×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

East Coast Broadband Fastest In USA

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the i-can't-even-get-cable dept.

The Internet 363

Death Metal Maniac writes "The study, which was conducted by affordable-broadband advocacy group Speed Matters, found that the nine states with the fastest median download connections are all located on the East Coast. Rhode Island (6.8Mbps) and Delaware (6.7Mbps) have the fastest, and nearly triple the national median download speed of 2.3Mbps. Rounding out the Top 5 states are New Jersey (5.8Mbps), Virginia (5Mbps) and Massachusetts (4.6Mbps)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

363 comments

geh (4, Interesting)

snarfies (115214) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736519)

That's nice.

Meanwhile, as of last week, we STILL cannot buy FIOS in Philadelphia. No matter how much I want to give Verizon my money, they just won't take it.

Re:geh (2, Interesting)

mathgeek13 (1287912) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736577)

Hah. They've at least laid the lines to my house, it's just that some people (aka parents) refuse to upgrade. That will have at least some effect on speeds, since people can't be forced to get faster connections.

Re:geh (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24736691)

I laid down a couple fat lines last night. High quality shit -- I was partying all night.

Re:geh (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24736807)

Yeah, that's what happens when you live in your parents' basement.

Re:geh (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24736633)

Meanwhile, as of last week, we STILL cannot buy FIOS in Philadelphia. No matter how much I want to give Verizon my money, they just won't take it.

That's because FIOS requires major infrastructure upgrades on the part of Verizon. But they are working on it. It just may be a while till they get to your neighborhood.

Re:geh (4, Informative)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736719)

Up here in NH (One of the many states nobody cares about, apparently), I got a flyer from my new local provider called Fairpoint.

There was a big controversy over fairpoint buying out NH, Vermont, and Maine, because fairpoint clearly didn't have the resources to roll out fiber optics, and verizon had "plans" to, (apparently not).

Anyway, I got a flyer from them announcing faster-than-ever 7.1 mbps downloads. Of course, in Boston, Comcast offers 16 mbps, but hey, this was still a nice move from my current verizon dsl at 3 mbps.

So I called them up and asked how to get started. They did some checking on things, and told me it wasn't available in my area. I was confused. Did they not have my address when they sent me the flyer? I begged them to take money from me, I just want some speed, please! But alas, We live in the USA. In internet terms, we're third world.

Re:geh (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736843)

I get about 6 mbps down here in New Orleans...Cox cable.

Re:geh (1)

pixelite (20946) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737143)

i live in las vegas, we get 10 Mbps...cox cable also. it aint cheep though.

Re:geh (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737219)

In Rhode Island I have a Cox connection too, 20/2, for $50/mo.

I often see 2.3MB/s downloads and 250KB/s uploads. I with the upload was faster, but that's the limit of DOCSIS2 so there's nothing that can be done about that until FIOS is available or Cox upgrades their system to DOCSIS3.

I mean, FIOS is fast and all from what the numbers say, but I don't look forward to being a Verizon customer..

Re:geh (5, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736973)

So I called them up and asked how to get started. They did some checking on things, and told me it wasn't available in my area. I was confused. Did they not have my address when they sent me the flyer?

Yeah. Frustrating. I've been having fliers delivered to my doorstep for *years* now, and yet they're not even remotely in my area. It's not just a situation where the neighbors down the street can get FiOS, but I'm just barely on the other side of the line-- no. You can't get FiOS in my zip code. You can't even get it in my neighboring zipcodes.

Re:geh (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737091)

Well we're also third world in most other things, including health care...

Re:geh (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737315)

Well, I am exiled in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and I have 8 mbps down/768 kbps up cable Internet. And it is readily available around here.
So, I don't see a problem, besides greed, for US ISPs to deploy faster broadband networks. If the Brazilians did that here in Brazil, baby-Bells should be able to do the same back in the USA...

Re:geh (1)

T3Tech (1306739) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736773)

I'm a half mile from a Verizon fiber line, problem is it's in Delaware and I'm in Maryland. I think my only choice is to talk a neighbor in DE into getting the fiber hookup and running my own last (half-)mile of fiber or wireless through trees. In any case, it would seem I'm looking at a couple grand just to be able to hook into it. :(

While I have yet to try talking to Verizon about it, I seriously doubt I could convince them to take my money for any solution other than the neighbor idea.

