Two-thirds of Americans surf the Web at less than 10Mbps

Average speed improved in nearly every state (sorry, Ohio).

Read the whole story

 

[brentrad]

dnjake[/url]":qyanirxy]Does Joe actually have a clue why anybody needs more than 1 mbs? I actually know something about the internet from helping develop it and working for 20 years as a software professional. I use the internet very heavily. It makes a large difference to my life. But, it works just fine for one person at 1 mbs.

Who's Joe? If you're referring to the author, his name is "Jon."

 

[Bengie25]

Tijger[/url]":15rb4cnj]

DanNeely[/url]":15rb4cnj]I'm surprised that more Asian countries aren't leading the way with IPv6; with their level of subscriber growth I'd've expected the IPv4 shortage to be hurting them more than anywhere in the west.

IP blocks are given out regionally by the respective RIR's (there's 5) and some regions have had very fast and high uptake and others have been slower and policies for giving out IP ranges have also changed over time so it might well be that the Asian RIR isnt facing the same shortages yet.

The Asian blocks are been completely exhausted for over a year now. There's only one left and it's reserved for management reasons.

 

[Ars of Ares]

teknik[/url]":6rsniz94]I'm going down 32 Mb/s up and 28 Mb/s up.

I have no idea why upload speeds are so fast for me, they've always been higher than what I pay for.

I'm thinking it has to do with proximity to the university

I have the same.. issue. In the early days, my download speeds were way below what I was paying for, but the upload speeds were well above. Tech support couldn't figure it out, either, though at least my slow download speed problem was remedied. (They just never got around to slowing the upload. )

 

[rainynight65]

dnjake[/url]":ds5p05qe]Does Joe actually have a clue why anybody needs more than 1 mbs? I actually know something about the internet from helping develop it and working for 20 years as a software professional. I use the internet very heavily. It makes a large difference to my life. But, it works just fine for one person at 1 mbs.

In those 20 years, have you ever tried downloading a file that's larger than, say 5MB?

 

[Bleeprz]

Ushio[/url]":25bqae63]

foreignreign[/url]":25bqae63]I'm actually kind of impressed to see the US in the top 10 on those charts, especially when considering that every other entity on those charts are fractions of the size of the US.

For reference, Pennsylvania is 46,055 sq mi with 43% above 10 Mbps. The Netherlands is 16,039 sq mi with 44% above.

Also nice to see Delaware being good for something other than tax free shopping.

Surely the biggest problem with the US's internet is not the maximum available speed in an area but the amount it costs?

I pay £37.75 a month for 75Mb's down and 17Mb's up (including line rental) which is $62.50 according to XE how much would it cost in the US?

No one in my area Chicago's Northwestern Suburbs offers that kind of plan. I'm paying around $150 USD for 5~7 Mb/s down and up along with this bullshit cable bundle. This is for a family of four mind you. And then all the speed goes to shit at about 10:30 CST, which is when I believe everyone in my neighborhood collectively decides to watch Netflix. So, consider yourself lucky.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

brentrad[/url]":1q18olo4]

dnjake[/url]":1q18olo4]Does Joe actually have a clue why anybody needs more than 1 mbs? I actually know something about the internet from helping develop it and working for 20 years as a software professional. I use the internet very heavily. It makes a large difference to my life. But, it works just fine for one person at 1 mbs.

Who's Joe? If you're referring to the author, his name is "Jon."

Probably one of John Doe's aliases?

 

[brentrad]

Maj. B. Guano[/url]":3ox1ap33]I think it's time I quit complaining about $60/mo for rural 25 Mb service. I could be far worse off.

That's considered blazing fast and cheap to most of the US. I have 35/35 Mb symmetric FIOS for about $60, and a choice of providers, and I know I'm lucky. I live in Hillsboro Oregon, which is basically suburban Portland (and home to many Intel campuses,) but 10 miles away in urban Portland, my friends have to suffer with 2-10 Mb non-symmetric DSL for the same price or more.

