Two-Thirds of US Internet Users Lack Fast Broadband 402
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the it's-comcastic dept.
from the it's-comcastic dept.
jbrodkin writes "Two-thirds of US Internet connections are slower than 5 Mbps, putting the United States well behind speed leaders like South Korea, where penetration of so-called 'high broadband connectivity' is double the rate experienced in the United States. The United States places ninth in the world in access to high broadband connectivity, at 34% of users, including 27% of connections reaching 5 Mbps to 10 Mbps and 7% reaching above 10 Mbps, Akamai says in its latest State of the Internet Report. That's an improvement since a year ago, when the United States was in 12th place with only 24% of users accessing fast connections. But the United States is still dwarfed by South Korea, where 72% of Internet connections are greater than 5 Mbps, and Japan, which is at 60%. The numbers illustrate the gap between expectation and reality for US broadband users, which has fueled the creation of a government initiative to improve access. The US government broadband initiative says 100 million Americans lack any broadband access, and that faster Internet access is needed in the medical industry, schools, energy grid and public safety networks."
The way of things (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the slow inevitable decline of a failing empire.
No one is to blame.
Everyone is to blame.
actual speed (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what proportion of "fast" connections are actually fast though...
I live in Japan, and my internet connection is nominally 20mbps -- but in actuality, I usually get less than 3mpbs, because it's a ADSL connection, and I'm just a bit too far from the central office. I understand that in many cases cable internet also has issues with the real speed not living up to what's advertised.
Granted, there are multiple other providers I could use that have their own infrastructure (fiber-to-home, cable, etc), and maybe they're better, but still, I think I'm probably counted as a statistic ("has 20mpbs connection!") somewhere when maybe I shouldn't be ...
[I don't switch because this connection is really cheap, and I just don't care enough; it's "fast enough" for me.]
Re:Nordic had to do it (Score:5, Interesting)
The size of the US really doesn't explain why my only two provider options, cable and DSL, are dirt slow and unreliable... in the most densely populated part of the San Francisco Bay area - net capital of the planet.
5Mb OK for most people, surely? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm on 5Mb and it's fine for me.
I can watch iPlayer/Hulu, download movies and ISOs, I use it for work and listening to pandora and BBC Radio.
I honestly can't think of any time I have thought 'I wish I had faster broadband'. In fact, I could upgrade to fibre for not much extra but I don't feel the need.
I'd worry more about the relatively large number of unfortunate Americans who can't get broadband at all due to being out in the sticks.
Re:Before the inevitable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. Finland is a great example of that: we have pretty low population density, especially in the north, yet you can get a decent ADSL-connection all the way in the rural Lapland. Though, pretty much the same applies to cellular network coverage too.
AFAIK the problem in the US isn't really the fact that the density is so low, it's rather the fact that when they laid down the wiring they didn't bother planning it for future expansions and just did it as quick and dirty as possible. And now they don't wish to publicly admit that they did that and instead try to point to other directions as the reason for connectivity issues. Of course, I could be wrong, but I've just gotten such an image of their actions and behaviour so far.
Is this a problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you need more than 5 Mb/s for? Surely you can stream a video properly, or browse the internet, or download stuff with a slower connection?
Bit of a non-story isn't it? If they were all on dial up or something, then yes, time to panic. As it is, I have a 4Mb/s connection, and I don't feel left out of the internets at all.
Re:Not clear in TFA.. (Score:2, Interesting)
But that's not the whole story, Hughesnet has advertised service with the following:
$60/Month for the slowest tier, $110 for highest, horrible 2 second ping times and a very low 200-400 MB/day limit.
It seems those restrictions eliminate any reason to have high speed satellite internet.
I'm still using dialup at 45.5 Kb. and download over 500 MB/Month
I've been waiting for DSL for 15 years,
Centurytel and previously Sprint have promised it since.1996. A sprint tech to finally told me that without
50 customers inside a service area, No Chance.
The phone companies stole the Gov money and pocketed it.
Re:Usual Excuses (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironical isn't it? How the "can do" country has now become a "can't do" country. Same thing with high-speed trains. Just excuses about how it can't be done in the US even though Europeans and Asians have done so for years.
Did they ask how many want it (Score:4, Interesting)
and how much they are willing to pay?
I bet you can find more people like my Uncle and Aunt in Ohio who own a farm. They have dial up internet. That is all they want. They use it for mail, a few government sites, and not much else. Since its a working farm they don't have much time to spend on the computer. I know, broadband would free up more of their time, well not really. When relatives send pictures those can download with no one around and when they use their PC they are pretty much doing what they need to do, not just blindly surfing. Movies, well that is what local stations are for.
They aren't ignorant of the internet, just a lot of features and what others call necessities are not for them. When I tell them they can watch movies on demand over the net it doesn't pique their interest. They get their news and weather from the paper or broadcast TV.
When I tried to bump my parents internet to broad band a few years ago they were like, why pay more for that? It wasn't until a deluge of grand daughter pictures and the like did they see *ANY* value to high speed internet. Guess what, it still is all about getting the latest pictures. All that streaming/etc/whatnot is meaningless in their lives. They are very happy and content as they are.
People on tech sites tend to vastly over estimate the need for, let alone the desire of, many for high speed internet. Hell, you can enjoy life just fine without touching the net for weeks. If anything its made a nation of couch potatoes even a worse syndrome.
Re:Silly comparison (Score:4, Interesting)
It is being driven by competition. Holland has like 20 providers to choose from for cable, DSL and there are some doing FTTH now. There are also wireless offerings which work really well.
Their neighboring country Belgium has only 2 (major) providers for Internet (cable and DSL) where cable has literally bought a monopoly status a couple of years ago in return of putting down a 200km fiber ring (they didn't even bother doing FTTH even though their offering is called FiberNet) and DSL/phone used to be a government run (and is still government owned) company. They have 10-30Mbps lines with 10-30GB monthly caps. Just recently have there been non-capped offerings because there are 1 or 2 DSL providers that have finally convinced the government that the phone line owner (the government-owned private company) can't gouge the prices for sharing lines.
Cost versus Quality (Score:3, Interesting)
It works for me and my needs (though it's annoying downloading game demos/updates that are larger than a few hundred MBs - takes me multiple days)
I wouldn't mind faster service - but I don't want to pay the 75+ a month that Comcast will eventually charge me (and no, I don't want to spend 2+ hours a month trying to negotiate them down to a "special" price) and the FiOS pricing and availability in my area is kind of stinky, too. Lots of packages that don't last long enough and price ranges that jump up 50+% at the end of the promotional period.
If I could get 10Mb symmetrical service for 50 bucks a month and not have the price change (except to go down), I'd jump on it.
And in the Northeastern United States, it shouldn't be a non-existent option.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)