Beta
×

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!

US Adoption of 10 Mbps+ Broadband Nearly Doubles In a Year

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the kansas-city-residents-sneer-with-glee dept.

The Internet 172

darthcamaro writes "We all know that the U.S. doesn't have the fastest broadband in the world, but it is gaining 'fast' (pun intended). The latest Akamai State of the Internet report pegs U.S. adoption of High Broadband, that is, broadband with access of 10 Mbps, at 15 percent. While that number may not seem high, it's 95 percent higher than it was this time last year." Broad-stroke averages, though, mean less than whether your neck of the woods gets better Internet service.

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The numbers (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#40936487)

I tend to doubt the numbers, but have nothing to base it on but my gut feel and conversations with people I know. I personally have access to "High Broadband", but am perfectly happy with my average 5Mbps as my typical use case doesn't involve a lot of video download. I'd much rather have symetrical 2Mbps for backing up purposes. 10Mbps would have very little benefit for me, and certainly not another $360/yr benefit.

YMMV and probably does.

Re:The numbers (1, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40936607)

Mine is 1 Mbit/s. By choice. That's because I have never spent more then $19.99 for internet, and I don't want to start now. And yes I do stream video over that connection. It works just fine.

A friend of mine didn't have broadband for a long time, and was stuck on dialup, but just got it a year ago. The gaps are slowly being filled in.

Re:The numbers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936661)

Yes, yes, we know already. You've only mentioned this dozens of times spanning both this username and your previous account as commodore64love.

Re:The numbers (2)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40936681)

1 Mbps used to be considered very fast, back when the US was mostly on modems. Since when is 1 Mbps considered slow? Might anyone know the proportion of modem users nowadays?

Re:The numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936783)

When the rest of the world got 20 Mbps over the telephone lines. And probably way before then. So 7 years ago?

Re:The numbers (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40937321)

If by the world, you mean major cities in developed countries, you might have a point. Or then we must be traveling in extremely different areas.

Re:The numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40937541)

Cut the major city (ten or fifteen thousand should be more than enough to get those speeds) and that works I suppose. I guess 85% of US citizens do not live in a developed country then?

Re:The numbers (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#40937871)

Major cities in developed countries? There are plenty of people with DSL in rural areas in Europe. Which isn't even the place with greatest broadband penetration that would be South Korea or Japan.

Re:The numbers (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40936909)

1Mbps has been slow for at least a decade.
In 2002 I had a 5/1Mbps connection and today 25/25.

Re:The numbers (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40938063)

1Mbps has been slow for at least a decade.
In 2002 I had a 5/1Mbps connection and today 25/25.

I had to switch from 56K modem when pages started bloating up. Ebay was horrible, some listings taking 30 seconds or longer to load. Slashdot is one of the slower sites to load, even at 6Mb/s

Re:The numbers (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | about 2 years ago | (#40938263)

1Mbps has been slow for at least a decade. In 2002 I had a 5/1Mbps connection and today 25/25.

Oh, but haven't you heard? HughesNet claims that their service is "high speed broadband" .

Re:The numbers (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40938353)

I had 10/10 in 99.

so 1Mb been slow for about 14 years.

Re:The numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40937029)

Hey Commodore64Love! No wonder you didn't get first post with that pokey slow internet access. If you wait long enough, the signature line for my post will load...

Re:The numbers (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40938335)

For certain definitions of video.

Re:The numbers (4, Interesting)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#40936625)

I just moved into a new apartment in Pawtucket, RI and the SLOWEST internet available to me (other than dial-up...if you can do dial-up via cable or FiOS -- I don't have phone lines...) is 15/5. I decided to go up one level and get 50/25. It's nice on the rare occasion that I'm hitting servers that will actually deliver those speeds, but that's not really all that often.

Re:The numbers (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#40936667)

I'm envious. Those upload speeds would be awsome. Curious... how much does each level cost?

Re:The numbers (2)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#40937007)

The 15/5 is cheapest from the cable co -- it's $52/month plus $7/month if you want to rent a modem. The 50/25 is FiOS, it's $75/month which includes a modem/router combo (that is actually pretty decent, gives full ssh access, QoS tools, and a ton of other stuff I've never seen on a consumer router). Pricing gets a decent bit more reasonable if you want things like TV or phone service, but I have no use for either of those so I'm stuck with the absurd data-only pricing.

