You poor buggers, 60-100Mbps is the "normal" fiber speed over here, I don't even know if you can get anything below 20.
AT&T and Verizon: 10Mbps Is Too Fast For Broadband
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Cable companies suck, the U.S. ones should be charged with anti-competitive practices and the FCC needs to grow about 40 additional pairs of balls and pussy up about 30 additional times.
On top of that though, I wish 'they' would stop defining internet speed in terms of download volume only. I have cable internet (provided through my rental agreement) which has about 40 Mbs download... and an incredibly unstable .2 Mbs upload. Playing any type of game online is a crapshoot as to whether it will work well or not. Thankfully I don't do many business related things like video uploading or some such or I'd just be screwed. ISP's just barely give up even the most basic info about prospective plans when they should be providing all the details possible including up-times, down and up speed, caps, where routing stations are, etc.
On top of that though, I wish 'they' would stop defining internet speed in terms of download volume only. I have cable internet (provided through my rental agreement) which has about 40 Mbs download... and an incredibly unstable .2 Mbs upload. Playing any type of game online is a crapshoot as to whether it will work well or not. Thankfully I don't do many business related things like video uploading or some such or I'd just be screwed. ISP's just barely give up even the most basic info about prospective plans when they should be providing all the details possible including up-times, down and up speed, caps, where routing stations are, etc.
That's insane. In what kind of world is 10Mbps enough for anything? I had no idea the state of the american internet services was this bad. I don't even know anyone with speeds less than 30Mbps. Most of my friends and colleagues have around 100Mbps.
Well, we have something called an "Ogliopoly", in which multiple cable companies agree to not compete against one another in order to overcharge and underprovide for the customers. Which should be illegal, but those companies have dozens of "lobbyists" whose job it is to bribe government officials to look the other way.Ed130 The Vanguard said:
A friend in Italy put it best: "We have lobbying in Italy too. We're just more honest about it when we call it bribery"
Im on 10mbps... kind of fine I guess. :/
Like, I can play games comfortably and porn streams fine.
Anyway, is it possible they want to keep the minimum definition at 4 so that in the times when line quality dips, or for consumers who are out in the sticks and only capable of getting around that work, they can still say "Ah, we're still offering you broadband, sir, technically."?
Like, I can play games comfortably and porn streams fine.
Anyway, is it possible they want to keep the minimum definition at 4 so that in the times when line quality dips, or for consumers who are out in the sticks and only capable of getting around that work, they can still say "Ah, we're still offering you broadband, sir, technically."?
Where about in Aus do you live mate? No-one I know has under 20mb/s and most have far more.Knife-28 said:
OT: This is why I laugh when fellow Aussies complain about our net, our net speeds are far beyond what I hear most Americans quote. Problem is that out distance from game servers is often the other side of the planet causing higher ping. That's distance issue not net speed.
Wow. Reading this thread, it seems like everyone has completely insane speeds compared to me. I just did a test, and I get about 4.75 Mbps (and oddly enough I have a higher upload speed than download speed). I never noticed many problems to be honest, but finding out about how much faster speeds are in other countries, it hardly seems fair or frankly even ethical that American ISPs are charging this much for speeds this low.
Well it depends, if you live in one of the big city's the net's fine, but if you're like me and live a bit south of the middle of nowhere and east of whoop whoop, then the net's a tad bit shitter.RicoADF said:
Which I guess is a problem with people in far out places all over the world really.
