3 ms·

This is comparing broadband "availability" (whether you could have >=25Mbps if you paid for it) with broadband "use" (whether your downloads actually go at >=25

This is comparing broadband "availability" (whether you could have >=25Mbps if you paid for it) with broadband "use" (whether your downloads actually go at >=25Mbps). The latter is a better metric, but there isn't any mystery why these numbers are different.

mjevans 8y ago
It's 2019. For a first world country even the BASIC package, within an actual city, should fulfill the "minimum broadband" definition of 25Mbit/sec down and 3-5Mbit/sec up; even during peek hours. If it isn't being selected, then clearly there's insufficient competition to drive better prices and better packages.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Akamai's speed test reports are getting a bit dated, but in Q1 2017, no country had more than 40% at 25 mbps+: https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-t.... The U.S. was #10 at 21%. The only European countries to make the list were Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway. Putatively first world countries like France and Italy were at 18% and 12% with 15mbps+. Even today, I'd wager that for the vast majority of the EU (by population, so the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, and Spain), 25 mbps is closer to the median than the floor.
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    That's quite interesting. I live in rural Japan and have fiber, so I get well above those speeds. I had a quick look at the document and I think things certainly have changed in a few years -- at least in Japan. These days there is virtually nowhere that you can't get 4G as far as I know. The vast majority of people here use the internet on their phone so I'm willing to bet that percentage has gone up a lot. Feature phones used to be popular, but now if you don't have a smart phone it's pretty darn unusual. There is very little free wifi here as well, so almost everybody who has a phone has a 4G data plan. In terms of availability, even fibre is ubiquitous now. At least in the Tokai region, I would be shocked if there was a single town that didn't have fibre now. NTT rolled it out aggressively about 10 years ago. When I got hooked up in my apartment 4 years ago they didn't even bother to check availability. It would be super interesting to see what the numbers are like now. Of course it's apples and oranges. The US is much harder to serve than Japan (although I guess the many earthquakes keep the fibre repair guys busy). But I think you'll see SE Asian countries having nearly ubiquitous coverage in the next handful of years.
  - the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
    I always wonder how much of this is availability vs what the market wants. I'm constantly surprised how many people just don't pay for faster internet even today even though they have the option.
- throwaway190102 8y ago
  >If it isn't being selected, then clearly there's insufficient competition to drive better prices and better packages. No, not everyone is going to have your use patterns or knowledge. Most ordinary folks are just price sensitive. "What's the lowest price thing I can get that's not dialup." I agree there need's to be more competition, but so long as there exits cheaper packages bellow the "minimum broadband" definition there will be many normal people who buy them.
- jfoutz 8y ago
  > If it isn't being selected, then clearly there's insufficient competition to drive better prices and better packages. I cannot overstate the absolute brilliance of this comment. It is absolutely critical that we all recognize terrain has no influence whatsoever on communication technology. There is literally no difference between a link in the rocky mountains and the great plains. With sufficient competition the price will be identical. It's not possible for regional conditions to influence price, if there is any difference, the market will correct that and someone will become very wealthy. It's also important to recognize the operators of technology have no preferences in living and working conditions. the vast majority of telecom operators in jackson hole are willing to move to san francisco with virtually no effort. And vice versa, there's hardly anyone in san francisco that would be unwilling to relocate. This comes down to a fundamental tenet of economics. If you see a $100 bill laying on the ground, that's the indication you need to go to the doctor. It's not possible the money would simply be laying on the ground. You're hallucinating. Perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that capital will simply flow to where the opportunity exists. If only one low quality provider exists in a location, it's basically zero effort to bring in a million or ten million dollars to install a more efficient infrastructure. Perhaps a community waits a year or two, but it's basically a blip that access is unusually expensive. In any case, it's been a long time since i've read such a brilliant analysis on HN. It's just a fantastic marriage of theoretical understanding and a deep deep knowledge of how theory meets reality. All right, enough condescending mocking. There's a reason it's always a town of 500 people that's the most dangerous in the country. small markets have weird results. You're not wrong, it's true that eventually it'll all balance out. Your breezy disconnected comment is insulting to the reality people face today. An ever so slightly more sophisticated analysis can solve a _ton_ of problems today. Your casual disconnected analysis is the kind of thing that would completely overlook the opportunity provided by VC capital. It ain't easy. but a few small pushes can have a huge, outsized impact in these small markets.
gnicholas 8y ago
Good point. I live in an area that has broadband availability, and I choose to be on Comcast’s cheapest tier (18/3) because I don’t need faster speed and it would cost $250/yr to be at a higher tier. If there were more competition (Comcast has a monopoly in western SV), prices would likely be lower and I’d probably be at/above 25mbps for the same price I’m paying now.

