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!

The Fastest ISPs In the US

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

The Internet 168

adeelarshad82 writes "For a second year in a row PCMag partnered with Speedtest to find out the fastest ISPs in the U.S. The results were a product of 110,000 tests ran between January 1, 2012 and September 19, 2012. Collecting data for both download and upload speeds for each test, Speednet was able to calculate an index score for a better one-to-one comparison, where downloads counted for 80 percent and uploads 20 percent. Moreover, rather than testing the upload and download speed of a single file, the tests used multiple broadband threads to measure the total capacity of the 'pipe.' While the results at the nationwide level were fairly obvious with Verizon FiOS crushing its opposition, the results at regional level were a lot more interesting and competitive."

cancel ×

168 comments

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

From What I've seen... (5, Funny)

MilwaukeeMadAss (2521372) | about 2 years ago | (#41516869)

I at least think my ISP sends their bills the fastest. Not sure about the "pipe" speed though.

Re:From What I've seen... (2)

abhi2012 (2739367) | about 2 years ago | (#41517383)

Mine deducts the amount from my card the fastest.....

Romneybot to lose debate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41516933)

Wednesday night the full idiocy of right wing politics will be exposed for all to see. As Romney tries to protect his rich donors' wealth, Obama will tear him to pieces.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517099)

"the full idiocy of right wing politics"

I don't pretend to know what will happen in Wednesdays debate.

But I know you would lose in a debate with me.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517769)

Riiiiiiiiiight.

(See what I did there?)

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (0, Offtopic)

macbeth66 (204889) | about 2 years ago | (#41517155)

Wednesday night the full idiocy of right wing politics will be exposed for all to see. As Romney tries to protect his rich donors' wealth, Obama will tear him to pieces.

You are absolutely right. But if you think the Democrats are any better, you are delusional.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (0)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41517229)

Just because the Democrats are bad doesn't mean they are not any better.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517287)

No it means they are worse.

Why do you hate our Constitution?

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517343)

No it means they are worse.

Why do you hate our Constitution?

You're saying... that because Democrats are "bad", they are therefore "worse"??

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517565)

What's wrong? You cannot understand English?

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (-1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41517467)

Why do you hate the constitution?

The right are far more interested in infringing on your liberties than the left.

The police state is a right wing construct.

And the Democrats are less right wing than the Republicans.

Why do you hate America? Not only are the Republicans hell bent on stripping away the freedom of religion, expression, privacy, fair trial, etc. But they are pushing for a road to abject economic annihilation. The only balanced budget proposal is from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It has been objectively proven that deregulation has destroyed the economy and directly lead to this last great recession, as it led to the great depression almost a hundred years ago. Republican economics are an abject disaster.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (0)

one_who_uses_unix (68992) | about 2 years ago | (#41517529)

Why do you hate the constitution?

The right are far more interested in infringing on your liberties than the left.

Cite evidence please. While I think both parties are a joke, this statement is just plain silly

The police state is a right wing construct.

And the Democrats are less right wing than the Republicans.

Why do you hate America? Not only are the Republicans hell bent on stripping away the freedom of religion, expression, privacy, fair trial, etc. But they are pushing for a road to abject economic annihilation. The only balanced budget proposal is from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It has been objectively proven that deregulation has destroyed the economy and directly lead to this last great recession, as it led to the great depression almost a hundred years ago. Republican economics are an abject disaster.

I think you may be confused. Is gun control typically a platform for the left or right? Are property rights more often abused by the left or right (think about the effects of profound regulation via EPA etc.).

De-regulation destroyed the economy? Really? You might want to brush up on your history and economics.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41517839)

The second amendment is not the only civil liberty.

Gun control is authoritarian, therefore it is right wing.

It is the one thing that people who call themselves right leaning do that is left leaning, and the one thing that people who call themselves left leaning do that is right leaning.

I am extremely left wing and very pro 2nd amendment.

On economics, no I have spent years on history and economics. I am not mistaken or confused.

Unregulated markets are unstable and prone to catastrophic failure. Deregulation in critical sectors preceded both the great depression and the recent near depression that we are still not recovered from.

Not only that but right leaning lowering of taxes on the wealthy has been proven to fail in stimulating economic growth as happened prior to and during our recent recession. More money in the hands of the wealthy rarely leads to economic growth because they spend little and are likely to invest in safe investments. More money in the hands of the poor does stimulate the economy, because nearly 100% of that money is spent on goods and services, and in the hands of the middle class, that money is spent on goods services and for starting productive small businesses.

And then there is the FACT that right wing economic policy not only slashes consumer spending and productive investment, but it also historically increases government spending and amplifies the continuation of the debt cycle.

The only result of right wing economics in the long run will be the ruin of America and our takeover by another power.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (0)

one_who_uses_unix (68992) | about 2 years ago | (#41517957)

Both right and left wing economics are Keynsian at their roots. The Austrian model is the only one that works - economies are more organic than formulaic because they are comprised of organic components.

Maybe I misunderstood your use of left/right - it may be a symptom of context. In the US, the "right" typically fights for the right to bear arms while the left typically pushes for gun control. This is not universally true, but I suspect that more than 90% of the candidates that identify themselves as "left" are pro gun control.

