digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Avg U.S. d/l speed now is 1.97Mbps vs. 61Mbps enjoyed by the Japanese

usatoday.com — "The USA trails other industrialized nations in high-speed Internet access and may never catch up unless quick action is taken by public-policymakers, a report commissioned by the Communications Workers of America warns." reports USAToday. Okay I understand the international speed difference, but Kansas is rated #1 at 4.1Mbps say it ain't so.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • netburnr, on 10/11/2007, -65/+5http://www.speedtest.net/result/124940001.png
  • ripstuntz, on 10/11/2007, -67/+12Those damn Japs, always trying to outdo us.
    • arenz003, on 10/11/2007, -0/+35Trying? They are years ahead of us in communications.
      • brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12...and public transportation, and public behavior, and many other things.

        In fairness they also have a very high suicide rate due in large part to extremely high stress levels stemming from an over zealous work ethic. Still an amazing country that I'd high recommend visiting if you ever have the chance.
        • BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's interesting to note that these days, we are getting just as overworked and get as little vacation time as them. I read about it somewhere, not that long ago.
      • EXreaction, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10Who cares about suicide rate?

        Someone who kills themselves is no threat to me, unlike here in the US, where we have an uber high violent crime rate.
    • Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17*squints*
      What is that on your avatar ripstuntz?
      • sneeka2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4少年 ["shonen"] - juvenile; young boy
    • quik22, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1***** you ripstuntz you racist.
    • strictnein, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@quik22:
      Japanese is a nationality, not a race. You were looking for the word bigot.
  • unusualbob, on 10/11/2007, -2/+62I have been sending emails to RR about this for about 6 months, hopefully if more people do it then they can change things.
    • ZennZero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+30There is a virtual monopoly on broadband in most US markets. I know I only have two choices -- cable from one company or DSL from another (satellite is not a realistic option for many people). Why invest the money to improve infrastructure if your customers are locked in with 1-2 options?
      • brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22Exactly. There will no doubt be someone who responds to your comment with YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT MONOPOLIES R LOLOLO but you are 100% correct. The way contracts are worked out with cable companies and counties and such there is rarely if ever a choice between more than 2 high speed options. Usually you have a cable company and a phone company offering cable and DSL internet service and that's it. Think back to how much you or your parents paid for cable internet 15 years ago (if you had it). The prices have only gone up but the service hasn't changed. In fact in many places it gets worse as more people join the shared neighborhood connection (cable internet only). Since I can't shop around for faster/cheaper options they can charge whatever they want as long as it isn't so extreme I choose to go without internet access at all.

        The other excuse someone will quickly give is "The United States is much larger than Japan!!!!!!11111" That's also a BS excuse. The US has many large cities and urban centers. There is no reason those centers couldn't be as well connected as Japan. The customer base is there with the demand. The supply just never comes because profits do better when you simply charge more without changing the service.

        The reason cell phone service is relatively so cheap (to the point that many people opt for just a cell phone and have no land line) is because carriers compete with each other. They offer lower rates or more services. With high speed internet access you have a complete stagnation of services. What's the fiscal motivation to spend money on improving services if customers have no other choices?
        • TimDigg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3One thing....

          "Think back to how much you or your parents paid for cable internet 15 years ago (if you had it). The prices have only gone up but the service hasn't changed."

          Dialup was just about as expensive as broadband is now...even more if you factor in buying a separate phoneline JUST for dialup

          This is not to take away from your comment, just a point to make, I agree with you otherwise...
    • Hooj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16I suffer from the same plight Zenn. We have Adelphia (now Comcast) and AT&T. I have a 6mb/sec line and the d/l speeds rarely get above 4mb/sec. When I had 3mb/sec they barely got above 2.2mb/sec. Pretty damn pathetic.
      • superal1394, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Road Runner advertises 8 megabit, however I only get about 3. I am not mad about that at all...
    • lagrange, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10LOL I'd love to see RR laughing at your stupid e-mails.
      • Niffer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Seriously, RR doesn't give a ***** about it's customers and I know from experience. Using too much bandwidth? Oh how bout we cut off your service until to you can manually restart it by resetting your modem. They must think their customers are retarded. The second I have another broadband option I'm gone.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1What people don't realize is that this was based on a survey of 80,000 broadband users, and they also compare the MEDIAN speed of the sample.

      Now in my area, broadband is available in different packages, I personally got the 3Mbps package, but there are lowers ones that people can actually afford.

      So this is just a red herring. The problem isn't the speed of which or broadband goes because business and wealthy people can pay for the speeds. It's the price of which the speeds are valued. Are we going to allow government to step in and "negotiate" prices for us?


      People are always going off about how America is going down the tubes (no pun intended) when it comes to our "broadband" comparisons. From the evidence I've seen, I think we're in pretty good shape.
      • Moocat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3What are you talking about? The median for americans is what the article says, how does a multi-billion dollar company being able to afford a faster line have anything to do with the average american? I think you're confused, they are talking about the average person, not corporations. If you're still confused, google some results on how much Canada charges for internet and what type of speeds they get. Or if you can read japanese or korean, same with those countries.

        Now this isn't to say that those countries got their lines faster first because of their geographic area and population densities, although Canada still plays a little odd in comparison.
      • wbxp99, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Buy a ***** 61 mbit plan for less than 4 grand a month, and you can make that argument. It's more than pricing, our whole network is inferior.
    • frogpelt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Dude! Quit sending so many e-mails!

      You're killing my download times!
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6People, people, how come no one is mentioning the difference between Mbps and MB/sec. Hooj, I assume you have 6Mb/sec (or Mbps)... In reality, a 3Mb connection from the cable company only gives you 375KB/sec. Its important to keep this in perspective because files are measured in MB, not Mb. At school (university), I have an 80Mbps connection, which lets me download at over 10 MB/sec, but this isnt a speed available to ordinary consumers (its way to expensive for one house). An OC3 fiber line could give that speed, but the phone companies would have to install the infrastructure for FTTP, which is expensive for them. They also know american consumers are excessively gullible, and will fall prey to the 3Mbps is high speed lie.
      • cgoff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Would be nice if 80Mbit gave over 10MB/sec.
    • superpotential, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3and it sucks, the only way to get _short term_ internet access in a home nowadays is STILL dial-up. sigh, when will DSL and cable companies offer short-term (i.e. less than 12 month contract) service, even at a higher fee? think of the summer interns and study abroads trying to get internet access in apartments. it's still dialup, unfortunately, as the only option.
      • nicc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0not sure where you are, but Comcast doesnt require a contract...I have not heard of ANY cable provider that required a contract.
    • superpotential, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1and it sucks, the only way to get _short term_ internet access in a home nowadays is STILL dial-up. sigh, when will DSL and cable companies offer short-term (i.e. less than 12 month contract) service, even at a higher fee? think of the summer interns and study abroads trying to get internet access in apartments. it's still dialup, unfortunately, as the only option.
      • Hooj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, AT&T doesn't require a contract for DSL. However, they do require you to have their landline service.
    • morsosky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3not sure ronald regan can do much for you at this point
    • NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I tend to think that this issue, is a result of how corporate/big business centered America has become...
    • nullx42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Free usenet with RR. I wont complain about speed.
  • oriondarkwood, on 10/11/2007, -38/+348Another reason why we are quickly becoming a 3rd rate nation.. WAKE UP SHEEP GRAB YER BALLS AND USE THEM

    In order to be the great nation we where in the last century we need the following ASAP
    60 Mbps or better connection speeds
    IPv6
    Netural Net FOREVER
    SSL/Blowfish level encripytion on any site selling items / VOIP / Google
    Tax breaks for having computers with up to date spyware/adware/spamguard/anti-virus software
    Better Cell phones (in Asia you can surf the web, bank, get stuff from vending machines, buy subway tokens etc.. with your cell phone)
    • netburnr, on 10/11/2007, -34/+6I disagree with IPv6 personally.