Re:geh (1)

Cheeko (165493) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736799)

Its not just Philly.

Boston was supposedly the first metro area they rolled out FiOS, and while almost every suburb has it around here their urban penetration has been exactly ZERO. I've been contacting Verizon repeatedly over the last year so I can dump first RCN and now Comcast (god I want to get rid of Comcast /shudder), but they keep saying, we'll roll out in your area soon. Its been over 2 years.

I think the basic issue is that in the suburbs its easy to run the fiber based on the income generated. In the city where they'll need to do underground work, and possibly dig up sidewalks/streets its much more cost prohibitive compared to the customers it will get them.

That being said, the cable services have been getting far far worse in terms of signal quality and thats not even taking into account things like "traffic shaping".

Re:geh (2, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736999)

In the city where they'll need to do underground work, and possibly dig up sidewalks/streets its much more cost prohibitive compared to the customers it will get them.

You're right! Many palms to be greased. Unions. Pols. "Neighborhood activists". It is ungodly expensive to do anything in Boston (see Big Dig). Probably this is true of any large American city. And they wonder why those with the means move to the suburbs.

Re:geh (5, Informative)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737071)

Boston was supposedly the first metro area they rolled out FiOS, and while almost every suburb has it around here their urban penetration has been exactly ZERO.

While Slashdotters are often more interested in FiOS internet service, it's cable television services which call the shots. To offer cable in a locality, Verizon must first obtain a license from the city or town. As of now, the City of Boston has not granted them a license. Looking at the City's website [cityofboston.gov] , I don't see any evidence that Verizon has applied for a license either.

Maybe you should call them to see where the licensing procedure stands?

Re:geh (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737265)

Comcast is not a bad ISP. My friend has had it for some time (Seekonk, MA) and while it's not as fast as my Cox cable connection, Comcast has always been extremely resistant to blocking any network ports for their subscribers.

Even when Code Red was the big thing (and when most ISP's started blocking incoming ports for their subscribers) Comcast wrote a script to check for the vulnerability themselves, and would only block 80 on those subscribers with unpatched IIS. Once you fixed your IIS server, you could call them, and they'd run the check and then unblock the port. That went way above and beyond what any other ISP did for their subscribers.

He still has 80, 443, 21, 53, 23, 25 open, while Cox requires that you spend twice as much on their business service for the same service.

Re:geh (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737423)

It's not port blocking that I'm that interested in. It's the forging RST packets that pisses me off. Any ISP that injects RST packets into a communication fraudlently can't be called "not a bad ISP". That's like an airline stopping a non-stop flight from New York to LA in Cleveland and stranding all of the passengers there because someone in the back farted a little too loudly. You certainly wouldn't call them "not a bad airline", regardless of how many non-stop flights they had that stopped in Cleveland and stranded their passengers there.

Re:geh (1)

Verdatum (1257828) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736889)

I'm just south of you in Baltimore and I LOFF my FIOS. I also love Comcast begging me to take them back claiming 1Mbps faster than fios, and telling them "Sure, as soon as you give me a signed statement promising not to throttle my torrent traffic or anything else."

6/10th of a mile... (1)

bobs666 (146801) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736911)

I hope the counts includes all the places that the cable and fiber providers that provide 0 Mbps. When we are only stones throw away, all in Maryland.

IMHO the zeros should be factored in with a large weighting. I would be happy with 1.4 Mbps (t1 speeds) and a low latency.

You think that's bad? (1)

hellfire (86129) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736957)

I live in a condo in one of the suburbs of Philadelphia where FiOS was specifically being rolled out to originally. I STILL cannot get FiOS even though people in the development across the street and in the development behind me can!

Re:geh (2, Interesting)

ParanoiaBOTS (903635) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737325)

That's nice.

Meanwhile, as of last week, we STILL cannot buy FIOS in Philadelphia. No matter how much I want to give Verizon my money, they just won't take it.

