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.

(The Week)   Why are US internet connections so slow? "We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago... Left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight"   (theweek.com) divider line 138
    More: Obvious, united states ranked, Google Fiber, download speeds, Tom Wheeler, regulated markets  
•       •       •

2785 clicks; posted to Business » on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:41 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-06 01:11:32 PM

Wellon Dowd: That article is a pack of lies. The free market is ALWAYS the superior solution.



yea, if you own the Industry in your market.
 
2014-03-06 01:11:42 PM
Fark time warner (that used to be Insight here) we were supposed to be getting 20mb. Most days we wernt even getting 1. Couldn't stream netflix without buffering some days.
They had two of their "techs" come out to try and see what the problem was. After a few hours they tried to blame my husbands wireless headset he uses for xbox, and said everything was fine on their end and we were basically sol.
When we had the same company, internet speed and headset in our old apartment we never had problems.
But once we moved, I guess my husbands headset suddenly magically started slowing down the internet.

Ended up ditching Insight right before they became TW. Got ATT. Internet is as fast as advertised, no issues. We can stream on one tv, stream on the computer, play xbox live, download, all at the same time with no problems.

Have had other issues with ATT, but can't complain about their internet service.
 
2014-03-06 01:12:09 PM
Apparently this guy has never been to Europe.

/DRTFA
//mainly in most places internet is heavily regulated because of cable monopolies granted by local cities
///I have a 400/400 internet connection
/so suck it slashies
 
2014-03-06 01:12:14 PM

INeedAName: I'm likely going to get stuck with satellite when I move...



you'll love the 10GB monthly caps.
 
2014-03-06 01:13:31 PM

monoski: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Marcus Aurelius: But I can choose between FIOS and Comcast!

At least they offer similar speeds. I have Time Warner (and they don't offer the higher speeds they advertise on TV here) or ADSL which gets me 3Mbps down and 768Kbps up (at best).

Good news or bad news - Comcast is working to buy Time Warner


for you, bad.

for Cumcast, good.
 
2014-03-06 01:14:40 PM
Not to argue that the cable companies aren't awful, but if you look at all the relatively large countries on the Ookla speed test, we are right there. The USA beats out Canada, Russia, China, Brazil, ect...

So you mean the small and population dense countries have better internet than the average American? Wow, that's a shocker, since the average American lives outside of cities.
 
2014-03-06 01:15:35 PM

DeaH: Once again, the Invisible Hand flips the bird to the public.



that is just one hand.  the other hand is in the public's pocket and its not fondling the public's balls.....


ain't Freedom great!!
 
2014-03-06 01:16:07 PM

The Flexecutioner: our local provider (Insight) was bought by TWC last year.  theyre changing rates in May after a year when they got caught up on integrating Insight's properties into TWC.  i called and found out for the same price (for one year) i'd get 20mbs/s vs the 10 i was getting.  we updated over the phone, i just had to reboot the router/modem and voila! my speeds dropped, page loads suffered, videos buffered incessantly, etc.  yay upgrade!


That's too bad. I loved Insight when I was going to school in central Illinois; great service, easy to deal with. Otherwise, hey look, its the old 1996 Telecom Act back at it again. That piece of shiat ruined terrestrial radio in the '90s, and is the culprit behind our current shiatty internet service.
 
2014-03-06 01:19:21 PM
Competition in a "free" market is Unamerican!!
 
2014-03-06 01:21:11 PM

Linux_Yes: INeedAName: I'm likely going to get stuck with satellite when I move...


you'll love the 10GB monthly caps.


You could probably hand-carry packets to a data center faster than satellite. I dated a girl who lived in the boonies north of Baltimore - I hope you're married to/involved with a nymphomaniac, because teh pr0nz will be hard difficult to come by.

// you might have to go back to pictures-only
 
2014-03-06 01:23:09 PM

Publikwerks: Not to argue that the cable companies aren't awful, but if you look at all the relatively large countries on the Ookla speed test, we are right there. The USA beats out Canada, Russia, China, Brazil, ect...

So you mean the small and population dense countries have better internet than the average American? Wow, that's a shocker, since the average American lives outside of cities.


Average as in 45 nearing 40% of the population living outside of cities.

Then again I live between two towns of less than10k and the nearest big city is 25 miles away and population is 100k.  I have fiber service throttled at 40 and 10.  Rock solid stable never wavers more than .5.
 
