5 ms·

Looking at the countries above the USA... They all mostly have one thing in common, their populace lives almost entirely within a few primary concentrated areas

Looking at the countries above the USA... They all mostly have one thing in common, their populace lives almost entirely within a few primary concentrated areas. It is much easier to build out the infrastructure to only support a handful of major cities which certainly helps raise the average. edit: I want to make it clear that I think the fact that I can get gigabit internet in a town of 300k smack in the center of "flyover country" is absolutely amazing. I think that the USA competes with these other countries despite the size disadvantage is nothing short of astounding.

cjbenedikt 5y ago
I live in Baltimore - could certainly be considered a city - internet speed is appalling even with "business service".
trothamel 5y ago
The top 3 - Singapore, Hong Kong (SAR), and Monaco - are smaller than Rhode Island, the smallest state - even when you add them together.
- wyager 5y ago
  My gigabit internet in HK was similarly priced to my gigabit internet in suburban USA (like US$80/mo). That said, in HK areas with robust competition between ISPs, some of the offerings were shockingly cheap. A friend of mine got 10Gbps for less than US$100/mo after negotiating. I don’t remember if HK lines were symmetric or not - my US line certainly isn’t.
  - vel0city 5y ago
    Note that symmetrical gigabit connections in the US are sometimes available. Its highly dependent on the type of network deployed. If its a PON deployment there's a good chance you're going to get a symmetrical connection (AT&T, Verizon, Frontier Fiber). If you have a coax connection (Spectrum, Comcast, Cox), there's little chance its symmetrical. For example, at my home on a residential PON connection a recent speedtest today showed ~990Mbit down, ~978Mbit up. At my office's new business coax connection just a few miles away, I usually get ~980Mbit down, 30Mbit up.
- DamnYuppie 5y ago
  LOL they are smaller than the Dallas/Ft. Worth area alone!
radicaldreamer 5y ago
Yup, but I wonder why there were bandwidth issues in Europe when the pandemic first started (video streaming services started throttling bitrate very aggressively in Europe) but there were no issues in the United States. Perhaps the last mile average is slow but the overall infrastructure and backbone is more robust in the US (this would make sense historically as well)
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Wireless internet is more common in European and Asian countries because you can put up a few towers and be done, it gets throttled when you have congestion. America has fiber and mostly copper (from our phone line laying days) strung all throughout America, the bandwidth is much higher in total. The job left here is replacing copper w/ fiber (or at least DOCSIS 3.1 via copper), but it's expensive and some ISPs it isn't worth it for the customers they have, so you have some areas bringing the national average down. Starlink will be nice for really remote areas where it make no sense to run a line or a tower for a couple customers. Existing sat internet is unusable. There's also been a big push to modernize slightly bigger towns with fiber by smaller ISPs.
- Bayart 5y ago
  As far as I can remember, the stress was mostly put on exchanges more so than overall capacity. I'm not aware of any real degradation beyond the panic in the news about « running out of Internet ».
- hocuspocus 5y ago
  There was no issue in Europe either, it was a political decision, not a technical one.
jack_jennings 5y ago
While density may be part of it, my (admittedly: anecdotal) experience in splitting my time between Los Angeles and the nearby mountain communities over the last year is that LA broadband speed is consistently 5 times slower.
setpatchaddress 5y ago
This is the usual argument against doing large infrastructure in the USA, and I think it’s kind of missing the point: the USA also has much larger financial and physical resources than those countries. We also have counterarguments: we have a universal electrical network. We built a large railroad network across the entire country. We have an interstate highway system reaching every continental state (and with “interstates” in Alaska and Hawaii as well, if I’m not mistaken). Also, universal telephone service. I live in the heart of Silicon Valley, and I can’t get cell reception at my house. I have basic broadband, but I can’t get fiber despite being on a street where other houses have it. I would be very interested in a comparison of what the citizens of each country have paid to fund internet service. US taxpayers have given the telecom mono/duopolies a ton of free money and right-of-way and the providers have broken every promise to provide universal service in exchange.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Railroads, highways, and power/cable lines all go hand in hand. It's an amazing network and they were all built a long time ago with little improvement. The problem is shoveling money to other "universal" slush funds while ignoring actual infrastructure for decades. ISPs should have been a utility and they should treat it like Texas treats its grid. Have a company that manages the actual lines, and have multiple providers that can compete and sell data on it.
  - arbitrage 5y ago
    > they should treat it like Texas treats its grid like garbage that falls apart when people actually need to use it? or like a regressive money funnel to line the pockets of an oligarchical captured regulatory body? texas' power grid is not a goal any serious advocate can advance as doing anything right.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      If you're referring to the 100 year winter freeze, yes maybe it should have been winterized, and they are now, but that's not what I'm talking about. Maybe all California homes should have A/C for these heat waves. Sometimes it doesn't make sense economically. I'm talking about having a transmission provider and having ISPs compete on the same lines. It keeps prices down (unless you tricked into buying variable wholesale via startups like Griddy) and it keeps lines in good shape.
mbesto 5y ago
Now take those same countries and look at GDP, number of publicly traded software companies, and capital investment provided by governments. There is some valid critique about how poor the USA is in terms of bandwidth. Not to mention cultural appropriation by most Americans of "being the best" at everything. Thus there's a reason (maybe not 100% valid) why people complain the USA isn't #1 on this list.

