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!

For Fast Internet in the US, Virginia Tops the Charts

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the averages-verses-actuals dept.

United States 98

According to data gathered by Akamai, an analysis from Broadview Networks comes to the conclusion that the top five U.S. states for broadband speed are Virginia (at the top of the list, with an average transfer speed of 13.78 Mbps), Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington, with Washington, D.C. slightly edging out the similarly-named state; Alaska comes in dead last. These are average speeds, though, and big states have more variation to account for, including connections in the hinterlands. You could still have a fast connection in Chattanooga, or be stuck on dial-up in the Texas panhandle.

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

fastest (0)

eneville (745111) | about 3 months ago | (#47638075)

Fastest post

Oh, *that* Virginia! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47638079)

I sometimes forget there are two of them. I was thinking there for a moment that the neighbors finally got an upgrade. [westvirginia.com]

Re:Oh, *that* Virginia! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638341)

Don't say that ever again.

Re:Oh, *that* Virginia! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#47641243)

I could stop saying "that", but the sentence structure is definitely going to get convoluted at times.

Re:Oh, *that* Virginia! (1)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#47638717)

West "BY GOD!" Virginia!
One Big Family!

Second fastest (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 3 months ago | (#47638085)

from New York. Where's the slowpokes from Virginia?

Re:Second fastest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638099)

Busy laughing at all the suckers living in New York.

Re: Second fastest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640851)

We in Norway are laughing our asses off at the people living with pathetic internet in the States :)

Re:Second fastest (1)

1s44c (552956) | about 2 months ago | (#47640861)

Busy laughing at all the suckers living in New York.

Don't. I live outside the US and get 55.3Mb/s down for a reasonable price. I don't live in a major city and I don't have fiber, only DSL. I could also get pretty much the same speed for pretty much the same money from my cable TV company.

The US is behind on broadband.

Re:Second fastest (1)

1s44c (552956) | about 2 months ago | (#47640863)

Also - no usage cap or fair usage police nonsense. I could max out the line constantly if I wanted to.

Re:Second fastest (0)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#47638197)

Based on the concentration of government and defense contracting in Virginia, I'm going to guess that the slowpokes from Virginia had to finish intercepting and storing your traffic before they could waste time on the internet and generate theirs...

Re:Second fastest (1)

TheLongshot (919014) | about 3 months ago | (#47638279)

FYI, the NSA is located in Maryland, not VA.

Re:Second fastest (1)

torsmo (1301691) | about 3 months ago | (#47638563)

Surely the CIA and NASA have learnt to use e-mail by now.

Correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641667)

It's also where the "political elite" largely live, especially in the portions of Virginia near D.C (washington) not far from the nation's capitol.

Re:Second fastest (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 months ago | (#47645015)

Generations of teloc shared sites and the inter connects with other nations would make that entire region worthy of huge gov/mil spending just for their own dual use backhaul. Build a hardened network and the Soviet Union would notice. Dual use and its just very new, early optical. Digital exchanges and other vast network upgrades ensure a better on average regional experience.

Re:Second fastest (1)

Sparky66 (690965) | about 3 months ago | (#47638545)

I'm in Virginia Beach. I pay for 50/10 ($60), but Cox will bump it up if the node isn't too busy. Just did a test and got 64/12..

Re:Second fastest (1)

anmre (2956771) | about 3 months ago | (#47639113)

I'm in Virginia Beach too. Cox high-speed is great and we even got to stream the World Cup via WatchESPN on the Roku for free simply for being Cox customers (we only have internet, no cable TV). However, all that streaming did put us over our usage last month, which they promptly informed us lol!

Re:Second fastest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47712781)

Alright Mr Shill, I'm in Amherst VA and have no cable, no mobile connection (unless I climb up in a treestand up on the ridge (only a fifteen minute walk up the hill) and hold the phone over my head ) no landline. There is a big diff between the Norfolk/VA Beach defense contractor/ naval/ air/ bases etc. and the NOVA WashDC area and real VA. Cox won't even run a line to our house, nobody will. The Co-op power company had an internet through the power lines option available for two months and then pulled the plug after they actually tried to do it.

Real VA, Real world.

But then in my world I can dip a cup into my stream and drink the water, I can take deep breaths and not wonder what that funny smell might be, I wouldn't trade.

Re:Second fastest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640203)

Western Prince William county Virginia here (NOVA). I pay $64 for 100/20 service on Comcast. No cable TV, just internet. I can average 100 down pretty much any time of the night or day. Worst case, 80 down during prime time.

