Broadband Speed in United States is Up, But Still Lags Behind World Leaders

Broadband Speed in United States is Up, But Still Lags Behind World Leaders

Broadband Speed Global Leaders 310x

South Korea dominates latest broadband speed rankings.

Akamai has released its latest State of the Internet report, which covers Q1 2014, and the document contains both good and bad news for the United States.

The good news? Broadband speeds in the United States are up about 33 percent year-over-year, with the average broadband connection clocking in at 10.5 Mbps. That kind of connection is a standard offering at every cable Internet service provider in North America now, so the figure isn't all that surprising.

However, 10.5 Mbps isn't good enough to break the top ten. South Korea, Japan, and Switzerland take the top three spots with 23.6, 14.6, and 13.3 Mbps, respectively. Ireland takes the ten spot with 10.7 Mbps.

Finding an Internet connection faster than 10 Mbps in the U.S. isn't much of a challenge, depending on where you live, but the report shows that higher connection speeds are still out of reach for many Americans. The lack of true broadband competition in most American markets keeps prices high, with price increases coming every 12-24 months, and customer satisfaction very low. South Korea's broadband strategy is significantly more open and driven by competition. The end result? Faster speeds, and lower prices, year over year.

The report is chock full of other useful information, including broadband penetration numbers, and which U.S. states rule the broadband speed roost (spoiler: Virginia, Delaware, and Massachusetts are the tops). Check it out and drop your thoughts in the comments.

Source: BGR

Permalink

I want to see this report factor in landmass, then see who is the top.

It's pretty absurd that I have to pay 45 bucks a month to maybe get close to 10 mbs. It's not gonna be politics or threat of war that makes me immigrate to another country, it's gonna be broadband.

Baldr:
I want to see this report factor in landmass, then see who is the top.

Good point. You'll notice it's all relatively small countries in the top - probably because installing a high speed internet connection is a lot easier, and there will be less rural areas with very small or sparse population densities requiring miles of expensive cables to get to them, which isn't economically feasible a lot of the time.

Mcoffey:
It's pretty absurd that I have to pay 45 bucks a month to maybe get close to 10 mbs. It's not gonna be politics or threat of war that makes me immigrate to another country, it's gonna be broadband.

Are you saying that you'd move to Iraq or Syria if they could give you a 100mbps connection? :P

Baldr:
I want to see this report factor in landmass, then see who is the top.

Hero in a half shell:

Good point. You'll notice it's all relatively small countries in the top - probably because installing a high speed internet connection is a lot easier, and there will be less rural areas with very small or sparse population densities requiring miles of expensive cables to get to them, which isn't economically feasible a lot of the time.

Considering the world is joined by massive cables placed under the oceans, i don't really see how that is an issue. The issue is companies trying to get as much money as possible for as little as possible.

OT:
Its not much better in the UK, for years only virgin offered fibre optic broadband and all the speed that goes with it, now BT has it as well. But that's still only 2 companies.

Mcoffey:
It's pretty absurd that I have to pay 45 bucks a month to maybe get close to 10 mbs.

Where do you live and what provider do you have!? I have to pay about $80 to even hope for the chance at that, when in reality the highest I've ever gotten is only 5...

Neronium:

Mcoffey:
It's pretty absurd that I have to pay 45 bucks a month to maybe get close to 10 mbs.

Where do you live and what provider do you have!? I have to pay about $80 to even hope for the chance at that, when in reality the highest I've ever gotten is only 5...

I pay $80 a month (it would be $60 but I am forced to pay $20 for a landline that I never use) to get 6 mb/s of internet.

Yay monopolies!

Oh, and I have cable fibre, so my isp could easily give me way better speeds for cheaper.

Is this before or after Comcast throttles the hell out of half the nation?

flarty:

Mcoffey:
It's pretty absurd that I have to pay 45 bucks a month to maybe get close to 10 mbs. It's not gonna be politics or threat of war that makes me immigrate to another country, it's gonna be broadband.

Ohio and Time Warner. I guess the grass is always greener. I hear Canada has pretty good internet...

Are you saying that you'd move to Iraq or Syria if they could give you a 100mbps connection? :P

Neronium:

Mcoffey:
It's pretty absurd that I have to pay 45 bucks a month to maybe get close to 10 mbs.

Where do you live and what provider do you have!? I have to pay about $80 to even hope for the chance at that, when in reality the highest I've ever gotten is only 5...

I can deal with angry rebels and government sponsored zealotry, just so long as they let me watch Game of Thrones quickly, and in peace!

Since people are discussing broadband prices...

With the current exchange rate, we'll be paying roughly $50 for a 100/10 connection here in Sweden. But adjusting for average salary and such, I suppose it'd be the equivalent of $35. We could get a gigabit connection, but that seems like overkill at nearly three times the price. >_>

Mcoffey:

I can deal with angry rebels and government sponsored zealotry, just so long as they let me watch Game of Thrones quickly, and in peace!