      Imagine trying to tell someone to join a game server you are on. Instead of telling them a 4 series of up to 3 numbers, you have to tell them 8 sets of up to 4 alphanumeric characters.

      "yeah join me at server FF00:98FEblahblahblah"

      you get the point.
      • unusualbob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16use a free DNS?
        • Otto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Exactly. Why people don't have DNS names for all their machines is beyond me.
      • sikosmurf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+29This is not something you can agree or disagree with. Imagine instead of telling them a 4 series of up to 3 numbers, you don't tell them anything, because you have no IP, because they ran out of IPv4 numbers to give.
      • Scik, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Yea... copy/paste is sooooooo haaarrrrdddd....
      • imbetterthanu, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4The only people bitching about a need for IPv6 are people in Asia. That's the only market that might even be able to justify the need/reason for v6. Anywhere else it's not needed. People can use NAT if they truly run out of space...which just won't happen.
        • kohner86, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0As someone who runs five servers with only three routable addresses IPv6 would be a godsend. Nat has its uses; but it is still obnoxious.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16Blowfish is terrible. Rijndael 256 mandatory.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Um, how the hell do you plan on enforcing the tax breaks for having an up-to-date computer with anti-malware on it? Please. The best you could hope for is people taking their computers into the shop around the time they file their taxes to have some techie do it.
      • EXreaction, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Good question...

        Symantec would probably use their position to make it only possible to get that tax break if you use a Symantec product.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Another pissing match?
    • Asianwaste, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21I was stationed in Japan for a couple of years. You pay nearly twice as much per month for a service that gets badly congested during 4 PM - 10 PM. Then try living in a house with no insulation. It's damn cold during the winter and I can hear my neighbors complain about the weather. It's not as peachy as you think over there.
      • chobit, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Yes, Japanese houses don't have much insulation, but I've never had a problem with it. You have to live like a Japanese person in the winter. You don't try to heat an entire room, you use a kotatsu, and heat yourself, and use an electric blanket at night. If you have to be moving about the house, keep a good space heater next to you. They are readily available in Japan, I assure you. If you live this way, you'll end up using MUCH less energy to keep warm than you would in the United States.
        • Caruthers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Yeah because installing insulation doesn't help you save any energy whatsoever.
        • locd32, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Did you just put save energy and space heater in the same sentence? Insulation is THE energy saver when it comes to keeping a house/room/person heated.
        • chobit, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8The point is that you don't keep the house warm, you keep YOURSELF warm. The space heater is only on for a few minutes at a time. The Kotatsu keeps a very small, specific part of the house warm. Americans waste LOTS of heat attempting to keep their entire 2000+ square foot houses warm, where as japanese sit under a kotatsu which keeps a nice little 1 meter square portion of the room warm, which takes up MUCH less energy.
        • Asianwaste, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I used to use kerosene heaters. They work like a charm.
        • cmburns69, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I think the point is that if you combined both heating ideas you would be better than just one: better insulation means you have to turn on your small localized heater much less frequently. Both are not mutually exclusive.
        • streetstealth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5A kotatsu... or a MacBook!
          • Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1ha
            cheap shot at apple defects
            nice until you get dugg down for it
      • bigbertha8, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I don't know where you're getting this "nearly twice as much" figure. It's the same, if not cheaper for way faster speeds. As far as congestion is concerned, even their congested speeds are faster than our normal speeds.
        • Asianwaste, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I got it from my monthly bills and no they are not faster. Their congestion is like a jam on the YokoYoko.
          • Doghound, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@bigbertha
            How do you know that their congested speeds are faster than ours? Pulling it out of your ass? Or have you actually been over there and used their internet during peak hours?

            Just wondering. I'll honestly admin I've never been over there, so I'm truely curious. Right now asianwaste is sounding more credible of a source.
        • Burn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The congestion to anything outside of Japan is actually rather insane.
    • holygram, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3@oriondarkwood.

      If you think the USA can turn itself into a nation with any decency through better cell phones and faster internet, you're just part of the problem.


      Our 2 mpbs internet starts looking pretty good next to Cambodian killing fields, Chinese Authoritarianism, Sudanese genocide, the gaza strip, and Columbian cocoa fields...You should be thankful that we are fortunate to even have internet access.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7No one reads the article. Look at the sample they collected for this data:

      80,000 existing broadband users (5% dial up)
      They took the MEDIAN speed of the sample's broadband. This is not the average or mean.

      Most Americans only need 1.5 or 1Mbps and thats exactly what they pay for. 3Mbps and up is available from the cable company but it's pricey. So OF COURSE the median numbers are going to be low.

      Whats the price in Japan?

      $31.19 per month, or 7 cents per 100 kilobits per second
      http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060706/kyodo/d8im81vg0.html

      A chart for you visual learners:
      http://www.mulley.net/2006/09/25/broadband-speeds-and-prices-in-other-countries-japan-has-52mb-broadband-for-31usd-a-month/
      • lukasmack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3it is the average its just not the mean/geometric mean/mode/range/standard deviation they are all forms of average but it is the median.
      • ThreeDee912, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well, because of the damn internet monopoly where I live (in the middle of nowhere, no service except for 1 local company), a 512kbps line is $35 a month!
    • coolfactor, on 10/11/2007, -13/+1Got the better cell phone - iPhone. :-)

      Lucky Americans, you are.
    • ahawks, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22No... for america to stay/return to the great country we were, we need:
      Smaller government
      More freedoms back. Less pants-wetting over terrorism
      ***Better educational system

      We, as citizens, need to lose the victim mentality as well as the concept that the world revolves around us as individuals. The American Dream used to be a modest home, a healthy family, and a good rewarding job. Now it's a house that can only be paid for by 2 mortgages and 2 incomes, 2-3 cars you can't afford, home theater, and a few credit cards maxed out.

      A few technical improvements like ipv6 or download rate don't make an ounce of difference if your country's political, social and economic systems are goin to *****.
    • xShad0w, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4Actually all they really need to do is have everyone switch to mac os x leopard, problem solved!
    • iceperson, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
    • chicagobiker, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8It's really difficult to do all that when you're spending $500 BILLION dollars fighting a war to topple an evil dictator for a bunch of people who will never be your ally anyway.

      Also when you deregulate all of your infrastructure companies into profit taking corporations there's really no incentive for them to spend years losing boatloads of money "for the good of the country".
    • jspegele, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Population density also has a lot to do with this. Whose going to pay to run the necessary equipment to every rural area in the US? When the vast majority of your population lives in a few densely packed areas, it's easier and cheaper to get high speed internet to them.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/World_population_density_map.PNG
      • ThreeDee912, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yep. Sadly I live in a rural/suburb area, and it costs $50 for a 768kbps line!
    • SirZRX, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4u guys to be a great country needs to stop invading other countrys!!
    • th3heretic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I have to say I have no idea why you are being dugg up, everyone I meet from countries that have those insane speed ALWAYS has problems at peak times (massive lag and d/c's packet loss etc) where as in America ive yet to notice any of these problems (even when going from the North American continent to others.) And if you haven't noticed America has more land than Japan :)
    • tmac79, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why in the world should we pay/give tax breaks for people to run antivirus. Next you'll want to give me a tax break for changing the oil in my car.
    • RobotCitizen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2America is not going to lead in science again until we go back to thinking science education is important again.
    • decay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Guys, I don't know how but I am scoring 20 mbps in Southern New Hampshire, does anyone know why?

