6 ms·

The embarrassment of American broadband

34 points by pmikal 17y ago

ojbyrne 17y ago
"we now lag the rest of the world when it comes to broadband Net access." You don't lag the nightmare that is Canada.
- dmix 17y ago
  I have a standard 7mbs/1mbs connection from Rogers in Canada. I paid an extra $14, for a total of about $80 last month, because I downloaded an extra 7GB over my 60GB monthly cap. Mmm nothing like markets with zero competition.
- Hexstream 17y ago
  I'm guessing you're excluding Quebec? I can consistently download at 800k/sec (if the server will push the bits this fast) with Videotron. Is that really considered impossibly slow nowadays?! I don't even know what I'd do with more bandwidth, though now that I have a server the 100k/sec upload limit is a bit more of an irritation.
  - smokinn 17y ago
    The caps on all residential videotron offerings are all ridiculously low though.
  - Retric 17y ago
    If you look around the world ~100MB/s residential connections are fairly common and a few places are rolling out 1Gbit/second. However, in the US you see everything from ~80MB/s down to 256k/s depending on your location. The fastest connection my mother can get is 256k/s which plenty fast for web surfing but don't try and watch HD video streams on that thing. And that's the problem 30 vs 100 MB/s is not that big deal but when much of the US can't get 1/10th that we have a problem. Edit: Mine is 20MBbit down, 2MBit up.
DTrejo 17y ago
Don't forget the embarassment of ridiculously high prices for public wireless (at airport, cafes etc). $5.00 for two hours!? What!?
- kierank 17y ago
  That's not only an American issue. 1 hour of wifi access from "the cloud" is £4.50 (approx $6.60) - http://www.thecloud.net/pay-as-you-go http://www.thecloud.net/pay-as-you-go
- m_eiman 17y ago
  In Sweden we have something called Sidewalk Express where you can sit down at a computer and browse the web for €1 per hour. If you want to use the WLAN in the same location (from some other company), you'll have to pay ~€5 per hour - and then the computer isn't included. Weird.
  - bjelkeman-again 17y ago
    True. But on your laptop you can at least have VPN set up and be somewhat secure in your use. Sidewalk Express I am not even sure I want to log into my email account with.
    - m_eiman 17y ago
      Indeed, but it's still silly that I can get the connection plus a computer for a fifth of the price!
icey 17y ago
Really, this should be "The embarrassment of broadband in the English speaking world." I don't think Canada, Australia or the UK have terribly good broadband options either.
- octane 17y ago
  The English speaking world includes parts of Asia, including Singapore and Hong Kong. It also includes parts of Central and South America and Africa, and large parts of India and parts of the Middle East. The sun never sets on the British Empire, remember all that crap they used to say before it set on them for good? Sigh.
- thristian 17y ago
  So true. While I wait for ADSL2 to be enabled at my local exchange (in Sydney, Australia) so I can upgrade beyond 1.5Mbps, I laugh bitterly at all the "our 10Mbps connections are so slow!' articles I read.
harpastum 17y ago
I enjoy the ridiculously fat pipe at my American university: 90mb/s down, 52mb/s up (actual, not theoretical) [1]. I can download that 4.6GB Bond movie in a little under nine minutes. Yes, I realize the story is as much about penetration as it is raw speed. But really, once you have felt ~100mbits, it's just painful to hear people talking about 256k as 'Broadband'. [1]http://www.speedtest.net/result/445903195.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/445903195.png
jmtame 17y ago
History and the implications of network neutrality (covers AT&T and Verizon in depth): http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-word97/ http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-w...
anigbrowl 17y ago
Back in the day, CompuServe, Delphi etc. used to charge for connections by the mnute (not to mention for emails). Major phone companies like Verizon etc. still segment customers dependent on whether they're calling inside or outside the network (as if I care what carrier someone else sues, or are going to ask them to switch for my benefit!).I hope this model is doomed. I'm glad the current administration is committed to a broadband plan for the US, although I'm worried that the FCC has set it sights far too low. Personally, I'm OK with some taxes going towards this; Broadband is nowadays as important as a well-functioning road system. It seems to me that the poorer or less economically developed parts of the US would derive big long-term economic benefits. http://www.fcc.gov/broadband http://www.fcc.gov/broadband is the central FCC page for the electronic superhighway and related policies. Though very dull looking, there's a lot of substance at the links on the left.
Dauntless 17y ago
I'll just mention that in Romania I pay $15 for unlimited bandwidth at 5 Mbps (it even gets speeds of 10Mbps and up for connections from inside the country) and they give you free install and fast costumer support also. Romania was smart/lucky because people started their own micro-ISPs (Block/Neighborhood Networks) with 50 to 3000 customers each. Buying from bigger ISPs very powerful connections and selling it to more users that shared that connection. Thanks to competition, it brought the prices down a lot and even the big ISP had to adjust. Edit: There is a side effect like having this http://www.roconsulboston.com/Media/Artists/DDBuchJly08/WiresLg.jpg http://www.roconsulboston.com/Media/Artists/DDBuchJly08/Wire... on almost all streets in Bucharest, but I find the benefits much higher. Also Wireless Internet is free in pubs/bistros/coffee houses that provide this service here.