Re:The numbers (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#40937239)

Pricing gets a decent bit more reasonable if you want things like TV or phone service, but I have no use for either of those so I'm stuck with the absurd data-only pricing.

We've got the tv/phone/net bundle, and the 25/25 FiOS portion is $35/month. 1/2way through a 2 year lock in, $125/month total.
If *she* would let me, I'd easily drop the TV portion, and go with an OOMA or similar for phone.

Re:The numbers (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937315)

I have the same data without the voice or cable and it only costs $40/month.

Not sure how $5/month extra is absurd.

Re:The numbers (2)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#40937461)

Interesting...they don't offer a 25/25 plan here (if they did I probably would have gotten that instead). The next plan down from the 50/25 is 15/5, and that's $60/month for data only. But from everything I've heard about FiOS it does seem that their pricing varies wildly by location (probably based on the competition...).

But anyway, I can't get the pricing for data alone as part of the bundle, but internet is $75/month, while the same internet with 200-some TV channels is $85/month.

Re:The numbers (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937905)

If you call they generally have more options than online. This is because they don't use their own call centers but contracted out ones that get paid based on sales so they are willing to make special deals. Also they offer better prices on longer term contracts.

Re:The numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40937393)

If *she* would let me, I'd easily drop the TV portion, and go with an OOMA or similar for phone.

Moms can be so annoying, cant they?

Re:The numbers (2)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 2 years ago | (#40936731)

One of the local Cable companies here (charter) is offering 30M/6M for $30 a month. I think that's a 1 year promotional price.. but not too shabby. Of course, I live out of town a ways, and there is no cable in my neighborhood, so I'm stuck on 1Mb/s rural wireless.

Re:The numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936815)

Couldn't agree more, what ISP's offer in terms of upload bandwidth/speed is pathetic, the racio is atrocious, 1/10+ u/d

I refuse to buy any expensive cable/fiber service for that sole reason. Having 30,60,120+mbit down with only 1~10Mbit up is screwing the consumer deliberatly.

Re:The numbers (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40936881)

I have 25/25, it costs $480 a year. Since I do not have cable that is very affordable.

Re:The numbers (1)

eliadsonet (2701271) | about 2 years ago | (#40936919)

High Broadband, that is broadband with access of 10 Mbps at 15 percent.

Re:The numbers (1)

JSBiff (87824) | about 2 years ago | (#40937117)

I'm currently lucky in that I'm in a pretty small part of Cincinnati, OH that is currently served by Cincinnati Bell's fiber-optic service, so I get 10/2 service through them. The place where I find having the extra speed is nice is that I can better "multi-task". Previously, with slower-speed Internet offerings, if I was, say, downloading a large file (like a Linux distro .iso or game download on Steam or Direct2Drive), I could read webpages, of course, though they would load a bit slower, but I couldn't, for example, watch full-resolution Netflix or Hulu video (the resolution would downgrade pretty often).

With the higher speed offering, I can watch HD video streams while downloading stuff in the background, or have multiple file downloads going and they'll all download pretty fast, etc.

That's kind of nice - but I agree with the parent that it's not necessarily worth an extra $30/mo - but for me, the 10/2 tier on the fiber optic package is only $40/mo total, which is the same as I'd be paying for the lowest tier on Time-Warner Cable (which also offers comparable speeds), and I think is only about $10/mo more than I was paying for CB DSL (which was 5/1, IIRC) previously.

Re:The numbers (2)

glebovitz (202712) | about 2 years ago | (#40937183)

I am in Brookline MA and we share Comcast infrastructure with Boston. I have 22MBs according to my tests, and Comcast promises me even greater speed if I upgrade to a DOCSYS 3 modem. My brother reports the same in New Jersey, and my other brother is getting 12 to 15 MBS from his provider in San Diego. A year ago, my connection was at 7 - 9 MBs, so things have improved greatly. My data bill has stayed the same.

Re:The numbers (2)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 2 years ago | (#40937939)

My ISP reports that 10+Mbps broadband is available in the area, but in fact only 6Mbps if you're just using it for data. Apparently that other stuff is available only for their bundled video package. I don't need that I can stream from anywhere, I'd rather just have the bwidth.