They upped my service for no cost without me even asking or inquiring from 50/10 when FIOS went live in my area.

Fiber to the Home (3, Interesting)

bl968 (190792) | about 3 months ago | (#47638129)

Hell we have faster than that in in Clarksville, Tennessee :) with reasonably decent prices. Oh ya we have Municipal Fiber to the Home

50mbps - $44.95
100mbps - $69.96
200mpbs - $89.95
1000mbps - $249.95

You can get triple pack with 175 TV channels, phone, and 50mbps internet for $118 a month.

And these are not special offer prices. They just bumped everyone's speeds up by 2x and they have yet to raise prices. Speeds are bidirectional so you get the same up as down. They are a Netflix open connect partner, and you actually get the speeds they promise! Go CDE Lightband!

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638165)

Compared to what you can get in Europe or Asia, those "decent prices" are in fact insanely expensive.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638221)

What part of Europe? Turkey? Romania?

What part of Asia? Laos? Bhutan?

Be more specific.

I hear plenty of claims about how this or that is better in Europe and Asia. How about some references?

Re:Fiber to the Home (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638271)

Well, here in Sweden:
- my parents in law get 1000/1000 Mbps (real speed 950 Mbps up/down) for ~$60 / month
- my parents get 100/100 Mbps for ~$15
- my own house gets 100/100 Mbps for $50 / month
- my friends in a rural area / village of 20 people get 100/100 for $30 / month

All of them FTTH delivered via (un)restricted 1 Gbit/s ethernet.

Installation cost is typically $400-$2000.

Peter

Re:Fiber to the Home (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638419)

The good side of Sweeden is no Negroes. The bad side of Sweeden is too many fucking inbred sand nigger muslims.

Re:Fiber to the Home (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638967)

Inbred sand nigger muslims who... have managed to develop superior Internet access than us.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47644437)

At least use the right slur!
Scandinavians are SNOW niggers. SAND niggers are Arabs

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638499)

The Chip in my head gets 10000/10000 Mbps

Re:Fiber to the Home (1)

eneville (745111) | about 3 months ago | (#47638253)

What I have, 8mbps downstream, £9.99/month, does the job. Yeah, you can get better than this, but I don't /need/ fast. I just need reliable. My mobile phone can give me better speeds, for example. What I could have: 50mbps - £10/month 100mbps - £15/month 125mbps - £22.50/month I've not switched as it results in me having to change providers and that means having another hole drilled in the wall. These prices are also only for the first twelve months, they increase by ~30% thereafter.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638291)

What are the limits? I know in Wales 18Mbps is ï15 (about $23) -- if you don't mind being limited to just 5 GB per month!

In truth, there are NO plans that are unlimited. The highest limit is 100 GB/month at ï35 (about $56).

Re:Fiber to the Home (1, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47638295)

Compared to what you can get in Europe or Asia, those "decent prices" are in fact insanely expensive.

You seen to think "Europe" = London or Paris.

ISP rates are directly related to population density.
Clarksville has a population density of 1,502 people/sq mile
Scottlands got about the same population density... lets see what their rates are like:

http://www.scotnet.co.uk/servi... [scotnet.co.uk]
Service Name Fibre Ultra Fibre Ultra Plus Fibre Extreme Fibre Extreme Plus
Upstream Speed* 10Mb/s 10Mb/s 20Mb/s 20Mb/s
Downstream Speed* 40Mb/s 40Mb/s 80Mb/s 80Mb/s
Connection charge (£) 85 85 85 85
Wifi Router (includes configuration) 49.99 49.99 49.99 49.99
Monthly Data Transfer Allowance** 50Gb 100Gb 50Gb 100Gb
Monthly Rental (£) 29.99 39.99 39.99 49.99

Wow... that sucks. Still want to get European rates here?

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638393)

Well, in Sweden in rural areas you can get fiber quite cheap, usually cheaper than in the city. In rural areas we plow down the conduits, which is cheap. In the city we usually have to re-pave the pavement and that is expensive.

My friends living in a very small village (10-20 houses) got their fiber for $1600, and I got mine in the city for $2200. Their bandwidth is a bit cheaper than mine, about 2/3 of what I pay. Typical prices are $25-50 for 100/100 Mbits/s and twice that for 1000/100.