- mmphosis 17y ago
  http://www.uh.edu/engines/nycandwires.jpg http://www.uh.edu/engines/nycandwires.jpg
Xichekolas 17y ago
So the US has 79 million broadband subscribers, and ~300 million people. The article states that this means that ~26% of the US population has broadband. But does one subscriber equal one person? I read 'subscriber' as 'person in the household that pays the bill'... multiple people may be using that account. If you click through to the OECD numbers, you'll find the following: Rank Country Subscribers/100 people 1 Denmark 36.7 6 Sweden 32.3 7 S. Korea 31.2 10 Canada 27.9 15 United States 25.0 17 Japan 23.0 20 Spain 19.8 30 Mexico 4.7 ========================= OECD Average 21.3 Not near as alarmist as he makes it seem. I agree that our slow speeds are embarassing, but statements like: "But it’s pathetic that roughly three-quarters of the people in this country don’t have broadband Internet service." are disingenuous at best, and, as you'll see in the next table, blatantly false. The fact is that "subscribers per 100 people" is always going to be higher in countries with smaller households (Smaller households mean more households per 100 people, which means more subscribers per 100 people). More useful statistics would be "households with broadband access", which thankfully is also provided by the OECD data: Rank Country % households with broadband 1 S. Korea 94.1 (includes 3G) 4 Denmark 69.5 5 Japan 67.6 (includes 3G, but only when tethered) 7 Sweden 66.6 8 Canada 64.0 14 United States 50.8 20 Spain 39.2 30 Mexico 6.1 ========================= OECD Average 48.2 Also, before the obligatory "but the US is different, we are spread out" comment comes, the OECD has data on that too. There is a positive correlation between subscribers and population density, but it is 0.22, so not overwhelming. While correlation (or lack thereof) does not imply (or deny) causation, I'd imagine factors like regulation have much more to do with it than geography.
- snprbob86 17y ago
  1) Thank you for being logical and data driven 2) Damn you for being logical and data driven I'm a firm believer that necessity is the mother of invention. I also believe that necessity is only proven by crisis. Even if we had the world's greatest broadband infrastructure, I'd rather everyone think we were having an internet drought of biblical proportions. It would certainly step up the pace of innovation and encourage modernized legislation.
pieter 17y ago
I wonder how the broadband market and cellular data services will interact in the future. Broadband is more expensive in the US than here in the EU, and the same is true for cellular data. You can basically get a month unlimited (fair-use) cellular data here for €10 (~$14), in any country (though sometimes you're not allowed to tether). I think 3G is much more expensive in the US (but haven't really checked). As far as I understand it, the broadband is pretty much monopolized in the US, while it's pretty competetive over here. Perhaps the cellular providers can provide some competition? It's happening here already, with for instance 3 providing 3G-only services for use with your laptop.
- derefr 17y ago
  Here in Canada, 3G is double-sold: I'm on with Rogers, and they charge you once for a "data pack" for your phone ($30CDN/mon for a 1GB cap--there was a $35/6GB/mon point for a while, but it was promotional) which absolutely disallows tethering, and then charge you another $30/1GB/mon, on a separate plan, to use their "wireless internet stick" (a USB 3G modem.)
old-gregg 17y ago
The issue isn't raw downloading power. The issue is request latency, overloaded DNS servers and overloaded data centers. In other words it's not just about quantity, it's (as always with life) mostly about quality. In 2000-01 I briefly had a relatively modest (2mbit/sec) DSL line from a local mini-ISP with crazy fast ping times and DNS on steroids: nearly everything on the Internet would load under half a second. That mini-ISP got acquired and disappeared, and my internet experience has been deteriorating ever since: my guaranteed 6mbit/sec connection allows me to I download hundreds of front pages of HN per second, yet I wait for up to 10 seconds sometimes to load just one, and google maps always gets stuck at one or two map fragments when I look something up.
shrughes 17y ago
The fact that our broadband level is lower than other countries' doesn't mean that it is "bad." Here's an alternate theory that explains the difference: Other countries have governments that like spending excess amount of money on things. One of those things is internet access. (This isn't the only reason -- we could use a more competitive marketplace.) There does exist a level of broadband at which point it's not worth increasing the level of broadband any more. Does anybody make the argument that we are below that level? What are we going to do with more broadband? Watch movies at higher resolution? What a life-changing experience that will be! There are definitely more interesting ways in which higher amounts of broadband could change the way we use the Internet, but right now the limiting factor is imagination and distribution channels, not bandwidth.