Tied with the EU (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40936515)

Our U.S. average is still tied with the EU average (13 Mbit/s). We're still # 2, just behind the Russian Federation, and way ahead of Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India, China, and Australia. (Countries of comparable continent-spanning size.)

Re:Tied with the EU (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936609)

According to TFA the US is #12 in average connection speed, at 6,7 Mbps. There are just two countries in double digits: South Korea at 15.7 and Japan at 10.9.

So even if you compare only across similar sized counries your numbers can't be correct.

Re:Tied with the EU (1, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40936701)

>>>your numbers can't be correct

(1) Mbps is not an SI standard measurement. Its use is incorrect. (2) Take-up your complaint with speedtest.net. They are the ones who have tested literally billions of connections. I am more inclined to believe people who did ACTUAL up and downloads over actual lines, then this study which appears to pull its numbers out of thin air. (BTW speedtest says Japan is approximately 22 Mbit/s and Korea is # 1 at 26 Mbit/s.)

Re:Tied with the EU (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#40936865)

Akamai is one of the largest, if not the largest, CDNs in the world. Their figures are from serving a large fraction of the content on the web and from their extensive network monitoring. It is not 'pulled from the air'. Speedtest.net, on the other hand, is a biased sampling of people who are choosing to use the service. Akamai's data has no such bias.

Re:Tied with the EU (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about 2 years ago | (#40937335)

Akamai has a bias on where and how well they are deployed, however. In the Nordic countries, they are atrociously bad compared to the competition.

Re:Tied with the EU (1)

doshell (757915) | about 2 years ago | (#40936917)

(1) Mbps is not an SI standard measurement. Its use is incorrect.

Maybe I'm not getting your point, but what does the SI system have to do with this? Granted, if you have to be formal, the correct unit should be "per second" and not "bits per second", since bits are just the result of a counting process and thus adimensional; but 1 Mbps, as commonly used, is 1e6 bits per second and not 1024^2, as is the case of other computer-related units that use the mega prefix incorrectly.

Re:Tied with the EU (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40936927)

Since when is Mbps != Mbits/s? Did I miss a boat, or was I misinformed all along?

Re:Tied with the EU (1)

Mia'cova (691309) | about 2 years ago | (#40938031)

Mbps has always been bit, not byte. They're just different ways of writing the same thing. You might make a differentiation between Mbps and MBps where the caps refer to megabytes. But typically, people use that when talking in megabits. Another form like MB/s would be more common for megabytes / sec. Using completely different looking forms is usually a lot easier than relying on caps to guess. We don't always do the same thing so it's always always always better to double check if it's not obvious from the context.

Re:Tied with the EU (1)

0racle (667029) | about 2 years ago | (#40937299)

Speedtest is a biased sample. Those that choose to use the service are the people who are getting the higher end of the offerings for their area and they are making sure that they are getting it. The guy who got a 512 or 768 plan isn't testing out his awesome speed.

Re:Tied with the EU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936839)

Somehow I don't think we're on the same level as Mexico, Brazil, India, China.

Maybe comparable in sq Km; but you're comparing one of the most developed countries in the world, to one with such poor infrastructure that 60million people recently lost power. When was the last time the entire USA lost electricity?

Also Canada and Australia have MUCH smaller populations than the US. (30m, 20m, and 300m respectively)

Beware of AIDS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936527)

Beware! I had sex with a Mac user by mistake only once and now I have AIDS.

Google fiber (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#40936541)

It won't take millions of connections at 100x the average to bring that average up.

Google Fiber? Sonic.net? (3, Funny)

neelwebs (2547396) | about 2 years ago | (#40936567)

10 mbps isn't enough. I want a gigabit!

Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? (3, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#40936643)

I remember when we got a T1 line at the school of business at my university. That was freaking fast baby and worth the $5,000 or so it cost a month (not sure on the price... I heard it second hand). Now 1.5Mbps is considered slow for residential (though I'd like the symetrical speeds over what cable provides). I cannot even imagine gigabit at home. What would that be for? When you want to get streaming netflix videoes on every TV in your house plus every fridge, oven and toaster?

Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? (4, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 2 years ago | (#40936851)

I used to admin at a small college (about 1000 students, 25 classrooms) .. about 5 years ago when I left, we had 4MB of transit to the internet (we had 100MB to other universities in the state, we were all on one big network)

Students would come in, and tell us how fast our internet was, and that their 5Mb cable modems were nothing in comparison.. They were shocked to find out that we only had 4Mb. We had a squid transparent proxy box, but the big difference was latency. A very, very low latency, slower connection will 'feel' much faster than a bigger pipe. People think a 100k web page coming back instantly is because they're on a big pipe. But it can come back just as fast over a 1Mb pipe, latency is the difference.

Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40936969)

When you are trying to move large files you will notice the difference a fat pipe makes. I bet the college kids really thought your connection was fast because they were downloading movies and such from the other universities that you had that 100Mb connection with.

Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 2 years ago | (#40938239)

it was a community (2-year) college.. no dorm rats. Very few people abused the bandwidth (but having a 100Mb pipe to kernel.org was really, really nice) We would have a few people go crazy with the downloads.. a very simple QOS setting on the router fixes that in a hurry.. (they can wait). Myspace was the worst, with all the streaming videos and music. Those that chose to ignore the access agreement and torrent away would usually find me walking up to them (politely) and telling them to stop.. (which was really funny.. There are 20 people in this big community area served by that WAP, and your the only one sitting in the corner so that nobody can see your screen, and looking around suspiciously.. of course your easy to find). One or two refused, (or hid better) and found their MAC addresses only redirect to a captive portal that says they are blocked until they have a 'chat' with the Dean of IT.

Its amazing how much better non-technical solutions sometimes work for people problems.

Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? (1)

Loughla (2531696) | about 2 years ago | (#40938081)

That's what kills me. I was recently able to upgrade my internet at home from 1MB down to 12 MB down satellite internet (God bless living in the middle of no-where). The issue now is that the latency went from ~300ms to ~750ms. So, when my family says, "The Internet is slower now, go back" I rage quietly inside and continue downloading like a crazy person.

They only stopped because we had a careful talk about what a bigger, but longer tube would mean.

Re:Google Fiber? Sonic.net? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#40936947)

When I went to university, getting 300KB/s downloads on the computer society machines was amazing (even more so because the bottleneck was usually either the 10Mb Ethernet of the last hop or the remote server). Moving out of university accommodation, my housemates and I decided it was worth paying extra for 1Mb/s. We stayed on the top tier for a while, then moved to the middle. When I got a place on my own, it was 10Mb/s. I recently moved, and my ISP won't even offer 10Mb/s in my new place, the slowest that they'll do is 30Mb/s. However, their upload speeds are much slower. The big advantage of the fibre connections is that they are either symmetric or a 1:2 up:down ratio. Even at a 1:10 ratio, with a 100Mb/s or 1Gb/s downstream the upstream becomes a useful speed. With something like a Freedom Box, you can host your own photos and videos, you don't need to upload them to a third party to be able to share them.

Average != Median (5, Interesting)

MetricT (128876) | about 2 years ago | (#40936589)

I was reading about this on another site, and the average was reported as 6.7 Mbs, but 60% of users were 4 Mbs or below, which means that the median user is getting around half the speed of the average user.

The average is a poor statistic for measuring bandwidth. It's like putting 9 hobos and Bill Gates in a room and saying that on average everyone is a millionaire.

Re:Average != Median (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#40937195)

Same here in Norway, average speed is 12.8 Mbps and median speed is 7.2 Mbps. In fact, looking at the full table there's actually many <2 Mbps, few between 2 and 4 Mbps and then many between 4 and 8 Mbps again so there's actually a large fraction that's significantly slower than the median again. On the high side it's as expected a gradual decline.

Re:Average != Median (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about 2 years ago | (#40937691)

The median is a type of average. So is the arithmetic mean, and the mode. When you say "average," I suspect you're thinking specifically of the mean.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

Lies, damn lies and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936627)

"Up 95 percent" sounds super impressive until you realize that "up 100 percent" only means it doubled.

Also, are these for households, or for all connections including businesses and non-profits? That's important because corporate IT equipment upgrade cycles are relatively predictable, but households tend to demand compelling content or functionality before upgrading their subscriptions.

Urban Only. (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#40936633)

In the big city.

is that real broadband or cell co broadband? (3, Interesting)

datapharmer (1099455) | about 2 years ago | (#40936641)

I am curious how much of this availability is due to high speed cellular, which while perfectly fast is pretty much useless due to ridiculous data caps. My choices at home are cellular, dial-up, or satellite. Satellite latency sucks, cellular latency is fine but the 5GB data cap is horrible and dial-up is well.... dial-up. I would hardly consider myself as connected to high speed broadband, but does this study count me as such?