mjevans 8y ago

It's 2019. For a first world country even the BASIC package, within an actual city, should fulfill the "minimum broadband" definition of 25Mbit/sec down and 3-5Mbit/sec up; even during peek hours. If it isn't being selected, then clearly there's insufficient competition to drive better prices and better packages.

rayiner 8y ago
Akamai's speed test reports are getting a bit dated, but in Q1 2017, no country had more than 40% at 25 mbps+: https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-t.... The U.S. was #10 at 21%. The only European countries to make the list were Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway. Putatively first world countries like France and Italy were at 18% and 12% with 15mbps+. Even today, I'd wager that for the vast majority of the EU (by population, so the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, and Spain), 25 mbps is closer to the median than the floor.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  That's quite interesting. I live in rural Japan and have fiber, so I get well above those speeds. I had a quick look at the document and I think things certainly have changed in a few years -- at least in Japan. These days there is virtually nowhere that you can't get 4G as far as I know. The vast majority of people here use the internet on their phone so I'm willing to bet that percentage has gone up a lot. Feature phones used to be popular, but now if you don't have a smart phone it's pretty darn unusual. There is very little free wifi here as well, so almost everybody who has a phone has a 4G data plan. In terms of availability, even fibre is ubiquitous now. At least in the Tokai region, I would be shocked if there was a single town that didn't have fibre now. NTT rolled it out aggressively about 10 years ago. When I got hooked up in my apartment 4 years ago they didn't even bother to check availability. It would be super interesting to see what the numbers are like now. Of course it's apples and oranges. The US is much harder to serve than Japan (although I guess the many earthquakes keep the fibre repair guys busy). But I think you'll see SE Asian countries having nearly ubiquitous coverage in the next handful of years.
- the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
  I always wonder how much of this is availability vs what the market wants. I'm constantly surprised how many people just don't pay for faster internet even today even though they have the option.
throwaway190102 8y ago
>If it isn't being selected, then clearly there's insufficient competition to drive better prices and better packages. No, not everyone is going to have your use patterns or knowledge. Most ordinary folks are just price sensitive. "What's the lowest price thing I can get that's not dialup." I agree there need's to be more competition, but so long as there exits cheaper packages bellow the "minimum broadband" definition there will be many normal people who buy them.
jfoutz 8y ago
> If it isn't being selected, then clearly there's insufficient competition to drive better prices and better packages. I cannot overstate the absolute brilliance of this comment. It is absolutely critical that we all recognize terrain has no influence whatsoever on communication technology. There is literally no difference between a link in the rocky mountains and the great plains. With sufficient competition the price will be identical. It's not possible for regional conditions to influence price, if there is any difference, the market will correct that and someone will become very wealthy. It's also important to recognize the operators of technology have no preferences in living and working conditions. the vast majority of telecom operators in jackson hole are willing to move to san francisco with virtually no effort. And vice versa, there's hardly anyone in san francisco that would be unwilling to relocate. This comes down to a fundamental tenet of economics. If you see a $100 bill laying on the ground, that's the indication you need to go to the doctor. It's not possible the money would simply be laying on the ground. You're hallucinating. Perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that capital will simply flow to where the opportunity exists. If only one low quality provider exists in a location, it's basically zero effort to bring in a million or ten million dollars to install a more efficient infrastructure. Perhaps a community waits a year or two, but it's basically a blip that access is unusually expensive. In any case, it's been a long time since i've read such a brilliant analysis on HN. It's just a fantastic marriage of theoretical understanding and a deep deep knowledge of how theory meets reality. All right, enough condescending mocking. There's a reason it's always a town of 500 people that's the most dangerous in the country. small markets have weird results. You're not wrong, it's true that eventually it'll all balance out. Your breezy disconnected comment is insulting to the reality people face today. An ever so slightly more sophisticated analysis can solve a _ton_ of problems today. Your casual disconnected analysis is the kind of thing that would completely overlook the opportunity provided by VC capital. It ain't easy. but a few small pushes can have a huge, outsized impact in these small markets.

gnicholas 8y ago

Good point. I live in an area that has broadband availability, and I choose to be on Comcast’s cheapest tier (18/3) because I don’t need faster speed and it would cost $250/yr to be at a higher tier. If there were more competition (Comcast has a monopoly in western SV), prices would likely be lower and I’d probably be at/above 25mbps for the same price I’m paying now.