Higher high speed internet overrated/unnecessary?

[lilhasselhoffer]

I'm torn here, because the US is a special case. Of the contiguous 48, there are huge tracts of land where the population density declines to functionally zero (looking at you Iowa). Likewise, the internet service there sucks hard. Alternatively, densely packed areas generally have access to decent speed internet. It's a function of ISPs not having much competition, and a complete lack of investment into infrastructure that "isn't necessary."


In my time I've been on a 28.8 phone line, and experienced the AOL massive disconnect policy of traffic management. I've seen cheap high speed connections in Germany, in the small town of Luebeck. I've also seen decently priced 100/20 cable lines in areas surrounding decent sized cities.

The only rhyme and reason to the internet being as expensive as it is in the US is that nobody is investing in it. The telecoms are happy to offer faster plans, but instead of adding capacity they price faster plans so that fewer people pay for them. So you've got an idea, Charter is my provider. Their plans are:
104.99: 100/20
69.99: 50/15
39.99: 30/10
19.99: 10/10

The prices change if you bundle with other crap, but the price for decent TV service (Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, FX, and a few others) and basic internet is about the same as the upper tier internet packages. That's before the "deal" rates stop applying, and your bill can nearly double for no apparent reason.



Edit:

To the OP, faster is better until you reach a minimum quality level. That minimum quality is dictated by how much data is being pumped through, and how acceptable variable rates are. If you've got a lot of devices then pay more to get better service. If it's just a few devices save the money, and know that any large downloads may take a while.

 

[bubbleawsome]

I was used to 65/5 internet. Now I'm on 3/1 and it hurts to try and watch YouTube above 480p.

 

[n0tiert]

25/5 Mbit IPTV, National Phone Flat 34 Euro

If I watch HD IPTV , the Line still has enough juice to download and play BF4

 

[v12dock]

The only reason I upgraded my connect we to increase my bandwidth cap. I was using a 50/5 with 350gb per month but I reached the cap in 13 days. Fortunately my ISP was able upgrade me to 150/20 with 2TB per month for an extra $10 per month. Unfortunately my ISP is having massive issues with speeds during the day. The only reason I think they are offering it so cheap is because they are building fiber 300/300 in my area.

 

[Steevo]

I'm torn here, because the US is a special case. Of the contiguous 48, there are huge tracts of land where the population density declines to functionally zero (looking at you Iowa).

Yep, Iowa is barren............. unlike Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, and a few other states.

 

[xvi]

From a WISP standpoint, point to multipoint shots typically do considerably less upload than what they can do download. Uploads also take airtime that could be used for downloads. WISPs typically limit upload to minimize the impact to the network. We allow symmetrical speeds because we're occasionally stupid.

 

[remixedcat]

KS is flat yet they have google fiber

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Yep, Iowa is barren............. unlike Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, and a few other states.

View attachment 58585
View attachment 58584

Not sure if being sarcastic...


At any rate, I spent a good chunk of life in the Midwest. North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa were all functionally barren with minor exceptions. As the southwest isn't somewhere I have a lot of experience with, I failed to include it in my commentary. Either way, the point still stands. Vast tracts of the US are functionally devoid of population. Getting a telecom to lay ten miles of copper cable so that farmer Bill can have cheap high speed internet isn't going to happen, because profits are the key goal.

ISPs exist as companies, so seeking profit isn't unreasonable. What is unreasonable is that whenever government finally steps in the ISPs cry foul, and try and stop them from building infrastructure. What we really need is an FCC that does something beyond fining broadcast networks for their use of "improper" language. What we actually get is an ineffectual relic from the age of black and white TV.

 

[Chitz]

currently i am using fastest modem available here with most expensive plan there is , my speeds are around 200KB/sec 300ping and 20gb data limit , simply not enough for my work , doing that 20gb plan again and again it all comes down to 180$ month i would legitimately pay even more if there was anything faster better , but well NO

 

[Steevo]

Not sure if being sarcastic...


At any rate, I spent a good chunk of life in the Midwest. North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa were all functionally barren with minor exceptions. As the southwest isn't somewhere I have a lot of experience with, I failed to include it in my commentary. Either way, the point still stands. Vast tracts of the US are functionally devoid of population. Getting a telecom to lay ten miles of copper cable so that farmer Bill can have cheap high speed internet isn't going to happen, because profits are the key goal.

ISPs exist as companies, so seeking profit isn't unreasonable. What is unreasonable is that whenever government finally steps in the ISPs cry foul, and try and stop them from building infrastructure. What we really need is an FCC that does something beyond fining broadcast networks for their use of "improper" language. What we actually get is an ineffectual relic from the age of black and white TV.

A bit, and just continued commentary about the millions of dollars we the US taxpayers have given to telecoms to provide last mile service, and then when it comes down to it, they provide shoddy service.

Phone lines are fine for DSL use even long distances, we solved the issues with them long ago, and it comes down to replacing the load coils in the line with modern versions and or moving the line to digital and using the spectrum available, however asking a telco to do this is like asking the Pope to give satan a handjob and enjoy it. It breaks their whole ideas of being a telco down to merely providing a data service and not meeting the industry standards of the bloated rotten whale carcass it is.

Also considering the number and distance to fiber backbone for even remote areas of the US there is no reason other than self implemented "standards" that restrict users that rural people shouldn't have at last 5Mb service.