Re:is that real broadband or cell co broadband? (1)

Loughla (2531696) | about 2 years ago | (#40938125)

We're in the same boat. I use satellite with a latency of ~750ms. It sucks balls for on-line gaming, but for everything else, it's outstanding. Streaming movies/music, downloads, etc. You just can't on-line game. You do have to watch the bandwidth caps; they'll sneak those in on you. (luckily, my provider threatens the 15GB/mo. cap, but doesn't ever enforce it I think I'm at 850% of my allotted amount this month already).

Re:is that real broadband or cell co broadband? (1)

afidel (530433) | about 2 years ago | (#40938183)

You need to do some layer 4 traffic shaping to use your satellite connection for bulk download and streaming media and use your cellular connection for browsing and other latency sensitive activities.

Who cares? (3, Interesting)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | about 2 years ago | (#40936695)

Whatever gets me Netflix in high res is fast enough. As for general use, 384k DSL was fast enough. Everything else is just a marketing game between Verizon and Comcast, as far as I'm concerned.

I would like it to be cheaper. Any way you slice it, it's over $100/month for high speed internet. That's IF you can get it. I know a lot of people who are still stuck with Dialup, even in the Washington D.C. suburbs.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936847)

100 a month? The full price I pay for Cable is $60. But if I threaten to disconnect and go to Clearwire (I know LOL like THATS going to happen), they give me a 6 month $40 price.

Re:Who cares? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#40936993)

Not sure about Netflix, but iPlayer HD is around 3.6Mb/s, so you really need at least 4Mb/s to make sure that you can keep the buffer full. 10Mb/s lets you stream video without having to make sure that nothing else is touching the connection. 20Mb/s is enough for a couple of people in the household to be watching video at the same time. Oh, and iPlayer HD is only 720p - and the bitrate and quality was chosen because most people on residential connections could watch it. They could easily stream at four times the bitrate, given a large enough potential audience to justify it.

Re:Who cares? (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 years ago | (#40937309)

I was going to state something similar. Just the sound on a HD video stream would probably be around 160 kbps. And definitely at least 96 kpbs. That leaves a maxium of 288 kbps, not even counting protocol overhead, to transmit HD video, which is just impossible. As a benchmark I tried watching Netflix on my phone, and even their SD stuff that my phone streams is about 200 MB for 45 minutes. Which is about 266 MB/hour which ends up being (according to Google conversion tools, eautiful it does weird units) is 605 kbps. 384 kbps would give a pretty low quality stream. I think that Netflix automatically adjusts the stream based on the bandwidth you have.

Re:Who cares? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937003)

$100 a month?
I get 25/25 for $40 a month.

Re:Who cares? (1)

sdavid (556770) | about 2 years ago | (#40937277)

I'm on 6/0.8 mbps for $35, which is adequate for streaming from a variety of sources at 720p, with a little headroom for checking your email or browsing. That's adequate for me, and I can get reasonably priced 25/7 service from my provider. The real issue isn't speed, it's bandwidth. I'm in Toronto, and most providers provide a cap of some sort. The caps provided by Bell and Rogers simply don't cut it if you do stream TV at HD resolutions reasonably often. I recently changed from Bell to Teksavvy to get more reasonable bandwidth caps (they also have an unlimited plan, which so far I haven't needed). My point is just that you have to shop for a plan that fits your use pattern, and as CubicleZombie says, for most purposes I and I suspect most of us simply don't need a very fast line. I do, however, expect to actually use the speed I do have.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40937485)

Whatever gets me Netflix in high res is fast enough. As for general use, 384k DSL was fast enough. Everything else is just a marketing game between Verizon and Comcast, as far as I'm concerned.

You obviously don't have a spouse and 4 kids who each want to stream different shows at the same time.

Re:Who cares? (2)

afidel (530433) | about 2 years ago | (#40938203)

The live olympic streams are pushing about 6.5Mbps for 720p so there's obviously a use for that kind of speed.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938251)

I work from home as a data analyst. I am routinely moving around 1GB files. My 5mbit upstream is not nearly enough to be perfectly honest.