      Comcast is not half bad for me!
    • pwnies, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I disagree with the tax break thing. I prefer to not use any antivirus or antispyware simply because I know how to identify, track, and remove them from my system by hand. Thus, why would I want to be required to have what would be bloatware for me in order to get a tax break? It would be punishing those who are technically inclined.
    • EdwardsNH, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hello... Look at the size of Japan compared to the U.S. Which country would you rather pay to wire up?
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -35/+174Is this another clueless article that doesn't understand the economy of population density in communication technology? Or the timing effects of infrastructure where whoever gets their first will end up being behind due to replacement cost?
    • sleepyness, on 10/11/2007, -6/+34Or the greedy teleco/cable companie? You sir are naive.

      Population density is still decently high in most major US cities yet only only in New England/DFW/LA, etc, do you see FIOS. What about all the other cities?

      The teleco/cable companies agree between themselves and zone out the entire US, keeping competition at a minimum thereby not really having to raise their speeds all the while gaining government subsidies and charging $50 for 5/384 or what not to maximize profit. The teleco/cable companies surely have the money to do it, but as there is no incentive, they don't. Verizon FIOS is paving the way, but still very slowly.

      It's a sad state of affairs regarding broadband in the US.
      • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1Oh please. Always a ***** clueless dumbass with this *****.
        • sleepyness, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Really? Then ***** explain it smartass.
        • brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Please explain why in most major US cities you still can't get a high speed connection for a reasonable price? Population density has nothing to do with it or our urban centers would have high speed options at least.
    • jhnewt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+31Population density? Canada which, last I checked, has a lower population and more land area has over 3 times the median download rate of the US.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18Density? ROFLMAO!
      I guess that in New York City, you can get 200Mb/s for $20/month then? I mean the density in the New York area is pretty high..
    • aegis9975, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Right. From the same article, Canada has an avg of 7Mbs. Population density is 3.2 people/km compared to 31 people/km in the US. The US has almost 10 times the population density and Canada is 3.5 times faster.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
      • pcronin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3***** Canada has avg of 7Mbps.
        I can't even get anything but dialup (26K b/c the telco doesn't care to upgrade the lines) or sat (@ ~60/month for 521k with 600-800 ms ping).
        NO ONE is catering to rural Canada. Both Bell and Rogers sites say they have coverage to 90somthing % of "Canada". What it SHOULD say is 90 something % coverage to people that can get it.

        Too much greed.
        "There aren't enough potential customers in your area"
        Been told that by bell (aliant)(who I have dialup, home phone, long distance, and cell with) and but rogers, (used to have cable and cell with)
        Satellite is an option, but with lag times worse than dial up, and insane pricing, it's not going to replace my dial up any time soon.

    • IADTatami, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8There's really no defense for our telcos' position that doesn't involve telling ridiculous lies.

      We were swindled by the telcos and made fools of by Canada and Japan.
      • pcronin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Canada's telcos are lying too. don't you worry.

        Canada is quickly becoming a baby US. in all the bad ways
    • Juntistik, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Verizon FIOS here (Dallas), very sexy speeds. I can't wait until it expands to more regions.

      Oh and yes I picked this apartment solely for FIOS reasons.
    • IADTatami, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2What did the telcos do with that $200,000,000,000? Did they spend it in a valiant, but doomed attempt to improve the network? What did they accomplish before they ran out of money?

      Perhaps I'm attributing to embezzlement that which might be explained by incompetence.
    • zippy757, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Error601 ... isn't it nice that the above actually documented, in print, that they don't actually understand what population density means.....neat....
    • theblacknight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Some statistics:
      Japan: 339 people/km^2
      Riverside, CA: 83 people/km^2; good luck getting more than 10Mbps
      Los Angeles: 968 people/km^2; good luck getting more than 10Mbps
      Orange County: 1392 people/km^2; good luck getting more than 10Mbps
      San Francisco: 8869 people/km^2; I leave the extrapolation here to you, I have no personal experience here.

      Seriously, WTF?!
    • chocolatetacos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Ummm, sorry to point out the ignorance at the people accusing ignorance, but it's not just population density which is a factor. There's also simple demand. Most Americans are quite satisfied with broadband that is good enough to seamlessly stream YouTube videos, and that's what we've got. Personally, I'm satisfied with that, and so is most of America. (Yeah, I don't pirate, so I don't really need to download too many files over 100 Mb, unlike many people on Digg, I'd assume). Because of the low demand, you'll need to get public money to speed along the broadband expansion if you want it. People will want it once there's a large amount of HD content available for streaming. Since the people who want that sort of content most, aren't really willing to pay for it (the "pirate" demographic), it's going to be a slow process.
    • Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You also have to realize the many billions the taxpayers have given to the major tele companies for fiber at the curb. We want to cash in on our investment, or be payed back the money with interest.
  • LordSkywalker, on 10/11/2007, -14/+6I don't know how good/bad it is in other areas, but in Southern Oregon where I am, I get 10M down / 1M up for about $60/mo. on cable.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -0/+830/5mbit for 55USD per month courtesy of FiOS
    • Teemeeh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+54M for $10 in Romania
      • darwin81, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dude ***** America, I pay $30 for 512K
    • ajskhan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+216/5 for $39 Fios Dallas
      http://www.speedtest.net/result/145825254.png
    • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4A 10:1 down:up ratio is really bad, regardless of the actual numbers involved. Sure, the occasional download will feel fast, but the TCP ack packets will clog your upstream enough that you'll be lagged to ***** if you try to play a video game or have a VOIP conversation or *gasp* upload something.
      • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2That's not true. 1M is more than enough for ack packets on a 10M connection.
      • bhowell, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Don't most games use UDP anyways?
        • Doghound, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, most games do. Some aspects still use TCP (server connections, map downloads, and the like), but the majority of the online data transfer is over UDP.

          Some games that might be exceptions: RTS (C&C, Starcraft, etc.), but every FPS I play is UDP.
        • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The situation I'm talking about is trying to play a game while doing a download. You should be able to do a download and play a game at the same time, but if the TCP ack packets for the download are clogging your upstream the game will be lagged to hell.
    • smiley2billion, on 10/11/2007, -0/+410M/1M/$60 in Bowling Green, KY. That's right, KENTUCKY.

      "A 10:1 down:up ratio is really bad, regardless of the actual numbers involved. Sure, the occasional download will feel fast, but the TCP ack packets will clog your upstream enough that you'll be lagged to ***** if you try to play a video game or have a VOIP conversation or *gasp* upload something."

      I agree with you on this one, I can use newsgroups for days at a time running at 9500 kilobits/ps and everything is fine, but I uploaded a vacations worth of photos to flickr and got a call the next day about my "P2P upload traffic" causing the network to be slow for other users. But this is the way of cable internet.
      • tmurphy77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Go Hilltoppers!!! They still have only one choice for cable there? Insight if I remember correctly? I live in St Louis, MO and get 3 MB down and 1 MB up for approx $30/month... Miserable
      • smergs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah it's insight. I miss BG. But I love my cable speeds in Franklin, TN. (unless compared to the speeds in the article)
        Getting about 16M/1.5M/$50 a month
    • Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+115m/1m $65 a month here.
    • aaronm67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+110mb/512kb $30 a month here, though my 10mb is usually 7 or 8.
    • BobOki, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13m/3m here sdsl for $59/mnth
      I have complained about this for a good while. This is even WORSE when looking at cellphone download speeds.
  • hrhs556x, on 10/11/2007, -4/+67hey you know what, every time this comes up I always thank god that were still not in the Dial-up era. I'll take Massachusetts' 3.004M connection any day over dial-up.
    • carbonetc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I remember back when I had a 2400 baud modem I had to plan my day around my downloads. A 500KB file took about an hour.