2014-03-06 01:29:42 PM

nocturnal001: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Marcus Aurelius: But I can choose between FIOS and Comcast!

At least they offer similar speeds. I have Time Warner (and they don't offer the higher speeds they advertise on TV here) or ADSL which gets me 3Mbps down and 768Kbps up (at best).

Yup. TW is terrible.

Google fiber will be delivered to me sooner or later though. Sweet sweet fiber.

I can't believe the ISPs get away with such varying connection speeds. It should not be legal to advertise 8mb download when most of your customers never see anything close to that. This is like advertising a car that get's 100mpg, but with fine print that it only that efficient when it is in idle going down a hill with a tail wind.

Of course we have an evil gubmint agency that somewhat monitors MPG claims.


Part of the issue is that speeds are measured in bits, while files are typically measured in bytes. There are 8 bits in a byte, so a 50 Mb connection is really only a 6.25 MB connection.
 
2014-03-06 01:36:26 PM
I can't believe people really believe that we're talking about cable being a "free" market.  Free if you have the politicians in your pockets to write laws that make entry into the market difficult...especially at a local level where you often have only one or maybe 2 competing companies.   That's NOT a free market where competition brings innovation, lowered costs, and better service.

There's a city I used to live in and near where I currently reside that has 1 cable company for the past 20 years (Time Warner) and it incidentally has rates that are 30-40% more than anyone else.  Many companies came in and wanted to bring cable to the city...guess what?  The city created such onerous requirements that most of them walked.  The one that happened while I live there, the city asked AT&T for information, they delivered it, the city changed the requirements and AT&T told them to stuff it.  This is likely the rule, not the exception.  Public hearings did no good...the political machine in the city (which likely was getting some serious funding from TWC), continued to block the entrance of other companies from entering the market (AT&T and WOW both told the city to shove it).

Wanna bet that the Comcast-Time Warner deal is approved?
 
2014-03-06 01:36:50 PM

Saiga410: Publikwerks: Not to argue that the cable companies aren't awful, but if you look at all the relatively large countries on the Ookla speed test, we are right there. The USA beats out Canada, Russia, China, Brazil, ect...

So you mean the small and population dense countries have better internet than the average American? Wow, that's a shocker, since the average American lives outside of cities.

Average as in 45 nearing 40% of the population living outside of cities.

Then again I live between two towns of less than10k and the nearest big city is 25 miles away and population is 100k.  I have fiber service throttled at 40 and 10.  Rock solid stable never wavers more than .5.


No point. Anyone so attached to some political agenda as to defend our shiate legacy cable carriers is immune to any actual information.

I don't live on some farking farm in the middle of nowhere, never have (always close or inside limits of large/mid cities) and my internet has either been meh or crappy. I did have great service from Fios when I lived in Tampa though.
 
2014-03-06 01:39:27 PM

mcreadyblue: I'm with Time Warner.

$65+tax for 20MBs down/2MBs up.

Netflix still buffers.


You may or may not know this already, but you're paying for your connection to TW. They can still throttle down their connection to other places to the detriment of your service. You may or may not already know this. Apparently we can all talk to dragonchildfor the real lowdown.
 
2014-03-06 01:40:26 PM
My net connection is s l o w. I use CenturyLink, before that Cox.

And yet, download speeds from any net speed test show downloads always about 45Mbps.

And still, pages take forever to load, and the Chrome throbber seems to indicate it's because it hasn't been able to finish downloading all of the page's content.
 
2014-03-06 01:41:35 PM
I get pretty decent speeds from TWC... they even upped them recently for no extra charge, which I admit confused me for a while...

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-06 01:43:01 PM
www.speedtest.net
 
2014-03-06 01:43:08 PM
Somehow I missed the fact that FCC Chief Tom Wheeler is an industry shill. I'm going to complain about it, slowly, on the Internet.
 
2014-03-06 01:44:17 PM
10 years ago everyone I knew had cable or DSL from 2Mbps to maybe 8Mbps. Now I get a couple fliers a week in my mailbox from Comcast and Verizon trying to sell me 50 Mbps Super Duper Extreme Xfinity, or 200Mbps EvenAwesomer FIOS Jumbo Plan.