The assertion regarding taxes on the wealthy is disingenuous. I have been directly affected by high tax rates and I am not in the 1%. The question is not who's hands you put money in, the question is how do you generate more money. Giving money to the poor has been proven to seize the recipients in an iron grip of dependency.

There is no FACT that taking money from business owners increases investment. When I pay the taxes I pay now I simply can't afford to pay someone else to do jobs that I can do on my own. THAT is a fact. The government is the single least efficient means for putting oney into anyones hands.

Our (US) founders knew these - they wrote that when more than 50% of the population becomes dependent on the remaining portion of the population due to government influence then their experiment would have failed.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#41518041)

Both right and left wing economics are Keynsian at their roots. The Austrian model is the only one that works - economies are more organic than formulaic because they are comprised of organic components.

Stop stealing my material, you talking monkey!

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#41517653)

Stalin and Hitler were both left wing by U.S. standards. Please name me someone who set up a comparable police state who was right wing by U.S. definitions of the term?

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41517851)

How fucking stupid are you?

Both Hitler and Stalin were right wing authoritarians.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#41517981)

Not by the U.S. standard of left and right. In the U.S., the central planners are left wing, opponents of central planning are right wing. Stalin and Hitler were both big proponents of centrally planned economies.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41518131)

The department of homeland security, the central point of the modern police state was a right wing republican creation.

Stalin was not a communist.

Hitler was not a socialist.

It is what people do that matter, not the words that people use as shields.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#41518467)

DHS has only EXPANDED even more under Obama. There is no opposition by the leftwing media exposing the increasing surveillance society like there was under Bush. This is part of the problem for today's (R) bad (D) good mentality.

Dozens of our Embassy's around the world are under siege and yet, the News is completely silent. If this was Bush, they'd have hourly updates on them. Hell, even Faux News isn't reporting it.

As for your assertions of Hitler and Stalin, I'll one up you and go Goebbels "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" And you're right, it is what people DO that matters, but why then are there no left wing protesters against Obama's Authoritarian Tendencies? It is because His is their kind of dictator, while GWB wasn't.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (2)

verifine (685231) | about 2 years ago | (#41518451)

Hitler ran the Nazi party. Nazi - translated to English it means National Socialist. That's left of center, son. Stalin was a Communist, that's even farther to the left. Sorry if the truth hurts, but the phrase "right wing authoritarians" - just doesn't scan. It's Socialism where the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few (sorry, Spock.)

Perhaps you fear liberty?

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41518497)

The real truth is not in the names, but in the character. Sorry if the truth hurts, but just because you claim to be something, doesn't mean you are.

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517665)

'The right are far more interested in infringing on your liberties than the left.'

I call bulls#it..

NoBama and friends brought 'NDAA of 2012' to you, with minimal republican support.. Now I bet you'll say that it isn't 'infringing on our liberties'..

Re:Romneybot to lose debate (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41517877)

Just because democrats are less right wing than republicans, but still right wing, doesn't mean that that the left supports infringing on liberties.

Wireless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41516939)

FiOS coming in at 29.4Mbps down/16.7Mbps up is quite fast relative to the competition, but still pretty disappointing. I regularly hit 35/15 with my cell phone's LTE connection.

Re:Wireless (1)

ffejie (779512) | about 2 years ago | (#41517415)

And I hit 85/35 on my FiOS every time I've ever tested it. This is an average. You've got basically the best LTE connection in the country "regularly" and you're comparing it against an average.

Re:Wireless (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41518393)

Must be nice...if you can get it. The elephant in the room of course is most of us have NO choice and since we can't just abandon our families and move the duopolies pretty much have you by the balls.

In my area your "choices" are AT&T, which hasn't moved an inch in over a decade and you'll pay $45 a month for a top speed of 3.5Mbps down and a pathetic 700k up, and that is if you are lucky and the planets align, otherwise you are looking at 2Mbps down and as low as 200k up. Then there is Cablelynx which I believe is a subsidiary of Cox, where you get anywhere from 12Mbps down to 20Mbps down but you have a cap of just 36Gb for residential and 76Gb business (although those of us that were grandfathered in seem to have a LOT of leeway while those that came after don't) with prices of $65 for just bare cable and $120 a month for the bundle. Both of those are with 2 year contracts, no contracts you are looking at $90 and $150 respectively so your ass damned well better sign on the dotted line. Finally the newest is a WISP which I predict like the last 2 WISP attempts won't last long because they have a top speed of 2Mbps down and charge $90 a month for that on top of a $175 installation fee and their service is hit or miss with a LOT more miss than hit.

So as you can see the plans pretty much cut out the poor, not that anybody other than the WISP provides them service at all because the cable and DSL both end before you get even halfway across town and neither have ANY plans to upgrade shit or move a single inch, for example my mother can literally see both the cable and DSL junction from her porch but neither will run the whole block and a half to her home so she's stuck on the shitty WISP.