How much is just 6 month contract renegotiation? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936699)

People are cancelling/renewing their broadband/cable packages every 6 months when the 'introductory' rates expire and their monthly bill doubles.

New speeds offered, price stays the same...
Is that 'adoption' or just being shoehorned?

Akamai's widely skewed results (2)

Shinobi (19308) | about 2 years ago | (#40936717)

Akamai posts another widely skewed report, based on their own crap infrastructure, where they are subpar for some regions.

In the Nordic countries, Akamai is a brake on everything, no matter what time of day you have to download anything via their infrastructure. I currently have a 100Mbit/s symmetric connection, and I get HIGHER download rates via Akamai if I use a US proxy than if I try a straight download. Same thing with any update services or games etc that use Akamai, Nordic countries get the shaft there too. I have a feeling that they are also underdeveloped in the asian regions, which would skew the results too.

Some ballpark figures:

Downloading an ISO via Akamai: Peak out at 16Mbit/s and averaging 11.3Mbit/s going straight, peak out at 29.5Mbit/s and averaging 15.4Mbit/s proxying to the US.

Downloading an ISO via Limelight networks at Swedish prime time: Peak out at 97Mbit/s, average at 94Mbit/s.

Downloading an ISO from SUNET's FTP at swedish prime time: Peak out at 98Mbit/s, average at 96Mbit/s.

Some of my norwegian friends and colleagues are reporting similar experiences in how crap Akamai is for them, both privately and professionally.

Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage (2)

oic0 (1864384) | about 2 years ago | (#40936721)

Well, nearly all. I got a surprise 100 dollar bill from ATT a few months ago for using more than my alloted 150gb. What good would 10Mbs do me?

Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937037)

Nearly all? You mean nearly none?
Time Warner does not, FIOS does not, Comcast does not.

I think you mean just ATT does.

Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#40937375)

comcast has a 250gb limit, and centurylink has a 250gb cap

Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937877)

I believe comcast only has that limit in select areas, those being the areas where they are a monopoly.

Not sure about Centurylink/Qwest.

Re:Meanwhile all ISPs ditch unlimited usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938275)

comcast has a 250gb limit

That hasn't been enforced since mid-May [arstechnica.com] , apparently.

Pathetic (2)

kat_skan (5219) | about 2 years ago | (#40936767)

It's 2012. Broadband has been commonly available for fifteen years and the best we can manage is only 15% of us have service faster than 10MB?

I wish the people who were creating all the make-work projects for the economic stimulus a few years back had been a little more forward-thinking and put people to work running fiber to as many homes as we could as a public utility. Lease bandwidth on it to anyone who wants to provide service, and use the proceeds to maintain and build out the network. If we did that, maybe come 2025 we won't be reading an an article about how awesome it is that all of 15% of us have service faster than 15MB.

Not just the cities (1)

Alvarex (2704755) | about 2 years ago | (#40936779)

I've lived in the mid-west all my life, and over the past 10 years we've gone from dial-up only to 20Mbps download speeds at $45/month. It isn't just the big cities that are improving. Heck, they've dug up half my city (city by mid-west standards) over the past 2 years laying new cables.

Tell that to my ISP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936841)

Only thing that has gone up in the past 10 years for broadband were the fees in my neck of the woods.

Id love any broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936859)

We only live about 30 minutes outside Tacoma, WA and we still have not broadband access. No cable or DSL. We are stuck paying 70$ a month for verizon wireless data service but with only 10GB per month limit. No netflix, limited amounts of youtube & online gaming and have to download windows updates, game patches and drivers at work then bring them home. I have a LG 3/4G usb modem connected to a cradlepoint wifi & wired router, works fairly well but would love to get real internet.

Re:Id love any broadband (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937071)

You live 30 minutes outside the middle of no where, what did you expect?

Re:Id love any broadband (1)

murphtall (1979734) | about 2 years ago | (#40938355)

30 minutes from a city of 225,000 inhabitants is nowhere? For comparison I get 30meg cable speeds in said nowhere town of Tacoma.

Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40936887)

Where the geeks use the the oldest cell phone because it just makes calls, and the slowest internet because its the cheapest. Too many broke IT desk support guys in here.

