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  
•       •       •

2786 clicks; posted to Business » on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:41 AM (33 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 03:24:19 PM  

redmid17: 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


They connected all the schools/libraries in my county via fiber as a result. It's not doing me much good though unless a private company wants to come in and take advantage of the fiber to run an ISP service.

//google I'm looking at you!
 
2014-03-06 03:26:39 PM  
I'm my memory, deregulation worked exactly once as advertised: the breaking of AT&T. This is the one case where the actual benefit is easy to quantify.

Unfortunately, champions of deregulation have taken that single example and generalized to a case that rarely ever delivers anything approaching the promises that it's supposed to. More often than not, deregulation just means that businesses get to shaft the consumer in the name of a "free" market.
 
2014-03-06 03:29:58 PM  

Lawnchair: 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..

50/10 isn't terrible.  A lot of the world takes 50/10 speeds (even when faster optical rates are possibly available).  A lot of people in the US would cut you to get anywhere near that fast.

However, what do you pay for that?  Looking at Comcast... $75+ (a little more if you aren't also taking video service) a month?   THAT'S where the first-world is pointing at you and laughing.


Yeah that's about the normal price.. I currently am on a 12 month special that gives me Blast, cable, HBO and Streampix for $99 a month... When that runs out I'll call and complain for another deal or cut my services back.
 
2014-03-06 03:30:34 PM  

extroverted_suicide: 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...


I had AT&T DSL at 2Mbps and when they wanted everyone to switch over to U-Verse, suddenly my bandwidth shrank in the evenings. Since my condo pays Comcast for basic cable and that's rolled into my HOA dues, I didn't want the full U-Verse package. I told them I was leaving and they found a way to offer me 20Mbps for about 3X what I was paying: $60/month for broadband only.

I got a quote from Comcast for 20Mbps and the introductory price was $45/month. Later, AT&T! Even though the price is now $60/month, they've magically bumped up my speeds from 20Mbps to 25Mbps, so I figure it's still worth it.

In an interesting twist, my HOA recently voted to switch to U-Verse so that everyone could have TV, VOIP and crappy broadband (like 6Mbps) rolled into the price of their HOA dues. We'll see how that works out.
 
2014-03-06 03:48:02 PM  
FREE MARKET. RON PAUL.
 
2014-03-06 04:04:47 PM  

nocturnal001: 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.


If you don't know how it matters, you're not qualified to speak on the topic.
 
2014-03-06 04:19:53 PM  

Bullseyed: nocturnal001: 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.

If you don't know how it matters, you're not qualified to speak on the topic.


I know how the systems work toolbag. If an ISP offers too many connections that is their problem. When you offer a service you are guaranteeing a particular level of service irrespective of "oh sorry, too many people on your street bought our service so you don't get what we promised".

Pick up a dictionary and look up the word analogy.
 
2014-03-06 04:22:42 PM  

Robin Hoodie: weird that a law from 1996 focused on television broadcasting and telephone services and  would do a poor job at taking the internet into consideration. who would have guessed?


1996 eh? So what you're saying is it's legal to fark that law this year?
 
2014-03-06 04:24:50 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.


Where do people get these ideas? No, in fact most Americans live IN cities.
 
2014-03-06 04:36:59 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: In Order for the big ISP's to take Google fiber serious, Google needs to roll out to a major metro area(4 million plus). I just don't think Google's investors want that.
/I would love to see them light up Philly(Comcast backyard)


Google has Scrooge McDuck's money pit.  As long as the size of said money pit keeps growing, Google's "investors" (IE, all the people who own their stock) don't care much how they do it.
 
2014-03-06 04:50:56 PM  

NateAsbestos: 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.

Where do people get these ideas? No, in fact most Americans live IN cities.


A lot of this depends on the definition of the word "city".

For example, the legal definition of the word "city" in the state of California includes any incorporated community, even the smallest, rural ones, while there exist very dense, urban areas than aren't included in an incorporated city (East LA is outside the actual city limits of the City of Los Angeles and is unincorporated, for instance, but it's mega-dense).

