latimesblogs.latimes.com — Delaware residents now enjoy the nation's fastest broadband at 9.9 Mbs, nearly twice the national average. California, perhaps the nation's most high-tech-friendly state, ranked only 11th among the 50 states. If you live in last place Montana, Alaska, or Idaho, sorry about that. It probably took you 20 minutes to load the Digg homepage.
Aug 25, 2009 View in Crawl 4
odigityAug 25, 2009
#8? Not bad, New Hampshire. Plus there's that whole liberty thing: <a class="user" href="http://freestateproject.org/" rel="nofollow">http://freestateproject.org/</a>
Closed AccountAug 25, 2009
Kahzna's link (below) says otherwise.That's kinda cool. I like seeing Irish being used in the modern world.
guyincognitooAug 25, 2009
Some are.From ccxftw above:<a class="user" href="http://www.speedtest.net/result/533199206.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.speedtest.net/result/533199206.png</a>
driftmonstarAug 25, 2009
i have 20/6 $55/month on qwest fios in colorado. efffffffffffffff comcast.
Closed AccountAug 26, 2009
With 50gb cap??
mraldoAug 26, 2009
I dugg it for the idea of getting faster internet :P However, the site does not provide accurate results. I live in Oregon, and get 22Mbps on average yet the site reports I only get 14Mbps. How can I believe the information they post if the data they collect is not accurate? But w/e.<a class="user" href="http://www.speedtest.net/result/548721135.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.speedtest.net/result/548721135.png</a>
gogo001Aug 26, 2009
"California, perhaps the nation's most high-tech-friendly state, ranked only 11th among the 50 states"Actually, CA ranked 10 among the 50 states. Does the LA Times know that DC is not a state? No wonder professional journalism is going out of business.
laminatorAug 26, 2009
Wrong. At peak times urban areas = slow
yzbotAug 26, 2009
If you want to look at isolated instances then sure. But I would be willing to bet that even a peak usage an urban broadband data connection is still faster than billy-bob using dialup in his doublewide out in rural america. I made a general statement that holds true for most cases. It's more cost effective for telecomms to provide high speed links in cities than out in flyover country. Way to miss the big picture champ.
profitmongerAug 30, 2009
Maybe if 1/4 of the country didn't have Comcast everyone would be a lot faster.f**k COMCAST
carmich50Sep 22, 2009
I live in NC and get 15Mb not 15MB, but pay $50 a month. I can choose 10Mb for $40 or 1.5Mb for $25. The connection is semi reliable. The problem is Time Warner charges me $110 for hd dvr cable, so my bill is $150 a month. I think this is ridiculous, but there is no other competition here. And satellite is way too slow.Atleast we aren't like Australia, they pay for a set amount of data per month. Once they hit that amount there bandwidth gets cut to sub dial-up speeds and/or extra fees, like a cell phone bill with over minutes use. If US companies try to cap our use please join me in raising hell.