Honestly, what's the point of internet speeds beyond about 25Mbps? It won't make web pages load any faster because it's not the bottleneck anymore, and you can have several people watching Netflix or MLB.tv at the same time with high quality. Even downloading a purchased TV show from Netflix only takes a couple minutes at that rate. I just don't see what the vast majority of the marketplace would use it for, which the sole exception of kids downloading pirated blu-rays.
 
2014-03-06 01:45:31 PM
I was in Moab Utah last week and it was pretty sweet to vacation in a place where the internet is still in the planning stages...

//mostly satellite feeds, the condo advertised high speed internet included. Upload speed was 42kb (that is kilobytes) dial up speed.
 
2014-03-06 01:46:31 PM
I wouldn't mind my speeds (25 mb/s down 2 mb/s up, usually get pretty close to that) is they didn't institute these stupid data caps they put in about six months ago. Total BS.
 
2014-03-06 01:47:14 PM

dukeblue219: Even downloading a purchased TV show from Netflix iTunes.


FTFM. I know better.
 
2014-03-06 01:51:20 PM

Publikwerks: So you mean the small and population dense countries have better internet than the average American? Wow, that's a shocker, since the average American lives outside of cities.


Um... no he doesn't.   50.1% of Americans live in the top 39 rows of this chart.  Milwaukee or larger.  76% of us live in metros of at least a quarter-million people.
 
2014-03-06 01:54:53 PM

dukeblue219: 10 years ago everyone I knew had cable or DSL from 2Mbps to maybe 8Mbps. Now I get a couple fliers a week in my mailbox from Comcast and Verizon trying to sell me 50 Mbps Super Duper Extreme Xfinity, or 200Mbps EvenAwesomer FIOS Jumbo Plan.

Honestly, what's the point of internet speeds beyond about 25Mbps? It won't make web pages load any faster because it's not the bottleneck anymore, and you can have several people watching Netflix or MLB.tv at the same time with high quality. Even downloading a purchased TV show from Netflix only takes a couple minutes at that rate. I just don't see what the vast majority of the marketplace would use it for, which the sole exception of kids downloading pirated blu-rays.


I too cannot think of a way a household could ever come near 200Mbps but sometime in the future households will crunch through Gbps service.   2 live streams at 3k.
 
2014-03-06 02:01:43 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Gergesa: styckx: I'm happy with my speeds and they're consistently this fast at all hours. So.. Meh.. I can't fathom any other reason I need more than this..

[www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

What you may not have realized in this is that you are getting over charged for subpar service.

Why is that sub-par?


Because in other countries and some parts of the US you can get faster internet service and pay less for it.
 
2014-03-06 02:01:55 PM

Lawnchair: Publikwerks: So you mean the small and population dense countries have better internet than the average American? Wow, that's a shocker, since the average American lives outside of cities.

Um... no he doesn't.   50.1% of Americans live in the top 39 rows of this chart.  Milwaukee or larger.  76% of us live in metros of at least a quarter-million people.


Metro statistical areas aren't cities, but instead the giant swaths of land surrounding cities. For example, the Milwaukee metro statisitical area includes 1000's of farms and rural stretches of sparsely land. The same goes for most of the non-coastal entries on the chart
 
2014-03-06 02:09:53 PM

Publikwerks: Not to argue that the cable companies aren't awful, but if you look at all the relatively large countries on the Ookla speed test, we are right there. The USA beats out Canada, Russia, China, Brazil, ect...

So you mean the small and population dense countries have better internet than the average American? Wow, that's a shocker, since the average American lives outside of cities.


That only explains some of the slow speeds and doesn't explain the price.  Population density goes way up when you knock out the mountain time zone and even more the farther east/west you go and those areas with population densities like Europe still lag especially in price.  I can understand Bumfark, Nowhere having shiatty speed, but there are lots of big cities with shiat prices if not shiat service to go with it.
 
2014-03-06 02:11:22 PM

Lawnchair: Publikwerks: So you mean the small and population dense countries have better internet than the average American? Wow, that's a shocker, since the average American lives outside of cities.

Um... no he doesn't.   50.1% of Americans live in the top 39 rows of this chart.  Milwaukee or larger.  76% of us live in metros of at least a quarter-million people.


I guess I live in a metro area of at least 250k http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoria,_IL_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area# Metropolitan_Statistical_Area">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoria,_I L_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area# Metropolitan_Statistical_Area
though I must say that covers a large amount of cornfields and about half of the 400k for the area is in towns smaller than 10k.
 
