3 ms·

That's the joke. The vast majority of the US has either 0 or 1 option for 5+ Mbps internet, and 1-5 options for dial-up/DSL.

seanp2k2 10y ago
Exactly. I can get Comcast up to I think 200mbit now (I have 100) or ATT DSL which would require paying for a phone line + the service which would cost the same as Comcast and run at 768k. This is in Silicon Valley. My apartment building doesn't give me any other options (and Comcast is the only "official" one, but ATT claims they can offer me service...never tried).
- dublinben 10y ago
  The FCC defines a broadband connection as at least 25/3. [0] That AT&T DSL doesn't even qualify as broadband any more, not that it should. [0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-industry-claims-that-customers-dont-need-faster-internet/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-i...
  - vacri 10y ago
    Having lived through the dial-up modem -> ADSL era, I think that 25/3 too high a bar to call 'broadband'. There was a definite qualitative jump from dial-up to ADSL1, and the qualitative difference between ADSL1 and faster speeds is much less noticeable. Definitely present, but less noticeable. Perhaps another way of putting how I see it - excluding really heavy traffic like video or (cough) torrenting linux isos (cough), you're rarely saturating your broadband bandwidth with casual internet use. Whereas with dial-up/non-broadband, it didn't matter what you did, you were saturating your bandwidth and always waiting. (YMMV - this is just how I see the term 'broadband' as a qualitative label)
    - dmitrygr 10y ago
      Clearly you haven't seen modern websites. The bozos who write them produce blank pages that weigh in at 1MB, and god help you if you want some text there...you'll be downloading 3000 javascript frameworks, 200-300 web fonts, and of course some icon fonts too... oh, and ads..
      - vacri 10y ago
        Not all websites are like that, though yes you're right more often than not.
      - georgemcbay 10y ago
        I agree that modern websites too often tend towards being bloated messes, but I also agree with vacri's idea that for most uses the jump between dialup and ADSL1 feels much more substantial than further increases. After a certain point the thing rate limiting you for most network usages (including web browsing) stops being your own connection to the ISP and starts being other things, like the speed of the website you are visiting under whatever load it is currently under, the website's own bandwidth out to the greater world (split up among however many people use it), etc. I currently have 300/20 service, and though I see a nice set of numbers when I visit speed testing sites, in typical real world web browsing situations it feels no faster than the old 30/5 service I had before this.

seanp2k2 10y ago

Exactly. I can get Comcast up to I think 200mbit now (I have 100) or ATT DSL which would require paying for a phone line + the service which would cost the same as Comcast and run at 768k. This is in Silicon Valley. My apartment building doesn't give me any other options (and Comcast is the only "official" one, but ATT claims they can offer me service...never tried).

dublinben 10y ago
The FCC defines a broadband connection as at least 25/3. [0] That AT&T DSL doesn't even qualify as broadband any more, not that it should. [0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-industry-claims-that-customers-dont-need-faster-internet/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-i...
- vacri 10y ago
  Having lived through the dial-up modem -> ADSL era, I think that 25/3 too high a bar to call 'broadband'. There was a definite qualitative jump from dial-up to ADSL1, and the qualitative difference between ADSL1 and faster speeds is much less noticeable. Definitely present, but less noticeable. Perhaps another way of putting how I see it - excluding really heavy traffic like video or (cough) torrenting linux isos (cough), you're rarely saturating your broadband bandwidth with casual internet use. Whereas with dial-up/non-broadband, it didn't matter what you did, you were saturating your bandwidth and always waiting. (YMMV - this is just how I see the term 'broadband' as a qualitative label)
  - dmitrygr 10y ago
    Clearly you haven't seen modern websites. The bozos who write them produce blank pages that weigh in at 1MB, and god help you if you want some text there...you'll be downloading 3000 javascript frameworks, 200-300 web fonts, and of course some icon fonts too... oh, and ads..
    - vacri 10y ago
      Not all websites are like that, though yes you're right more often than not.
    - georgemcbay 10y ago
      I agree that modern websites too often tend towards being bloated messes, but I also agree with vacri's idea that for most uses the jump between dialup and ADSL1 feels much more substantial than further increases. After a certain point the thing rate limiting you for most network usages (including web browsing) stops being your own connection to the ISP and starts being other things, like the speed of the website you are visiting under whatever load it is currently under, the website's own bandwidth out to the greater world (split up among however many people use it), etc. I currently have 300/20 service, and though I see a nice set of numbers when I visit speed testing sites, in typical real world web browsing situations it feels no faster than the old 30/5 service I had before this.