      If you'd told that version of me that we'd be complaining about these speeds one day his jaw would fall out of the socket.
      • Petarded, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I remember back in the early Napster days, it would take roughly 30min to download 1 song, and hours for the entire album.
        Now with the speeds I get today, I could download a bands entire discography in 30min.

        RCN
        20/2mbit
        $80 :(
    • TheUngod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm in MA too...but I have 20 down and 2 up. That's why RCN kicks comcast ass.
    • cleonm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Unfortunately I'm still in the dial-up era. There are no broadband options where I live in GA except satellite internet.
      • Petarded, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6My sympathies go out to you.
      • minideezel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes i sympathies w/ u as well, my friend is only able to get sat, or dial up, so he has sat and is only capable of about 200kbs, and has a 200mb per 24 hr download cap which is absolute crap, i am able to to get 1.5mbs for $60 a month which sucks.
      • skyfire1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I still get 5 kbps for some torrents.
    • dainbramage559, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We really are becoming impatient. I also used to plan my days around dialup downloads around 1995-1996. Now, I stamp my feet if the latest linux distro takes over 10 minutes to download.
  • cloudyprison, on 10/11/2007, -14/+13597 kb/s Down
    858 kb/s Up
    Michigan. Clocked by the fast and furious speedometer at http://www.speedtest.net/
    (I find it funny that their red line is "20m+")
    • Sparticuz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+26mb down / .3mb up in orlando, fl
    • cepher, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15334 down
      345 up

      i hate cable upload speeds. i hate cable prices. i hate being confined to cable.
    • TrevorBradley, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Sounds similar to the numbers I was getting 10 years ago in Canada.

      OK, not quite fair, but we were getting 3Mbps D / 0.5Mbps U in 1997 via cable modem here. You can easily get 25Mbps/1Mbps in Canada now, though 10/1 is the most economical choice.
      • pcronin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"easily get 25Mbps/1Mbps in Canada now"
        WHERE?!?!?
        Sure as hell not here on the east coast.
        • spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I'm on 20mbps/1mbps in the UK
          I'm going to take this article with a grain of salt though.
          "Speed matters on the Internet. A 10-megabyte file takes about 15 seconds to download with a 5-megabit connection — fast for the USA. Download time with a 545-kilobit connection, about the entry-level speed in many areas: almost 2½ hours."
          2 and a half hours for a 10mB file at 545kbps? Yeah I don't think so. More like just over 3 minutes. and 20 seconds for 10mbps.
          5mbps is 10 times faster than 545kbps, why would it take over 600 times longer to transfer the same size file....
      • TRENT310, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Shaw's Nitro package has 25/1 -- According to Wikipedia, Shaw Communications has the fastest residential internet here.

        Personally, I don't really care about the download speed, it's the upload speed that counts.
    • NOFXY, on 10/11/2007, -0/+120346 kb/s Down
      552 kb/s Up
      San Diego, Ca with Cox. I wouldn't mind a faster upload speed though.
    • ptrcd003, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17 Down/ .8 up in canada. suck it, orlando
    • Darkhowling91, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13968 kb/s Down
      473 kb/s Up
      Erie, PA. Roadrunner.

      And it says US is faster then every other country on that website.
    • AlphaPrime, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13 Down, .2 up. St. Paul. I hate cable.
    • chevyorange, on 10/11/2007, -0/+120 down 1.5 up, Comcast, $65 (gasp) a month. Seattle, WA.
    • rcomegys, on 10/11/2007, -0/+124371 down 3119 up
      Tokushima, Japan
  • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28whats sad is I finally got my phone line repaired so I could get my full 1.5 Mbps and that still seems fast to me....sigh.
  • masterkenobi, on 10/11/2007, -5/+248Man 60Mbps, that's a lot of...recreational videos...
    • gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -21/+4Is it really that hard to say the word PORN on the internet?
      • RationalBeaver, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Sometimes subtle is funny, you stupid wanker.
    • Mcaruso, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7The internet is for.. recreational videos?
      • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes. That is what the Jedi Council has planned all along...

        UNLIMITED POOOOOOORNO!
    • clyde2801, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Do you mean anime, porn, or porn animes?
    • skyshock1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Problem is, you won't be able to fully utilize all that bandwidth unless both ISPs and web hosting companys get off their lazy asses and start increasing the UPLOAD bandwidth. Download rates mean absolutely jack ***** when no one can fully take advantage of them. Until upload bandwidth increases to match, all you will has is theorhetical possibility of gettin 60 Mbps downstream.
      • idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Bittorrent.
        • skyshock1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I've yet to max out my downstream bandwidth using bit torrent, even with a ton of local seeders. Not even close. Most people cap their upload rates anyway so they have more downstream available bandwidth. So again, this is a moot point.
    • KafirGuy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1naruto?
  • swizzcheez, on 10/11/2007, -6/+52FTFUA:

    "Speed matters on the Internet. A 10-megabyte file takes about 15 seconds to download with a 5-megabit connection — fast for the USA. Download time with a 545-kilobit connection, about the entry-level speed in many areas: almost 2½ hours."

    Hmmm, 10000000 * 8 (10 Megabytes expressed in bits) / 545000 (bits per second, we'll skip protocol overhead, etc) = about 147 seconds. That's 2.5 minutes, not 2.5 hours. Still slow, but not dial up slow for crissake.
    • Otto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yeah, I noticed that slipup too. Also, 5 megabit is not "fast for the USA". Almost all cable modem providers go up to 5 megabit. Many are up to 7 or 8. The problem is that cable only reaches the cities, for further out connections, a lot of people resort to the much slower DSL, bringing the average way down.
      • pcronin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2And also, it's not 10000000 * 8, it's 10*1024*1024*8=83886080 / 545000 = 153.9 seconds = 2.56Minutes.
        Nit picking, I know, but I'm sick and fed up with people believing that 1 G/M/K = 1000 and not 1024.
        The damn hard drive manufactures can't rewrite math, no matter how much they want to.
      • EvilRabbit817, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well actually, it's 2^20 * 8 * 10 like you said which equals 83886080 and 545 * 2^10 which equals 558080. This makes the actual time 150.312 seconds or 2.505 minutes. If you're going to correct something at least correct all of it, especially after stating that Kilo is in fact not equal to 1000, but 2^10.
        • pcronin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You're right, forgot to convert from kilo to bits. Long day.
      • Shawn4168, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I noticed the slipup as well. But, good point about the urban areas getting faster connections. Although it doesn't entirely explain the issue, America has a much larger rural population than Japan...it's a lot harder to get them wired up.
    • ronaldb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Apparently the FUA's writer noticed it too, and corrected it. It now says 2 1/2 minutes for the 545-kilobit connection.
    • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Corrected already.
  • scooterbaga, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27That number HAS to be skewed by university speeds or something. There's some really high numbers in little private clustered areas that throw off the average. While the rest of the country sits with 512K down.
    • yourmightyruler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Other countries are so much faster because in countries like Korea or Japan, they don't have 3000 miles of ground to cover with FiOS.
      • zeklown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What about Canada?
        • mitrovarr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Canada has a much more concentrated population than the US. Something like 3/4 of their population lives within 100 miles of their US border. A lot of their land area is unpopulated wilderness.
      • devo6273, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah... USA: 9.7 mil square kilometers, Japan: 377k square kilometers. (according to Wikipedia)

        That's a lot more fiber.
    • jhnewt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The statistics in the article are a median average. Look at the 3rd entry for median: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/median
      High university speeds would not skew the average.
    • Saiing, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1100 Megabits is pretty much the standard offering in Japan these days, particularly in urban areas.