And there are no real limits that you hit, at least none that I have ever heard anyone hit. From a friend in the ISP business I heard that the top 5% users for a back-haul are limited to 10% of the bandwidth. Other than that there are no limits or anything.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638613)

My friends living in a very small village (10-20 houses) got their fiber for $1600, and I got mine in the city for $2200

Nice of you to omit the installation fee in your sales pitch. For that price, I'd expect it free for a while. And a handjob. But it is Sweden, so I suppose you did get that.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638689)

Well, that is sort of what it costs to bury anything in the streets. Asphalt is really expensive. In a greenfield the installation cost is about $400, when the streets are not paved yet.

In Sweden it is mostly paying for the installation up front, regardless if it is municipal/cooperative fiber or a commercial entity.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638727)

In the US, for the most part, the ISP invests in that themselves. Installation fees are more like a setup fee that is often waved. Yes, there are exceptions to that (someone in the middle of nowhere without a pipe nearby), but that's typically for rural areas. In a city, the company pays the cost of implementing their infrastructure.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638807)

***Cue the anecdotal evidence to the contrary in 3...2...

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638665)

Between 2001 and 2007, Sweden's broadband support program included:

  • Total state governmental funding 817 million $ (5.25 billion SEK)
  • Total investment: Government 51%; Municipalities 11%; Operators 30%; EU structural funds 7%; Regional policy funds 1%
  • Concentrating on rural and other areas where the market will not supply infrastructure
  • Open procurement process
  • Requirement that networks should be operator-neutral
  • 85% of investments used for new infrastructure

You're paying more than you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_broadband_plans_from_around_the_world

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638921)

There are sometimes subsidies available, but only in rural areas. The numbers quoted above seem to be for the state subsidy program over all years. The vast majority of the build-out is done without state money and most of it is paid up-front by the end-user. $2000 is more or less the cost if there is no state or operator money, and this is by far the most common case.

For a community-owned fiber plant with a collective contract the price is usually about $15 / month for 100-1000 Mbit/s, and typically 10 Gbit back-haul for about 200-400 houses.

Re:Fiber to the Home (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47638537)

ISP rates are directly related to population density.

Citation please. I know plenty of people in both urban and rural areas, and they pay about the same. Far more important is the amount of local competition, and American ISPs have carved up both urban and rural areas to prevent that as much as possible.

Re:Fiber to the Home (3, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47638905)

ISP rates are directly related to population density.

Citation please. I know plenty of people in both urban and rural areas, and they pay about the same. Far more important is the amount of local competition, and American ISPs have carved up both urban and rural areas to prevent that as much as possible.

I've worked for multiple ISPs for over 15yrs in nearly every department you can imagine. I'm my own citation.
You're right, people do pay the same in Urban and Rural areas. But that's because of federal law, not because it costs the same.
Remember how people complain about the "monopoly" the phone company has? That's not really a monopoly... there's an agreement between the Local government, the FCC and the telecommunications company in the area. They are very long and complex agreements but basically they boil down to:

The FCC will set some/most rates and fees for the telecom. Changes to these rates must be approved by the FCC.
The Telecom will charge everyone the same rate, and will not discriminate based on location. (location discrimination is specifically why the FCC regulates telecomes. The government wanted rural phone service and this was the only way to make it affordable)
The telecom will provide service to everyone with rare exceptions (your house is on an island for example)
In return for this the Local government will give the Telecom exclusive right to serve that area.

Now, the telecom does have some leeway in the rates they charge. But it's not a lot. The FCC will definitely get involved and definitely charge them fines if they do something wrong. I've seen billing mistakes lead to fines before. But what really keeps rates down are cellphones. People are moving to cellular in droves. It's to the point that POTs service and internet access are not profitable at all. Trust me, I've seen the numbers... landline stuff barely breaks even. But, where the telecoms make most of their money is in services to business. Managed networks, managed software, IP phones, collocation services, etc... if the telecom is the incumbent in the area, they are likely the first company a business will call about that sort of thing and those services are almost pure profit.

The best way to think about the whole thing is to realize how the equipment works. DSL works to about 30,000 feet. Meaning, you have a DSL card at one end, the furthest away you can go before the noise makes the DSL not work anymore is 30,000 feet. You may have heard of some new tech that lets it go farther. But I've seen real world tests of that stuff and it's all failed. So the phone company puts in a building in your town... everyone within 30k feet of that building is golden. After 30k feet the phone company has to install what we call a "DSA" this is basically a mini-switch that they run trunks to. Once again, everyone within 30k feet of that DSA is good. The problem is, each of those remotes pretty much costs the same. They're a few million dollars. They now have mini-DSA's that are basically just plastic boxes that cost a few hundred thousand, but they are still expensive.