What we need is to open up the lines to competition, just as we did when we broke up AT&T and allowed dialup companies to compete on those lines. if they want a monopoly? We'll be happy to give it to them for running fiber to the neighborhood and hooking up those houses they've ignored for years. We even have a reason to grab those lines as we already paid over 200 billion [pbs.org] in tax breaks and incentives to get the ISPs to run national broadband but all we got for all that money was a low res Goatse as they instead spent the money on more cell towers so they can gouge more money with cell plans than they can gouge out of home users. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see corps like AT&T get out of DSL entirely as they can make so much more money charging for every SMS and minute of usage whereas they would actually have to spend money to upgrade their aging lines to compete with cable.

Re:Wireless (1)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | about 2 years ago | (#41518505)

Man, I am so glad you posted that. I see all these discussions and benchmarks and reports where it seems like average speeds are in the double-digits, and I was starting to feel like Oliver Douglas climbing the telephone pole to manually hook up a headset every time I wanted to make a call. Now my meager 3.5 up / 300K down doesn't seem so bad after all. I'm out here in rural Wyoming where there's no hope of ever getting cable and DSL is an overpriced joke; a local wireless carrier is doing a superb job with what little infrastructure they can get.

That's Millhouse Electronics [millect.com] , for all the thousands of Cheyenne-area Slashdot readers (ha!) who need to know.

Re:Wireless (2)

verifine (685231) | about 2 years ago | (#41518591)

Living in AT&T land, I had their "premium" 6/0.4 DSL service. Then one fine day they poured a slab for the U-verse cabinet at the end of the street. Such a deal, phone/video/Internet! Actually, boys & girls, I only want the Internet. Turns out they suddenly lose interest if they can't sell you TV. Since I don't have a TV in my house it seemed silly to pay extra for crap-vision.

Then they started messing with my DSL service. Change the IP address up to three times a day. Really? You manage your network so poorly you have to re-arrange it that often? Of course not, we just want you to upgrade to our fine U-verse service (with TV, of course.)

Finally they made a decent offer for 18/1.5 service and I snapped it up. It's simply amazing, no - miraculous that my IP address hasn't changed since that day. I have heard they use (nearly) static addresses on U-verse to make it easier to distribute the video. But thank you, AT&T for the miracle in my life! At least, thanks for not messing with my IP address any more.

Grump, and after I spent a few hours writing my own DDNS software to cope with their former animosity...

Re:Wireless (2)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 2 years ago | (#41517841)

Don't forget that Verizon FiOS is tiered, so not everyone is going to be on 300Mbps, in fact, very few customers will be.

It's still damning that very few customers can afford higher tiers when it doesn't cost any more to run than lower tiers.

Re:Wireless (1)

NeoMorphy (576507) | about 2 years ago | (#41518785)

Also, if you have one of their older routers, your wifi speed will suck at 802.11g speeds(~28Mbps). You might have to get tech support to ship you a newer router that supports 802.11n to get faster speeds over wifi.

Re:Wireless (1)

The Second Horseman (121958) | about 2 years ago | (#41517869)

Actually, I get 59 down routinely with Cablevision/Optimum. Then again, I got a two-year, no-contract deal that gives me phone, cable, and their upgraded internet service for $85 a month. That includes a cablecard. When that deal is up, I'll either get them to extend the price, or switch to Verizon FIOS for a couple of years with no contract. Having real competition makes a HUGE difference. Looks like Verizon has given up on extending FIOS to any new areas, though. Look at Boston - no FIOS, and Verizon is not only not going to build it out, they're going to start requiring residential DSL customers to also pay for POTS.

I've heard that Verizon's percentage market penetration rate per mile of cable in the greater NYC area isn't good. Makes me wonder how long it'll be before they go to being an entirely wireless company, and they offload their physical network to other companies. If you're only grabbing 25% of the possible customers (for example), and the local cable company is at 60% or more, and you're having to maintain just as much cable, you've got an issue.

Midcontinent (2)

johnmoe (103704) | about 2 years ago | (#41516959)

In addition Midcontinent has prices that aren't bad. Good bandwidth at a good price in a city with a population under 500. I would have never believed it before moving here.

Re:Midcontinent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517303)

Where I live they have pretty awful customer service. I moved to an apartment earlier this year and it took them a month to figure out why my signal kept dropping. Also, at the time I was paying for 50MB download and I was only getting about 1/10th of that. At one point one of their reps got in an argument with me when I told them I was going to be out of town and they sent someone to work on it anyways and asked why I wasn't there. My parents also use them and they have drops in their TV service at random. One time I was on hold for 2.5 hours until I decided to give up. They also play favoritism with certain customers. A friend of mine gets free static IPs.

Long story short, there the only competition in town and they know it.

If you don't mind paying through the nose (4, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 years ago | (#41516971)

As I have said repeatedly on here, in my area I have 2 choices: Comcast or Verizon. To get the lowest level of naked broadband service, 15/5, I would have to pay $75/month. From there, it's only how much they can squeeze out of you for minor increments in speed.

Despite this, the U.S. consistently ranks in the middle to the bottom in terms of speed, but always at the top in price.

So for all the talk about broadband penetration, who has what speed, etc, until real competition is injected into the fray or the law about one provider allowing another to use their lines at reasonable rates is enforced, surveys like this are relatively meaningless. If the cost of getting this supposed speed is too high, why bother?

