5 ms·
I don't dispute the conclusions in this article nor do I think the U.S. is trying hard enough to build its Internet infrastructure. But these comparisons are a
by SamAtt 17y ago
I don't dispute the conclusions in this article nor do I think the U.S. is trying hard enough to build its Internet infrastructure. But these comparisons are a little unfair. If you take the top 2 countries in speed (South Korea and Japan) you realize there's a huge space disparity. South Korea has a total area of 38,622 sq mi while Japan has a total of 145,925 sq mi. While on the U.S. side Texas alone is 268,820 sq mi of land while the country itself is 3,794,101 sq mi total.
So yes the U.S. might be a little slower in deploying high speed lines but the effort involved in running cables and building up that infrastructure is far more significant.
- DarkShikari 17y agoI see this argument made almost daily despite it being completely invalid. If it was true, US cities, the high density areas, would have speeds comparable to countries such as Estonia (12mbps), Japan (50+mbps), and so forth. However, US internet sucks, even in the cities. In my experience there is almost no correlation between density and quality of internet. And don't make the argument that it's due to the distance between cities: fiber trunklines cost almost nothing compared to the last-mile costs of wiring thousands of neighborhoods. What is true is a correlation between competition and quality of internet. Areas with only one provider almost inevitably have terrible service. The excuse that "US internet is worse because our country is larger" is a cheap cop-out to avoid admitting that our telecommunications infrastructure is in many ways worse than some third-world countries.
- ronnier 17y agohttp://www.speedtest.net/result/683977929.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/683977929.png Not bad. I know many around Texas with equivalent speeds.
- CalmQuiet 17y agoPlease say a prayer for your rural friends who are trying to survive on DSL: http://www.speedtest.net/result/684003092.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/684003092.png Edit: Forgot to tell you "the downside": it's $65/mo :/ PS: Sure there is "an alternative": ~satellite~
- ronnier 17y agoDo you have 3G access there? I was able to pull down 3MB/s over my mobile phone. That's a possible solution.
- sailormoon 17y ago24Mb/s over 3G (or even 3.5G)? Impossible. Perhaps you meant 3Mb/s? That's doable, but the latency and reliability is terrible compared to DSL IMO.
- ronnier 17y agoYeah, sorry.
- CalmQuiet 17y agoThanks for asking. ...however, no: even our basic cell service often forces into roaming mode here. —21st Century pioneer
- MikeCapone 17y agohttp://www.speedtest.net/result/684076501.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/684076501.png The fastest I can get from a decent geek-friendly ISP here in Ottawa.
- electromagnetic 17y agohttp://www.speedtest.net/result/684085401.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/684085401.png This is their 14Mb/s package and this is through a wifi. I'm not sure if this is a testament to cogeco's quality, or how I set up my wireless network. Their customer service is friendly and easy, so I'd suggest you get it if you ever move out of Ottawa. Cogeco is expanding east in Ontario and west from in Quebec, so sooner or later they'll likely his Ottawa from one side or the other, so I'd recommend switching if you want good speed. I've never found them to be geek-unfriendly, they're certainly significantly better than the major alternatives. Bell flat out sucked and was downright unworkable with some issues, so I seriously sympathize with those Canadians stuck with their service.
- MikeCapone 17y agoThanks for the recommendation, I'll check them out! edit: I see that their 14mb package has a 65 gig/month transfer limit. Teksavvy is 200 gig/month minimum, or unlimited for $10 more.
- travisp 17y agoI just did a speed test in Atlanta, GA and got a speed of 25Mb/s according to speedtest.net: http://www.speedtest.net/result/684004348.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/684004348.png So it seems that at least some high density areas in the US do have such speeds.
- pyre 17y agoHow much of that is oversold vs actually upgrading the infrastructure to support people using most of the promised bandwidth? AFAIK, in most of those country the infrastructure supports people using 100% of the bandwidth.
- colbyolson 17y agoAnd I would guess it also has reasonable/competitive pricing.
- RK 17y agoWhat is true is a correlation between competition and quality of internet. Areas with only one provider almost inevitably have terrible service. Do countries like South Korea and Japan have lots of competition for high speed access (or infrastructure)?
- henrikschroder 17y agoI can't speak for those countries, but in Sweden where I am there is a lot of competition. I live in Stockholm and I can choose between one cable company (up to 100MBps for ~$50/month), DSL from the three major phone companies (~20MBps for ~$40/month), DSL from a bunch of smaller virtual providers, and if I manage to convince my housing coop to install fiber, there's a bunch of providers that can deliver 100MBps for ~$30/month. If I was living in a small-town, I would probably be able to choose between a cable company, some DSL providers, and possibly a local municipal network. If I was living far out in the country-side, there would maybe be DSL, but definitely mobile broadband. So wherever you are, there is competition, even though it's of course fiercer the larger the city is. I don't know if the broadband market is fully saturated yet, it's probably pretty close to it.
- RK 17y agoYou mention DSL from major phone companies and virtual providers. Do all of those major phone companies run their own copper/fiber or use the same infrastructure? 100 MB/s would be nice. I'm paying about $50/month for 5Mb/s DSL in the US.
- henrikschroder 17y agoThere's only one copper infrastructure which is owned by Telia, the previously state-owned phone monopoly. If you want more copper lines to your home, you have to get it through them. However, the phone and DSL provider market is deregulated such that Telia has to allow other companies to install DSL equipment in the phone stations as well as use the copper cables. Fiber networks I know almost nothing about. I know there are several country-wide fiber networks, all the phone companies of course have their own infrastructure there, but there are a few more companies renting out access. I think you can become a DSL provider without actually owning any equipment, just renting access at the appropriate places, but then you are of course dependant on the actual infrastructure owners, and you will probably not be able to deliver the cheapest service, but have to compete on something else.