Where I live, I have only 1 option for internet. It is microwave broadcast. It is (supposedly) a 7Mb connect,the only thing is that after 1 gig of download they throttle you, then after 2 gig they throttle you again. I tried downloading a distro of Linux and it took me 7 days.

Re:geh (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737381)

And here on the west coast (Western Washington), FIOS doesn't even exist. Hell, we can't even get dry-loop DSL.

That's ok, though, Verizon. Just because we have Amazon, Microsoft, Nintendo of America, uncountable .coms-- I'm sure nobody in this area works in the tech field and really cares about connection speeds. Go ahead and finish up installing in rural Texas and just get around to us when you feel ready, k?

Rest of the world (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24736527)

Does anyone have comparable statistics for Europe and the relevant parts of Asia?

Re:Rest of the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24736695)


Here in the middle of Canada I have a 10 Mbit connection which does indeed max out. Only CA$39/month.

Re:Rest of the world (2, Interesting)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737103)

6MB here (Alberta, CA) for what you are paying, 10MB would be about $80 a month, but that doesnt mean anything as im in a fairly populous city, in Edmonton and Calgary you can get 25MB lines...however basically within walking distance (15KM) they barely have dial-up (28.8), as a random estimate I would probably say that the average speed for Alberta as a whole would be about 1MB... BC, which has integrated DSL more so, is probably averaging 3MB... with highs (excluding business lines 100MBit+) up to 25MB and lows of 28.8/36.6/56 dial-up...

Re:Rest of the world (4, Informative)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736827)

In french urban areas, the standard ADSL is 24Mb/s ATM (8 to 18Mb/s real TCP BW) for 29 to 39E/Mo (with unlimited phone and taxes included), but in a few major cities, 100Mb/s cable is being deployed and sold for the same price.

Re:Rest of the world (1)

Valtor (34080) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737119)

Here in Canada (Quebec) using videotron. I have 7 Mbps down and 820 Kbps up for 40$/month. I could get 50 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up for 80$/month. Not bad eh ! ;-)

Re:Rest of the world (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737391)

Unless they're using DOCSIS3, which I doubt, then the maximum a cable modem can do is 45MBit downstream.

The 1Mbit up is what kills you. Don't ever pay $80/mo for that garbage.

Re:Rest of the world (2, Informative)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737159)

I have an 8Mbps/1Mbps ADSL connection to the Internet here in Paris.

My friends make fun of me. Most have got 18Mbps to 100Mpbs connections. At least one of my friends has got multiple connections.

Only 6.8Mbps? (5, Informative)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736565)

I live on the East Coast (of Japan) and have a 100Mbps-rated optical fibre connection. Though the fastest I've got out of it is a piddling 87Mbps.

Muahaha.

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736655)

In the UK, broadband speeds are typically in the 8-24Mb/s range. I first visited the USA around a decade ago, and Internet speeds I saw advertised back then were much faster than anything I could get back home (where ISDN at 128Kb/s was the fastest and was incredibly expensive).

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (2, Informative)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736661)

They do say median. Some areas, like rural sections, probably bring that down. And yes, there are a bunch of those areas on the east coast (though not as much as the mid-west).

Here in NJ (east coast US) we have Verizon Fiber as an option. I'm personally on a 20Mbit connection and I think they go up to 50Mbit for consumer-level. There might be faster offerings for consumers but 20 is fast enough for me.

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (1)

nbvb (32836) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736771)

True enough ... I live in Cablevision territory (NJ also), and have a 30mbps downstream/5mbps upstream plan for $44.90/month. Can't beat that with a stick.

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737203)

Honestly, I'm not really sure why this was warranting front page space. It's sort of one of those newsflash: people in the developed world have easy access to phones sort of posts.

Of course the east coast is going to have faster service than most of the rest of the country. There's a much higher population density in New England in particular, as well as much more money than most of the rest of the country.

It would be shocking if that weren't the case.

Around here, when I try to enter my address into Verizon's service locater, it doesn't even put the address in the right portion of the city. Like I'm going to trust a corporation that hasn't even managed to master the art of maps to give me broadband of any quality.