      If you're in a modern city where they've upgraded recently you can get 1 Gigabit.
  • fober, on 10/11/2007, -19/+103FYI USATODAY

    Japan is an island ~the size of California.

    (Why do you think Rhode Island is fastest in the US?)
    • masterkenobi, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27Dude, we're not talking 6.1Mbps. Carry over the decimal once buddy, we're talking 61 Mbps!!! SIXTY ONE!!!!

      Even compared to our "fastest" state, we are considered snail speeds to them.
      • fober, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3All I'm trying to point out here is that it's a geography issue.

        What do you think would take less time? Rewiring your house or rewiring your entire city?
        • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2what does speed have to do with rewiring.

          Maybe more fiber optics, but that doesn't take very long at all....
          • Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1could it be that japan is one of the leading tech countries
            seriously everything decent tech wise comes from japan
            the onlyway the US could face japan is if our own population decides to improve
            higher emphasis on schooling
            and with that comes higher wages
            and with that comes better Internet connections because people are willing to pay for it
        • alphacorvus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5***** excuse...even our huge metropolitan areas with very high population density don't come close to that speed.

          If it was only a geographical limitation these would be done already and it would be slowly expanding to the suburban and rural areas. US telecom companies are just lazy and greedy!
        • Otto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Agreed. If you have to wire up a few million people with fiber optic lines, it's a heck of a lot simpler if they're all packed in like sardines.

          The population density of Japan is 337 people per square km.
          The population density of the USA is 31 people per square km.

          They make a lot more money wiring Japan than they would wiring the USA.
          For reference, the population density of New York City is about 10193 people per square km.
    • Tarl, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Japan is a ring of islands
      • Cracken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Don't understand why you getting dug down. I guess some people never look too closely at maps before they open their traps.
    • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22If the fact that Japan is only the size of California is what's doing this, then why don't the people in California have speeds like that?
      • kendawg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Because California doesn't have a $4,367,459,000,000 like Japan.
        • streetstealth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hey, Illinois has one of those, only it's red!
    • aegis9975, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13So why isn't the Island of Manhattan (with massive population density and tons of money) faster. Also, why is densely populated cities in California still getting speeds Japan got a decade ago, especially it being the world's 7th largest economy and being that's where Silicon Valley is located. How about the fact that its not just Japan that gets 100Mbs+ speeds for dirt cheap, its also S. Korea, many parts of Europe and Asia.

      It has less to do with population density then it does to do with infrastructure and cable/telcos that can get away with charging consumers ass loads of money for sub-par speeds.
      • jsully, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1FIOS (40/60Mbit) is already in Staten Island and slowly making its way inward
        Also, Manhattan has an *absurd* amount of bandwidth capacity, and has some of the most lit buildings in the world (see 111 8th ave).
    • sigma419, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17Rhode Island isn't an island. Neither is Japan; it's an archipelago.
    • jhnewt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Canada is also faster than the US by over 3 times and they're a bit larger than California.
      • pcronin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Not if you include everyone that's STUCK on dial up in Canada.
        We wouldn't even rank on the list if the people on dial up that WANTED and were WILLING to pay for high speed were included.
    • mavere, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"So why isn't the Island of Manhattan (with massive population density and tons of money) faster"

      Try opening up the streets of Manhattan for laying down the infrastructure to give everybody 61mpbs and see where that gets you.
    • chicagobiker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I'm so sick of people sayinig it's the vast area and population density that makes it more difficult for us.

      You ***** boobs have been programmed by the telcos or you work for them.

      This entire country was wired for electricity and phone in less than 20 years at the publics expense. Since we did this the companies we allowed to then charge a profit for our subsidized work have done almost nothing to upgrade it unless it saved THEM money and increased profits.
    • antdude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6What about #2 Kansas??
    • gotcheeze5793, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0From a Rhode Islander's Point of View with a regular Cable broadband (claimed 5 mbps connection speed) connection (certainly not the fastest around):
      http://www.speedtest.net/result/146016828.png
    • gotcheeze5793, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0From a Rhode Island Perspective, looks like This (basic cable service from Cox, claimed 5 mbps service)
      http://www.speedtest.net/result/146016828.png
    • nksoccer13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I live in Rhode Island and it has one of the highest speeds because of Verizon Fios. Verizon has been advertising heavily and many people have adopted the service. FYI Verizon offers connections up to 100 mbs (it is extremely expensive though).
    • BHSPitMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1But wait, less area means smaller tubes! :-?
  • Albo23, on 10/11/2007, -2/+60This is pathetic, we need some more competition in ISP's, but AT&T is buying out every company.
    • chicagobiker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Opening it up to a free marketplace from a regulated public utility is what caused this in the first place.

      We need to put it back to the Bell System because what we have now are two corporate monopolies who have absolutely no reason to do anything other than keep charging for their ***** service and only fix or replace what breaks.
    • antonio97b, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Over here in Portland, oregon its all Comcast. That is our only choice for cable internet.
    • tmac79, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's called a natural monopoly. It doesn't make sense for two companies to invest in the infrastructure to provide the same service to the same customer - Wireless will really open it up for competition though :)
  • peacebyanymeans, on 10/11/2007, -1/+143.2Mbps for me...

    At least it's better than the U.S. Average...

    Damn cable companies...
    • insanebrain, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0- "Damn cable companies..."
      damn users. . they keep paying for ***** .. so why should ISPz change their policies ? as long as nobody complains. . nothing will change.
  • slapded, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3dugg for the word 'enjoy'
  • CYR1X, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3Worst article ever.
  • Danjamin, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4Pardon my ignorance, but why would this matter for anything other than downloading torrents ?
    • jouissance, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16BIGGER TUBES = BIGGER DUMP TRUCKS = FASTER INTARWEBS
    • masterkenobi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Don't forget porn.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Newsgroups.
    • crouse, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Ultimately we won't know why faster speeds really matter until we get faster speeds. More technology generally breeds ingenuity and products are not generally made before the tools that are necessary are in existence. As of today though a fatter pipe would breed better acceptance of technologies such as IPTV and VOIP. However, we won't know what we can do until we get greater bandwidth.
    • EXreaction, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Well, 61Mbps download wouldn't help me that much.

      I'd be much more interested in the awesome upload speed they must have with it. :drool:
    • drakino, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Beyond torrents, faster download speeds would make HD movies a possibility over the internet, or better video conferences with family. Higher speed networks also can bring better latency as well, improving gaming and voice over IP services.

      It also helps certain industries allow more of their workers to work from home or at remote locations.
    • ChronicColonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3...opening up Digg's subcomment sections faster.
    • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Once you get to 60Mb/s, you won't want to come back.