 

[zyyn]

I get 7Mbps and it works fine for everything I need. It just takes awhile to get some of the larger games from Steam. I pay 45$/month for that. If I wanted to I could pay ~$70/month for 25Mbps. While this connection suits my needs it does seem a little limited considering I live in an area that is absolutely crawling with tech companies/government research labs/etc. And the 25Mbps option only just became available about a year ago.

 

[Sunnyape]

It was interesting to note the highest average connection speeds were often associated with the most densely populated countries. South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Czech Republic and Belgium are all in the top 40. The rest are all top 100.
Latvia and Ireland are a bit outside, but still top 150, so they could be considered more 'efficient' at delivering connection performance to their citizens.

 

[Bad Monkey!]

Kevinv[/url]":7izgn22n]Google Fiber! Booyah. I waited 3 years, but got it last week.

from speedtest.net:

Urge to kill... rising.

 

[jimisawesome]

Sunnyape[/url]":2ci22xop]It was interesting to note the highest average connection speeds were often associated with the most densely populated countries. South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Czech Republic and Belgium are all in the top 40. The rest are all top 100.
Latvia and Ireland are a bit outside, but still top 150, so they could be considered more 'efficient' at delivering connection performance to their citizens.

This.

1- South Korea 23rd in the world. But more importantly nearly everyone in the country lives in the metro areas of its 2 largest cities.

2- Japan 39th in the world. Nearly 40 percent in its 2 largest cities.

3-Netherlands 24th in the world. The Randstad is about half the population.

4-Switzerland 66th in the world

5-Hong Kong 4th in the world

6- Czech 87th in the world. Half the population in its 2 largest metros

7-Latvia 184th. Over half the population lives in its largest city.

8-Belgium 35th in the world. Its 5 largest cities are basically the population

9-US 180th in the world. It would take about the top 25 metros to get to half the population.

10-Denmark 88th in the world. Copenhagen is half the population.

TLDR version. The US is doing an awesome job despite all the naysayers on tech sites.

 

[EmeraldArcana]

I get 12 Mbps ON MY PHONE

 

[aidian holder]

jimisawesome[/url]":94w7cq7c]

Sunnyape[/url]":94w7cq7c]It was interesting to note the highest average connection speeds were often associated with the most densely populated countries. South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Czech Republic and Belgium are all in the top 40. The rest are all top 100.
Latvia and Ireland are a bit outside, but still top 150, so they could be considered more 'efficient' at delivering connection performance to their citizens.

This.

1- South Korea 23rd in the world. But more importantly nearly everyone in the country lives in the metro areas of its 2 largest cities.

2- Japan 39th in the world. Nearly 40 percent in its 2 largest cities.

3-Netherlands 24th in the world. The Randstad is about half the population.

4-Switzerland 66th in the world

5-Hong Kong 4th in the world

6- Czech 87th in the world. Half the population in its 2 largest metros

7-Latvia 184th. Over half the population lives in its largest city.

8-Belgium 35th in the world. Its 5 largest cities are basically the population

9-US 180th in the world. It would take about the top 25 metros to get to half the population.

10-Denmark 88th in the world. Copenhagen is half the population.

TLDR version. The US is doing an awesome job despite all the naysayers on tech sites.

I've always wondered about this. Density to a point is sure to help network operators turn a profit, but once you reach big city density it becomes really, really expensive to do any construction. In my inner suburb of major metro, it's not that big a deal to dig up the street and lay some fiber. In SF, NYC, or, say Tokyo, it's a huge deal.

 

[Kerry56]

ATT DSL and maxed out at 6Mbps. I don't believe the top speed in my little section of the boondocks will get better any time in the next five years.

Oh, and our DSL is six times faster than the local cable, who charges more.

US broadband is nearly as fucked up as our healthcare.