Re:Slashdot (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937141)

Speak for yourself, I have a Galaxy Nexus and 25/25. I bet more than half the posters are doing something similar. We just have a lot of vocal cheap bastards.

who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#40936975)

and last time I checked the US packages were usually included in horrible and expensive bundles :(

Re:who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937157)

They normally offer the same speeds without the bundle for about $10 extra.

I have no phone, no cable, just internet and am paying $10 more than I would for internet if I had those, but those add another $50 anyway.

Re:who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#40937243)

what do you pay?

Re:who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937285)

$40/month. Would be $90/month with cable and phone, by their billing $30/month for each service.

It is a two year contract with FIOS. If I move to an area without fios I get out the deal for free. I am looking at buying a house, but I will not buy one without FIOS anyway.

Re:who cares about speed ... I care about cost ... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#40937347)

ugh. 100/mo (with tax) seems crazy for telephone/TV/internet :( 40/mo seems marginally expensive for internet, but not as bad as what I've seen in some areas.

Bingo, seems like rates keep getting jacked. (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | about 2 years ago | (#40937303)

I'm paying about 70 bucks for Comcast's slowest internet and basic-basic cable TV. Dropping TV would save me about 5 bucks. It's ridiculous.

Shameful (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 years ago | (#40937009)

This is good news, but it's also pretty shameful. First, that only 15% of people have this kind of access, but also that 10Mbps is considered some kind of achievement. I'm assuming that this means 10Mbps download, and most of the upload speeds are still under 1Mbps. I suspect the numbers would be much better if they Baby Bells hadn't mismanaged our infrastructure for decades.

Re:Shameful (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 2 years ago | (#40937097)

I suspect the numbers would be much better if they Baby Bells hadn't mismanaged our infrastructure for decades.

The existing copper twisted pair infrastructure in the US is fine and very efficient - for voice. The US has far longer local loops than most other countries because of efficient consolidation of COs (as well as our low-density suburbs). Longer local loops means lower DSL speeds. No one was thinking of DSL when these decisions were made.

Re:Shameful (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40937207)

Not planning ahead is a form of mismanagement.

Re:Shameful (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40938307)

Yes, people who take into account technology that hasn't been invented that will be used on machines that haven't been invented when they build big projects.

It wasn't like building a damn where you know you are going to add generators in 20 years. This was not even on the board.

6 MBPS DSL here (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#40937101)

It's enough for me, but I live alone. As long as internet radio, HULU, and the like work well at the same time it's fine with me. Of course, if I were still a gamer I'd have to move to St. Louis where they have 30 MBPS from Charter.

Percentages are not enough. (1)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#40937103)

50% increase over a few thousands in USA id not the same as 50% increase over 60M .

A lot of universities are rolling 100 Mbps or more (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#40937633)

A number of large universities are rolling 100 Mbps or more to surrounding neighborhoods and cities, actually.

Wake me when you realize that.

Surewest in KC has 24/24 (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#40937733)

Great to have, but with that much bandwidth it's more an advantage with torrentting or any other multithreaded downloaded. I'm more psyched about the upload bandwidth for setting up a server. If Google ever runs to my neighborhood, I'd definitely be on it. And, I'm sure all those Google Fiber users helped out the average.

move to kansas city for 1000/100 mbs (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#40938067)

Google has installed fiber to everywhere. The "slow" speed is free and the "fast" speed costs [foxnews.com] $70.

Had anyone daon a (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40938257)

'who has the fastest broadband' comparison by population density?
Comparing the entire US to smaller countries seems like just bad statistics. If a country has similar population and density to New York, then it should be compared to New York, not the US as a whole.

Not here (2)

Cute Fuzzy Bunny (2234232) | about 2 years ago | (#40938313)

Here in the capital city of the state of california (go ahead and look it up, i'll wait), I have three choices for internet: comcast, comcast and comcast.

Who this year decided they could raise rates and not offer any existing customer promos, so I had to pull the plug. Wife went into bestbuy the next day and signed up as a new customer. Since they were willing to offer promos to people with cable tv (I have directv), I'm guessing they're squeezing the cord cutters by raising their internet costs to make up for the lost cable tv revenue. Seems its a zero sum game after all. Five years from now instead of a $50 cable bill and $50 internet bill, you're going to have a $100 internet bill. Maybe $110 in my neighborhood.

Speed is fine, but cost and choice are another matter that I think calls for a little more attention. Still way too many places in the US where you have a single, often expensive choice.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>