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 (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-06 11:00:01 AM
You mean the free market didn't lead to internet utopia?

Shocking.
 
2014-03-06 11:19:39 AM
I'm absolutely shocked. Seriously, regulation NEVER WORKS!!! FREE MARKET biatchES!!!11one1!!
 
2014-03-06 11:20:41 AM
Ric Romero reporting
 
2014-03-06 11:21:14 AM
But I can choose between FIOS and Comcast!
 
2014-03-06 11:40:31 AM

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).
 
2014-03-06 11:47:47 AM
Why would Estonia be more backwards than USA? Article writer is somehow surprised that it isn't.
 
2014-03-06 11:48:57 AM

Marcus Aurelius: But I can choose between FIOS and Comcast!


I get to choose between crappy Comcast customer service and crappy AT&T bandwidth.
 
2014-03-06 11:49:14 AM

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.
 
2014-03-06 11:56:40 AM
Is this going to be another Time Warner bashing thread? Because let me just say, Time Warner is not just a faceless corporation. Time Warner is tens of thousands of dedicated employees, all working together to bring the best entertainment available to your living room. Now, I know, they might not face the same pressures in their jobs as you face in yours. They don't have to worry about things like snarling competitors taking their customers with better service or lower prices, things most working people in America worry about every day. But c'mon. They're doing the best they can. If they didn't work for Time Warner, they'd be working for an airline, or a phone company. We're not talking about the best and the brightest here. These aren't people we want facing down the Chinese. They're like the droolers at the Goodwill Store. Do you make fun of them? Then you shouldn't make fun of TWC employees, either.
 
2014-03-06 11:58:22 AM

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.


Unless you live in an enforced municipal monopoly area, an apartment building, or an underserved area with only 1 player.

// and I'm betting that covers something like 60-75% of people
 
2014-03-06 11:58:36 AM
That article is a pack of lies. The free market is ALWAYS the superior solution.
 
2014-03-06 12:02:02 PM
Well, duh. No competition means you have no need to build out infrastructure; as a result, your service suffers, but do the customers blame their ISP? Nope, they blame Netflix, which means Netflix has to pay to upgrade your ISP's infrastructure.

Also, because it belongs in every thread on this subject:
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-06 12:02:05 PM
I'm likely going to get stuck with satellite when I move...
 
2014-03-06 12:02:20 PM
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
 
2014-03-06 12:02:25 PM
Yeah, we all know what that Invisible Hand has been up to in this arena.

/feels like about the elbow
 
2014-03-06 12:02:56 PM
I've said it before here but the UK system seems to be working. Here government regulation means more competition. The old phone company BT, who own the network, were ordered to allow any ISP access to the network on identical terms and prices. Result is I have over 200 ISP to choose from, all offering deals that try to beat the rest. I could start an ISP tomorrow and be able to serve the whole country and be competitive on price.
They even have to allow ISPs access to the physical exchanges across the country so they can install their own equipment if they want. With fibre now commonplace (FTTC with FTTP rolling out) speeds are good, though not quite in the South Korea league.

Let me repeat the key point. Government regulation means more competition. Barriers to entry are low and everyone has dozens of ISP available, from the big multinationals to ISPs with five employees.
 
2014-03-06 12:05:50 PM

rumpelstiltskin: Is this going to be another Time Warner bashing thread? Because let me just say, Time Warner is not just a faceless corporation. Time Warner is tens of thousands of dedicated employees, all working together to bring the best entertainment available to your living room. Now, I know, they might not face the same pressures in their jobs as you face in yours. They don't have to worry about things like snarling competitors taking their customers with better service or lower prices, things most working people in America worry about every day. But c'mon. They're doing the best they can. If they didn't work for Time Warner, they'd be working for an airline, or a phone company. We're not talking about the best and the brightest here. These aren't people we want facing down the Chinese. They're like the droolers at the Goodwill Store. Do you make fun of them? Then you shouldn't make fun of TWC employees, either.


No, when I mock Time Warner, I'm mocking the board of directors. The ones responsible for their company. The buck stops there, and the blame is on their shoulders for not steering their company into the right direction.

8/10 nice troll.
 
2014-03-06 12:06:22 PM
FTA- "The new head of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler, is a former lobbyist for two sets of vested interests: the cell-phone operators and, you guessed it, the cable companies."

Any more questions?

The politicians have done a good job of distracting our attention with "FRIGGIN' REPUBLICANS SUCK" or "FRIGGIN' DEMOCRATS SUCK", all the while dividing the pie up between them, and screwing us up the arse.