 

[svim]

foreignreign[/url]":1ci14poe]I'm actually kind of impressed to see the US in the top 10 on those charts, especially when considering that every other entity on those charts are fractions of the size of the US.

For reference, Pennsylvania is 46,055 sq mi with 43% above 10 Mbps. The Netherlands is 16,039 sq mi with 44% above.

Also nice to see Delaware being good for something other than tax free shopping.

That argument that the U.S. landmass is so much bigger keeps popping up but what's the logic to support it? Despite dumb-ass moves the past few decades similar to allowing the recent sequester we still have a very well developed infrastructure here in the U.S. but our equally dumb-ass enforcement of Big Telecom quadolpoly has hampered our ability to compete in the world market. South Korea just announced rolling out 300 Mbps LTE on a consumer level, something we can only dream about. We pay more for less and sadly there's absolutely no indication of things getting better here. So again, what's the logic behind that continuous harping about America's size? What state, county, or other definitive locale is actually even close to competing with what other sovereign nations are currently doing?

 

[r venosa]

Sigh... $100/month w/ 1GB limit a day (1-4 AM is free time for downloads). Not much choice here in Portola Valley. Thanks Hughes.net (and Blizzard) for making Diablo 3 completely unplayable with lag.

 

[apoplectic]

Comcast (By design.) is schizophrenic in every way when it comes to their Internet packages. The prices increase to $65ish per month after the first 6, or 12 months for their 25 Mbps plans no matter where you live, even though the fine print says regular prices from $42 to $65 dollars. (Rounding up to nearest dollar.) Also I've never actually seen speeds with any of my clients from anywhere in Comcast, or Charter's areas - above 10 Mbps using the 25 mbps package, mostly around 7, or 8. Checking today with a very fast linux computer, high end Motorla modem and fressh network / system reboot went to 8.16 download and 1.2 upload speeds. Unless most of their clients fall off the Internet cliff, “Up to speeds” is a complete lie...

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

As regards Akami's analysis of what they categorize as Attack Traffic

The United States remained in third place as it originated 11 percent of observed attacks during the third quarter, up from 6.9 percent in the previous quarter."

So does Akami employ front-end filtering to eliminate any NSA traffic from the analysis, or is the NSA adjusted for statistically using post-collection data?

Cause, you know, if comprehensively the USA is only sporting a Bronze Medal for attack vectors, how can the NSA even begin to justify the $XXXXX REDACTED billions upon billions we spend on them annually? At the very least, how can they keep a straight face?

EDIT: (-5 / +0 at the time of edit) - I certainly could be wrong in my interpretation, but I honestly do think it's fair to classify the NSA's illegal & unconstitutional digital surveillance & data capture presence on both wired & wireless networks as traffic that constitutes a legitimate threat.

 

[magnusalpha]

I get 60 Mb/down for about $55/month.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

Brendan McKinley[/url]":mfxm1vn6]Considering we have single stream networking technology that can send data at over 200,000 Mbps, this report is pretty sad.

I understand what is technically possible and what the average is are never going to be close; but you would have though by the year 2014 "Fast Ethernet" (100 Mbit) type speeds would be pretty much universal by now, at least in first world countries.

I guess when big telco/cable owns your government that's what you get. Where I work we can't even get reliable POTS because the incumbent doesn't want to fix the lines.

(edit: clarity)

As regards technology, your logic is clear & reasonable. However your error is quite plain upon a review of your assumptions.

Telco/cable company ownership of government policy mechanisms is an entrenched characteristic of 3rd world development. No moderately well functioning 1st world contemporary society would dream of permitting capitalist overreach to such ludicrously cartoon-like proportions.

EDIT: (-5 / +0 - at the time of edit) Ouch! Either there are a lot of Uber-Pro Capitalistas out there who truly don't understand what happens when those Kute Koch Kids are left free to play without any govt. supervision (yeah...think KKK style smarts), or maybe it's that there's more than just a "little" resentment that the richest, most powerful nation in the world is selling its self off to a group of "Nigerian-Prince Grade" con-men faster than street dealers run from lights & sirens?