So, you can probobly see where this is heading... you make as much money off that DSA as there are people within 30,000 feet of it. The more people, the more money you make. But I've seen DSA's that literally serve 20 people before. Think about that, a minimum $500,000 install to serve 20 people. So, the FCC mandates the phone company charges everyone the same. So the rates for people in town go up, to lower the rates for the people in rural areas. Like it or not, that's the way it works in this country. And before you rant on about rich people living on their ranches, these people are by and large poor and rural. Think of the Appalachian mountains. That's one of the most expensive areas to serve that I've seen. But without the subsidized service those people would not even have phone service. It would have a huge impact on their economy.

I wish there was more info out there for you to read about this. Unfortunately its something you pick up in the industry. You could start by looking at the FCC website. I tried to find more info for you but it's really lacking out there.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639525)

> DSL works to about 30,000 feet.

All the more reason to stop providing DSL service and build out the existing telecom fiber network.

What, you think that telecoms don't already have fiber-optic cabling running most anywhere someone would want to get a voice line?

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640073)

Everything you wrote about price controls applies to POTS [wikipedia.org] which is regulated as a telecommunications service. Since 2002 the FCC has regulated cable modems as information services [fcc.gov] and the 2005 Brand-X SCOTUS ruling [wikipedia.org] made it apply to all forms of internet access. Price controls on information services only apply in very rare cases.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47650337)

Mod parent up! GP is woefully misinformed.

Re:Fiber to the Home (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 3 months ago | (#47639039)

I live in Scotland, and I can tell you now that your chosen example isn't representative of what people use here. (*) (**) They strike me as one of those niche providers that do well from people willing to pay a bit more for its services, but most people here (as with the rest of the UK) are with Virgin, BT, Sky, Plusnet et al, who are generally much cheaper. (**)

The first three of those generally give their cheapest prices via bundled deals (e.g. phone/broadband or phone/TV/broadband), so it's hard to give an actual price. However, I can guarantee you that the majority of people here are not paying anything like £30 to £40 per month for Internet alone.

Not that I'm saying BT etc. are great in many respects, but that's not what was being discussed.

Despite the "highlander in an isolated bothy" cliche I suspect many foreigners have when they think of Scottish life, the majority of people here live in major cities in the central and eastern lowland areas, with the same access to facilities as most large towns and cities in England. Of course, those highland areas do exist, and people live there- and have more issues with connectivity- but they're a relatively small percentage of the population.

(*) I suspect that you did a search on (e.g.) Scotland ISP, and took the first result that came up as your example.

(**) You'll note that "Scotnet is now the largest Scottish Broadband provider" as claimed on their "About Us" page is *not* the same as saying they're the largest provider of broadband in Scotland. Far from it!

(***) ADSL prices do generally require an additional (phone) "line rental" charge which can add on significantly, but that's used for other things too. (Virgin Media cable Internet doesn't require a traditional phone line).

Re:Fiber to the Home (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 3 months ago | (#47639075)

Compared to what you can get in Europe or Asia, those "decent prices" are in fact insanely expensive.

You seen to think "Europe" = London or Paris.

ISP rates are directly related to population density.

BULLSHIT, not in Europe. You can get 1Gbps in rural Romania/Poland for ~$30. The key is NEW (actually build right now, not some 30 years ago) fiber infrastructure and new ISPs connecting everyone.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639219)

> ISP rates are directly related to population density.

BS. I live in downtown Seattle and pay nearly $70 per month for 0.896 Mbps. Density typically increases costs. For example here, a recent CenturyLink upgrade to provide better quality POTS lines to my neighborhood cost over $10 million USD. The so-called "director's rules" forced CenturyLink to use equipment that could not be used for Internet access. Other places, like where I lived in GA, provide fiber Internet access for less than that.

Re:Fiber to the Home (2)

heypete (60671) | about 3 months ago | (#47638299)

Compared to what you can get in Europe or Asia, those "decent prices" are in fact insanely expensive.

Perhaps. Depends on the location and provider. Here in Bern, Switzerland, the cable company offers 250/15 internet for CHF 89/month ($98 USD). That's only $10 more than the 200/200 for $89.95 offering. Not unreasonable. For CHF 105/month they package a bunch of cable TV channels (including European and American sports) and 250/15 internet.

Swisscom, the incumbent phone company, has fiber-to-the-home. 300/60 internet with even more TV channels costs CHF 154/month. They offer up to 1000/100 connection if you're willing to pay and extra CHF 80/month above the CHF 154 rate. That's USD $258, only $8 more than the 1000/1000 plan offered in Clarksville (though the Swisscom offering does include TV. Phone is an extra CHF 15).