      I have a question though. I have a 2Mb/s (down, upload speed is so laughable I won't even say). But say, how many servers and such are really able to deliver content at 60Mbit/s to a certain customer? Of course you'll feel like you are flying, but will a person (regular guy) be able to use all that bandwidth? Maybe, simultaneous downloadings, streaming... I don't know... (I hope I had one of those though)
    • mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have 10 down and i am truly unclear on how it is better than the 3 down that I had a few years back. What does suck is the 512 up.
  • nusuni, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6Al Gore, where are you?
    • Wourms, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Hunting manbearpig
    • XTX7X, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0in ur internets, clogging ur tubes.
      • Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Al gore didn't do crap he didn't invent the Internet that British dude did
        Al gore is just to busy being a hypocrite with unfounded fear mongering
        He didn't make the Internet
        If he actually cared about the unproven theory of global warming then he would have knocked down his own mansion
        and pulled a bush (bushes ranch is more environmentally friendly)
  • jouissance, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15Kansas ftw...I knew there had to be a reason I live here.
    • biffen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I'm in Kansas, too. Its great to finally see something positive about our state on digg. People on line only think Monkeys and Oz when they hear Kansas. In reality, I've never ever met a single creationist here. If it wasn't for Fred Phelps and the occasional school board folly, this place would be considered a magical utopia. The truth is, we are well rounded people with just as many on the left as there are on the right. Also, our education is top notch:

      http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
      • Tabris, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Overland Parks. Half hour outside KC. Many creationists.
        • biffen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You mean Overland Park. And no, there isn't. If you don't even know the name of the city, we just can't take your word for it.
        • Darkhacker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm in Lenexa which isn't too far from Overland Park. I haven't met more than a couple of creationists. Kansas really is a great place to live. Fred Phelps and a few others really make us look bad when it is actually a wonderful place. KC is a good sized city and we don't all live on farms like many people seem to think. Land prices are cheap and lots of houses and the suburbs are really nice and well developed. My mother knew a few women who moved here from California for work purposes and they practically had heart attacks when they saw that we weren't country folk with thick accents and straw hats. Other than lower population and cheaper land, we're just as developed as any major city or suburb. I don't plan on moving anywhere else unless the country goes into an economical and political collapse in which case I'll leave the entire nation for Canada.
        • jouissance, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I love KC. I'm in Prairie Village, but I work in the city and spend a lot of recreational time there. Love it love it.
    • Enlightenment, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Typically most people don't know f*cking jack about the middle area of the USA, because they haven't ever been there. There are lots of hidden cool places in the USA...up until the big city scum move in and ruin it! In my opinion, I want the idiots in the big cities to think that middle of USA sucks, so that way our part of the country is ruined by that scum.

      Ya know what is stupid as hell, paying $600K for a starter house in Southern California...just moronic!!! Hmmm, has any one ever been to downtown LA, oh my god it is an incredible pit, and speaking of hell holes drive south of downtown LA to South Central to all the scum ass gang and crimes infested areas...some of the worst places in the entire USA and far worse than anywhere in the middle of the USA!!!!!!!

      The dumbest assholes are the ones that use the Oz reference....oh so that is your point of reference...that proves that you are an idiot because Wizard of Oz was a movie filmed about 70 years ago...yes a movie and during that time period most movies were in black and white thus the color part of the movie was meant to be a dream.

      Every state in the USA has to deal with the flipping creationist and moronic design assholes in the news, but unfortunately people in some states have been overly influenced by these lies. This is very similar to the scientology crap that is going on in other states, like california and florida.

    • WorldLeader, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The best places to live in Kansas:
      -Lawrence
      -Manhattan
      (Surprise! They both have major universities)

      I love living in Kansas, but I hate the press we get. I like to think of Kansas as being very progressive, and from what I have seen it is.
    • allanj37, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Yep, 20 megabits/s here in Lawrence, KS.

      Kansas...setting an example for the rest of the country.
  • MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22Actually it looks like Rhode Island is #1 @ 5.011Mbps
  • codyfrisch, on 10/11/2007, -18/+41Show me where in the U.S. Constitution the Federal Government has the power to ensure we get broadband of a certain speed? What needs to happen is the policymakers need to get as FAR AWAY FROM IT AS THEY CAN, and let the markets sort it out. If the people don't demand it, its our job to tell them why they should. But its not our job to have the government do everything for us!
    • member57, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14If the government gives the comm companies $200 billion, I expect the people should be concerned. They bitched about the cost and good ole' Uncle Sam opened his pockets, they got money for doin' nothing and we the tax payers got screwed.
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11our market sucks. We get 2nd rate of everything when it comes to electronics and technology.
      • codyfrisch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1But our market sucks because its not allowed to operate as a market. Its all in bed with the government and everyone is scratching each others backs.
    • EXreaction, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11But it is the government's job to break up monopolies, and the like.

      Monopolies are the reason our internet speeds suck. You can get some *fast* cable for $50/m, or DSL for $35/m, which is much slower than cable. Or if your really lucky, a real connection with FIOS. If only FIOS would spread faster it would put some competition back into the market!
      • codyfrisch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm saying the government at all levels needs to get out of the picture as much as possible. Monopolies exist in the cable market by a GOVERNMENT SANCTION. When a phone company wanted to do fiber to offer TV services, the governments in those cities made or are making attempts to block it to protect the monopoly of the cable companies.


        As far as policy changes, I do think we need policy changed, but away from the current trend of the government trying to do the job of business or working to "promote" business. Business should worry about itself!
      • epalla, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I mean, Asian countries are notorious for enormous holding companies. Obviously it's not hurting their bandwidth too much.
    • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I'm all for letting the free market work, but it's far too late for that now in the US telecom market. Government interference has created a monopolistic mess, and it will require some government policy changes to get us back out of it.
    • andwoo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Actually, this is the type of thing that government, if done correctly, could do quite well. The reason why Japan has done as well as it has is directly because of the government and its policies. In order to lay the new cable required to get speeds up to that level will require a HUGE investment that the companies likely won't invest in, and if for some reason they do, it will cost us a fortune.
    • nosecohn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, during the .com boom, thousands of miles of fiber was laid in the country. As far as backbone goes, we have nearly limitless bandwidth, assuming continuing advances in optical switching systems. But the telcos have successfully lobbied congress for regulation to decrease competition, via relaxed pricing restrictions and more market consolidation. Just look how many independent ISPs there were in 2000 versus now. They're almost all gone. In that same time period, the rest of the world has raced past us as far as consumer connection speed while we've barely inched ahead. However, telco profit is way up. Go figure.
      • Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1thousands of miles? So thats what... enough for maybe one state? (assuming this is fiber to the curb)
    • streetstealth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1An unregulated market isn't a free market.

      Regulation keeps potential abusers from impinging on others' market freedom!
      • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's more complicated than that. Especially in the telecom game, government regulation is exactly what's *allowing* the dominant firms to exclude competitors from the market. It's too late for such a plan now, but we'd probably have been better off with no regulation than with the regulation history we've had in this particular case.
        • Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1if u think of the tele companies as the modern day rail road, then take into account that they have to deal with the end user directly, it is easy to see why ***** got so messy. Still no excuse.
        • Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1if u think of the tele companies as the modern day rail road, then take into account that they have to deal with the end user directly, it is easy to see why ***** got so messy. Still no excuse.
    • roystgnr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The first problem with letting the market work out network infrastructures (whether they be networks of roads, pipes, power lines, or data lines) is that it's generally impossible for me to lay a network connection between my business and your home without trespassing on a hundred other people's property in between. Government is already up to it's ears in deciding who gets the right of way to connect to your property; a lot of "free market" rhetoric comes from telecoms who benefited from past government interference and now want their current oligopolies to be preserved indefinitely.