Or maybe it's just a bad day for sarcasm?

 

[taiganaut]

mhungry[/url]":3nu77geo]I'll pay for the increased uplink speed before I add downlink.

A million times, this.

When I get my pet unicorn I would also like to be able to adjust sliders at my ISP for up and downlink (within the capacity of the equipment, obviously, and this is doable on DOCSIS if they wanted to do it) and pay accordingly.

 

[taiganaut]

EmeraldArcana[/url]":34xmpw6d]I get 12 Mbps ON MY PHONE

With a 1GB data cap, then it's $25/GB, amirite?

 

[Schizoid]

Meanwhile, my parents in rural New Hampshire are on 24k dial-up.

 

[jimisawesome]

svim[/url]":3cp2f37b]

foreignreign[/url]":3cp2f37b]I'm actually kind of impressed to see the US in the top 10 on those charts, especially when considering that every other entity on those charts are fractions of the size of the US.

For reference, Pennsylvania is 46,055 sq mi with 43% above 10 Mbps. The Netherlands is 16,039 sq mi with 44% above.

Also nice to see Delaware being good for something other than tax free shopping.

That argument that the U.S. landmass is so much bigger keeps popping up but what's the logic to support it? Despite dumb-ass moves the past few decades similar to allowing the recent sequester we still have a very well developed infrastructure here in the U.S. but our equally dumb-ass enforcement of Big Telecom quadolpoly has hampered our ability to compete in the world market.

We are 8th in the world. How is that not competing? Of the countries ahead of us only 1 of them has over 51 million people. Only 2 are above 13 million people. We have 2 cities where the metro is bigger then all but 2 of the other top 10.

And why would the big ebil telecoms bother when they cant get the consumers to upgrade to faster packages now? Don't give me the cost crap either. FIOS charges 5 dollars more to nearly double the speed of its mainstream plan (15/5 to 25/15) and only about 15 percent do.

South Korea just announced rolling out 300 Mbps LTE on a consumer level, something we can only dream about. We pay more for less and sadly there's absolutely no indication of things getting better here. So again, what's the logic behind that continuous harping about America's size? What state, county, or other definitive locale is actually even close to competing with what other sovereign nations are currently doing?

South Korea might as well be Soule and Busan seeing nearly everyone in the country lives in these 2 metros. These cities are also newer when it comes to infrastructure.

 

[brainychimp]

Ohio resident here. Time Warner charges me ~$40 for 12/1.5, and the next-lowest level is something along the lines of 2/512k for $25. worst of both worlds. if my prepaid provider allowed me to tether, I'd drop cable in a heartbeat... LTE consistently beats my cable connection.

 

[acmegamer]

AdamM[/url]":220on9z2]

harteman[/url]":220on9z2]This is pretty much the baseline speed here in Michigan just north of Detroit.

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3266179532

Charter cranks up my speed to 60Mbps on the 4th. Pretty happy. $55/m

I've just started realizing that I am going to very much miss Charter in a few months. We're doing a job relocation down towards Nashville, TN. All I am finding down there is 10Mbps to 25Mbps speeds and a lot of talk about throttling etc.

 

[Sunnyape]

aidian holder[/url]":1noy4anp]

jimisawesome[/url]":1noy4anp]

Sunnyape[/url]":1noy4anp]It was interesting to note the highest average connection speeds were often associated with the most densely populated countries. South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Czech Republic and Belgium are all in the top 40. The rest are all top 100.
Latvia and Ireland are a bit outside, but still top 150, so they could be considered more 'efficient' at delivering connection performance to their citizens.

This.

1- South Korea 23rd in the world. But more importantly nearly everyone in the country lives in the metro areas of its 2 largest cities.

2- Japan 39th in the world. Nearly 40 percent in its 2 largest cities.

3-Netherlands 24th in the world. The Randstad is about half the population.