If you aren't going by the definition used by the state of California (note that other states use other laws; some states have a separate category of "town", "village", or "township" to designate small, incorporated towns), what definition do you use?  Do you mean "urban area"?  If so, how dense?  Do suburbs count?
 
2014-03-06 04:55:30 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.


Ok, so Milwaukee is the middle point. Guess what:
The Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha metropolitan area has a population density of 327/sq mi
Japan, on the other hand, has a population density of 873/sq mi

If you compare the US to other large countries, we match up pretty well.
 
2014-03-06 04:59:13 PM  
It looks like a lot of people in this thread are still unclear on what 'burstable' means.
 
2014-03-06 05:30:11 PM  
Capitalists gonna capitalize!
 
2014-03-06 06:13:27 PM  
It's very simple, guys; let the government handle the infrastructure (which includes transportation, public health, education, and communication), and let private companies make the consumer goods. A (functioning) government wants to make a working society, while a business just wants to make money. If you let an actor who only wants to make money run a part of a country's infrastructure, you'll end up with a third-rate service.

/socialist, of sorts
 
2014-03-06 07:05:24 PM  

Uncle Tractor: It's very simple, guys; let the government handle the infrastructure (which includes transportation, public health, education, and communication), and let private companies make the consumer goods. A (functioning) government wants to make a working society, while a business just wants to make money. If you let an actor who only wants to make money run a part of a country's infrastructure, you'll end up with a third-rate service.

/socialist, of sorts


That's not even socialist, is it?
Wanting the government to provide an arena for businesses to compete in seems like a very capitalist idea.
 
2014-03-06 07:25:54 PM  
This is just a unique situation, look at how the airline industry took off and flourished after deregulation.
 
2014-03-06 07:57:25 PM  
Infrastructure like transportation, power, and data distribution grid, and data grid are best owned and operated by The People and leased to providers. Does anyone think America would have thrived without its public highway system and instead relied on a network of private toll roads? Why should data be any different?
 
2014-03-06 07:58:21 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Infrastructure like transportation, power, and data distribution grids, and data grid are best owned and operated by The People and leased to providers. Does anyone think America would have thrived without its public highway system and instead relied on a network of private toll roads? Why should data be any different?


/ftfm
 
2014-03-06 10:16:56 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: In Order for the big ISP's to take Google fiber serious, Google needs to roll out to a major metro area(4 million plus). I just don't think Google's investors want that.
/I would love to see them light up Philly(Comcast backyard)


Google fiber is Coming to Phoenix bro. We are 4.5 million strong. People are damn excited.
 
2014-03-06 10:17:52 PM  
Comcast called last week and asked if I would like to increase my download speed from 20mb/s to 100 at no additional charge.

www.speedtest.net
 
2014-03-06 10:39:05 PM  

Lawnchair: 50/10 isn't terrible. A lot of the world takes 50/10 speeds (even when faster optical rates are possibly available). A lot of people in the US would cut you to get anywhere near that fast.


I was living in Vegas getting 20/5 ... then I moved to BFE Nebraska ... (for work--it was a significant pay increase), the gentleman at Windstream was really excited to offer me 6/.75 on a DSL line.
In his words, "6 is good, you can still stream, even HD Netflix shows."
After being here for a year, I barely miss it.
FTR, I get it for about $100/month packaged with free long distance landline phone service and a subscription to Dish AT250 with a DVR.
 
2014-03-06 11:16:21 PM  
Here's what I get for 64$ a month...


www.speedtest.net
 
2014-03-06 11:48:59 PM  
www.speedtest.net

No real complaints..  $53/mo.
 
2014-03-06 11:50:05 PM  

Nightjars: [www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

No real complaints..  $53/mo.


Your upload speed is faster than your download?  That's.. goofy
 
2014-03-06 11:56:11 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Nightjars: [www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

No real complaints..  $53/mo.