This country is truly boned.
 
2014-03-06 12:07:18 PM
There's no yellow in this thread.
Where, oh, where are Fark's resident political/economic creationists?
C'mon fark libertarians, you have a perfect opportunity here to prove that there is no such thing as the common good. And that no regulation lets the market create optimal solutions, that there are no barriers to entry - that competition always springs up automatically to challenge the big guys, that the playing field is always level, that in all properly free markets, buyers and sellers have equal power and information, that monopoly, oligopoly, and cartel aren't the natural result of markets with no regulation, that markets regulate themselves, and all your other articles of faith.

Well, where are you?
 
2014-03-06 12:07:56 PM

Dr Dreidel: 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.

Unless you live in an enforced municipal monopoly area, an apartment building, or an underserved area with only 1 player.

// and I'm betting that covers something like 60-75% of people


Fios website pretends my address doesn't exist.
 
2014-03-06 12:09:31 PM

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
 
2014-03-06 12:09:38 PM

Dr Dreidel: enforced municipal monopoly area


In theory, these haven't existed since the mid-1990s.  Federal law pre-empts any municipal exclusive franchise agreement.  Cable or pure-play-internet overbuilding is allowable basically everywhere.

The reality is quite a lot different.  The incumbent cable companies draw up the model franchise agreement.  Basically, if you start as a competitor, you have to put up millions in indemnity, serve every address in the community within six months, run government/educational channels (even if you're a pure-internet-provider), etc, etc.  Huge and intentional roadblocks.

Why would cities do that?  Because they get a cut.  If they have a 5% franchise fee agreement, why would they want a competitive market where a broadband connection drops to $30 a month (from each of two providers) from $70?  5% of $30 is a lot less than 5% of $70.
 
2014-03-06 12:10:22 PM
I get a choice between Verizon Wireless or dial-up

/too many trees for satellite
 
2014-03-06 12:13:33 PM

nocturnal001: Of course we have an evil gubmint agency that somewhat monitors MPG claims


No we don't. We have private Consumer Reports and Motorweek to verify mileage claims with real users.
 
2014-03-06 12:13:48 PM
i like my ISP a lot. and the reason i like my ISP is because they are a smaller company in a market with more than 1 competitor, so they have to offer me a superior service to compete with comcast and verizon. funny how that works
 
2014-03-06 12:17:49 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..


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.
 
2014-03-06 12:24:04 PM

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


It is when it's actually a free market. But wired internet isn't despite being "deregulated." But you know that and you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Yawn.
 
2014-03-06 12:29:30 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.


That is exactly what they do with cars, i think i just saw an article about that here in the last few weeks.  the MPG car makers advertise is a bunch of BS.  Our whole economy is based on lying.  Its part of what makes us a christian country.
 
2014-03-06 12:33:15 PM
My podunk local telco-ISP actually spent millions over the last few years running fiber to every house in their service area, some 300 miles of cables. They're still finalizing everything, but it looks like we'll be in 100gb/s land sometime in the next couple of months.

http://savannahnow.com/bryan-county-now/2014-02-21/pac-completes-fib er -home-network-bryan-county#.UxiwW9JDtBM

"Founded in 1906, PAC continues to be a locally, family-owned business that employs about 40 members of the community. Through salaries, taxes and charitable giving, PAC invests significantly each year back into the community it serves.

"Our family has owned Pembroke Telephone for more than 65 years and owes its continued success to the people of north Bryan County," shares Mary Anna Hite, co-owner and CFO. "I don't think any other company cares as much personally about north Bryan County as do all of us who work here."


For some strange reason, people here prefer PAC over Comcast. Who would've thought that being a benefit to the community you serve could be profitable too?
 
2014-03-06 12:33:57 PM

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

It is when it's actually a free market. But wired internet isn't despite being "deregulated." But you know that and you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Yawn.


No. A free market can easily result in a natural monopoly. It would be if it was actually a perfect market, which a) don't exist, and b) are not the same as free markets. But you didn't know that and you're just being intellectually deficient.

Yawn.
 
2014-03-06 12:37:13 PM
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)
 
2014-03-06 12:39:53 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.


I'm with Time Warner.

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

Netflix still buffers.
 
2014-03-06 12:40:21 PM
If you think your internet speeds are awesome now, wait until we kill net neutrality!
ALL HAIL FREE MARKETS
 
2014-03-06 12:42:10 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


Great!  Same bad performance, but now with data caps!
 
