U.S. lags other nations in Internet speed
The average Internet download speed in the U.S. is slower than that in 27 other countries, according to a new report by the Communications Workers of America.
Web surfing in the U.S. averages around 5.1 megabits per second (mbps), lagging far behind top-ranked South Korea, where speeds average more than 20 mbps. In 2007, the U.S. download speed was 3.5 mbps, inching up only 1.6 mbps since then. At that rate, notes the report, it will take the U.S. 15 years to catch up with South Korea.
(Credit:
Communications Workers of America)
The CWA's 2009 Report on Internet Speeds also compared Internet performance throughout all 50 U.S. states.
The report discovered that Internet users who live in the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic regions enjoy faster speeds than those in the South or West. The five fastest states included Delaware (9.9 mbps), Rhode Island (9.8 mbps), New Jersey (8.9 mbps), Massachusetts (8.6 mbps), and New York (8.4 mbps).
States on the slow end were Mississippi (3.7 mbps), South Carolina (3.6 mbps), Arkansas (3.1 mbps), Idaho (2.6 mbps), and Alaska (2.3 mbps).
"Every American should have affordable access to high-speed Internet, no matter where they live. This is essential to economic growth and will help maintain our global competitiveness," said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America. "Unfortunately, fragmented government programs and uneven private sector responses to build out Internet access have left a digital divide across the country."
The U.S. is the only country without a national policy to promote high-speed Internet access, noted the report. But that may be about to change.
Signed earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes a provision for a national broadband plan by spring of next year and grants of $7.2 billion to bring high-speed Internet to rural and remote locations across the country.
That's a step in the right direction, said the CWA. But the organization would like to see more specific improvements.
In the report, the CWA called for such measures as an Internet infrastructure with enough capacity for 10 mbps downstream and 1 mbps upstream by 2010, tax incentives for businesses to provide faster speeds, and grants to provide computers and broadband equipment to low-income households.
The 2009 report was compiled using data from the CWA's latest Speed Matters test, which measures the time it takes to communicate with the nearest server on the Net. Gathered from May 2008 to May 2009, the test tracked the speed of more than 413,000 Internet users.
Lance Whitney wears a few different technology hats--journalist, Web developer, and software trainer. He's a contributing editor for Microsoft TechNet Magazine and writes for other computer publications and Web sites. You can follow Lance on Twitter at @lancewhit. Lance is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and he is not an employee of CNET. 
If you look at Japan, because of the very high population density, there are enough potential users per square area of urban land that you can justify the enormous cost of upgrading all the wiring to handle very high-speed Internet. This is also true in South Korea, a country that is smaller than the majority of the states here in the USA, but has a very high population density.
It's a lot easier for these countries to install their broadband everywhere because they don't have a preexisting infrastructure. They're building their network infrastructure from scratch, which, ironically, is cheaper than replacing an in-place infrastructure like we have in the States. The big joke is that the US gov't already gave the US telcos something like $200 billion back in 1998 in the Telecommunications Act to update our then-already-aging infrastructure. Every US citizen was supposed to have over 200 digital channels and fiber broadband... by 2006. That was three years ago, however, the telcos took the money and... well, they took it, and are only just now starting to lay fiber when its convenient for the company.
No worries, it's happened to the best of us. :-)
Call me back when Russia passes us up. Thx in advance.
I would use the cia world factbook for my citation, but since it appears to be having problems you can check :
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/countryfacts/sweden.html
vs
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/countryfacts/unitedstatesofamerica.html
Bottom line: infrastructure costs per user are inherently much higher in the US.
One point of note, this study used different sources for U.S. speed data vs. international data making the results highly questionable at best. The source of this study is also the Communication Workers of America union, an organization that stands to benefit from any initiatives (particularly government-funded ones) to fund broadband service in the U.S.