2014-03-06 02:14:05 PM

dukeblue219: 10 years ago everyone I knew had cable or DSL from 2Mbps to maybe 8Mbps. Now I get a couple fliers a week in my mailbox from Comcast and Verizon trying to sell me 50 Mbps Super Duper Extreme Xfinity, or 200Mbps EvenAwesomer FIOS Jumbo Plan.

Honestly, what's the point of internet speeds beyond about 25Mbps?


Sure, but you're smart. The average American remembers when upgrading the to-home speed really improved things! So naturally, since things are slowing down a bit ("Hey, my Netflix is buffering again!"), they want to improve it.

What if all of this ISP caterwauling is really just a marketing ploy? Think they'd squeeze their dupe customers for every cent before the regulatory gig is up?
 
2014-03-06 02:17:33 PM
All about this, and our report about bears' forest toiletry habits, can be seen in the May issue of "Duh."
 
2014-03-06 02:24:08 PM
Deregulated? Buy some fiber and a shovel and try digging up the road to bury it and you'll see just how deregulated it is.

Other countries have better Internet because their hardware is newer. Ours was put in decades ago, theirs was put in years ago. Big difference. Also much harder to do construction in the USA too given we have bigger buildings, higher population concentration and more rules.
 
2014-03-06 02:26:28 PM

dukeblue219: Honestly, what's the point of internet speeds beyond about 25Mbps? It won't make web pages load any faster because it's not the bottleneck anymore, and you can have several people watching Netflix or MLB.tv at the same time with high quality. Even downloading a purchased TV show from Netflix only takes a couple minutes at that rate. I just don't see what the vast majority of the marketplace would use it for, which the sole exception of kids downloading pirated blu-rays.


There are plenty.  We've reached a point where many people aren't hurting for bandwidth for entertainment purposes, but we still spend an insane amount of money and time to simply transport workers twice a day when the work could be permanently moved to where the worker is.
It's not just transportation costs; office space actually costs quite a bit.  Granted a lot of managers have this irrational obsession with control, but in any sort of work where the output is deliverable data, WFH is a valid option.  However, it's an option still constrained by home bandwidth in many areas.

dj_spanmaster: Apparently we can all talk to dragonchildfor the real lowdown.


CDN, not ISP.  I can't provide insight on your own contract with the ISP.  The more relevant point is that end-user bandwidth is really just a symptom of a much larger problem.  When they deregulated, they gave the backbone to the big telecoms.  The same guys you're forced to deal with as customers, you also deal with beyond your municipality.  And here's where things get really ugly, because for all the money they poured into convincing the government they should control those connections, they later realized there was little to no profit in just sustaining the Internet (which is why they're now lobbying hard to destroy Net Neutrality, so they can turn the Internet itself into a giant mafia-style "protection" operation).  So they spend as little money as possible, nothing if they can.  They will happily route your Netflix streaming packets from Seattle to Chicago to Mexico City to Toronto to Los Angeles to New York, in that order, if the underlying contracts are structured such that by their calculations they can save a small fraction of a penny on your entire transfer.  They've literally caused outages routing packets in circles, and major interruptions are a regular occurrence.  Since they've taken over, our Internet is not comparable to a 3rd-world infrastructure.  In my experience, it IS third-world infrastructure.

Let's put it this way:  the local monopolies you deal with are a symptom, like a runny nose when you have the flu.  It's tangible so you complain about it, but it's really your body telling you there's a virus raging through your body trying to destroy every living cell in it.  Fixing the runny nose doesn't make you any less sick.  How much can your end-point transfer speed matter when the Internet itself is maintained by a bunch of crooks who couldn't possibly care less about how badly it's held together?

That's where CDNs come in, and yeah, it's a "free market" solution for a problem the telecoms created.  It's a way of getting around ISPs; as a content provider if you go through a CDN you're more likely to have a stable, fast website.  I speculate that's why Netflix formed their own CDN when they sniffed the political wind.  But it also means the telecoms have a huge argument in their case to destroy Net Neutrality -- it's already dead, in the sense that not all packets are equal (or at least, they are, but they're confident they can convince courts & politicians otherwise).  The distinction is that the protection money they want is going to CDNs designed to compensate for the fact that they're greedy, stupid, incompetent, sociopathic assholes.  I don't think getting that money is as simple as killing off Net Neutrality (it will actually probably be a windfall for CDNs), but they're just the sort to try anyway.