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (1)

fiordhraoi (1097731) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736687)

Japan, Delaware and Rhode Island (where I live, incidentally) share something in common: they have a relatively dense population over a relatively small area. That makes building an infrastructure a more reasonable task. I did an internship at a company called OSHEAN [oshean.org] , which handled a lot of higher education/internet2 stuff a few years ago. They had bought up some dark fiber and were hooking most of the state universities to it. The organizational difficulty between intra-state stuff and inter-state stuff once once things started moving out of the state and up into Massachusetts was dramatic.

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (4, Informative)

whtmarker (1060730) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736713)

I live on the East Coast (of Japan) and have a 100Mbps-rated optical fibre connection. Though the fastest I've got out of it is a piddling 87Mbps.

Muahaha.

We are talking median speed. If you and your 5 neighbors have speeds of 1,1,2,3 and 87 your median speed is 2Mbps.

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (1)

g0dsp33d (849253) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736721)

I think I speak for all of the US when I say that I hate you. :-p Seriously though, that's about 1 hr 20 minutes full throttle on my DSL which is the fastest 2 way connection in my area (1.5 /384 or I could get 3m/56k cable and tie up a phoneline). Pretty sad considering I'm in a fairly populous area. PA sucks for broadband unless you live next to a Verizon building.

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (1)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736869)

Well until recently I had a 1Mbps DSL which was plenty enough for my needs, but moving to a new place I found it had residential optical fiber, which costs about the same (not sure of the exact details, the first 5 months are free, but I think it works out to about US$40 a month). And if it's any consolation, trans-Pacific connections aren't exactly fast (300Kb / sec on average) so it's not like I'm maxing out the tube all the time.

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (2, Insightful)

Dave Tucker Online (1310703) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737011)

What do you do with that bandwidth? I have 15Mbps and can't seem to make use of it. Every once in a while I download an ISO or something, and it is helpful then. But I just don't do it often enough to care if it takes 1 minute or 5.

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (2, Interesting)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737187)

Good question, I've only had it a week, and my router only does 54Mbps anyway... I can get good quality streaming video (probably not MPAA approved) from South Korea though, and there is lots of streaming content (TV, VOD) available for an extra fee (kind of like cable in reverse).

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737411)

With that kind of bandwidth you can start using the internet as your local network. It means you can put your nice little server in a nice colo, and use that from home. Or from your friends house - and not notice it very much that it isn't local.

Or you can have your server at home, and when at your friends place, you just mount your homedir from your home-box straight into the filesystem of your friends box - and play, say the divx that's located in your homedir on your home-box. On his computer.

Or, say that you are a graphics person and work from home. You're pulling up the 200MB .raw-format picture from your works server. You'd rather have it pull up as if you were working from your workplace - and not be less efficient when at home. .. and so forth

Re:Only 6.8Mbps? (1)

vally_manea (911530) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737307)

That's nothing, I live in Eastern Europe(the communist kind) and the lowest option for broadband here is 10Mbps and is dirt cheap as well...

cromulescent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24736583)

elboe smork

flawed test (4, Insightful)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736605)

This test is the same like those websites where you can test your download speed. They are all flawed in that they don't take your subscription into account. If you have somebody who subscribed for a cheapass 512/512 ADSL, he pulls the average down. Those tests should be limited to those who pay for "all you can get". Otherwise it tells more about a states economical position then about their internet access.

Re:flawed test (4, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736755)

They are all flawed in that they don't take your subscription into account.

It depends who's using the list. If I'm designing web pages, I want to know what people in my target demographic HAVE, not what they can get. If it's a penis size competition, then I question the study's usefulness. Besides, we have the Olympics for that - and China has the biggest gold dick. Though the US has true melting pot of total dicks.

Interestingly, all of these states are densely populated. From Wikipedia:
Rhode Island ranked 2
Delaware ranked 6
New Jersey ranked 1
Virginia ranked 14
Massachusetts ranked 3

The only think close to an outlier there is Virginia, which is still densely populated over near Washington - which would actually be number 1 if it were a state.

I guess if I lived in number 4 Connecticut or number 5 Maryland, I'd want to know what was up!

Re:flawed test (1)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737213)

I guess if I lived in number 4 Connecticut or number 5 Maryland, I'd want to know what was up!