2014-03-06 12:44:49 PM

mcreadyblue: 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.

I'm with Time Warner.

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

Netflix still buffers.


I'm also on Time Warner with that same tier/price and I got a price hike notice in the mail yesterday, so I'm getting a kick out of... etc. etc.
 
2014-03-06 12:45:58 PM
Once again, the Invisible Hand flips the bird to the public.
 
2014-03-06 12:46:38 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]


What you may not have realized in this is that you are getting over charged for subpar service.
 
2014-03-06 12:53:47 PM

Flint Ironstag: I've said it before here but the UK system seems to be working. Here government regulation means more competition. The old phone company BT, who own the network, were ordered to allow any ISP access to the network on identical terms and prices. Result is I have over 200 ISP to choose from, all offering deals that try to beat the rest. I could start an ISP tomorrow and be able to serve the whole country and be competitive on price.
They even have to allow ISPs access to the physical exchanges across the country so they can install their own equipment if they want. With fibre now commonplace (FTTC with FTTP rolling out) speeds are good, though not quite in the South Korea league.

Let me repeat the key point. Government regulation means more competition. Barriers to entry are low and everyone has dozens of ISP available, from the big multinationals to ISPs with five employees.


Too many people think in extremes.  Some people want NO regulation.  More people mock people who want "reasonable" regulation as being loonies who want no regulation.

And then there's the flip side of that.

Some regulation is good and necessary in certain industries and situations and as you point out increases competition by lowering barriers to entry.
 
2014-03-06 12:55:50 PM
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!
 
2014-03-06 12:57:18 PM
I've noticed some speed improvements in urban centers recently (both my own local experience and advertised speeds elsewhere).  I assume that's in part due to the threat from Teh Googlez forcing some companies out of their complacence.

So in 10 years, most of us will probably be on Google fiber or some equivalent...

...and South Korea will have moved on to quantum filament mega-hyper-plaid-transmission at 30 IPS*.

/IPS - Internets Per Second, i.e. the number of times entire quantity of the internet can be transmitted in one second.
 
2014-03-06 12:58:26 PM

wildcardjack: nocturnal001: Of course we have an evil gubmint agency that somewhat monitors MPG claims

No we don't. We have private Consumer Reports and Motorweek to verify mileage claims with real users.


Yes we do. The EPA monitors that, they just don't do a great job because they don't have the resources.

The real difference is that Ford may fudge the numbers by 10%, but TW might give me 500% slower than promised (or worse).
 
2014-03-06 12:59:51 PM
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.
 
2014-03-06 01:01:02 PM
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?

Ok, cool.
 
2014-03-06 01:01:11 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]


That's twice what I get, but hopefully I pay less than you.

In all honesty, I have been pretty happy with Comcast since I moved close to one of their main offices. It's amazing how much better customer service gets when the employees know you can lunge across a counter and choke the living shiat outta them if you aren't satisfied with their service. The horror stories I've heard and experienced personally mostly dealt with people calling tech support or customer service toll-free lines. Of course, it took three tries to get my cable TV installed and another three tries to get a guy out to get my internet set up, but once everything was working, it's been pretty reliable.

I guess that's the problem. They've lowered our expectations so far, we're satisfied when things just don't break.
 
2014-03-06 01:02:05 PM
I work for a CDN so I'm getting a kick out of these replies

/ You know nothing
// The truth is far, far uglier than you can even imagine
 
2014-03-06 01:03:16 PM

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?
 
2014-03-06 01:06:36 PM
What exactly do you expect when you leave the building of the national internet infrastructure to a system based on the concept of providing the least amount of service for the highest fees possible?
 
2014-03-06 01:09:53 PM
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?
 
2014-03-06 01:10:15 PM
Why are US internet connections so slow???


cause 'merica's #1!   that's why.


also, the Department of the Defense (the government) invented the Internet.  back then it was called the ARPANET.


just fyi, for all you Turds who whine about taxes and blame the government for your not being as rich as your buddy next door in your gated community.
 
2014-03-06 01:10:39 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.


109.99/m (then $20 more after the first year).. Triple Play is a great deal.. We used to pay for cable (30/5) and a regular phone service through some other company.. Combined we were close to $100 between the two. So For another $30 to get Cable TV and their phone service (HBO, Starz, Showtime, Cinemax) and 50/10.. Couldn't really beat it.
 
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.
 
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 138 of 138 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report