Re:If you don't mind paying through the nose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517351)

15/5 for $75/month? Luxury! Where I live only two consumer level wired choices exist: Comcast or AT&T. Given the loop distance the only DSL option available to my location is 1Mbps/256Kbps. Go San Francisco Bay Area!!!

Re:If you don't mind paying through the nose (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41517707)

If the cost of getting this supposed speed is too high, why bother?

Same reason we use median income as a measure of economic prosperity. Same reason many states only count unemployment based on the number of people requesting benefits. It makes the situation look less desperate than it is. Truthfully, the average case, the average person, is doing quite poorly in all areas right now.

Over a third of our bridges are structurally deficient and in need of repair. Our interstate roadways are in terrible shape -- you can go to any major city and find areas "coned off" but with no crews or equipment staged at the site. Repairs are taking longer, and running over budget more often. Our telecommunications are badly oversubscribed -- carriers blame the iPhone for sucking up bandwidth, but in all the other G20 countries, the iPhone isn't even competitive with local offerings. You can go to London and see people streaming the BBC on their morning commute, watching TV on their phones. Digital TV has been available in South Korea on their mobile devices since the turn of the century, whereas we only recently switched off our analog systems, and it was a botched job as well -- converters were in short supply, overpriced, and the FCC was ignoring the problems of the conversion and instead focusing on auctioning off the freed up spectrum, for which the general public has seen no benefit from. There are sewers and water mains in New York that date back to the pre-civil war era which haven't seen any maintenance since. Food prices are rising, but consumers here are being duped because manufacturers are subtly shrinking container sizes, or adding more packaging (empty space), to maintain the illusion that you're still buying the same amount for the same price. Meat and vegetable prices have risen so much that people on public assistance can't afford it; The elderly and marginally employed, our most vulnerable citizens, have been thrown under a bus. The ever-widening waist line has become the new symbol of America, and while many outsiders consider this a sign of decadence, in fact it is a sign of poor nutrition -- the cheapest food is processed. Grains, starches, etc., are all cheap, high calorie foods. And while a significant portion of anyone's diet should include them, for the poor, it's their only source of food -- and it's killing us slowly. While every other G20 country has reported either flat or falling mortality rates, ours has sharply risen. The number one cause of death now amongst those most able to work: age 25-40, is suicide.

America is dying, literally and figuratively. And we're lying to ourselves about this simple, naked truth. We're window dressing for a dinner theatre of one... that's why we use misleading statistics and facts. In truth, if you're an average american reading this, more likely than not you're living paycheck to paycheck, trying to do everything you can to get back what you had. You're not fighting for freedom from tyranny, terrorism, or oppression: You're fighting for the right to exist.

Re:If you don't mind paying through the nose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517805)

I think you forgot your Prozac.

Re:If you don't mind paying through the nose (2, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 2 years ago | (#41517947)

I think you forgot your Prozac.

There's only so much it can do.

Re:If you don't mind paying through the nose (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41518409)

In my urban area I have one choice. High density, reasonable income levels, close to super high density areas. It is fast enough, not that expensive, but really all these speed charts are kind of useless unless you are going to move to an area where they are available. There is no competitive force.

In any case, for what I do speed does not seem to be a problem. I have run on ATT and Suddenlink, and it does not seem much slower than Comcast. It is not like I am downloading video for real time viewing, or every version of *nix. I have maybe 6 devices connected and doing stuff at the same time. The drive for speed is much less an issue for me than the drive for value.

Which is where someone like Google can really be a force for good. I don't know if they are serving places with no fiber, but something like that could really drive competition in areas with limited service.

fast vs total value (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41516985)

i'm on the time warner a la carte $50 10mbps plan. next year FIOS is coming to my building but i will most likely stay with time warner.

reason is that i get almost 100 channels free through the same cable so i can watch sports and my wife can watch american idol without the need for an antenna

my inlaws have FIOS in their neighborhood but they still have cable because FIOS doesn't carry their international channels. same for a lot of people. that's what the geeks can't figure out when these studies are done

Burst vs Sustained (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41516997)

I'd really like it if they could make this distinction. I understand that for the typical user, it doesn't matter much, but it feels really deceptive. I pay for a 3Mb/sec connection, I typically get a hair over 2 in burst speed and then about 1 for any download that takes more than 3-5 seconds.

meanwhile, in Germany (5, Interesting)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 2 years ago | (#41517005)

some cable ISPs here are known for unthrottling connections as soon as the URL includes something like /speedtest/ - e.g. NetCologne [twitter.com]

Re:meanwhile, in Germany (5, Funny)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#41517085)

In response all websites should have their pages below a /speedtest/ toplevel directory

Re:meanwhile, in Germany (2)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#41518775)

Then we should make a Firefox plugin to add a query parameter of ax234gs2=\speedtest\ to every query...

CHecking In from AOL over Cable (AoC) (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517021)

FIRST POST, CHECK It BItCHES

Statistics... [facepalm] (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41517033)

A claim like "Fastest internet connection" is amazingly dubious based on the data they are presenting. What they mean more specifically is "fastest average customer". While some providers may offer fast services at higher prices, the only thing we know for sure from this is how many people are in the upper/lower tiers on a given provider. Sure, coming up with an actual "Fastest provider" number is going to be pretty darn hard to do (you basically need a way to reliably throw away data from anyone not in the fastest service tier) they could at least be a little more honest about what their "Study" is actually saying.