I'm going out on a limb here, but my theory is that Maryland isn't as economically well off as the states that did make the list.

Re:flawed test (3, Interesting)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736759)

My comcast connection just did 15.5 Mbit/s on the speedmatters test but it's just the result of comcast's traffic shaping policy. For a sustained transfer, the speed would be half that.

Re:flawed test (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737063)

That's not traffic shaping, that's "Powerboost". They are giving you 2-3x your subscribed speed for the first 15 seconds of download.

Re:flawed test (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736767)


Those tests should be limited to those who pay for "all you can get". Otherwise it tells more about a states economical position then about their internet access.

Isn't that kind of the point? Access should be measured by what's affordable, not the super-expensive $2000/month fiber optic connection you COULD get if you could afford it. This isn't a race or a competition, it's a comparison of where broadband speeds are the highest. That's going to include economic conditions.

Re:flawed test (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736779)

Those tests should be limited to those who pay for "all you can get".

Can you point me to a broadband provider that has an "all you can get" plan? Everywhere I look, the plans are based on some sort of limited max upload/download speed. While some of those are pretty high, there is no "all you can get" plan that I can find.

Re:flawed test (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737023)

I had an 'all you can get' plan with Cox for a few weeks, but then one day someone came to my door wanting to see why my modem was uncapped.

It is totally possible to accidentally upload the exact payload necessary to lift my 3 meg limit to my cable modem.

Re:flawed test (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736939)

Those tests should be limited to those who pay for "all you can get".

But you can't get "all you can get" anywhere in the US that I know of.

(Yeah, some ISPs do advertise "unlimited" plans. They lie a lot.)

Re:flawed test (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737193)

If "cheapass" 512/512 (which I'd call SDSL, but that's beside the point) is $25 a month and 5mbit is $150, can you blame that guy for bringing down the average? Or is that maybe part of the point of these tests? Or, in my case, 256k SDSL is $75, but I went hardcore and got our small town telephone coop's top of the line 768k for $90 a month (plus $15 for a phone line I wouldn't otherwise have). So I'm doing my part to bring the average up(/down less).

Competition (1)

thesaint05 (850634) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736637)

In Northern VA, Cox just upped my speed from 5 Mbps down/2 Mbps up to 10/2, and increased cost by about $2/month. This of course is to stave off the FIOS menace which also upped their speeds and rates by a similar amount. Nevermind that I don't have access to FIOS, they still did it for everybody else that does.

Might the higher speeds on the East Coast be because our cities are closer together allowing for more lines, thereby allowing for more competition? From Richmond to Boston are several large and major cities (Richmond, DC, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philly, Newark, NYC and Boston) in comparatively close proximity.

Re:Competition (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736761)

It's mostly due to competition. Cherry picking the population centers is how you get the most customers per mile of cable. That's why you can get high speeds in cities (and new 'burbs), but the rural towns just 100 to 200 miles out are still on dialup. The more they try and consolidate on pop centers, the higher the speeds go. Sometimes it's just the threat of competition that ups speeds. Where I am, Comcast doubled everybody's speed when Verizon was considering wiring for FIOS. Then Verizon decided to skip us. Not that it mattered. Comcast had about a 85% uptime on the service I had, and their lowest tier (3.0/768) was four times the price of Verizons basic DSL (768/128). I need always on more than I need expensive, fast-except-during-peak-times internet so I'm still with Verizon.

Re:Competition (2, Insightful)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736913)

No, it has more to do with which carriers are dominant in different regions.

Verizon is the successor to two of the regional operating companies spun off after the 1984 AT&T divestiture, Bell Atlantic, which covered the mid-Atlantic region, and NYNEX, which merged New England Telephone and New York Telephone. That means the east coast (north of Virginia) has much more FiOS penetration than the rest of the US.

Comcast also has a large presence in the northeast. Regardless of your opinion of their policies, Comcast has offered cable internet service for many years now.

So I suspect the higher speeds on the east coast have more to do with which providers serve these areas than anything else.