 

[xvi]

Currently paying Frontier $30 a month (I think?) for 1.5/384 DSL service. We begged them for more (a technician physically came out and told us the modem would negotiate at 3Mbps, confirmed by our current modem), but they insist that's the most our system is provisioned for, despite their field tech saying the link was capable of more and the sales guy more than happy to sell it to us.

 

[fullinfusion]

first i'm sorry you have such high prices for low speeds. i pay 15$ for 100/100Mbps for 25$ we can have 500/500mbps or even 1Gbps. ~30$.for my needs 100/100 is ok. 7GB file download in 10-12minutes. if you going for 40-50GB files takes about 2hours. (would love to have it faster) of course for browsing or even youtube 1080p videos its absolutely enough, for gaming bandwith is good but ping just about average.don't forget 4K videos is coming.like everything it depends on your needs.

Holy shit that's cheap. I'm paying $92 a month for 50/2 lol

 

[Sir B. Fannybottom]

All you guys are talking about 50mbs for like $30 and I'm here with 10/1(closer to 5/1 most days) for $56.73 a month I say go for the 30mbs down option, give you the speed when you need it, and won't make you frustrated if multiple people in your home are streaming/skyping

 

[eidairaman1]

Att uverse is moving away from pots

A bit, and just continued commentary about the millions of dollars we the US taxpayers have given to telecoms to provide last mile service, and then when it comes down to it, they provide shoddy service.

Phone lines are fine for DSL use even long distances, we solved the issues with them long ago, and it comes down to replacing the load coils in the line with modern versions and or moving the line to digital and using the spectrum available, however asking a telco to do this is like asking the Pope to give satan a handjob and enjoy it. It breaks their whole ideas of being a telco down to merely providing a data service and not meeting the industry standards of the bloated rotten whale carcass it is.

Also considering the number and distance to fiber backbone for even remote areas of the US there is no reason other than self implemented "standards" that restrict users that rural people shouldn't have at last 5Mb service.

 

[brandonwh64]

Higher high speed internet overrated/unnecessary?

I dunno.... Is it LOLOL

 

[Jetster]

Exactly. No its not. We are finally at a point where you don't have to play the waiting game

 

[Aquinus]

I dunno.... Is it LOLOL

Considering you work for an ISP, I think they need the bandwidth.

Holy shit that's cheap. I'm paying $92 a month for 50/2 lol

That's about what I pay for this.

 

[a_ump]

To a few posts with low internet speed, the FCC apparently made a definition of 4mbps down is minimum for broadband. So i wonder if your internet is advertised as broadband but you don't get that if there's something legal you can do about it.

Also is it foreigners to the US that have bandwidth caps? I've lived mainly in WV and OH and i've never once ran into a company that had a bandwidth cap.

 

[remixedcat]

What part of WV and OH you lived in?

 

[Aquinus]

To a few posts with low internet speed, the FCC apparently made a definition of 4mbps down is minimum for broadband. So i wonder if your internet is advertised as broadband but you don't get that if there's something legal you can do about it.

Also is it foreigners to the US that have bandwidth caps? I've lived mainly in WV and OH and i've never once ran into a company that had a bandwidth cap.

Bandwidth and latency also depends a lot on how far away you are from the server with respect to router hops. The further, distance wise, you are from a server, the much more likely that you won't get your maximum download speed for people with more than 100Mbps download. Only occasionally will I realize a my full download speed on a single download.

What the high speed internet is helpful for is when my wife if watching HD streaming video while I'm working and downloading stuff. If you can't saturate your download, your latency isn't going to get that much worse when the internet is "being used", even if my network usage is using 80Mbps out of 119Mbps. The same occurs with upload, but in reality, consumers tend to use a lot more download than upload.

Lastly, Comcast used to have a "bandwidth cap" but first they stopped enforcing it.

 

[eidairaman1]

The equipment on the other end must be able to sync with your connection speed too

 

[Guitar]

$45 for this.

 

[eidairaman1]

$45 for this.

Do you have tv svc?

 

[RejZoR]

I wish i could even get the damn optic connection. Instead i'm stuck with max 8/1. Which means uploading a short 1080p video made with a phone takes freakin ages to upload. With optics i'd have 10/10 connection as minimum, now that would be much more bearable.

 

[eidairaman1]

I wish i could even get the damn optic connection. Instead i'm stuck with max 8/1. Which means uploading a short 1080p video made with a phone takes freakin ages to upload. With optics i'd have 10/10 connection as minimum, now that would be much more bearable.

Fiber to the premesis for Att/Verizon is in certain neighborhoods built within last 10 years. Fttp homes are PON-Passive Optical network which use ONT- Optical Network Terminal- which are bigger than regular phone boxes near the power meter of the home. These homes normally have cat 5 running from it to attic or a network/telephone panel in a closet in a home with cat 5 going to telephone/ethernet jacks in the home. If you have a home built in those areas, you better have outdoor grade cat5 ethernet and 2 rg6 grade coax home runs going from where the power and phone box is to a network smart panel. Each room I'd suggest 2-4 ethernet jacks with 2 outdoor grade cat5 lines and 2 rg6 coax lines in each jack in each room where you might have tv/desktop computers/wifi routers/switches running and all routed to the same network smart panel in the home. Same applies to Areas that are fiber to the node-copper to the home. Older homes tend to need home runs ran.