4-Switzerland 66th in the world

5-Hong Kong 4th in the world

6- Czech 87th in the world. Half the population in its 2 largest metros

7-Latvia 184th. Over half the population lives in its largest city.

8-Belgium 35th in the world. Its 5 largest cities are basically the population

9-US 180th in the world. It would take about the top 25 metros to get to half the population.

10-Denmark 88th in the world. Copenhagen is half the population.

TLDR version. The US is doing an awesome job despite all the naysayers on tech sites.

I've always wondered about this. Density to a point is sure to help network operators turn a profit, but once you reach big city density it becomes really, really expensive to do any construction. In my inner suburb of major metro, it's not that big a deal to dig up the street and lay some fiber. In SF, NYC, or, say Tokyo, it's a huge deal.

It may cost more to initially put cable into a densely populated area, but there a lots of people using the cable and the return would be quick. A less dense suburb might be cheaper to lay the cable, but there are less people and the return would take longer. It goes all the way down the scale until you get to very sparsely populated areas where the cost to lay the cable will never be recovered, regardless of how cheap it is to lay.

 

[msft0682]

This, boys and girls, is what blazing speed looks like:

 

[Shannara]

Surf the web? You need 1 - 2 mbps at the most ... If you mean streaming movies and stuff... that's a different story ....

 

[soulsabr]

Kevinv[/url]":2imv5wls]Google Fiber! Booyah. I waited 3 years, but got it last week.

from speedtest.net:

I'm sure I speak for many here on Ars when I wholeheartedly tell you to EAT ME! from my sorry ass AT&T connection. *sob*

 

[IIfx]

Comcast customer in N. VA - I get 28Mbps down/5 up on their standard Performance tier.
They recently announced doubling the speed, so in a few months the average Comcast customer will get 50/10.
See:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Excl ... ain-127416
That should help the averages in the USA.

Still, a lot of people in this country are stuck on really obsolete ADSL2. While everyone likes to hail Verizon as amazing, their FIOS deployment is anemic and is only a dent in their footprint. They promised for decades to deploy FTTH 45/45 throughout their footprint back when they were Bell Atlantic.

Anyone who cant get FIOS enjoys 1mbit or 3mbit DSL. If your lucky, and close to the CO, they can bump that up to 10-20mbit.

 

[logic_88]

I'm stuck at 12/1 for ~$55 a month (with POTS) but at least there's no cap so they don't care if you move 1TB+ monthly.

For those folks with the higher speed connections, is it uncapped? If it is capped at anything less than 1TB then I'd rather suffer with the slower speeds.

 

[68K]

Maj. B. Guano[/url]":3qjw37yl]I think it's time I quit complaining about $60/mo for rural 25 Mb service. I could be far worse off.

$109/mo for 8mbit down, 0.75mbit up here in Australia. The upside is that I have a 200GB cap. It's *just* enough for some TV streaming but if I want HD I'll have to download the entire thing in advance. Online gaming's OK. Discovered that my particular street isn't even on ADSL2.


This country's got some catching up to do. Broadband is slow and very expensive compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Tiny3001]

Posting from South Africa here... I have to tell you, everytime I read a heading like that, my head goes: "Oh shame, the poor Americans". Obviously with a very sarcastic tone.

Our average download speed just recently (August 2013) cracked the 4Mbps mark according to the Ookla Net Index. We pay the equivalent of $70/month for a 4Mbps line, which has an upload speed of 1Mbps.

So yeah, all you Netflixing, Hulu-ing Americans... aah, never mind. Secretly, we envy you.

Source: Ookla Net Index - South Africa

 

[hernias]

Tiny3001[/url]"8n24p21]Posting from South Africa here... I have to tell you, everytime I read a heading like that, my head goes: "Oh shame, the poor Americans". Obviously with a very sarcastic tone.