Unfortunately us Canadians have only ourselves to blame here. The biggest impediment to higher broadband speeds in Canada is the fact that our incumbent telecommunications operators work in a HEAVILY protected industry where foreign owned competitors are barred and new Canadian-owned entrants face significant barriers of entry thanks to our CRTC. This organization has abandoned its original mandate and evolved into a group whose purpose seems to be to protect the bottom line of our established telecom companies.
Hoser unless you are buying the cheapest shaw, rogers or any of those, IE the $19,95 a month pack then yes you are correct. But every major ISP offers speeds over 7mb and for cheap $29 a month.
I lived in LA for over 7 years and when I got back I was like omg thank god I can get some real internet speed now.
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/
But you are correct on one part, Ontario seams to really suck with rogers service.
Welcome to the Obama_Union_Payback_States_of_America...
Christ, federal planning of our internet infrastructure scares the crap out of me.
They are zooming by in health care. Sure the U.S. has higher survival rates on particular cancers (not all of them) but we also have the highest cancer rates as well. That is, we get cancer more than other advanced countries, all of which have universal health care. We also lead other countries in preventable diseases, such as obesity-related diabetes.
Uh, you, mean like the original Internet, the arpanet, and then the backbones created by NSF? That kind of Federal planning? The government created the internet. Why does ideology make some people stupid. Oh, yeah, it's a substitute for actual thought and actual understanding.
But that said Canada surpassed the US in cancer survival, and Cuba has the best Breast Cancer survival rates.
And no it does not take years to get care, here. Heck I needed an MRI for a non emergency and got it within a week.
But then again it depends who's report you read. The real ones or the ones put out by the insurance companies.
Even if the Candian system was good you can't just drop it in. While you didn't have to wait THIS ONE TIME, on average the waits in Canada are much higher than in the US.
Find ONE thing that the US government has done that it does better than the private sector. It just doesn't exist. From package delivery to trains - the government run companies are a money loosing mess.
A good deal of the people who don't have insurance in the US didn't try to get it until they were sick. I've always paid for my health insurance, even when I was perfectly healthy and in my 20s. Good healthcare is everywhere here, people just have to budget for it. Most young adults don't give a damn to spend $200-$300 a month on health care until something goes wrong and then come crying to uncle Sam since nobody's going to cover someone that's sick. Some things should be fixed with the system, but a public version of the insurance market should be out of the question.
25 Mbit/s at 1,000 feet (~300 m)
24 Mbit/s at 2,000 feet (~600 m)
23 Mbit/s at 3,000 feet (~900 m)
22 Mbit/s at 4,000 feet (~1.2 km)
21 Mbit/s at 5,000 feet (~1.5 km or ~.95 miles)
19 Mbit/s at 6,000 feet (~1.8 km or ~1.14 miles)
16 Mbit/s at 7,000 feet (~2.1 km or ~1.33 miles)
1.5 Mbit/s at 15,000 feet (4.5 km or ~2.8 miles)
800 kbit/s at 17,000 feet (~5.2 km or ~3.2 miles)
A central office is expensive to set up, and where population density is low, it can't pay for itself. Check your facts before spouting off.
DSL at 20MB/s at your command.
Like what for example?
Broadband speeds? Whether you have 4 magabits per second or 20, you'd surf at about the same speeda. Your browsing speed after a certain point, has more to do with how powerful your computer is, how much RAM etc than what your connection speed is.
For must internet users, it's of very little relevance what their connection speeds speeds are, after their connections speeds pass a certain point., if they have broadband.
I never noticed much difference in my browsing speed when I uprgaded to Verizon FIOS.
@ clamenza :""but the "patriots" think it's still the best in the world"
What patriots you talking about dude?
We still have the best technology firms on the planet, no?
We have IBM(still the greatest computer maker on the planet, fastest supercomputers, mainframes, and some of the most advanced computer chips out there),
We have Intel(still the top/biggest chip maker on the planet.
