 
2012-07-21 11:10:06 AM
90% of 'slower than most other countries broadband', is still slow.
 
2012-07-21 11:16:32 AM
No shiat. Because they advertise up to whatever speeds. Why we accept this type of business in the home sector is beyond me. I work for one of the largest backbone providers in the world. When we lease you a Gig E or a 10 Gig E, that's exactly what you get.
 
2012-07-21 11:36:23 AM
Well, sorta, but when you start from such a low base it's not that hard

I do get 1.5 Mbps consistently. I just can't get any more than that- I'm too far from the DSLAM. In the rest of the modern world that's pathetic and doesn't even count as broadband.

Hell, my parents have 10 Mbps fiber to their retirement community home, with the option to go as high as 50 if they want to pay for it. (Verizon FIOS) I'm not sure if they actually get the full 10 Mbps since they don't actually do anything that would come close to maxing it out.

/Students out for the summer at work
//I've pulled downloads of 30 M*B*ps from fast sites.
///Will fall back to a crawl in the fall.
 
2012-07-21 11:37:57 AM
Took this yesterday with my phone:

i1083.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-21 11:38:32 AM

Archimedes' Principal: 90% of 'slower than most other countries broadband', is still slow.


And yet again, most countries aren't as spread out as America either, its easier to build a network when population is centered in one area.
 
2012-07-21 11:44:27 AM

WillieWildcat: Took this yesterday with my phone:


Yeah that's what I get too, LTE is great, now they just have to roll it out to more places and let us tether.

Tastes I have gotten was 54 down and 40 up, I love poking fun at a co-worker who thought his iphone was on that network. He barely gets 10 down at his fastest, sucker.
 
2012-07-21 11:46:01 AM
Right now it sucks to be me because my $20 internet connection is a terrible 750kbps.
I'm at the fringe distance from the AT&T's site so faster is not possible unless I upgrade
to cable or AT&T's Uverse at almost triple the cost. WOW has started to advertise heavily
in my area and the cheapest speed tier is 2Mbps at $40. Greed is king with internet service
providers.
 
2012-07-21 11:51:02 AM

steamingpile: WillieWildcat: Took this yesterday with my phone:

Yeah that's what I get too, LTE is great, now they just have to roll it out to more places and let us tether.

Tastes I have gotten was 54 down and 40 up, I love poking fun at a co-worker who thought his iphone was on that network. He barely gets 10 down at his fastest, sucker.


Holy cow, that is blazing fast. I agree on the tethering, LTE is about 10 times faster than my home internet. Only downside is that my coverage seems to be worse. I usually can't get more than 75% signal where I normally had full coverage.

I actually took that screenshot at a US Cellular store side-by-side with a GSIII on their 3G network. They couldn't even manage 0.5 Mb/s download...
 
2012-07-21 12:06:58 PM

Archimedes' Principal: 90% of 'slower than most other countries broadband', is still slow.


And before the hurr durr open spaces (which maybe steamingherpderp already did, i've got him on ignore) the population density on the west coast and east of the mississippi river are comparable to Europe and even those small areas lag behind the rest of the industrialized world.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-21 12:07:27 PM
i47.tinypic.com

Alright, boys. Whip 'em out!
 
2012-07-21 12:10:13 PM
I'm guessing the last 10% is either a traffic overload or the traffic overhead.
 
2012-07-21 12:10:23 PM
It really, really pains me to say this....

But one of the only things I've found to be better living in Europe than the United States is broadband speeds. Specifically, I'm talking about Dublin and Chicago. Comcast speeds can't even hold a candle to what I'm getting here. I'm on the 60Mbps plan and for a few euro more I could upgrade to 110Mbps - but I don't see the point.

I remember Comcast making a HUGE deal out of their 50Mbps stuff they rolled out in Chicago back in 2008-2009 if I remember correctly. Only problem was they wanted to charge you over 140 dollars per month for it.

I'm paying ~50 dollars for the 60Mbps plan and that includes the home phone service.
 
2012-07-21 12:38:28 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: It really, really pains me to say this....

But one of the only things I've found to be better living in Europe than the United States is broadband speeds. Specifically, I'm talking about Dublin and Chicago. Comcast speeds can't even hold a candle to what I'm getting here. I'm on the 60Mbps plan and for a few euro more I could upgrade to 110Mbps - but I don't see the point.

I remember Comcast making a HUGE deal out of their 50Mbps stuff they rolled out in Chicago back in 2008-2009 if I remember correctly. Only problem was they wanted to charge you over 140 dollars per month for it.

I'm paying ~50 dollars for the 60Mbps plan and that includes the home phone service.


SOCIALISM!!!1
 
2012-07-21 12:40:17 PM
I still have an AOL account but only for signing up for real-life services. It's short too.
bob[nospam-﹫-backwards]lo­a*co­m is easier to say to a service technician over the phone than the 10 minute email account h3­94531[nospam-﹫-backwards]bed­vb­e­v­dv­b*co­m
 
2012-07-21 01:00:23 PM
The statement by itself is proof that the FCC has absolutely no idea how the modern Internet works.
 