34 points by pmikal 17y ago

ojbyrne 17y ago

"we now lag the rest of the world when it comes to broadband Net access." You don't lag the nightmare that is Canada.

dmix 17y ago
I have a standard 7mbs/1mbs connection from Rogers in Canada. I paid an extra $14, for a total of about $80 last month, because I downloaded an extra 7GB over my 60GB monthly cap. Mmm nothing like markets with zero competition.
Hexstream 17y ago
I'm guessing you're excluding Quebec? I can consistently download at 800k/sec (if the server will push the bits this fast) with Videotron. Is that really considered impossibly slow nowadays?! I don't even know what I'd do with more bandwidth, though now that I have a server the 100k/sec upload limit is a bit more of an irritation.
- smokinn 17y ago
  The caps on all residential videotron offerings are all ridiculously low though.
- Retric 17y ago
  If you look around the world ~100MB/s residential connections are fairly common and a few places are rolling out 1Gbit/second. However, in the US you see everything from ~80MB/s down to 256k/s depending on your location. The fastest connection my mother can get is 256k/s which plenty fast for web surfing but don't try and watch HD video streams on that thing. And that's the problem 30 vs 100 MB/s is not that big deal but when much of the US can't get 1/10th that we have a problem. Edit: Mine is 20MBbit down, 2MBit up.

DTrejo 17y ago

Don't forget the embarassment of ridiculously high prices for public wireless (at airport, cafes etc). $5.00 for two hours!? What!?

kierank 17y ago
That's not only an American issue. 1 hour of wifi access from "the cloud" is £4.50 (approx $6.60) - http://www.thecloud.net/pay-as-you-go http://www.thecloud.net/pay-as-you-go
m_eiman 17y ago
In Sweden we have something called Sidewalk Express where you can sit down at a computer and browse the web for €1 per hour. If you want to use the WLAN in the same location (from some other company), you'll have to pay ~€5 per hour - and then the computer isn't included. Weird.
- bjelkeman-again 17y ago
  True. But on your laptop you can at least have VPN set up and be somewhat secure in your use. Sidewalk Express I am not even sure I want to log into my email account with.
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    Indeed, but it's still silly that I can get the connection plus a computer for a fifth of the price!

icey 17y ago

Really, this should be "The embarrassment of broadband in the English speaking world." I don't think Canada, Australia or the UK have terribly good broadband options either.

octane 17y ago
The English speaking world includes parts of Asia, including Singapore and Hong Kong. It also includes parts of Central and South America and Africa, and large parts of India and parts of the Middle East. The sun never sets on the British Empire, remember all that crap they used to say before it set on them for good? Sigh.
thristian 17y ago
So true. While I wait for ADSL2 to be enabled at my local exchange (in Sydney, Australia) so I can upgrade beyond 1.5Mbps, I laugh bitterly at all the "our 10Mbps connections are so slow!' articles I read.

harpastum 17y ago

I enjoy the ridiculously fat pipe at my American university: 90mb/s down, 52mb/s up (actual, not theoretical) [1]. I can download that 4.6GB Bond movie in a little under nine minutes. Yes, I realize the story is as much about penetration as it is raw speed. But really, once you have felt ~100mbits, it's just painful to hear people talking about 256k as 'Broadband'. [1]http://www.speedtest.net/result/445903195.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/445903195.png

jmtame 17y ago

History and the implications of network neutrality (covers AT&T and Verizon in depth): http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-word97/ http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-w...

anigbrowl 17y ago

Back in the day, CompuServe, Delphi etc. used to charge for connections by the mnute (not to mention for emails). Major phone companies like Verizon etc. still segment customers dependent on whether they're calling inside or outside the network (as if I care what carrier someone else sues, or are going to ask them to switch for my benefit!).I hope this model is doomed. I'm glad the current administration is committed to a broadband plan for the US, although I'm worried that the FCC has set it sights far too low. Personally, I'm OK with some taxes going towards this; Broadband is nowadays as important as a well-functioning road system. It seems to me that the poorer or less economically developed parts of the US would derive big long-term economic benefits. http://www.fcc.gov/broadband http://www.fcc.gov/broadband is the central FCC page for the electronic superhighway and related policies. Though very dull looking, there's a lot of substance at the links on the left.