Comcast Slowskys (1)

BeerCur (627281) | about 2 years ago | (#41517041)

You mean to say the Slowskys actually had a fast internet connection... This might lead to Mr Slowsky in a roadside ditch.

Do we need more speed? (1)

jzarling (600712) | about 2 years ago | (#41517075)

I have charter at the 30/3 increment. it costs just under $50/month. If I wasn't bundled for another 14 months I think I could get by with a slower speed, as long as I can stream some Netflix, and play a bit of CoD, or Battlefield 3 I would be happy. 10MB would probably be enough for me.

Re:Do we need more speed? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41517347)

Ping is the lord of gaming, few games need more than a stable several hundred kbps to work. The better DSL services with ping in the 20ms to 30ms range and a steady 1 meg download rate makes a far better gaming platform than many cable providers who struggle to provide pings under 75ms even though they offer 5+ meg download rates.

You mostly need the high bandwidth downloading for streaming and modern bloated html5 webpages that often come in at over a meg in size.

Re:Do we need more speed? (1)

Snotnose (212196) | about 2 years ago | (#41517929)

Came here to say this. I have all the speed I need, but I don't have the ping I need.

My choices are ATT Uverse (which I have, and the ping varies from 25 ms to 65 day to day), Cox (which I had for 6 weeks and threw back at them due to seriously crappy DVR misfeatures), and DISH (not worth trying, I can do the math with lightspeed bouncing off satellites, not to mention my upload).

That said, my understanding is that with Modern Warfare 3 multiplayer, the worse your lag the better your game experience due to a horribly botched lag compensation system. For me the online component is unplayble. Good idea, horrible implementation.

Re:Do we need more speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517399)

30/4 is now the lowest tier offered by Charter, so even if you weren't locked in a contract, you wouldn't be able to get a cheaper plan from them now.

Re:Do we need more speed? (1)

jzarling (600712) | about 2 years ago | (#41518161)

Yeah - but I might just to AT&T DSL.

Re:Do we need more speed? (1)

gatfirls (1315141) | about 2 years ago | (#41517445)

Yes, more speed increases competition and raises the overall quantity/quality for everyone. It also opens the doors for new services and products because a developer isn't going to build out a network to support something like Steam. Just look at 12 years ago, 1Mbps (yes the little b) was ~500-800$ a month, now we are hovering in the 2-3$per Mbps. That has made the internet as you know it possible, in an amazingly (relatively) short time.

Speed is not as relevant as it once was (5, Informative)

hwstar (35834) | about 2 years ago | (#41517077)

Speed is not as relevant as it once was. Caps are the big problem now for residential service. The providers are offering speeds in the 10's of megabits per second, but the caps are set so low that the service has no value for the money. There needs to be more competition in residential broadband or more regulation if there is not sufficient competition. The only way out of the caps is to order business service in my area (which I have done, but at $119/mo is quite expensive).

Both AT&T and Cox have caps in place for residential customers in my area. Cox has no cap (yet) for business customers.

If it can only be solved by regulation in certain areas of the country, then a moratorium on dividends or a 100% corporate tax on dividends of companies in areas with little competition might provide the necessary incentives to change things. Communications companies pay ridiculously high dividends to shareholders, and I'm convinced this is one of the roots of the problem. This money could be redirected over the long term to build a better Internet in this country, and the communications companies would stand to benefit from it.

There has been talk recently of the FCC investigating the cap thresholds, but that is just going to lead to a court battle in my opinion (at least in the past it has)

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517263)

> Communications companies pay ridiculously high dividends to shareholders, and I'm convinced this is one of the roots of the problem. This money could be redirected over the long term to build a better Internet in this country, and the communications companies would stand to benefit from it.

They pay dividends instead of reinvesting because there is no need to reinvest. There is no need to reinvest because there is no competition. There is no competition because of barriers to entry. There are barriers to entry because of regulation protecting oligopoly. That's it. The dividends are not the problem, but they are a symptom of the problem.

The only way to spur competition and eliminate rent seeking behavior is to remove barriers to entry. The biggest barrier is the protection of the cables in the ground, or the spectrum in the air.

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517365)

The biggest barrier is the protection of the cables in the ground, or the spectrum in the air.

And for good reason. Do you want your wireless phone, GPS device, etc. to stop working due to interference from the company wanting to co-opt the spectrum for their own use? Outside of libertards, almost no one does.

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41517503)

Are the cables being protected, or are they just really really REALLY hard to build out? And frequencies are indeed scarce, so rent-seeking is inevitable unless someone invents a modulation technique that is many thousands of times better than current ones (to alleviate all contention on the resource).

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (1)

cluedweasel (832743) | about 2 years ago | (#41517331)

Yep. My local ISP offers a 60 Mbps tier. The problem is, it comes with a 150Gb cap, and a $90 per month price tag.

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41518675)

Yep. My local ISP offers a 60 Mbps tier. The problem is, it comes with a 150Gb cap, and a $90 per month price tag.

Why do they offer that kind of speed with such a low cap? Seems incredibly low for what is otherwise a decent speed.