We have TI, Microsoft,(still the biggest tech firm on the planet by market cap, most profitable tech firm on the planet, top software maker on the planet, etc etc), Google, Oracle etc.
No country even comes close.
@ clamenza :". It so happens that on both national and state levels, there's a strong correlation between religiosity, poverty, crime, (lower) life expectancy, and technological "hindrances".
Now you got me puzzled. "Religiosity(whatever the heck that is), determines if someone has low life expectancy, and how much technology savy they are?
I am not even sure I know just where you are coming from, or where you wanna go with this one.
Suffice to say, that someone's religion, has nothing to do with whether they have fast broadband or not. Religious folks don't turn round and insist on using dial up if thats what you mean..
BTW, Mr Clamenza, how did ole Tessio take it when he got bumped off?
I miss the 20 Mb/s I had in France in 2005 ... for 50$ a month (VoIP and TVoIP include).
In the dense areas of the US the lines are just over saturated instead of upgraded. I live in Japan for part of each year and I have had an 100mbs connection in every place I have lived and the performance did not degrade anytime during the day. In small towns you still usually get faster and more consistent service than the best services in the US. If upgrades became more economical in the US, the broadband companies would just use the revenue to buy other companies and expand into different markets. I'm not saying they never upgrade, its just not proportional to population density and they can't even provide anything near what they advertise.
If you can get 1.5Mb/s DSL for $15 a month, it's very attractive to our population, and many Telcos offer that in the dense (close to telephone relay station) population bases.
And the cost to upgrade isn't insignificant in many of these older, dense areas, with 100 year old apartment buildings. The copper can carry 1.5, the cost to upgrade would go to the building owner, and the demand isn't there for customers who'd be paying higher rent and higher fees for faster internet.
Please point us to those people who are happy with 1.5Mb/s DSL. I've got it right now because I can't afford more than $45 a month for internet. It's not enough to keep up with my 1.87 GHz P-4 machine.
Are these people running older hardware than me? Are they using it for nothing more than checking email and text based web pages?
As for the apartment building point you made. Ask each resident in the complex if he/she would be willing to make a contribution for installation of a fiber optic cable. Make sure to mention the prices for fiber optic internet connection in your area and how you will routinely get double the speed for less or simply get the same speed for half price (I've checked). I can guarantee fiber optics will be installed in that building and be completely paid for by the residents.
By the way, in my area and I'm sure in many others, the resident pays their own internet. There's nothing for the owner to pay. That means no need to raise the rent just because the apartment has access to fiber optics, though I'm sure some owners would do this and claim the cost of installing it.
`Lets start getting used to these kind of reports. World is zooming ..`
by: nreddyk August 25, 2009 11:22 AM PDT
more important ly.. this is correct !
One-Very-Fresh example from the different source:
`Average SAT scores in reading and writing declined by one point this year, math scores held steady` -- http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/sat-scores-show-slight-decline-in-reading-and-writing/
so,
we are NOT improoving, but we want to live better... comical-to-patetic -VJO
/injoy reality/
1. It measures connected customers, not population. In many countries, only the wealthy can afford internet, but it's fast. In the USA, we've made it affordable with discount DSL, and people CHOOSE to pay $15 a month for 1.5 DSL rather than $50 a month for 10 Cable. That choice brings down the average speed, but makes it also affordable.
2. If you look at the countries ahead, as stated above most of them are either: very densely populated with city centric populations of people living in tightly packed apartment buildings (Japan, Korea, Hong Kong), or countries that are installing infrastructure for the first time, with low input and labor costs (eastern europe).
So, we should also look at cost per megabyte speed, cost per megabyte speed adjusted to annual income, and megabyte speed per citizen (not subscriber).
I don't know where the USA would come out in those charts, but it would be interesting to know.
As for Korea, it's interesting that they have such an imbalance in upload v. download speeds. They seem to be the most asynchronous nation on earth, with download speeds in the 20Mb/s, but upload speeds under 3Mb/s. This signifies a large consumption but a lack of production of internet content in that nation.