      The second problem is that connectivity is often a "natural monopoly". It's all too easy to shut out competition when additional capital investment would be redundant and ongoing operational costs are comparatively negligible. We're just lucky that the cable and telephone networks were laid down before people figured out how to send TV over your phone lines and voice signals over your cable TV lines. Otherwise most people wouldn't even have two competitors to choose from today.
  • Machismo, on 10/11/2007, -14/+11Congrats to the idiot author!!!
    545 kb/s will yield a download time of a 10MB file of approximately 5 minutes.
    Congrats to the author for being entirely clueless about the subject matter.

    To bad the companies tech support rarely know the difference between bits and bytes when quoting speed (almost always baud or bits, almost never bytes, despite defying the lowercase b for bit and uppercase B for bytes.).
    • StillGaming, on 10/11/2007, -5/+101000011 01101111 01101110 01100111 01110010 01100001 01110100 01110101 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01110011 00100000 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01001011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01000010 01101001 01110100 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01000010 01111001 01110100 01100101 01110011 00100000 01010010 01000101 01010100 01000001 01010010 01000100
  • subtleGradient, on 10/11/2007, -21/+11Um... Japan is a little tiny collection of islands. The US is like 80% of the north american continent. If we were trying to get super fast internet on only florida it'd be pretty stinking easy.
    • deadlogic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+980%? Maybe if we annexed Canada.
    • garrettnb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? "The US is like 80% of the north american continent." ***** some people are so bloody stupid. how is canada bigger than the usa if you take up 80% of a continent you dummy Not to mention you have mexico to the south.
      • lofiboy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1It's a rough estimate, you moron.

        ***** some people are so bloody stupid.
        • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Estimate? Not even close pal. Don't try to defend subtleGradient's ignorance here.
      • lofiboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why did it post two comments?

        This new system blows ass.
    • DeusNova, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Buried for inaccuracy. The US isn't 80% of the North America continent, Canada is much bigger than the US.
    • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So we have to wire the whole country at once for some reason? Gotta get North Dakota or we can't wire Chicago? Canada is much bigger than the USA, and in their areas of high population density they have significantly higher connection speeds than we do.
    • ronaldb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1North American continent = (roughly) Canada, US, Mexico.
      Canada = 9,970,610 km2
      US = 9,629,091 km2
      Mexico = 1,958,201 km2
      Total for North America: 21,557,902 km2
      Percentage US of North America: about 45%

      And as far as Florida is concerned, maybe by the time we're all retired the telco's will have spent the millions and millions that were granted to them on actual improvements, and we can get some decent broadband....
  • schnikies79, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Dial-up is the only option for me. I do live in a rural area but I'm only 30mins for a major city. Oh well.
    • jeepnut24, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Not the only option, there is now decent speed sat internet for a reasonable price.
      • pcronin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1No there isn't. To game, sat isn't as good as dial for ping times in most cases.
    • UncleHumjaba, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I live 5 minutes from a city of 80,000 (about 4 miles from a friend of mine who gets 8mb down/ 1mb up from Comcast)
      My only options are dial up, clearwire (crap), satellite and a local wireless company called CalDSL (1.5mb synchronous). for those out of caldsl's range though, they're SOL. and i'm right in the central valley in california, where most of the bay area employees live >.>
    • tmac79, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Latency on sat internet is the issue - it takes the data about 1.5 seconds round trip to get from earth to the sattelite - Any gaming bogs down after 100ms, but even the average consumer would start to get annoyed with it. Imagine waiting 1.5 seconds every time you clicked a link, on top of the already slow load-times out there. What's worse, is that's 1.5 seconds to translate the name into an ip address, 1.5 seconds to send the request... it can really add up.
  • Starfury, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Nothing but 26.4k dial-up and satellite where I live. Still waiting on those last mile solutions to materialize....
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2dude I'm in Oklahoma, and we get broadband cable connection.. Our highest connection is usually T3 though..
      • diggduggjoe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Oklahoma? You have broadband in every square inch of Oklahoma? Do you live in a subdivision or out in the rural farm country? Comparisons must be made.
    • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Have you considered just stringing the damn fiber and setting up a local DSL co-op? It's actually pretty cheap if you can get a couple hundred neighbors to cooperate.
      • pcronin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I've considered this. Problem is, People are lazy, ill informed and scared of change.
    • chicagobiker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I feel your pain, but sadly, there's no incentive for the "for profit" telco to spend $50,000 running a better line out to your house for your $50 a month. Now if it was a federally subsidized government service for the betterment of society, you know like electricity, well there'd be no problem. I'll bet you have electricity right?
      • happytron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yes, but then we'd be subsidizing his (apparently expensive) choice of living far away from civilization. I bet he burns lots of subsidized gasoline as well.
    • invision, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1direcway ftw.
      [thats what im using]
      [and, im not a big fan.]
      [but it beats the ***** out of dial up anyday.]
      • Nok1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1please [stop using] [brackets] [th][ank] you.
  • OzzzzSSzzzzO, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I get 6.9 Mbps here in Texas
    • iknoritesrsly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i get at least that too.

      yay for fiber optics.
    • alefox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+110 Mbps :P and that's on a cable line
    • r3drumz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+020/5 here on FiOS..
      its awesome. i definitely recommend it when it comes to your area.
  • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/11/2007, -10/+96Well, Japan's internet speeds are driven higher by demand for instant tentacle porn-schoolgirl videos. You gotta have a lot of bandwidth to stream that in HD.
    • neocitron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1if i had the money, i'd send you on a one way trip to Tokyo you ingorant fool
  • MDrake, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1America has always been behind in the internet times, why is this a surprise?
    • newyawker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6What? America invented almost all of the core intarwebs technologies.
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4We're behind on cell phones also. When I was in Germany.. I showed my friend my blackberry, and he showed me an add about blackberry from 2001.

      yea......
  • f4nt0m4s, on 10/11/2007, -16/+3***** japan! i went to walmart and stole 120Mbps today! and i don't live on an island or have a 2 inch penis!
  • mrand01, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1I get 30Mbps down and around 5Mbps up here in Northern Jersey, nothin to complain about :-)
  • CaptMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7But how much does internet access in Japan cost? I know it wasn't too many years ago that I was hearing that most of their companies still charged by the hour. Still, 61 mbps is a lot, and I thought my 9mbps fiber optic line was nice...
    • sleepyness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~PF2K-WLKN/inetjfaq.html

      Pretty ***** cheap FTTH

      FTTH (Optical Fiber To The Home) is provided to large condos in major cities. A 1Gbps fiber typically connects to VDSL (very high speed ADSL), providing 100Mbps service to up to 8 or 16 users from about ¥4,500 a month. Non-shared connections (to houses or wooden apartments) start from about ¥7,000 a month.