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#41517369)

We have reached a usage rate where speed in terms of doubling isn't really that big of a deal.
over 10mbs is usually fast enough for netflix. So we can watch a movie over the internet without waiting for hours... That is good speed.

It isn't like the days of the 300, 1200, 2400, 9600, 14.4k, 28.8k, 57.6k modems where just downloading a picture was a big deal. For the most part we go to a site, it gives us the content we need. If there is a video we click on it and it plays and streams fast. We are not waiting for hours, or minutes.

Going from 15mbs to 30mbs is not feeling from going to slow to fast. But from good to snappy.

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (4, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41517895)

We have reached a usage rate where speed in terms of doubling isn't really that big of a deal.
over 10mbs is usually fast enough for netflix. So we can watch a movie over the internet without waiting for hours... That is good speed.

It isn't like the days of the 300, 1200, 2400, 9600, 14.4k, 28.8k, 57.6k modems where just downloading a picture was a big deal. For the most part we go to a site, it gives us the content we need. If there is a video we click on it and it plays and streams fast. We are not waiting for hours, or minutes.

Going from 15mbs to 30mbs is not feeling from going to slow to fast. But from good to snappy.

HD video is basically the only thing that can push the limit of current high-tier services. A "true" 3 Mbps is about enough for a typical HD stream, so even a family of 4 each watching a different video will be well served by a 15Mbps connection.

We are seeing the bandwidth pendulum swing back in favor of over-subscribing. As last mile technologies have improved (DOCSIS and DSLAM) the content and the backbones have not. In the next few years, we will see the content improve (HD video at 7 Mbps per stream, or more) and over-subscribed providers will start to crack (like we saw with the first cable/dsl burst in the late 90s). Then, we get to watch as bandwidth caps stay about the same for a decade as backbones catch up, and then we will get to see the whole thing repeat. The circle of life.

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (1)

abhi2012 (2739367) | about 2 years ago | (#41517397)

TWC has no caps in my area but the speeds do get a bit pathetic at times.....

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 2 years ago | (#41517551)

There has been talk recently of the FCC investigating the cap thresholds, but that is just going to lead to a court battle in my opinion (at least in the past it has)

So last week I asked some people who really should know what the cause of the cable caps were - too much traffic on each broadcast segment (100 to 2000 homes depending on architecture), too much traffic inside the provider distribution network, or too much Internet traffic.

They told me the problem was too much traffic contention on the last-mile segment.

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41517585)

What does speed matter, when the CEOs of all the big ISPs claim that 99% of users only use a couple gigabytes of data a month? I mean, the way they describe it, dial-up should be sufficient for 99% of their members, right?

Re:Speed is not as relevant as it once was (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | about 2 years ago | (#41518343)

I get 50/20 Mbit from Verizon LTE on my phone. But if I downloaded at full speed I would hit my 2GB MONTHLY cap in under 10 MINUTES.
I can browse web sites really fast but that is about all the higher speed gives me. I could stream music just fine with 3G speeds. Videos and tethering would hit my cap too fast.

Doesn't really help me. (2, Funny)

skine (1524819) | about 2 years ago | (#41517127)

Where I live, I have two main options:

1) Verizon DSL at 768kbps
3) Time Warner at 3Mbps, 10Mbps, 20Mbps or 50Mbps

You can see why I'm happy that Verizon has the fastest internet in my region.

Re:Doesn't really help me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517403)

I live in WI.

TimeWarner offers the same packages here, and they're not even in the running according to this chart.

Midco, the winner, offers _no_ packages in my area; and I can't even find a service map on their site. Just a "ZIP" locator that does squat when I plug in my (presumably out-of-band) ZIP.

Midco's website looks suspiciously similar to RoadRunner's portal; I'm wondering if they're owned by TWC?

Re:Doesn't really help me. (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about 2 years ago | (#41518091)

In 'Greater Milwaukee Area' I'm paying $38.83 for their "up to" 10/1 standard plan Internet only. Speed tests show anywhere from 7-16m/768k-1.3m; in real life, it's ~1.5m/512k.

According to various tests from measurementlabs, there is occasionally some bittorrent throttling, along with more frequent but usually minor network congestion. No probs with Netflix or Hulu (free) so far, knock on wood.

I consider the service good and generally reliable, for what they actually deliver; customer/tech support great, prices suck.

Re:Doesn't really help me. (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#41517419)

Yeah, at my current address, I have a choice of Suddenlink or....well, just Suddenlink, actually, since I've checked with the other ISPs in my region and none serve my address. Thankfully, Suddenlink is actually decent as far as customer service goes, and they don't lock you into contracts either, so that's nice. Nonetheless, prices are still higher than I'd like. I'm paying $40/mo. to get basic cable and 10Mbps, but I only got the basic cable because adding it, absurdly enough, caused the price to go from $48/mo. to $40/mo.. I don't even have it hooked up to my TV since I was entirely uninterested in it.

Saddest statement in from the study (4, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41517135)

The problem is that Verizon, the only national company providing it to homes in the United States, stopped expanding to new markets a couple of years ago, or at least past the planned footprint. The existing 13.7 million customers get new upgrades (like the new 300Mbps "Quantum" option for $205 a month) and while Verizon expects to grow to 18 million FiOS customers eventually, after that, if you don't have FiOS, you probably never will.