Then again, Switzerland does tend to be expensive. You may get cheaper service in other countries, but it is quite comparable in terms of cost here.

Municipal fiber? You poor victims. (5, Funny)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 3 months ago | (#47638231)

Fortunately, we here in your neighboring Free State of North Carolina elected a legislature that was willing to protect us from the predatory pricing of municipal broadband.

Well, we elected them, but the big telephone and cable companies did provide a little financial incentive to help keep them honest, as it were.

Re:Municipal fiber? You poor victims. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638403)

I followed that fiasco. Both parties were involved. It did not matter who was elected. The bill that passed was presented by a republican but not before the same exact bill was presented by a democrat (when they ran the show) a year earlier. Total cost to TW? About 5k. Some nice dinners and a night on the town in asheville. For both of the parties.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638391)

Looks like I'm moving to Clarksville.

Re:Fiber to the Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638433)

Hell we have faster than that in in Clarksville, Tennessee :) with reasonably decent prices. Oh ya we have Municipal Fiber to the Home

50mbps - $44.95 100mbps - $69.96 200mpbs - $89.95 1000mbps - $249.95

You can get triple pack with 175 TV channels, phone, and 50mbps internet for $118 a month.

And these are not special offer prices. They just bumped everyone's speeds up by 2x and they have yet to raise prices. Speeds are bidirectional so you get the same up as down. They are a Netflix open connect partner, and you actually get the speeds they promise! Go CDE Lightband!

Not far from you, in Chattanooga, we have gigabit internet for $69.99. We can get 195 channels, phone and 1000mbps for $135/mo.

Re:Fiber to the Home (2)

greenwow (3635575) | about 3 months ago | (#47639817)

As someone that lives in Seattle and pays nearly $70/month for a connection that is "up to" 1.5 Mbps, screw you. Seriously.

Re:Fiber to the Home (1)

fafalone (633739) | about 2 months ago | (#47640629)

I thought municipal fiber was supposed to be cheaper? I have a similar number of channels and 50m with FiOS (I routinely get 58-60mbps, and 40mbps up, and not just on speed tests) for $80 a month. Don't use Netflix tho.

Where's my FTTN/FTTH dammit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638169)

Will we be waiting till 2050 to get FTTH?

See the problem is that with the exception of Hawaii and Alaska, there is absolutely no reason for any of the lower-48 to have as crappy internet as it does. Everyone should have 100mbps by now, but none of the primary ISP's see it that way. They see it as a cash grab to charge more for higher bandwidth and then throw a usage cap on top so nobody actually uses it.

The best thing that can come out of the government regulations is to tell the carriers that they must offer bandwidth capacity (in Mbits) or usage caps, but not both on the same plan. (eg if I pay for 1Gbit, I should be allowed to run anything I damn well please on it including using 2357TB of data.) The capped data plans should be the low end of the spectrum but still silently connected at 1Gbit. When the cap is at 99% drop the physical connection speed to 0.1Mbit.

Most people who ever used Dialup will remember the speed differential between dialup and ADSL/Cable. Pages crawling down and such.

And yet here I am (3, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | about 3 months ago | (#47638177)

Here I am, in downtown Richmond (capital of Virginia). I *should* be getting some blazing-fast internet, right? Perfect conditions for it.

Nope. 3Mbps DSL. I can't switch ISPs because my apartment gave a monopoly to Telcom Communications (seriously, that's their actual name - they seem to be reselling CenturyLink). Sure, they don't call it that, but I checked every ISP and none of them will provide service to me except some DSL that's just as slow as what I've got.

And yet my parents, living twenty minutes away from anywhere in the empty part of Chesterfield, are getting 50Mbps FttH. I really want to see the economic explanation for that - it's too expensive to run fiber literally a block from Main Street, but a 20-mile run past several farms and lumber fields is somehow profitable.

Re:And yet here I am (1)

mc6809e (214243) | about 3 months ago | (#47638243)

No 4g available? I'm using a Verizon 4g access point from a horse farm in the middle of nowhere and Speakeasy's speed test gives me 10.46Mbps down/7.53Mbps up.

Re:And yet here I am (1)

Cito (1725214) | about 3 months ago | (#47638263)

I live in swamps of south Georgia, but my ISP upgraded from dsl2plus to VDSL so I went from 12mbit down/768k up to 20 Mbit down/2 Mbit up.