The cited study, by the Communication Workers of America, is based on tests taken by people who visited their web site the chance to measure their speeds. Well, I don't know about you, but I've never visited the CWA site, but I bet a lot of CWA members do, and I bet most of them have pretty high-speed connections. Studies like this with self-selected respondents have only minimal "external validity" since the results aren't based on random sampling methods. ("External validity" concerns whether the results of a study can be generalized to some larger universe of interest. In the case of the CWA study, they cannot.)

What competition (3, Interesting)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737223)

What is that competition you are talking about? For last three years, I do not have any choice other than comcast for "high speed internet". And this is central NJ - probably the largest urban sprawl in the whole freaking world.

Duh (4, Insightful)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736639)

East Coast. Rhode Island (6.8Mbps) and Delaware (6.7Mbps) have the fastest, and nearly triple the national median download speed of 2.3Mbps. Rounding out the Top 5 states are New Jersey (5.8Mbps), Virginia (5Mbps) and Massachusetts (4.6Mbps).

The states with the slowest median download speeds primarily are located in the Midwestern or Western regions of the United States, including Idaho (1.3Mbps), Wyoming (1.3Mbps), Montana (1.3Mbps) and North Dakota (1.2Mbps); Alaska had the slowest download speed (0.8Mbps). I


Is anyone surprised that small, densely populated states have higher download speeds than large, sparsely populated ones? It's the same argument that comes up every time worldwide broadband speeds are discussed: small and dense = easier to wire.

-Grey [silverclipboard.com]

Re:Duh (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736855)

I was surprised to see Virgina on the list for just that reason. Sure there are some densely urban places in Virgina, but there's a lot of rural area there, too.

But I agree that this reads like another report by "Captain Obvious"

Re:Duh (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737093)

small and dense = easier to wire.

Apparently there's an optimum smallness and density. Verizon seems to be putting FiOS into the suburbs surrounding major cities faster than into the major cities themselves.

Re:Duh (2, Insightful)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737175)

That's because major cities have poor people in them who can't afford FiOS, whereas suburbs are comparatively rich.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737419)

That might be insightful if recent studies weren't showing that large, densely populated cities are seeing an influx of rich people. All of the poor people are moving to the suburbs or out of the area altogether.

Re:Duh (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737181)

Might it also be at least partly due to the expectation that the people living in suburbs of a major city probably have a larger disposable income than the people living in the crowded urban core?

Re:Duh (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737393)

That is partly because it is a lot more expensive to run cable of any kind where almost everything is paved over (streets, sidewalks, buildings, parking lots) versus an area where all you have to do is dig a trench, put your cable/conduit in, fill the trench back up.
Ok, yeah there are places where you have to dig up part of the street in the suburbs, but not for the whole length of cable you are putting in.

Small States (1)

whtmarker (1060730) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736651)

Look, all of the states with fast median download connections are small states. Its way easier to wire up a small state especially if their demographics have most people living in urban areas.

Imagine trying to provide optimum connections to an entire state like Alaska or Texas. The more rural areas you have the more the median download speed for that state will take a hit (because its cheaper to throw in high speed to an urban area than 1000 small towns).

check this out: (5, Interesting)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736667)

In Romania UPC gives 20mbps for ~30$/mo ... and it is considered a developing country.

New Jersey (-1, Troll)

RedShoeRider (658314) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736683)

You mean to tell me that there's something that *doesen't* suck about the Armpit of America?

Wow.

Re:New Jersey (2, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737003)

The only thing wrong with NJ is the taxes, cost of property, and the state gov.

Beyond that it's a nice place to live. Everyone always thinks all of NJ is inner-city Newark because that's all the see from the Parkway and Turnpike because of trees and sound dividers, or when they land at Newark International Airport, or look at us across the river.

When it fact it's a nice place with plenty of trees and forests.

Some people I know were talking about how they drove to NJ for the first time from out west. They were flabbergasted when they realized they'd been driving in NJ for over an hour and had stopped at a few places in NJ. They said they never saw that portion of NJ on the TV.

6.6 Mbps average? Is that broadband? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24736711)

Surprising data. Broadband has apparently never got to the US?

What about EU countries where 10/20Mbps ADSL2 (peak, not average) are the norm, and where 95% of the territory is covered

What about fiber providers, again in EU, who easily surpass the 20Mbps?

