America's hot and cold spots for broadband revealed in new map A new map of broadband speeds shows which Americans enjoy the fastest and slowest internet connections. The map, assembled by IT service firm OfficeSuite from data in Akamai's State of the Internet report, shows the top speeds are in Virginia, though New England and the Pacific Northwest also enjoy strong service. That …
"Gotta say [Bell Aliant FibreOP] is a great service."
Agreed. Aliant have broken the FTTH code; they've figured out that being capable of offering FibreOP TV (better than Cable TV in every detail) pays for the FTTH roll out. The local Cable TV / Internet provider (Eastlink) was just a mile up the road for a bloody decade and refused to extend their cable to service our neighbourhood.
Bell Aliant has earned some Goodwill and Other Intangibles in my book. Too bad their billing system is so seriously screwed up. I'd like to get their billing IT folks fired. Useless idiots.
The primary residual issue is that FibreOP TV only offers one half of the 500 channel universe. We require some key channels that they don't (yet?) offer, so we still need satellite TV. FibreOP TV = 260 channels. Bell Satellite = 520 channels. We require a few in the missing half.
In this case it's not all about monopolies.
Highest speeds are in areas that have high density and above average income.
Just the places you would expect to have the most competition.
I live in Northern VA and have 4 choices for high speed.
The regions with the lowest speeds tend to have combinations of lower density/income making it less cost effective to deliver.
Not sure what a world chart of cost per Mbps would show as many countries subsidize costs as part of country goals either directly or indirectly. South Korea would be an example.
Monopolies and the local governments are still a big part of it. True you will get more competition in higher density, higher income areas.
Another factor for Virginia is that as I recall, they're pretty much the biggest transatlantic relay for internet traffic. All the big guys had their headquarters there once upon a time. I think that alone will tend to boost the speeds.
Would probably be more interesting on a county level (or in the west, ZIP code, since our counties are larger than some states). Whole-state mapping doesn't mean much for anyone living in the wrong part of the state.
Given how much of VA is hinterlands, Arlington, Richmond, and Norfork must have absolutely insane average bandwidth!
The major part of the population in Virginia is in the metro areas -- and it is much smaller that California -- that makes it easy to keep the averages up. In California there is a significant size population outside Bay Area and LA, and the state is vast, so the rural population is dragging the averages down -- that being said -- AT&T common packages offered (in California) are with 6Mb/s and 12Mb/s bandwidth -- the 6Mb/s is quite cheap and probably elected by a lot, which also drags the averages down -- so the picture is not quite clear if the averages are due to customers selecting lesser packages or the ISPs not being able to deliver -- Google fiber with 1Gb/s is about to roll out in some Californian towns.. so hope for more bandwith around the corner.
I can tell you that being only 20 miles from downtown LA and you might get actual definition broadband but not more. Sure I can pay for the high speed up to 15 Mb/s package but can guarantee that you'll be luck to see the high 5 to low 6 Mb/s range because the infrastructure simply can't handle it. I dropped back to the cheapest net connection available and dropped from nearly 6 to about 3.5 Mb/s and saved a lot of money doing it. If I lived a little further away where the truly expensive new housing is I could get blistering speed over fiber but paying the associated Mello-Roos taxes (about $1000/month) simply isn't worth it.
@Ole Juul
Absolutely. They should be reporting on percentile figures, like medians, quartiles and so on. A far better way of characterising statistics where there is a huge disparity between the bottom and the top of the range. That's why median income level is favoured over average. It far better represents the "typical" experience.
Here in San Francisco, so far Google, Monkeybrains, and Sonic.net have tried and failed to bring affordable high-speed Internet to the City. The only high-speed option is Comcast, with a normal speed in the 10's of Mbps. In my work place, Comcast was not available, so we switched to Sonic.net's bonded ADSL2+ service, which runs over AT&T's lines.
In this area, AT&T and Comcast are the most common options. Not far away from the urban areas, like Robert X. Cringely's house, the options dwindle to about 0. And in some random parts of the Bay Area, gigabit fiber is available. It's a mess.
an average speed of 10.9 Mbps. That means the state that houses Apple, Intel, Oracle, Facebook and Google has lower broadband speeds than
But not a huge difference especially if you consider the difference in land area and population density. Sometimes being small and living shoulder to shoulder is a good thing :)
I have 100/10 mbps in Wisconsin, I suspect that it is the cost of service that keep the overall bandwidth from going higher. Frankly, my household is Internet only, so I can afford the higher speeds... God help anyone that has to pay a Cable TV bill. I suspect most people skimp on their Internet in favor of HBO, which to me is the height of stupidity.
The map is not an accurate reflection of reality. So much of the Western USA is rural. I live in Oregon which is indicated to be better than moderate performance. However, Eastern Oregon and Western Oregon are two different regions. The West is serviced by very good ISP service. Central and Eastern Oregon is not. This is true in Utah, Idaho, most of Nevada (except Las Vegas), Eastern California, and so many other places throughout the West in the US.