Your upload speed is faster than your download?  That's.. goofy


Yeah...  I think they forgot to rate limit the upstream.. :)
 
2014-03-07 01:57:02 AM  
I get 50 Mb/s and it only costs about 14 dollars a month. Well actually, that is the total cost for the apartment, so I personally pay about 4.6 dollars a month after splitting it with my roommates. So I get faster Internet than at home in America for pretty much my leftover change. American sucks on this front
 
2014-03-07 02:35:39 AM  
One block away, my neighbors have FiOS on Verizon.  I'm still on DSL.  The only time it really hurts is when uploading videos to youtube.

www.speedtest.net
 
2014-03-07 02:49:16 AM  

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.


Why would we ever need more than 640 Kb of memory?  It won't ever be used.

What's the point of a hard drive bigger than 40 MB?  Nobody needs that much space, with the sole exception of kids collecting porn images.

I'm being sarcastic of course, but real people said these things, one of them is even kinda famous in the IT industry (and if he didn't actually say it, it sounds like something he should have).  People just don't project out enough and use their imaginations, and that's why they say things like what you said above, but what I've learned in 30 years as a computer hobbyist (nee geek) and IT professional, is that enough is never enough - ever.  It never has been, and never will be.  There has never been a case where I've ceased upgrading a component because what I have is "good enough".  There is no component of the modern computer that isn't constantly upgraded with more capable components.  There is always something faster or bigger coming down the pike, and as data and applications become bigger and more complex, those things aren't just luxury items - they're required.  Imagine trying to use a computer from circa 1994 today.  How would that Pentium II with 4MB of RAM and a 100MB hard disk fare in today's world?  Could it even connect to the internet and run a browser without some serious hacking?

Fast download speeds aren't just about torrenting; your second statement above is simply wrong.  Imagine a web browsing experience where pages loaded in the blink of an eye; where web apps were just as fast and capable as any installed app.  Imagine cloud storage that was as accessible as your local hard drive.  It's a shame - and it's shameful - that the US is lagging so far behind not just on speed, but on price.  An online connection isn't a luxury in today's world - it's a necessary utility, no different than water or electricity.  The large American ISPs suck ass, because they face little competition or regulation, and that needs to change if we want to make any progress.
 
2014-03-07 02:49:48 AM  

Why Would I Read the Article: So we're calling two huge companies that own basically the entirety of the internet world the "free market" now?  And we're INTENTIONALLY doing this for no reason other than wanting to having yet another republican bashing thread?


gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net
 
2014-03-07 04:24:39 AM  

Pick: Windstream sucketh.


This
 
2014-03-07 04:33:14 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: That's not even socialist, is it?
Wanting the government to provide an arena for businesses to compete in seems like a very capitalist idea.


Depends what you mean by socialist, of course. The textbook definition is that the state owns everything. By  GOP standards, I'm a screaming libbylib commie. How dare teh gubmint regulate our innertubes!!1! FWD FWD FWD!!!!!
 
2014-03-07 07:58:54 AM  

karmachameleon: It's a shame - and it's shameful - that the US is lagging so far behind not just on speed, but on price.  An online connection isn't a luxury in today's world - it's a necessary utility, no different than water or electricity.  The large American ISPs suck ass, because they face little competition or regulation, and that needs to change if we want to make any progress.


I made this statement at the office of the ISP I had about five years back after some pricing fiasco and they were none too pleased. The truth is it is much less disposable now than it was then, I'm WFH and most of my bills are paid online, so I'd not only be out of my job, I'd probably also be out of my house, were the information tap to be switched off.
 
2014-03-07 08:38:18 AM  

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


Laziest statement ever, and impossible to argue with, as the world has never actually seen a textbook-definition "free market"
 
2014-03-07 10:01:54 AM  
Here is what I get:

www.speedtest.net

/At work
//During Spring Break
///So no students around
 
2014-03-07 11:41:38 AM  
i did the test too.  funny enough it still identifies as Insight even though they were bought by TWC a year ago.

www.speedtest.net
 
2014-03-07 12:23:05 PM  

APO_Buddha: Here is what I get:

[www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

/At work
//During Spring Break
///So no students around


Ffft...

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-07 03:12:52 PM  

moike: APO_Buddha: Here is what I get:

[www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

/At work
//During Spring Break
///So no students around

Ffft...

[i.imgur.com image 708x127]


Yes, yes. Now tell us more about your monthly bill.
 
Displayed 38 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