Just sad. Europe and Asia are quickly leaving the U.S. behind. And no one has any plan to do anything about it. From internet pioneer to the back of the pack.

Re:Saddest statement in from the study (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | about 2 years ago | (#41517333)

Just sad. Europe and Asia are quickly leaving the U.S. behind.

We need to catch up. [slashdot.org]

Just some gloating (1)

zoom-ping (905112) | about 2 years ago | (#41517161)

Paying 20€ per month for my 100/20Mbit uncapped, unthrottled fibre connection.
The competitor is offering 150/30 for roughly the same price.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy reading TFA.

Re:Just some gloating (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#41517269)

Croatia?

Re:Just some gloating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517669)

Paying 20€ per month for my 100/20Mbit uncapped, unthrottled fibre connection.

The competitor is offering 150/30 for roughly the same price.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy reading TFA.

Good job choosing the inferior option! Sounds just like what happens in the US.
And as others have stated, there is a huge difference in the speedtest.net average recordings, and the fastest tier available from any given provider. Plenty of providers are eager to sell you 50 to 100 Mbit connections for a reasonable price (usually $60-$90 US) but its limited to certain geographic areas. Damned 10 million square kilometers of amber waves of grain always getting in the way.

First Post (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517171)

If this damn page would load fast enough...

Local ISP (1)

ComfortablyAmbiguous (1740854) | about 2 years ago | (#41517173)

I suppose I should be pleased. My very local ISP gives me a consistent 15/15 for $40 - $60 when bundled with local phones.

Meanwhile, in silicon valley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517253)

Home of Cisco, Juniper, Google, Yahoo, all the bleeding edge tech and network companies - and our internet speed is at a measly 10Mbits/sec on Comcast.
How pathetic !!!

Maybe all the tech gurus of Silicon CRUD has this pathetic slow speed so they can tell their boss - "But boss, the network is so slow,
I couldn't download/upload my work"

Re:Meanwhile, in silicon valley (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#41517489)

Home of Cisco, Juniper, Google, Yahoo, all the bleeding edge tech and network companies - and our internet speed is at a measly 10Mbits/sec on Comcast.

Or 20 Mbps with Sonic.net Fusion DSL. Or 200 Mbps with Webpass.

But go ahead, keep using a slow ISP and complaining about it on Slashdot instead of switching to a better provider.

Re:Meanwhile, in silicon valley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517759)

Not GP, but I live in North San Jose (within walkable distance to Cisco/Brocade/Oracle). The nearest DSL CO is pretty far. AT&T can only get me 1 mpbs. Sonic (which depends on AT&T lines (but uses their own equipment)) can get me 10 mpbs as per their estimate. Webpass is only for SF, east bay. The only other option is comcast, which I pay through the nose for a 12mbps connection (20 mpbs for the first 10 MB of download (through PowerBoost)).

Re:Meanwhile, in silicon valley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517919)

Please wake up, Sonic.net is not even offered anything north of 3Mbps DSL in San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale - center Silicon Valley

If you think San Francisco is Silicon Valley, maybe you need to look at the map some more - Maybe you need to figure that
Juniper, Yahoo, Google, Cisco is not in San Francisco

Re:Meanwhile, in silicon valley (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#41518517)

Actually, you can get Sonic.net Fusion in many parts of Santa Clara County.

As for SF not technically being in Silicon Valley, that's true but the distinction has become increasingly blurred over the past decade. Let's not pretend it's still 1995.

Re:Meanwhile, in silicon valley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517953)

Webpass is a "building specific ISP". I live and work in San Francisco, and cannot get Webpass in either my office building or apartment. Downtown, the closest building to me with Webpass is about 4 blocks. Near Japantown... nothing nearby. Webpass is a lot like Verizon FiOS--great if you can get it. But there's zero chance I could get the property owner in either building to commit to Webpass. A good number of the residents in my apt building probably don't even have internet access. My office building houses high-speed traders from big investment banks who throw a fit when anybody fscks with the risers.

For now, I'm happy with Sonic Fusion--26Mbps down and 3Mbps up.

SamKnows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517259)

So how do their numbers compare to the Samknows numbers?

cost (5, Insightful)

Scr4tchFury (1211936) | about 2 years ago | (#41517275)

I'd like to see $/per Mbit. That would be a way more interesting regional graph.

Can't wait for Google Fiber to actually take off.. (1)

nighthawk243 (2557486) | about 2 years ago | (#41517357)

If only I could escape from this 10mbit for 45 a month hell.

Can't wait till google makes it way onto that test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517401)

Come on google!

Want to see your Kansas test bed take off and expand like wildfire and force the incumbents to get in gear or get left behind. You have the clout to do it and to take them on in court in every jurisdiction you expand into so they can't force you out like they did so many other newcomers or lower their prices to break even just long enough for you to go out of business.

I know they are a corporation, like the rest, but they are the best one I have seen in a long time as far as how they treat their product (the people) before they deliver us to their customers (advertisers). While to others we are the customer and yet they still treat us like crap.