I am serviced by 7Mbps service in Bend. Faster speeds are available for more money. Often these speeds come with data caps of just 150GB per month too. It is a pathetic state of service for 2014.
"I am serviced by 7Mbps service in Bend. Faster speeds are available for more money. Often these speeds come with data caps of just 150GB per month too. It is a pathetic state of service for 2014."
Parts of Oregon have 1.5mbps service. Workable but poor. I'm in a (very) small town in western Canada, and I get similar speeds (though slightly higher for more money). My cap for $40/mo is 20GB, and for $50/mo is 40GB. You think 150GB is poor?
This is exactly why I want to see statistics published about what is going on at the low end.
So I can be extremely happy here in Hungary paying less than $20/month for a 30Mbps line. Btw it is the slowest offering from my service provider, for a bit more I could have up to 240Mbps. One of their competitor is trying to persuade me to go for the new 1Gbps line for about 50% higher fee.
I'm guessing you're in Budapest? I'd be surprised if you could get 30Mbps in Nyiregyhaza! It's the same here in London, everyone can get 24Mbps+, but most of the country is stuck on 6Mbps due to BT's combination of monopoly and incompetence.
If some of the slowest states in the US average 7Mbps, it's not great, but it's a fair bit better than most English counties.
I have to disagree. My service provider is UPC, they are in most places in Hungary, including Nyiregyhaza. Their prices and offerings are uniform all over the country. For internet they are offering 4 speed options, 30/60/120/240 Mbps. Admittedly the guaranteed speed is 10/20/30/60 Mbps. Occasionally I check the actual speed, but never had lower than 25Mbps, nearly always 30 or a bit over. Diginet, which is an other large service provider is the one offering the 1000Mbps, I do not know if it is a countrywide offer or only in Budapest.
"If some of the slowest states in the US average 7Mbps, it's not great, but it's a fair bit better than most English counties"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Are you kidding?? Most low-end averages range from 768K thru 3 or 6 mbps (mega-bits per SUCK) DSL, as provided by AT&T and Verizon, who really just don't give a damn about providing anything except a cash-suction device plumbed into your wallet.
Streaming the highest-definition video possible from Netflix, Amazon, etc. requires around 300 KB/s = 2.34 Mbit/s.
From reading the comments in this thread, one might think such a speed was human rights abuse. Something homeless people might be stuck with, or household pets.
I recently switched from cable (20 Mb observed) to DSL (5.6 Mb observed) because I don't like Comcast and I wanted to save $25/month. I couldn't be happier. Practically speaking I have noticed almost no difference in service. In fact, web pages etc. load a bit quicker with DSL because of lower latency. If I want to download something huge (e.g. an OS image) then it does take about 4 times longer, but I would have gone to get a cup of coffee anyway.
"Netflix's own recommendations ... say otherwise."
I'm surprised you feel like you're in a position to tell other people how much data Netflix HD uses when you clearly haven't measured it yourself and you're going by some numbers they posted on their web site. (Who knows how they came up with those numbers--presumably they're very heavily padded to account for ISPs' "up to ..." rates...)
OK, let's admit that we both haven't measured Netflix's own HD bandwidth requirement.
Can we agree on the following facts:
1) Bandwidth requirements are dynamic and we need to focus on some sort of average/minimum bandwidth to give us a baseline?
2) How about the recommendations of the EBU (European Broadcasting Union) that for HD the minimum you should need is 10 Mbps ( EBU - Tech 3334 - page 6)
FWITW cable and early satellite HD feeds were using around 15-17 Mbps. So, unless Netflix are magicians or science wizards they couldn't possibly squeeze the same amount of information, that everyone else uses, down to a third of the size without some loss. For if they did, they'd stand to make way more money by marketing the algorithm than all their streaming business combined.
I live on the Illinois/Wisconsin Border in Illinois. MISERABLE "broadband" in northern Illinois, barely above dial-up. When I had a business across the border in Wisconsin, even in the 3-by-5 little town I was in, the broadband was as fast and glitchless as Chicago. Now, if the governor in Wis wasn't such a $#()*)(@, and killing the business climate, I would still be there.
This map, while interesting does not paint a reality picture of the United States. We have VAST areas where there is absolutely NO service other than Satellite connection. The copper infrastructure is woefully under-maintained and thanks the to shills we call Congress and State and local govt we have ungodly anti-competitive environments with legalized monopolies abound. Efforts to "break" the monopolies end up in endless rounds of court delays and legal costs. We also have to remember that these are "reported" speed results which means that someone already has some sort of Internet connectivity. I lived in the SF Bay area (35 miles from San Francisco and San Jose and the "BEST" I could get for a long time as 2.5/768 over copper unless you went with the cable people(monopoly that hit you with rate hikes 2-3 times a year). Fortunately I no longer live there and enjoy 60/4 in a mountain community in North Carolina. Bottom line, its a matter of where you live in the US that is the biggest factor in whether you have broadband, have something better or something less. I'd like to see a map where there is NO broadband offered as well
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