Our average download speed just recently (August 2013) cracked the 4Mbps mark according to the Ookla Net Index. We pay the equivalent of $70/month for a 4Mbps line, which has an upload speed of 1Mbps.

So yeah, all you Netflixing, Hulu-ing Americans... aah, never mind. Secretly, we envy you.

Source: Ookla Net Index - South Africa

But do you actually *get* 4Mbps? Or is that just what your provider advertises it as *up to*?

I will be amazed if someone on this thread has not yet posted this bit from Penny Arcade. It's very representative of how the cable companies like to dick with us Americans.

You know. You might get your advertised speed. At 6AM. On Christmas Day.

 

[hernias]

Sunnyape[/url]":dqx4kyqm]

aidian holder[/url]":dqx4kyqm]

jimisawesome[/url]":dqx4kyqm]

Sunnyape[/url]":dqx4kyqm]It was interesting to note the highest average connection speeds were often associated with the most densely populated countries. South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Czech Republic and Belgium are all in the top 40. The rest are all top 100.
Latvia and Ireland are a bit outside, but still top 150, so they could be considered more 'efficient' at delivering connection performance to their citizens.

This.

1- South Korea 23rd in the world. But more importantly nearly everyone in the country lives in the metro areas of its 2 largest cities.

2- Japan 39th in the world. Nearly 40 percent in its 2 largest cities.

3-Netherlands 24th in the world. The Randstad is about half the population.

4-Switzerland 66th in the world

5-Hong Kong 4th in the world

6- Czech 87th in the world. Half the population in its 2 largest metros

7-Latvia 184th. Over half the population lives in its largest city.

8-Belgium 35th in the world. Its 5 largest cities are basically the population

9-US 180th in the world. It would take about the top 25 metros to get to half the population.

10-Denmark 88th in the world. Copenhagen is half the population.

TLDR version. The US is doing an awesome job despite all the naysayers on tech sites.

I've always wondered about this. Density to a point is sure to help network operators turn a profit, but once you reach big city density it becomes really, really expensive to do any construction. In my inner suburb of major metro, it's not that big a deal to dig up the street and lay some fiber. In SF, NYC, or, say Tokyo, it's a huge deal.

It may cost more to initially put cable into a densely populated area, but there a lots of people using the cable and the return would be quick. A less dense suburb might be cheaper to lay the cable, but there are less people and the return would take longer. It goes all the way down the scale until you get to very sparsely populated areas where the cost to lay the cable will never be recovered, regardless of how cheap it is to lay.

The only issue I see with the "America = less dense, ergo less fast" argument is that I'm not sure there's any improvement in service within densely populated metro areas. I really don't know, and would actually appreciate some statistics or anecdotes or whatever anyone has. Do people in Manhattan/Chicago/SF/LA and other major cities see measured improvements in bandwidth and latency?

 

[Tiny3001]

hernias[/url]":c53409fn]
But do you actually *get* 4Mbps? Or is that just what your provider advertises it as *up to*?

I will be amazed if someone on this thread has not yet posted this bit from Penny Arcade. It's very representative of how the cable companies like to dick with us Americans.

You know. You might get your advertised speed. At 6AM. On Christmas Day.

Most of the time we do... but you're right, we should hate you even more now! We don't EVEN always get 4Mpbs!

 

[Kagath]

Those scores are a bit high for Michigan. You are all downstate somewhere near inhabited areas. Come up north towards Traverse City or Petoskey and check them out. You are lucky in many spots to get ~10mbps and that's way higher than what is available where I am.

Whatever happened to that huge initiative to get broadband to the rural areas anyways? Apparently the companies were paid already so let's see some kind of improvement.

 

[hernias]

Kagath[/url]":3up5aex9]Apparently the companies were paid already

There's your answer.

"Screw you Jack, I've got mine!"

 

[therealankit]

Yeah! You guys are talking about two thirds? Here in India 99% must be surfing Internet below 10Mbps speed mark. We call 4Mbps high speed Internet. #FirstWorldProblem