I live in a pretty rural area of Norfolk, UK and I can just about squeeze 20Mbps through the pipes. I have a friend in town who can get over 100Mbps. Hell, when I was at university 2 years ago I got a 4Mbps connection for free in student halls. FREE! The big ISPs should do this, then internet usage will become ubiquitous and people will be more willing to pay for better packages. It works with phone contracts so why don't they do it for landline connections?Unkillable Cat said:
Exactly, people who live in rural areas anywhere on earth has that problem. Atleast we've got NBN rolling out to fix it here, the US doesn't have that benefit (this is assuming Abbot doesn't turn us into the US anymore than he's already trying and can the whole thing like the backwards idiot he is)Knife-28 said:
It's enough for 1080p video, apparently, so that probably is plenty for most people right now, especially people who live alone. And it's not like this definition of "broadband" is preventing anything higher from being available (Time Warner, our local provider, offers six tiers of service; four of them are between 15 and 50 Mbps, and the other two are clearly aimed at people who used to be content with dial-up), nor would this proposed change force them to lower their prices any (which is the bigger concern, given that every ISP has been constantly raising their rates over the past few years).Pinkamena said:
It's not even just the size of the country. It's all about willingness to invest in infrastructure over shareholder returns. In the UK there are a lot of people I know who live in semi-rural areas (15 miles from 100 000+ population town) who can't get more than 2Mbps. And they have a monthly cap too. There's no better services around in some places.LordMithril said:
Quite frankly, any time I hear people in the US whining about their internet service - service that is ranked in the top 15% globally - I think "First World Problems".
Boohoo - you're not in the top 10 countries. Do you know how many other countries have worse internet than you? Over 150. Suck it up.
Boohoo - you're not in the top 10 countries. Do you know how many other countries have worse internet than you? Over 150. Suck it up.
Just checked and it says mine is 160.06 mb/s download, and yet Steam still only downloads at 10 mb/s. Come on Volvo.
But that really sucks for Americans. I would be livid with 4 mb/s. And from what I've heard it's really dodgy most of the time too.
Hopefully the freakin' FCC can twist their arms and get better standards from your piece of shit ISP's.
But that really sucks for Americans. I would be livid with 4 mb/s. And from what I've heard it's really dodgy most of the time too.
Hopefully the freakin' FCC can twist their arms and get better standards from your piece of shit ISP's.
Problem is America is one of the most developed countries in the world, so the fact that their internet is relatively far behind is frustrating.Korskarn said:
And just because someone has it worse than you doesn't mean you're not allowed to complain. If someone stole your TV and they also stole your neighbors bigger better and more expensive TV, you still have the right to complain.
American ISPs are all about Money. "How much money can i make and how little can i give people until they stop buying", and its not like we have a choice. Where i live, there is one ISP available, so its either pay it or don't have it. The same thing goes all around America. It's all kinds of screwed up.Ed130 The Vanguard said:
None of this surprises me. In my city right about where the library is is the last place you have options for your internet. If you live South of the library you only get Time Warner Cable (which is what I have and I'm pretty happy with it most of the time). However if you're like me and live North of it, you get TWC, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast....And Dish but Dish is shit out here. Dish is not meant for places that get wind like we do. But Dish is also more cable than actual net anyway so mostly I don't count it. Also this is just reasons why I won't ever go to AT&T or Verizon. And Comcast is just shit period (I feel sorry for the poor souls in the parts of LA and San Diego who have no choice but Comcast). Also, I just checked my internet speeds and this is what I'm currently at
So at least I have decent speeds for download. Not sure if the upload or ping is any good since I'm not very tech inclined but I know the download is decent to pretty good for my area. Then again I do live in a fairly well populated area of Southern California so that might be it
So at least I have decent speeds for download. Not sure if the upload or ping is any good since I'm not very tech inclined but I know the download is decent to pretty good for my area. Then again I do live in a fairly well populated area of Southern California so that might be it
It really depends on who runs the local telco cartel.
Also this is not the advertised rate. As advertised it's 250, but it's Alaska so you are a part of a caged audience.
I pay quite a bit, but every year or so they upgrade the bandwith again. 5 years ago it was only 20 I believe. Same price.
Also this is not the advertised rate. As advertised it's 250, but it's Alaska so you are a part of a caged audience.
I pay quite a bit, but every year or so they upgrade the bandwith again. 5 years ago it was only 20 I believe. Same price.