Seen the amount os sp*m and heavy flash websites are often tailored to America's final users, I wonder what will happen to the world when american broadband average speeds will surpass the 6Mbps.

I want to break free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24736735)

Where I live: 1 Mbit (divided asymmetrically into up- and downstream)
I am really looking forward to moving away from home to the town of my university. (Which, btw, has more than 200 inhabitants.)

Fastest? What? (1)

dauthur (828910) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736739)

Eh, I know for a fact that no matter where I go in Massachusetts, standard cable or DSL is still abysmally slow. I'm not about to pay the price for "premium" service though, which is still actually slower than one can get in just Greenwich, Connecticut.

so far behind (4, Informative)

sam_paris (919837) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736795)

Two years ago, when I lived in Paris, I got 20Mbit. Now I live in New York and get more like 4Mbit.

Yep, the world's richest country is years behind in technology infrastructure..

Re:so far behind (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737041)

It's the population density, idiot! It's easier for France to have better broadband because the people are all close together! Japan is even faster because everyone in Japan lives in Tokyo which has a really big population density! You can't compare Paris to somewhere sparsely populated like New York!

No, wait...

We have 50 Mbps fiber in Utah (5, Interesting)

GiovanniZero (1006365) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736801)

The study obviously wasn't that thorough. We have Fiber in utah that gives you 50 Mbps UP and down for $80/mo. It's a helluva lot cheaper and better than Verizon fios.

Re:We have 50 Mbps fiber in Utah (1)

iguana (8083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737013)

Can I come live with you?

Here in Boise, ID, I can get 20Mbps down via Qwest but it's a piddly 896kbps up. That's *kilo*bits per second. And it costs US$100/mo (before taxes, fees, and the CEO's boat payments).

Every time my downstream speed goes up, my upstream speed goes down. Went from a 3Mbps/1.5Mbps DSL to 8Mbps/1Mbps cable. Now it's 20Mbps and 896kbps. WTF?

I'm curious if anyone beats the Cincinnati Area (3, Interesting)

shdowhawk (940841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736819)

So far it seems that the fastest AND most affordable internet (combo) here in the states is available in the Cincinnati area (that I've personally seen). It's got 3 major cities within about 1.5 hours, one of the busiest airports in the mid-west (I'm still EST time zone), a few major train rails and highways 70,71 and 75 all very near by. This makes it a prime location for major companies, except that there aren't THAT many (proctor and gamble is here for example).

I mention this because there aren't too many nerdy types like me out here.. except that they set up the broadband out here to handle major *potential* commercial needs.

So here I sit paying $50 a month for "20 meg download" (which is literally about 2.4-2.5 megabytes per second at maxed connection). That's the upgraded package. Normally it's $40 for "10 meg download"... but 10$ more for double the connection? Easy choice for me! What is interesting is that my speeds actually can hit that through usenet / bittorrents.

Just curious, do these speeds at that low of a price exist anywhere else out there for that cheap? I've not yet heard of that elsewhere. I use Insight Broadband [insightbb.com] . Note: Internet speeds are great, but the commercials and customer service / "pay-by-internet" really really suck.

Re:I'm curious if anyone beats the Cincinnati Area (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737235)

I live about 70 miles south of Cincinatti and I get about 4MB/s on Time Warner (though we also pay through the nose for it). Before we upgraded twice we had a ~$40 package where we got 1MB/s.

Insight is terrible. Time Warner is better, but it's still terrible. Unfortunately unless you've got the big dollars to spend on your own trunk line, you're pretty much screwed. The telecom companies gouge us like it's Christmas year round, and we get absolutely nothing for it.

population density and total land area (2, Interesting)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736881)

Three of the top five are among the smallest states in the Union by total land area. They are mostly densely populated, too.

Virginia has the extra bonus that it has suburbs of Washington, D.C. and several government installations. The Pentagon is actually not in D.C. (although its postal address says it is), but is in Arlington. The FBI and CIA are headquartered in the state. One of the largest USMC bases is there, along with the DEA and FBI training centers. There's a Federal Reserve Bank. Qimonda has a DRAM fab there, and Genworth Financial is headquartered in the state. Of course it has all kinds of telecom infrastructure.