Re:And yet here I am (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638695)

VDSL is a really cool technology. I was always surprised it didn't do better here (Phoenix metro area) when Qwest was offering it as part of their digital TV package.

Re:And yet here I am (2)

fermion (181285) | about 3 months ago | (#47638415)

Like so many of these studies the centers of the data are of little use for someone trying to quantify speeds. Even if we had a range for the center, say a standard deviation, that would still leave out variables like size, population, geography and variables in population density. It is unreasonable to publish a single number for a states as meaningful. It does back to the idea that one can make a bunch of junk numbers seem more valid by putting them on a pretty map.

Re:And yet here I am (5, Informative)

drkim (1559875) | about 3 months ago | (#47638505)

Here I am, in downtown Richmond... ...3Mbps DSL.

You do know that they are talking about the average speed for the state..?

The way it breaks down in Virginia is:

You (and everybody else) = 3 Mbps
The CIA in Langley = 2000 Tbps

State average = 13.7 Mbps

Re:And yet here I am (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638985)

Correction:

You (and everybody else) = 3 Mbps
The CIA in Langley = 2000000000 Mbps

The way you wrote it is technically accurate, but violates xkcd's 1000 times [xkcd.com] rule.
All that said, you make an excellent point.

Re:And yet here I am (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639101)

I get 120 down on the outskirts of Charlottesville.

Re:And yet here I am (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47645119)

I sure don't.

Who are you with?

Re:And yet here I am (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 months ago | (#47646439)

I sure don't.

Who are you with?

Your momma.

Re:And yet here I am (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 months ago | (#47646461)

Here I am, in downtown Richmond... ...3Mbps DSL.

You do know that they are talking about the average speed for the state..?

The way it breaks down in Virginia is:

You (and everybody else) = 3 Mbps The CIA in Langley = 2000 Tbps

State average = 13.7 Mbps

Though your post was likely meant to be humorous, there is some truth to it. The infrastructure here in NoVa is definitely influenced by the heavy presence of intelligence work.

Re:And yet here I am (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 3 months ago | (#47638661)

If you picture the way they set these delivery systems up it will make sense to you. Picture a unit serving a circle of users that surround the unit. If there are a lot of users in the circle your speeds shrink. Identical equipment serving the same size area with less users allows better service. At a certain point in order to be somewhat competitive a very busy circle will be divided into smaller circles and your speeds will jump suddenly. That is why you see ads from service providers bragging that they doubled their delivery speeds. But now with more and more uses found for computer like equipment that cable is also carrying voice or phone traffic, alarm system traffic and replacements for cable TV traffic. As demand increases near you they will install more equipment in order to avoid loss of customers. Essentially cable companies and net services only respond when forced to respond by other players in the market delivering better service. Things like poverty and race come into play as a neighborhood able and willing to buy lots and lots of services will be "usage dense" while poor areas will only be able to pay for less services and therefore not have density-demand issues. Essentially all aspects of the US system always react with a downward push towards the unfortunate. The wicked part being that the unfortunate probably need a lot more information services than the fortunate even though they may not know it.

Re:And yet here I am (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 3 months ago | (#47638903)

Installation costs (tearing up the street rather than stringing on poles), plus - if the Richmond city council is anything like it was twenty years ago - nobody is going to make the company provide service at bargain-basement rates to all low-income areas before they're allowed to run the first line in the West End?

Re:And yet here I am (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640071)

Yes of course...if it werent for BLACK PEOPLE and their cronies on the city council all the white people would have fiber optic cables the size of my fist shooting straight up their assholes!

Thalhimers internet for 79 cents a month!

Re:And yet here I am (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 2 months ago | (#47644565)

... not because they're black. Because they're idiots.

Kinda like the Ashe statue on Monument. The neo-Confederates didn't want to put it up because he was black. The professional complaint class wanted it there because he was. Nobody ever just came out and said to throw it away because it's a fugly piece of shit.

Re:And yet here I am (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640005)

Most people downtown can get comcast at least...but obviously its easier to run new wires on telephone poles in chesterfield than snake them through ancient underground pipes in downtown.

Im 25 minutes from you and my comcast averages 25/15.

Not all in WA (1)

phoenix182 (1157517) | about 3 months ago | (#47638193)

I'm sure it's Seattle that skews the charts, cause here I am in the middle of a town of 30k people stuck with 3m/896k 95ms.

Re:Not all in WA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639021)

Exactly. Good connections like yours raise the average for the state. I live less than a mile from the center of Seattle, and I'm stuck on dial-up. Because of the director's rules, the building doesn't have DSL or cable because not enough people have agreed to let either Comcast or CenturyLink dig-up the street. You're lucky have 3 Mbps while people in Seattle are suffering with much slower connections.