There is another counterforce, which is that the Internet is now basically a major economic force (even though the government doesn't treat it like one).  The politicians can only go so far to schlork the warty wing-wang of Comcast when enabling a complete collapse of the Internet would majorly impact everything from Wall Street to Amazon.com.  So outright disaster is unlikely.  But Net Neutrality isn't necessarily their concern; they want reliability and there's more than one way to get that than protect your blog from a protection scheme.
 
2014-03-06 02:28:35 PM

nocturnal001: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Marcus Aurelius: But I can choose between FIOS and Comcast!

At least they offer similar speeds. I have Time Warner (and they don't offer the higher speeds they advertise on TV here) or ADSL which gets me 3Mbps down and 768Kbps up (at best).

Yup. TW is terrible.

Google fiber will be delivered to me sooner or later though. Sweet sweet fiber.

I can't believe the ISPs get away with such varying connection speeds. It should not be legal to advertise 8mb download when most of your customers never see anything close to that. This is like advertising a car that get's 100mpg, but with fine print that it only that efficient when it is in idle going down a hill with a tail wind.

Of course we have an evil gubmint agency that somewhat monitors MPG claims.


Your analogy is terrible. Your car's mpg won't change based on how many people on your street have the same model of car.

That being said it still does suck when they know you won't get the speeds they advertise. The part that pisses me off is I pay for 25 and get 8 to 15 while they advertise 50 for 10$ more a month. That part should be highly illegal.
 
2014-03-06 02:30:42 PM
Windstream sucketh.
 
2014-03-06 02:35:30 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Marcus Aurelius: But I can choose between FIOS and Comcast!

I get to choose between crappy Comcast customer service and crappy AT&T bandwidth.


Me too!  Opted for AT&T's crappy bandwidth.  Paying $47 a month for "up to" 6 Mbps, usually get 2.5-3.  Hurrah.

My condo is older than dirt and the wiring is awful.  When I tried comcast, I was only getting about 12 Mbps out of the advertised 20, and my average ping jumped from about 50 on AT&T to over 100 on Comcast.  My only real choice is whether to get kicked in the balls by the left foot or the right...
 
2014-03-06 02:39:25 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I get a choice between Verizon Wireless or dial-up

/too many trees for satellite


www.calwatchdog.com
 
2014-03-06 02:41:19 PM
I got a price increase notice in the mail, and spent the time on hold looking at financials. If you bought a share at the bottom five yeas ago on Comcast, Charter, or TWC, you would have between four and five times as much money now. If you bought TWC or Comcast, you'd also have a few bucks in dividends. This is utterly insane.
 
2014-03-06 02:41:21 PM
Deregulation is still better than what happened here in Canada in the late 1990s.

As a thank-you to the telcos who bankrolled the Liberal party, the government announced that a national fibre-optic network would be built and that 10 billion dollars was budgeted. They then announced that the telcos knew best how to get the job done and gave them all the cash.

Canada still doesn't have anything resembling a nationwide infrastructure for internet.
 
2014-03-06 02:45:01 PM

Deadguy2322: As a thank-you to the telcos who bankrolled the Liberal party, the government announced that a national fibre-optic network would be built and that 10 billion dollars was budgeted. They then announced that the telcos knew best how to get the job done and gave them all the cash.

Canada still doesn't have anything resembling a nationwide infrastructure for internet.


Canada serves a totemic purpose here.  No matter how bad the US's cable/cell/internet oligopolies are compared to much of Europe or East Asia, they're less rampantly farked up than Canada's (and Mexico's for that matter).
 
2014-03-06 02:48:25 PM
Yeah when I think of the free market I think of telecoms.

I mean those guys can just lay cable wherever they please.  No need to bribe local governments and zoning boards for every 5 miles of fiber they want to run and the companies who have presence there bribing the same people to not approve it.

I have above ground lines and live right outside of the capital of Comcast and my local gov't still hasn't approved FiOS.  It'd probably cost Verizon a few grand to run cable from 2 miles away where they have FiOS to my house, but nope.  Didn't pay the piper yet.
 
2014-03-06 02:50:49 PM

Deadguy2322: Deregulation is still better than what happened here in Canada in the late 1990s.