2012-07-21 01:12:27 PM

12349876: Archimedes' Principal: 90% of 'slower than most other countries broadband', is still slow.

And before the hurr durr open spaces (which maybe steamingherpderp already did, i've got him on ignore) the population density on the west coast and east of the mississippi river are comparable to Europe and even those small areas lag behind the rest of the industrialized world.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x549]


You make a persuasive case, until of course you zoom into that map:

i45.tinypic.com

Then it becomes apparent that even the densely populated parts of the east and west coasts of the United States aren't anywhere near as densely populated as Europe.
 
2012-07-21 01:14:43 PM

Honest Bender: [i47.tinypic.com image 300x135]

Alright, boys. Whip 'em out!


i1245.photobucket.com

Only had it for a month and it blew AT&T's 1.5mb DSL out of the water
 
2012-07-21 01:16:06 PM
Embiggened to make it even more clear:

i46.tinypic.com

Outside of the Washington DC/Philadelphia/NYC/Boston corridor, the East Coast isn't as populated as most of Europe, and my little piece of it is roughly as densely populated as Scandinavia (ie., not very).
 
2012-07-21 01:23:09 PM

dittybopper: Outside of the Washington DC/Philadelphia/NYC/Boston corridor, the East Coast isn't as populated as most of Europe, and my little piece of it is roughly as densely populated as Scandinavia (ie., not very).


Sure, but why can't they offer decent service in those areas? Even if they could get the top 10 or 20 biggest metropolitan areas in the US (which also correspond to major internet exchange/peering points), that'd be a great start.
 
2012-07-21 01:24:42 PM

heypete: /seriously America, get your internet in order.


i46.tinypic.com

Where I live has approximately the same population density as northern Scandinavia.
 
2012-07-21 01:27:46 PM

heypete: dittybopper: Outside of the Washington DC/Philadelphia/NYC/Boston corridor, the East Coast isn't as populated as most of Europe, and my little piece of it is roughly as densely populated as Scandinavia (ie., not very).

Sure, but why can't they offer decent service in those areas? Even if they could get the top 10 or 20 biggest metropolitan areas in the US (which also correspond to major internet exchange/peering points), that'd be a great start.


That I can't answer, because I don't live in any one of them, but it's my understanding that cable providers and fiber optic networks like FiOS are increasingly popular in those areas. Then again, our government doesn't own the phone company either. That sort of thing helps when you can use taxpayer money to build infrastructure instead of having to pay for it from income derived from customers.
 
2012-07-21 02:29:33 PM
Wait, I'm supposed to be thrilled about 90% of this???

i1-news.softpedia-static.com

Seriously, Asia should not be able to run that much porn that fast. That. Is. Not. Fair.
 
2012-07-21 02:33:32 PM

dittybopper: density


If population density had anything to do with it, New Jersey would have awesome broadband speeds.
 
2012-07-21 02:54:31 PM
As an aside, I recent moved web hosts and am trying to stress-test my site. As such, I've set up a little Speedtest Mini on it. If folks are interested, I'd appreciate it if you could run a test and let me know (either here or by email) what your speeds are: http://www.heypete.com/speedtest/> (there's no advertising or anything). For reference, it's located in Baltimore, MD in the US.
 
2012-07-21 02:55:31 PM

heypete: As an aside, I recent moved web hosts and am trying to stress-test my site. As such, I've set up a little Speedtest Mini on it. If folks are interested, I'd appreciate it if you could run a test and let me know (either here or by email) what your speeds are: http://www.heypete.com/speedtest/> (there's no advertising or anything). For reference, it's located in Baltimore, MD in the US.


Bah. Totally borked the link. Sorry. Here is is: http://www.heypete.com/speedtest/ (pops).
 
2012-07-21 03:12:24 PM

steamingpile: Archimedes' Principal: 90% of 'slower than most other countries broadband', is still slow.

And yet again, most countries aren't as spread out as America either, its easier to build a network when population is centered in one area.


So why do broadband speeds still suck ass in highly populated areas of the USA?
 
2012-07-21 03:36:57 PM

dittybopper: Embiggened to make it even more clear:

[i46.tinypic.com image 850x306]

Outside of the Washington DC/Philadelphia/NYC/Boston corridor, the East Coast isn't as populated as most of Europe, and my little piece of it is roughly as densely populated as Scandinavia (ie., not very).


Lapland is getting 4G soon. Jelly?
 
2012-07-21 03:56:19 PM

dittybopper: 12349876: Archimedes' Principal: 90% of 'slower than most other countries broadband', is still slow.

And before the hurr durr open spaces (which maybe steamingherpderp already did, i've got him on ignore) the population density on the west coast and east of the mississippi river are comparable to Europe and even those small areas lag behind the rest of the industrialized world.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x549]

You make a persuasive case, until of course you zoom into that map:

[i45.tinypic.com image 640x231]

Then it becomes apparent that even the densely populated parts of the east and west coasts of the United States aren't anywhere near as densely populated as Europe.