cjbenedikt 5y ago

I live in Baltimore - could certainly be considered a city - internet speed is appalling even with "business service".

trothamel 5y ago

The top 3 - Singapore, Hong Kong (SAR), and Monaco - are smaller than Rhode Island, the smallest state - even when you add them together.

wyager 5y ago
My gigabit internet in HK was similarly priced to my gigabit internet in suburban USA (like US$80/mo). That said, in HK areas with robust competition between ISPs, some of the offerings were shockingly cheap. A friend of mine got 10Gbps for less than US$100/mo after negotiating. I don’t remember if HK lines were symmetric or not - my US line certainly isn’t.
- vel0city 5y ago
  Note that symmetrical gigabit connections in the US are sometimes available. Its highly dependent on the type of network deployed. If its a PON deployment there's a good chance you're going to get a symmetrical connection (AT&T, Verizon, Frontier Fiber). If you have a coax connection (Spectrum, Comcast, Cox), there's little chance its symmetrical. For example, at my home on a residential PON connection a recent speedtest today showed ~990Mbit down, ~978Mbit up. At my office's new business coax connection just a few miles away, I usually get ~980Mbit down, 30Mbit up.
DamnYuppie 5y ago
LOL they are smaller than the Dallas/Ft. Worth area alone!

radicaldreamer 5y ago

Yup, but I wonder why there were bandwidth issues in Europe when the pandemic first started (video streaming services started throttling bitrate very aggressively in Europe) but there were no issues in the United States. Perhaps the last mile average is slow but the overall infrastructure and backbone is more robust in the US (this would make sense historically as well)

hunterb123 5y ago
Wireless internet is more common in European and Asian countries because you can put up a few towers and be done, it gets throttled when you have congestion. America has fiber and mostly copper (from our phone line laying days) strung all throughout America, the bandwidth is much higher in total. The job left here is replacing copper w/ fiber (or at least DOCSIS 3.1 via copper), but it's expensive and some ISPs it isn't worth it for the customers they have, so you have some areas bringing the national average down. Starlink will be nice for really remote areas where it make no sense to run a line or a tower for a couple customers. Existing sat internet is unusable. There's also been a big push to modernize slightly bigger towns with fiber by smaller ISPs.
Bayart 5y ago
As far as I can remember, the stress was mostly put on exchanges more so than overall capacity. I'm not aware of any real degradation beyond the panic in the news about « running out of Internet ».
hocuspocus 5y ago
There was no issue in Europe either, it was a political decision, not a technical one.

jack_jennings 5y ago

While density may be part of it, my (admittedly: anecdotal) experience in splitting my time between Los Angeles and the nearby mountain communities over the last year is that LA broadband speed is consistently 5 times slower.

setpatchaddress 5y ago

This is the usual argument against doing large infrastructure in the USA, and I think it’s kind of missing the point: the USA also has much larger financial and physical resources than those countries. We also have counterarguments: we have a universal electrical network. We built a large railroad network across the entire country. We have an interstate highway system reaching every continental state (and with “interstates” in Alaska and Hawaii as well, if I’m not mistaken). Also, universal telephone service. I live in the heart of Silicon Valley, and I can’t get cell reception at my house. I have basic broadband, but I can’t get fiber despite being on a street where other houses have it. I would be very interested in a comparison of what the citizens of each country have paid to fund internet service. US taxpayers have given the telecom mono/duopolies a ton of free money and right-of-way and the providers have broken every promise to provide universal service in exchange.

hunterb123 5y ago
Railroads, highways, and power/cable lines all go hand in hand. It's an amazing network and they were all built a long time ago with little improvement. The problem is shoveling money to other "universal" slush funds while ignoring actual infrastructure for decades. ISPs should have been a utility and they should treat it like Texas treats its grid. Have a company that manages the actual lines, and have multiple providers that can compete and sell data on it.
- arbitrage 5y ago
  > they should treat it like Texas treats its grid like garbage that falls apart when people actually need to use it? or like a regressive money funnel to line the pockets of an oligarchical captured regulatory body? texas' power grid is not a goal any serious advocate can advance as doing anything right.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    If you're referring to the 100 year winter freeze, yes maybe it should have been winterized, and they are now, but that's not what I'm talking about. Maybe all California homes should have A/C for these heat waves. Sometimes it doesn't make sense economically. I'm talking about having a transmission provider and having ISPs compete on the same lines. It keeps prices down (unless you tricked into buying variable wholesale via startups like Griddy) and it keeps lines in good shape.

mbesto 5y ago

Now take those same countries and look at GDP, number of publicly traded software companies, and capital investment provided by governments. There is some valid critique about how poor the USA is in terms of bandwidth. Not to mention cultural appropriation by most Americans of "being the best" at everything. Thus there's a reason (maybe not 100% valid) why people complain the USA isn't #1 on this list.