      1 U.S. dollar = 123.716442 Japanese yen

      $57~ a month.
    • Arkonnan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I can't comment about Japan, but I'm in Southern Ontario and I'm paying $42/month for a 10mbit connection. How much are you guys paying?
    • chicagobiker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm in Chicago, IL and pay $80 a month for Comcast 10Mb/784k
    • alefox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3$50 for the same thing in NY :P
    • renegadeafk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2***** $50 a month for 6mbps/386k Comcastic! (Vermont)
    • kevisazombie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1$50 a month for 3mbps/256 Charter in wisconson woot.....
    • nksoccer13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1$35 a month for 5mbs (rhode island)
  • member57, on 10/11/2007, -5/+89$200 billion taxpayer fraud, we were supposed to have at least a 10Mbps connection by now. The Government subsidized the communication companies to do this in 1997 and be completed by 2005-2006. I still sit at 1.5Mbps..... Exactly the same speed as 6 years ago....
  • BZKyle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I get ~7-10ish mbit/sec in Ottawa, Canada.
    • Paranoidmarvin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'd always thought the internet in the UK was bad. We have just got 8mbit...
      It is terribly biased though. We live in one of the many parts of Scotland that can't get cable, therefore our max speed is 8mbit.
      And my dad is getting 20 mbit next month....
    • magixx2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What ISP?
  • kryx2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6If you go to speedtest.net, and check out their top 5 countries... You see Japan is #1, followed by Sweden, then.. Latvia? Romania? And Bulgaria? Pretty surprising.

    • chicagobiker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3None of those countries are spending (giving to their Vice Presidents former company) $500 BILLION dollars fighting a war for oil.

      What kind of telecommunications infrastructure do you think our congress could have bought for $500 Billion if we didn't go and fight a war?
      • gotcheeze5793, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0And again with the Rhode Island thing, they're smaller!!
    • sv650touring, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Those eastern European countries need big tubes to supply the world with their wonderful phishing sites.
  • gruvsf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I'd be happier with faster speeds than EDGE on my damn 3G-enabled cell phone when I am outside of Metro areas. My cable is already 6Mbps
  • avalys, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2This is absurd. Japan is a far smaller and more densely populated nation than the US. Any comparison between the two is meaningless.
    • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Sure, let's try some more direct comparisons then. Any city in Japan vs any city in the USA - even if they have areas and population densities, the Japanese city will still utterly trump the US city in internet connectivity.

      The fact of the matter is, the USA is horribly behind. Even in Manhattan - which should have a high enough population density to have as high connection speeds as anywhere, if population density is the relevant factor - you can't get connection speeds that can even approach the speeds that you can get in Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Stockholm, or any of a long list of major cities worldwide. The connectivity in the Czech Republic is better than that in the high population density area of eastern Massachusetts.

      Anyone who uses population density is basically trying to say that we need to wire Northern Alaska before we can start wiring downtown Chicago. *****.
    • ronaldb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You must have missed the other 5 comments that use the same logic and were posted a little before yours.
  • MDrake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I have 10mbps/1mbps here in Kentucky, pretty slick. Although I am really looking forward to giving the new Verizon FiOS a shot, it is available here now. Anyone had any experience with it?
    • conturax, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0I'm sorry, you are mistaken. FiOS is not available in any part of Kentucky.
    • flessa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have a 20/5mb fios connection here in MA. Im loving it. Get it asap.
  • 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"unless quick action is taken by public-policymakers"

    Of course... Because only public-policymakers can improve society... Because they have proven to be so good at it...
    • IADTatami, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Government regulation is typically a response to abusive activity on the part of industry, particularly here in the United States, where the people highly value capitalism, and their government representatives highly value large sacks of money.

      It's not as if there's nothing industry can do to avoid inviting regulation. It does seem as if very few people on the supply side have ever heard the tale of the golden goose.
  • DeusNova, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I bet it's only that fast because all the lonely hikikomoris need to get their porn fast since they don't have a chance communicating with a girl. =P
  • hokie47, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Yeah it is nice to be fast. Granted this is at work. But I get around 15000kb/s down and 3000kb/s up at home with FIOS
    55899kb/s Up
    58698kb/s Down
    http://www.speedtest.net/result/145826030.png
  • icyhot, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Uh, is anyone really complaing about download speed? I have cable and it is fine. I can view video without waiting. I guess I'd take faster, but at some point it just becomes a number that makes no difference to me. It seems like just a number that someone can point to and say the US is last. Congratulations. The US doesn't have the fastest download speeds. Got us there.
    • sleepyness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We do, our Internet2 backbone is blazing fast, too bad average joe and jane can't use it.
    • Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Upload speed is definitely a far bigger issue because of these terrible massively asymmetric consumer connections, but download speed is still a factor too. You need about 24 megs down to stream HD video. The main use for a normal person for a connection faster than that is moving files between computers over a network - I know my time is worth something, and it'd be a hell of a lot more convent if copying the videos of my vacation (say 1 gig) across the network took less time. A file copy like that shouldn't really take more than 10 or 15 seconds.
    • chabuhi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It would also be nice if the cable companies weren't ass-raping us every step of the way
  • tdkme, on 10/11/2007, -3/+33but all the telco's received billions of dollars in tax breaks to make us all fiber wired by last year and never did. so shouldn't they have to pay it back or get us there?
  • mckirkus, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1A lot of this is due to geography, the population density is huge there so they just run a bit of fiber and the whole city is lit up at a gigabit. Now compare that to the middle of Kansas where neighbors live a half mile apart.
    • sleepyness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3So fine, why don't they start from the most dense urban areas and work their way out? At their current rate, teleco/cable companies don't want to move an inch. They keep loving cable and copper while fiber kicks the pants off both of them. Sure AT&T is starting to wire fiber, it's a good start, but they ALL need to start doing it to make a real difference.
      • Shao00, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2that old copper can still pump out the exact speeds Fios is offering.....Basically cable companies are fiber now, they just use the copper for the last mile because thats where running cable becomes ridiculously expensive. Ever see those big can things on the polls? fiber is run to those directly from your cable companies head end, it then branches out to your neighborhood using coax.
    • duffman03, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It just shouldn't be that hard to find the bottlenecks and upgrade them. Whats google going to do with all that dark fiber damnit?! If they make a broadband company I would be first in line... can't stand comcast.
  • tatltat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+39Maybe Japan is compensating?
    • SpacemanSpiff, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Nice avatar...thief.
      • VANOS, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Copying is the most sincere form of flattery.
    • boituma, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Yes, because whenever the Japanese do something cool, they're compensating for their small penises. And whenever the Americans do something cool, we're trying to undermine traditional cultures. And whenever the Europeans do something cool, it's because their governments subsidized it.
  • jdstl1977, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0This is kinda misleading. Japan is a small island and the Japanese government heavily subsidizes technology infrastructure.
    • scootinger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1How's it misleading? The article says that Japan has substantially higher broadband speeds compared to the US and that is a fact. It doesn't matter if the US is bigger or if (supposedly) the US doesn't put money into telecom infrastructure....we still have lower broadband speeds.
  • f4nt0m4s, on 10/11/2007, -2/+66ohhh...the dial up days...

    back then looking at porn was a mystery. the image would slowly load...and you never did know what the bottom of the picture would yield. good times....

  • hokie47, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2It is nice to be fast. Granted this is at work, but get around 15Mbps at home with FIOS.
    55899kb/s Down
    58698kb/s Up
    http://www.speedtest.net/result/145826030.png
  • diggduggjoe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I am tired of the comparisons with small countries. The Japan example is a joke. The United States is about 10 million square kilometers while Japan comes in about 378,000 square kilometers. That makes the US 26 times the size of Japan. Then you have to consider most of the US is rural, places which will have no chance of DSL or cable for a long time. It is those millions of dial-up lines which drag down our average. I wonder how much of that 61 mbit is publicly subsidized at the expense of more important needs.
  • Markers, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I average about 20 - 30Mbps Download, and 10 - 20Mbps Upload.... at work.
    http://www.speedtest.net/result/145829467.png
    • alefox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1why u little! i want that kind of internet connection, let me guess, FiOS?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 249 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.