As a thank-you to the telcos who bankrolled the Liberal party, the government announced that a national fibre-optic network would be built and that 10 billion dollars was budgeted. They then announced that the telcos knew best how to get the job done and gave them all the cash.

Canada still doesn't have anything resembling a nationwide infrastructure for internet.


The US gave out $200 billion in subsidies to essentially do the same thing. At least you saved 190 billion
 
2014-03-06 02:52:48 PM

Bullseyed: nocturnal001: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Marcus Aurelius: But I can choose between FIOS and Comcast!

At least they offer similar speeds. I have Time Warner (and they don't offer the higher speeds they advertise on TV here) or ADSL which gets me 3Mbps down and 768Kbps up (at best).

Yup. TW is terrible.

Google fiber will be delivered to me sooner or later though. Sweet sweet fiber.

I can't believe the ISPs get away with such varying connection speeds. It should not be legal to advertise 8mb download when most of your customers never see anything close to that. This is like advertising a car that get's 100mpg, but with fine print that it only that efficient when it is in idle going down a hill with a tail wind.

Of course we have an evil gubmint agency that somewhat monitors MPG claims.

Your analogy is terrible. Your car's mpg won't change based on how many people on your street have the same model of car.

That being said it still does suck when they know you won't get the speeds they advertise. The part that pisses me off is I pay for 25 and get 8 to 15 while they advertise 50 for 10$ more a month. That part should be highly illegal.



How the does that matter? In both cases a company sells you something with a set performance level. If they over subscribe their local network and your connection suffers that is still their problem. The analogy is fine, that is how analogies work. Comparing two different things that share a common theme. In both cases, false advertising.

The point is that companies should be required to deal with their customers in good faith.
 
2014-03-06 02:54:19 PM

Dr Dreidel: Linux_Yes: INeedAName: I'm likely going to get stuck with satellite when I move...


you'll love the 10GB monthly caps.

You could probably hand-carry packets to a data center faster than satellite. I dated a girl who lived in the boonies north of Baltimore - I hope you're married to/involved with a nymphomaniac, because teh pr0nz will be hard difficult to come by.

// you might have to go back to pictures-only


I've heard the speed itself can be decent, but it's the latency that's ridiculous, as you'd imagine.
 
2014-03-06 03:04:45 PM

padraig: Hey, look, it's a dick measuring constest !

My ookla speed test gave me a 85.02upload on download, and 36.34 on download, for 34 euros a month (for which I get also unlimited phone service to most of the world, and the equivalent of basic cable.


With whom?  I just moved into a new place and I haven't gotten the web hooked up yet.
 
2014-03-06 03:12:02 PM
I'm in Raleigh/Cary, and Google Fiber may be coming here. I cannot wait for the day I can ditch AT&T
 
2014-03-06 03:16:50 PM

Gergesa: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Gergesa: styckx: I'm happy with my speeds and they're consistently this fast at all hours. So.. Meh.. I can't fathom any other reason I need more than this..

[www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

What you may not have realized in this is that you are getting over charged for subpar service.

Why is that sub-par?

Because in other countries and some parts of the US you can get faster internet service and pay less for it.


I don't think you're using the term "par" correctly. Let's define what "par" is, then we'll know if 57Mbps down/11Mbps up is "subpar." I would love faster speeds and lower prices -- who wouldn't? -- but it's not like elves and unicorns are going to upgrade the infrastructure for free. How much would it cost any major ISP to deliver, say, 100Mbps to every subscriber?
 
2014-03-06 03:19:05 PM
i spent 500 for a PS4 and great as it might be, the connection seems to be throttled and bf4 lags horribly.

/thanks greedy comcast c$nts !!!
 
2014-03-06 03:19:56 PM

styckx: I'm happy with my speeds and they're consistently this fast at all hours. So.. Meh.. I can't fathom any other reason I need more than this..

[www.speedtest.net image 300x135]


Blast? I see about the same with mine, I live in the sticks and our local network is no where near capacity so I get consistent speeds all the time.
 
2014-03-06 03:21:19 PM

alkhemy: I get pretty decent speeds from TWC... they even upped them recently for no extra charge, which I admit confused me for a while...

[img.fark.net image 694x59]


Nice download speed, you think they'd have the upload a lil higher though.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report