Yeah he made that same argument that last time and that is when I pointed out how wrong his picture really is and also the fact government subsidizes a lot of infrastructure so you have to take into account the size of the country when building out networks. I have been in meetings where officials have asked why we werent running the same speeds to inner city areas and others where it was bumblefark nowhere, they didnt like the answer of "because no one signs up for service in those places". Some places force us to spend just as much money there as places where population is more dense or more customers live, its farking insane dealing with that shiat.

there their theyre: So why do broadband speeds still suck ass in highly populated areas of the USA?


Mine doesnt, move out of the sticks gentlemen.
 
2012-07-21 06:15:19 PM
I wonder how many internet providers maintain a list of speedtest websites and intentionally route traffic to them faster than normal traffic?
 
2012-07-21 06:46:20 PM

jodaveki: Seriously, Asia should not be able to run that much porn that fast. That. Is. Not. Fair.


Most of Asia doesn't have broadband. Don't forget that Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong only make up a small fraction of Asia.
 
2012-07-21 07:11:10 PM
This is what happens when you pay companies a lot of money for fiber. They blow it on shiat, and then make you grateful that you're getting substandard bandwidth. But then again, GOVERNMENT BAD, so I guess we can all suck it.
 
2012-07-21 07:30:19 PM

steamingpile: there their theyre: So why do broadband speeds still suck ass in highly populated areas of the USA?

Mine doesnt, move out of the sticks gentlemen.


Not in this farking lifetime. I'll take my 3.7 Mb/s in exchange for the peace and quiet of country life.
 
2012-07-21 08:26:21 PM

kevinatilusa: I wonder how many internet providers maintain a list of speedtest websites and intentionally route traffic to them faster than normal traffic?


I always wonder this too.
 
2012-07-21 08:40:54 PM

notmtwain: Does that mean they deliver about 10% of advertised speed?


Subby must speak English as a second language.
 
2012-07-21 08:42:54 PM

kevinatilusa: I wonder how many internet providers maintain a list of speedtest websites and intentionally route traffic to them faster than normal traffic?


I will tell you I have seen cases where I had almost no speed, hit a test and suddenly I'm at advertised speed. Go back to browsing and nothing.

I've also seen cases where the site their techs send me to is reporting faster speeds than any other test sites.
 
2012-07-21 09:28:23 PM

SharkTrager: kevinatilusa: I wonder how many internet providers maintain a list of speedtest websites and intentionally route traffic to them faster than normal traffic?

I will tell you I have seen cases where I had almost no speed, hit a test and suddenly I'm at advertised speed. Go back to browsing and nothing.

I've also seen cases where the site their techs send me to is reporting faster speeds than any other test sites.


Just use speedtest.net, if speed is still fine then the problem is on your end, sounds like you need to do a deep scan.
 
2012-07-22 02:30:29 AM

SharkTrager: kevinatilusa: I wonder how many internet providers maintain a list of speedtest websites and intentionally route traffic to them faster than normal traffic?

I will tell you I have seen cases where I had almost no speed, hit a test and suddenly I'm at advertised speed. Go back to browsing and nothing.

I've also seen cases where the site their techs send me to is reporting faster speeds than any other test sites.


This exact situation happened to me while on the phone with comcast to report to them how shiatty their service is. Went something like this -

Me: "I can't browse the internet because my connection is intermittently dropping out, and I'm getting extremely low speeds"

Comcast: "Go to our comcast speedtest and tell me what the numbers are"

*magically the numbers are exactly what the amount my plan is for*

Me: "The numbers are exactly what I'm paying for, but when I go to speedtest.net, it dithers around 1.5 MBPS, and about 50 percent of the time it can't even finish the test because the connection drops out"

Comcast: "Other speedtests only check how fast you can download a webpage, it's not a reliable test."

Me: "Right...but I still can't use the internet"

This is about the time they send me on the fool's errand of unplugging my router, hooking directly into the modem, etc. I think Comcast might be the most evil corporation in the world.
 
2012-07-22 08:11:04 AM
So on the road I live on I can only get "up to 3mbps" DSL from a regional telco (Frontier paid off Verizon a few years back to non-compete in the area). When you delve through the guts of the modem it will flat out tell you the theoretical max speed it can achieve is only 1.3 mbps because of signal:noise ratio. It usually comes in around 1.1 mbps. I'm paying $44.99/mo ($60.50/mo after 'taxes and fees') for the privilege of having the only terrestrial service available.

There's a development at the end of the road with TimeWarner. It's about 2 miles away. I officially petitioned TimeWarner to run service down the rest of the road, their response... $90,000 to run the cable the 2 miles to my house. But they'd be willing to pay $30,000 of that if I and my 19 neighbors along the route pay $3,000 each for the hookup.

Oddly enough we do get 4G LTE service from Verizon most of the time inside the house... I ran a speed test with my phone the other day... 11mbps. Now if only there wasn't that pesky 4gb/mo download cap... anyone know if Verizon offers plans expressly for home internet that have more amicable restrictions?

/the DSL actually pings just fine despite the top speed... only reason I haven't been more proactive about finding something else
//never thought id miss paying Seattle Comcast $50/mo for 12 mbps service :-(
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report