Yup.
Because there is little descernible increase in browsing speeds when you go from 1.5 DSL to 10 Cable, so its not really worth it to most of the popuilation who only use their laptops just for web browsing, chatting on Yahoo IM, looking at their bank statements, recipies etc. None of that is really going to faster with a much faster broadband. Deminshing returns set in afer a point.
As for Korea, their higher speeds probably has something to do with their obsession with these MMO's, which they seem to play all day, even here in New York at these Korean internet cafe's.
It's black and white people, comes down to one thing and one thing only -- Greed.
There is no Obama government funding conspiracies, there is no 'lack of fiber optics', and there sure as hell isn't any relation to density.
It only has to do with controlled territory, by zipcode, and revenue.
Example; Verizon has been in dispute with Comcast (TimeWarner) for over 8 years regarding their Fios delivery and where they're allowed to set it up. Comcast/TW has had a strong hold on too many areas to name, they want to keep all the revenue for themselves in certain areas. I.e. We want to rip people off more without any interference or competition. DSL(s), T1, OC3 pose no threat.
Just picture one man owning all of the movie theatres, who is going to set the price, and how many movies will he allow you to see? Right, whatever he wants.
Korea, and all of Asia for that matter have been ahead of the US for a long time in terms of bandwidth, this is well known. Why?
Simple, one company does not have control over certain areas, it's a free market of ISPs, therefore companies actually offer more for less instead of less for more, without claims they can only provide so much.
Live there for awhile, you'll pick this up quite quick.
The only way to dispute the lack of US bandwidth will come in many forms from corporations, usually it's the claim of 'less stability' or 'lack of funding'. And frankly, with the amount of intelligence of the people who use the internet it isn't surprising people buy into it, or are simple misinformed.
It isn't going to change for along time, roots have been dug into the infrastructure and groundwork much too deep for much too long. They only people who can change it are the people, and they would need to take action which isn't going to happen, we'd rather bicker about it on cnet, etc.
My question is, why exactly has it taken CNET over 8 years to even report on this age old fact?
The reason why FiOS is not available in many places is cost, not greed. Or are you saying that it's greedy for a company not to want to lose thousands of dollars per customer?
The REASON Korea, Hong Kong, etc. have a faster backbone have been explained, you just don't want to listen. Most people in these nations with computers live in tightly packed, relatively new apartment buildings, in areas that went from having no infrastructure at all to having fast internet because they were starting from scratch. The USA and UK were on the forefront of the communication for long while, but that creates a legacy of older technology that needs to be replaced. It also creates a legacy of customers who are "happy" with what they have, especially when it's inexpensive.
Again, DSL was once $50 a month. Now it's $15. Most people are happy with 1.5 DSL. They don't host servers, they don't stream HD content, etc. Those that want to do that get cable and pay 3x as much.
But a great example of how clustered housing with relatively wealthy customers leads to faster internet in the USA is the college dormitory. US Colleges have some of the highest speed connections in the world, mainly because people are tightly packed and close to communications hubs, they have disposable income (either through wealth or government subsidy to 'study') etc. And they have a use for it.
As these students get older, they will demand faster internet in the outside world, and may be willing to pay for it. Until that time, the people who control the money (people 30-60) are generally fine with 1.5 DSL for the most part, and those who aren't are still pretty content with 10 Cable.
Personally, I'm good with 10 Cable, I just want it to be more synchronous. I want 5 up, and I get 1 up, and that sucks. But for all the talk of Korea, the vast majority there don't have 5 up either...
Anyway, that is not a big problem. Their infrastructure is functional and does what most want it to do.
- by krosafcheg August 25, 2009 9:35 PM PDT
- Get the latency down and move everyone to satellite. Problem solved. OK, thanks, send me the check.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (67 Comments)