Re:Not all in WA (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 months ago | (#47640529)

They shouldn't need to dig up the streets for DSL. Likely they have too many bridge taps in the circuit or something and don't want to install more lines but existing right of ways should cover expanding and delivery of copper lines for phone service so outside of a few permits, there shouldn't be much capable of stopping them from maintaining existing infrastructure.

It won't be long before they end up forcing an upgrade though. The FCC national broadband strategy is linked with the M2M technology strategy and is being touted as a means to an end for the smart grid and telephone service access also. So the city will either play ball and make the broadband available or the state and perhaps city will end up losing a bunch of funds which they likely will not want to happen.

Oh, the M2M or mobile to mobile [wikipedia.org] is a means in which cell phones would pick a wifi signal and route phones calls via VoIP along the internet instead of the carrier networks via cell sites if one is available, If not, it would use the cell site and either do the old fashioned way or via VoIP depending on how new the site is. Most all cell phone providers are going to the VoIP as a means to deliver calls in the future as the back haul is cheaper to set up and maintain for cell expansion.

It's just a matter of time. Hopefully you won't be old and gray and more interested in keeping those damn kids off your lawn than using the internet by then.

Northern Virginia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638203)

For those who are not familiar with the area, the performance numbers of Northern Virginia (aka. NoVa and the 'Silicon Valley of the East') greatly skew the results. Outside of the immediate Washington D.C. area and possibly Norfolk, broadband selections are like the rest of the country: Fair, poor, and non-existent. The real issue at hand is larger than Virginia, though - this is really about rural broadband vs. urban/suburban broadband availability. Due to the size of the country and the terrain, deploying rural broadband (far beyond the reach of metropolitan POPs) is not as simple as trenching a yard for FTTH. Hopefully this will change as long-reach wireless technology becomes more ubiquitous and affordable..

Wrong way to classify (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638209)

The survey should have been done by zip code or something approximating actual the size of ISP service areas / local government granted monopolies.

Where is Langly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638217)

OH yeah, Virgina... That makes sense.

My VA internet SUCKS (1)

DaRyuujin (1686268) | about 3 months ago | (#47638237)

Where I live in VA the internet options are HORRIBLE. Verizon DSL has a complete monopoly on the area, charging over $40/month for speeds of only 2.5mbps. Their customer service is on par with Cox cable any time my internet has issues it's a 2-3 month hassle to get it finally fixed, last time I had to contact the BBB in order to get my issues resolved. Worse thing is from what I hear Fiber has been run through the area it's just not being used, I guess Verizon doesn't want to provide faster internet when everybody is left with the choice of dial up or over priced DSL through them.

Re:My VA internet SUCKS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638297)

At least you have a landline. I'm stuck on Exede Satellite cos I live in a rural hole with no LOS to a cell tower.

Greetings from Lower Bandwidthistan (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 3 months ago | (#47638261)

First Post!

Mean seems like a poor choice of average (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638285)

Since fiber is so much faster than typical internet connectivity it really skews these results.

If there is one 1GBit user per 99 1MBit it is pretty misleading to state the average as 10.99MBit.

From what I've seen, there are roughly 4 tiers of access:
No access
up to 1.5MBit
up to 50Mbit
1GBit+

Since their average is in the 10MBit range, I suspect there are large numbers of people in the 1.5 bucket getting skewed by 50 and 1GBit people.

Re:Mean seems like a poor choice of average (1)

DarkTempes (822722) | about 3 months ago | (#47638521)

Yeah, median would probably be a better 'average' but I think a heat map in general would be better.

And interestingly enough the map looks very similar to a median household income map.
It doesn't show maximum available internet speeds per area or something more interesting like price per megabit in an area.

To me it just shows that poor and/or rural people tend to have slower internet speeds. Big surprise.

Re:Mean seems like a poor choice of average (1)

certsoft (442059) | about 3 months ago | (#47638943)

Yeah, we're still waiting for fiber-to-the-town here in rural Centurylink territory.

Woah you mean the state where Langley is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638307)

has the best to home internet? I wonder why that would be. What on earth is in that area that would require huge amounts of bandwidth, such large amounts that even the leftovers would raise the average speed in the area? Yeah, I wonder.

wtf (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638335)

Wow i knew our USA internet was terrible but 13 mbps? Are you shitting me? We have 108 mbps in houston and even that sucks balls.