Dauntless 17y ago

I'll just mention that in Romania I pay $15 for unlimited bandwidth at 5 Mbps (it even gets speeds of 10Mbps and up for connections from inside the country) and they give you free install and fast costumer support also. Romania was smart/lucky because people started their own micro-ISPs (Block/Neighborhood Networks) with 50 to 3000 customers each. Buying from bigger ISPs very powerful connections and selling it to more users that shared that connection. Thanks to competition, it brought the prices down a lot and even the big ISP had to adjust. Edit: There is a side effect like having this http://www.roconsulboston.com/Media/Artists/DDBuchJly08/WiresLg.jpg http://www.roconsulboston.com/Media/Artists/DDBuchJly08/Wire... on almost all streets in Bucharest, but I find the benefits much higher. Also Wireless Internet is free in pubs/bistros/coffee houses that provide this service here.

mmphosis 17y ago
http://www.uh.edu/engines/nycandwires.jpg http://www.uh.edu/engines/nycandwires.jpg

Xichekolas 17y ago

So the US has 79 million broadband subscribers, and ~300 million people. The article states that this means that ~26% of the US population has broadband. But does one subscriber equal one person? I read 'subscriber' as 'person in the household that pays the bill'... multiple people may be using that account. If you click through to the OECD numbers, you'll find the following: Rank Country Subscribers/100 people 1 Denmark 36.7 6 Sweden 32.3 7 S. Korea 31.2 10 Canada 27.9 15 United States 25.0 17 Japan 23.0 20 Spain 19.8 30 Mexico 4.7 ========================= OECD Average 21.3 Not near as alarmist as he makes it seem. I agree that our slow speeds are embarassing, but statements like: "But it’s pathetic that roughly three-quarters of the people in this country don’t have broadband Internet service." are disingenuous at best, and, as you'll see in the next table, blatantly false. The fact is that "subscribers per 100 people" is always going to be higher in countries with smaller households (Smaller households mean more households per 100 people, which means more subscribers per 100 people). More useful statistics would be "households with broadband access", which thankfully is also provided by the OECD data: Rank Country % households with broadband 1 S. Korea 94.1 (includes 3G) 4 Denmark 69.5 5 Japan 67.6 (includes 3G, but only when tethered) 7 Sweden 66.6 8 Canada 64.0 14 United States 50.8 20 Spain 39.2 30 Mexico 6.1 ========================= OECD Average 48.2 Also, before the obligatory "but the US is different, we are spread out" comment comes, the OECD has data on that too. There is a positive correlation between subscribers and population density, but it is 0.22, so not overwhelming. While correlation (or lack thereof) does not imply (or deny) causation, I'd imagine factors like regulation have much more to do with it than geography.

snprbob86 17y ago
1) Thank you for being logical and data driven 2) Damn you for being logical and data driven I'm a firm believer that necessity is the mother of invention. I also believe that necessity is only proven by crisis. Even if we had the world's greatest broadband infrastructure, I'd rather everyone think we were having an internet drought of biblical proportions. It would certainly step up the pace of innovation and encourage modernized legislation.

pieter 17y ago

I wonder how the broadband market and cellular data services will interact in the future. Broadband is more expensive in the US than here in the EU, and the same is true for cellular data. You can basically get a month unlimited (fair-use) cellular data here for €10 (~$14), in any country (though sometimes you're not allowed to tether). I think 3G is much more expensive in the US (but haven't really checked). As far as I understand it, the broadband is pretty much monopolized in the US, while it's pretty competetive over here. Perhaps the cellular providers can provide some competition? It's happening here already, with for instance 3 providing 3G-only services for use with your laptop.

derefr 17y ago
Here in Canada, 3G is double-sold: I'm on with Rogers, and they charge you once for a "data pack" for your phone ($30CDN/mon for a 1GB cap--there was a $35/6GB/mon point for a while, but it was promotional) which absolutely disallows tethering, and then charge you another $30/1GB/mon, on a separate plan, to use their "wireless internet stick" (a USB 3G modem.)

old-gregg 17y ago

The issue isn't raw downloading power. The issue is request latency, overloaded DNS servers and overloaded data centers. In other words it's not just about quantity, it's (as always with life) mostly about quality. In 2000-01 I briefly had a relatively modest (2mbit/sec) DSL line from a local mini-ISP with crazy fast ping times and DNS on steroids: nearly everything on the Internet would load under half a second. That mini-ISP got acquired and disappeared, and my internet experience has been deteriorating ever since: my guaranteed 6mbit/sec connection allows me to I download hundreds of front pages of HN per second, yet I wait for up to 10 seconds sometimes to load just one, and google maps always gets stuck at one or two map fragments when I look something up.

shrughes 17y ago

The fact that our broadband level is lower than other countries' doesn't mean that it is "bad." Here's an alternate theory that explains the difference: Other countries have governments that like spending excess amount of money on things. One of those things is internet access. (This isn't the only reason -- we could use a more competitive marketplace.) There does exist a level of broadband at which point it's not worth increasing the level of broadband any more. Does anybody make the argument that we are below that level? What are we going to do with more broadband? Watch movies at higher resolution? What a life-changing experience that will be! There are definitely more interesting ways in which higher amounts of broadband could change the way we use the Internet, but right now the limiting factor is imagination and distribution channels, not bandwidth.