Best is not good (1)

FenixBrood (760690) | about 2 years ago | (#41517523)

Where is the broadband speed? 30mbps at max is not fast. Only becourse FIOS is the fastest does not mean its good. At least 100mbits I say. Like you could walk 99,999% over the street and not die. You are the best of the dead.. still does not matter.

Re:Best is not good (1)

businessnerd (1009815) | about 2 years ago | (#41517989)

30mbps at max is not fast

Next year's test should be much more interesting since both Verizon FiOS and Comcast just started offering 300mbps. Granted those are the most expensive plans, but my current FiOS connection of 25mbps (which usually speedtests at 30mbps) is being upgraded to 50mbps for no additional charge. Automatic speed bumps are occurring across the FiOS lineup, so the $/mbps ratio is becomiing more beneficial to users.

Centurylink (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41517757)

Where is Centurylink?

U-verse really can't compete (4, Informative)

HungryMonkey (1887382) | about 2 years ago | (#41517821)

FTA:

Speaking of fiber, what about AT&T? The company did not make the top 15. In fact, the fiber-based AT&T U-verse service got an index of 7.9, putting it at number 22.

I'm really not surprised by this. One of the worst features of U-verse is that the tv and internet share the same bandwidth. After a little at home testing I found that my '18mbs' connection dropped by almost 6mbs per HD channel we were watching or recording. So while you pay for both, you can really only use one at a time. I promptly dropped their cable. The most frustrating fact is that we can't get Fios in my neighborhood. When we called to set it up while moving in the gentleman kindly informed me that if AT&T services my area Fios will not. Still trying to figure out how that is legal...

Re:U-verse really can't compete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41518011)

The reason why FiOS won't come where U-Verse is, is because all the cheap people will select U-Verse, leaving no volume for Verizon to make up their costs in running fiber to the neighborhood. This is why Google Fiber requires a neighborhood commitment.

According to Sonic.net, it costs about $500/house to hook up fiber, and that's presuming a good junk of the neighborhood signs up.

So noone on EPB Fiber tried there test then. (2)

noc007 (633443) | about 2 years ago | (#41518097)

Or did they just have a crappy route to their test server? If I could make a living in Chattanooga TN and the wife be ok with it, I'd move in a heartbeat. The local city owned electrical company has HTTP on the cheap. Their base service is faster (50mbps symetrical) and cheaper than my base service with Comcrap: https://epbfi.com/enroll/packages/#/ [epbfi.com]

Seriously wish that could happen where I live, but it will never happen. Sad thing is, the available ISPs and speeds are a factor in my choice of domicile. My wife rolls her eyes at that statement, yet she bitches when the internets are slow or don't work; go figure. I've got her on the same page now that we're on Comcrap and shit breaks on occasion. Who said it was impossible to get the wife on your side? I just use logic, point stuff out, and she'll come over to my side on things we disagree on in most cases. I just haven't gotten her on my side when it comes to guns yet, but I haven't made the effort to shoot down her lame arguments with facts yet; no pun intended.

Re:So noone on EPB Fiber tried there test then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41518433)

Ok, I'm loving my 50mbs.
57.30 Download
46.05 Upload

Around 100.00 a month with 77 Channels of TV.
I've lived in Chattanooga for the last 29 years, and there are many other reasons for living here besides cheap fiber.
But it helps.

Later,
dabone

Cheapest low-end high-speed broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41518187)

I'd rather get a cost comparison of who provides the best value for low-end hi-speed broadband.
Specifically: I live in a highly populated area, and have multiple options for internet. BUT, I pay $40.00 /mo for 2 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up. (The cheapest/lowest-speed broadband of all the carriers.) I also have an antenna for television. Why? Because I live by myself in a modest 1200 sq ft house and do just fine with what I've got. Cable TV gets really expensive, really fast and I can't justify that cost over, say, two or more vacations/trips a year.
I'd love to see who provides the cheapest low-end high-speed broadband. Preferably 2-4 Mbps down.

Can verizon FIOS really be counted as nationwide? (2)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41518259)

Consider its only in a limited few area's so how can be put under nationwide when its only in a few area's where as charter, comcast, etc are in every state?

Averge upload (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 2 years ago | (#41518487)

Did anyone else notice that upload speeds were labeled as "Averge Upload" for every chart?

Download, upload and index (4, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 2 years ago | (#41518661)

One thing I notice is that the index rating weights in favor of download speed more than upload. That's IMO misleading. It's OK in a world where people only consume content, but in an environment that includes Skype or Google Voice for telephone and video calls, Google Hangouts, cloud-based storage like Dropbox or Google Drive, workers remoting in to the office using VPNs and remote-desktop software, and mobile devices using WiFi and an Internet connection as an alternative to the regular cellular network, upload bandwidth is becoming as important as download bandwidth. Rating ISP A significantly higher than B when A's upload speed is half of B's and A's downloads are only 20% faster seems to me to be misleading.

Reliability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41518857)

Wish the chart somehow showed reliability as well. I used one of the hosts in the top 5 and I gladly got rid of them because the wouldn't provide the speed nor the reliability I was looking for. When I explained I was getting 10mbps and I was paying for 20mbps they reminded me it was "Up to 20mbps".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?