Switzerland (1)

umafuckit (2980809) | about 3 months ago | (#47638337)

In Switzerland the slowest speeds you commonly get are about 15 Mbits/s, but one thing I really like is that UPC Cablecom [upc-cablecom.ch] offer 2 Mbits/s down for *free* so if you're unemployed or in financial straights you still have access to the internet that's sufficient for doing things like looking for a job, paying your bills, etc. In England, on the other hand, if they think you're not doing enough to search for work they cut you off unemployment benefits. They in effect killed someone [theguardian.com] this way recently.

Re:Switzerland (1)

mc6809e (214243) | about 3 months ago | (#47638455)

In Switzerland the slowest speeds you commonly get are about 15 Mbits/s...

And yet the report cited shows that only 45% have access to speeds above 10Mbps and 23% of access to speeds above 15Mbps.

Five US states have more people above 10Mbps than Switzerland.

And one of those states by itself, New Jersey, has almost a million more people.

Re:Switzerland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638571)

Shrug. Plenty of jobs at McDonalds. If you're willing to work, that is.

I see a pattern... (1)

afaiktoit (831835) | about 3 months ago | (#47638351)

Internet speed inversely proportionate by distance from washington dc :P

Averaging entire states is useless info (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638567)

These numbers are pretty meaningless. California is far too large to average numbers across the whole state, same with other large states.

You can get 120 mb/s in Los Altos for cheap, but good luck getting anything in the hills near Shasta or Tahoe.

Hinterlands? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638641)

I live less than a mile from the tallest building in Seattle in a neighborhood named Capitol Hill, and I have 896 kbps DSL at home. There are no other options for service other than dial-up. In fact, several friends here in Seattle still use copper.net dial-up. You don't have to live in the hinterlands to have no options for fast service.

While there are a few good tech start-ups, this just isn't a tech city. The lack of outcry over lack of access, heck or even just cable TV availability, proves this isn't a tech city.

Cox web and TV service (1)

tquasar (1405457) | about 3 months ago | (#47638711)

There were problems with TV and Net service. A tech arrives after 2-3 days and as soon as we talk to him it's obvious that the guy is not well trained or smart. He had a cutting and crimping tool and was going to replace the ends on the runs to my house. I said no. He makes a call and the second guy arrives with the same lack of ability. While talking to them I ask my son to call again to tell Cox WTF we're dealing with. My son is one of those tech wizard big brain guys and found some program to analyze our connection. The phone answer people have no idea what he is telling them. So, a third Cox tech arrives and he knows we were being treated poorly, sees how much packet loss there was, etc., gave us a new modem and said there will be no charge. Service has been good since then but my bill is close to USD $190 per month.

You're Welcome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638751)

I helped design & build this network as a subcontractor for Comcast, you're welcome NOVA.

ftth needs fith (1)

cjacobs001 (644842) | about 3 months ago | (#47638893)

fiber to the house is wonderful, but i can't wait to get fiber in the house!

Middle of No Where Alaska (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47638913)

We here in the interior of Alaska have up to 20mbps at 150 a month!

lol 14Mb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47639053)

Omg that is sooooo cute? 14M bits. Bits. Hahagags c agsgsc a haha hahaha do you even have running water?

Dumb question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640223)

But if many people were to make a conscious effort to continuously live where the fastest Internet is, wouldn't that encourage places to develop fast internet to encourage an increase in the local economy?

[cough] crony capitalism [cough] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640753)

When all the lawmakers who write the laws that regulate an industry, all the government bureacrats who regulate that industry, and the particular courts (and particularly the judges) who usually handle cases involving regulatory actions related to that industry are gathered in one place, it's a no-brainer to make sure the industry provides its best service in that same place.

What better way to fool lawmakers into thinking all of the country is adequately served than to serve THEM very well where they all hang-out together.

Yes but to sell it they are slamming people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641777)

Into contracts and bundles they do not want or need. They will tell you no contract then you call to change something and find out you have a contracted bundle even whan you made it clear that was not what you wanted. So sticking you with costly bandwidth you dont use just to get your email.

I am looking at COX.

Be very careful when you buy but even that most likely wont save you.

Alaska (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47642231)

interesting article. Thanks for sharing. Alaska has the slowest connection? I guess Alaska still has limited infrastructure. Hopefully the big cities like Anchorage and Fairbanks have decent speeds.

Then the question becomes: How are speeds in other rural and sparsely populated states? The Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona? Cell phone coverage is spotty in those states, at least for T-Mobile. I know, who uses T-Mobile in those states. lol

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?