You forgot telecom headquarters ... (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737165)

NoVa used to be the home of PSInet, WorldCom, AOL, CAIS, XO, Ardent, UUNet, ... there's a whole lot of connectivity in the Reston / Ashburn / Dulles corridor heading out 7, as there's still a massive number of tech companies out there. And it's also the current home of 3 of the 5 peering points of MAE-East.

Duh. (5, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736919)

Al Gore was born in Washington D.C. so obviously the internet is fastest on the east coast. The packets don't have to travel as far to reach him.

Re:Duh. (2, Funny)

San-LC (1104027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737403)

Good thing I use 802.11gore to connect without wires. Otherwise, I don't know how I would get Internet in New Orleans.

Population Density? (1)

ramk13 (570633) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736923)

It's a lot easier to connect everyone to a network when they aren't spread out as much as they are in many western states.

Didn't RTFA but... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737005)

Ok I didn't RTFA but doesn't it only really matter for what municipality you live in, and not the state/region average? In that scenario, my service far outpaces every one listed in the summary, at somewhere around 15Mbps for $25/month.

VA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737039)

80% of southwestern VA is restricted to Dial-up still. I dont understand up it can be on the top 5

Oblig Matrix... (3, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737049)

What good is a phone call...if youâ(TM)re unable to speak?

I'm glad someone has 6.8 Mbs...just hope they don't actually use it. DPI, caps, throttling....these speeds only apply if you use them for services the telco wants you to use them on.

Millions in gov't subsidies and right-of-ways thru your property and all I got was this lousy duopoly.

hmmm (4, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737051)

I get about 756k in Miami for $10 a month. I could go faster I guess, but why bother? When I went from 2400 baud to 44k baud, that was really cool. When I went from 44k baud to cable modem, that was really cool. Any incremental increase after that is eh.

Sample (0, Redundant)

wilsonjd (597750) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737061)

Speed Matters, which is a project of the Communication Workers of America, conducted the study between May 2007 and May 2008 by asking users visiting its Web site to test out their connection speed to check how quickly they could download and upload data. In total, nearly 230,000 connections in the United States were tested.

a survey of visitors to their website. Gee, that sounds like a scientifically valid sample.

12mb for $25 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737099)

I'm paying $25 for 12mbps in Tennessee.

GREED! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737105)

Want to know why we have slow broadband? GREED! Telco's have figured out we will all open our wallets at a certain speed and are trying to milk us for every penny without upgrading their infrastructure. Why don't you have 100mb fibre at your house? Because the Telco's want to spend that $60+ per month on ferrying around their CEO in a chartered jet rather than to provide the service your paying for. Its rather comical that the Cable companies and telco's are screaming about bandwidth when we have the most developed backbone network in the world. All of those high speed foreign connections are running into a smaller backbone than we have here in the USA yet the providers scaremonger that with HDTV the internet is going to melt down. Perhaps their profit centers might but the current backbone is more than capable.

I work at a large backbone internet provider and we have a vast untapped amount of dark fibre. Most of the bandwidth issues that you hear about from ISP's are artificially created. It's not because the bandwidth is not available its because the higher ups want to pressure their network engineers to squeeze every penny out of that connection.

Its about time people stood up and called shenanagans on the lies that ISP's spreading on the technical difficulties of dialing up better speeds. The only thing stopping them from providing you the speeds you pay for is GREED!

of course (1, Funny)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737137)

East coast bandwidth should be fastest in the USA, I'd be surprised if it was fastest in Guatemala.

Canada beats the States?! (1)

Hierophant7 (962972) | more than 5 years ago | (#24737377)

Canada's fastest ISP is Montreal's Videotron with 25Mbps. At my parents' place in Burlington, Ontario, they have 10Mbps, but could go to 16 if they wanted it. I've just moved to Toronto... I think we have Bell Sympatico, which is 6, and I consider that slow.

midwest has fast speeds too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737395)

Here in Indiana (Insight Communications) you get 10Mbit access for like $45, which is pretty nice. You can also pay $10 more to get 20mbit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...