They will take you into the street and shoot you in the back of head at best, at worst they will use electric drills on until you die. You wouldn't be some much be watching game thrones more like be part of real world version

Zachary Amaranth:
Is this before or after Comcast throttles the hell out of half the nation?

Man fuck Comcast fuck Time Warner and fuck any other big ISP that actively screws over their customers just because they can.

As much as I'd hate for Google to get even bigger, I'd LOVE to see Google Fibre go nation-wide and knock all the other ISP's squarely on their asses. God knows they need a good punch to the face.

albino boo:

Mcoffey:

I can deal with angry rebels and government sponsored zealotry, just so long as they let me watch Game of Thrones quickly, and in peace!

They will take you into the street and shoot you in the back of head at best, at worst they will use electric drills on until you die. You wouldn't be some much be watching game thrones more like be part of real world version

There's always one who has to ruin our fun :P

Irridium:

As much as I'd hate for Google to get even bigger, I'd LOVE to see Google Fibre go nation-wide and knock all the other ISP's squarely on their asses. God knows they need a good punch to the face.

As much as i hate Google (and apple for that matter) they are at least pretty consumer friendly when it comes to price and usability.

Irridium:
Man fuck Comcast fuck Time Warner and fuck any other big ISP that actively screws over their customers just because they can.

As much as I'd hate for Google to get even bigger, I'd LOVE to see Google Fibre go nation-wide and knock all the other ISP's squarely on their asses. God knows they need a good punch to the face.

Well, Google expanding could see an increase in competition. If I could go Google Fiber, I would. And I bet that a lot of people would. This would force Comcast/TWC to either up their service and lower their prices or lose a huge amount of business.

I'd rather it be the former, but I have no problem with the other outcome.

Post says:

Devin Connors:
South Korea, Japan, and Switzerland take the top three spots with 23.6, 14.6, and 13.3 Mbps, respectively. Ireland takes the ten spot with 10.7 Mbps.

Post includes a picture showing:

The top three spots going to South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong...

I'm just saying... ;)

Neronium:

Mcoffey:
It's pretty absurd that I have to pay 45 bucks a month to maybe get close to 10 mbs.

Where do you live and what provider do you have!? I have to pay about $80 to even hope for the chance at that, when in reality the highest I've ever gotten is only 5...

wow that is some high prices you got there i only pay 160DKK=$28,50 for 40mbs/40mbs

I remember when Comcast business promised up to 10X the speed of DSL, now it only promises up to 5X for the same price.

albino boo:

Mcoffey:

I can deal with angry rebels and government sponsored zealotry, just so long as they let me watch Game of Thrones quickly, and in peace!

They will take you into the street and shoot you in the back of head at best, at worst they will use electric drills on until you die. You wouldn't be some much be watching game thrones more like be part of real world version

Well, at least I wont have to see more of my favorite characters die...

I'd love 10 Mbps but unfortunately I live in Australia and thanks to some twit prime minister it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Someone please tell me we are beating the Kiwi's in this.

The world leaders of the future won't be the countries with the most nukes. They will be the countries with the best and the fastest access to broadband internet. Several non first world countries are going to catch up to and exceed their military counterparts over the next few decades. It's sad to know that my country is run by old farts that don't understand the upcoming importance of the digital economy.

File under "further reasons why Comcast and TWC should under no circumstances be permitted to merge."

Google Fiber may bring improvements, but I wouldn't be surprised if it brought its own host of problems as well.

Ech, the figures look too small, looks like they undercounted the speeds.

Baldr:
I want to see this report factor in landmass, then see who is the top.

Lets factor in population too then. because higher population = more potential costumers = easier to invest in high speed lines.

SO in truth its population density that you want to factor in.

Mcoffey:
It's pretty absurd that I have to pay 45 bucks a month to maybe get close to 10 mbs. It's not gonna be politics or threat of war that makes me immigrate to another country, it's gonna be broadband.

its pretty absurd to have 10mbps unless you live in small village or something.

BishopOfBattle:
Post says:

[quote="Devin Connors" post="7.854395.21146436"]
Post includes a picture showing:

The top three spots going to South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong...

I'm just saying... ;)

many surveys exclude city-states in such lists because they have it mcu easier with instracture, all being one big city and all.

Mcoffey:
I can deal with angry rebels and government sponsored zealotry, just so long as they let me watch Game of Thrones quickly, and in peace!

If you read the whole report, it's worth noting that Syria and Iraq are both mentioned as countries which have the internet switched off entirely from time to time (page 37-38). So probably not the best choices for internet even if you ignore any other factors.

Bravo Company:

Neronium:

Mcoffey:
It's pretty absurd that I have to pay 45 bucks a month to maybe get close to 10 mbs.

Where do you live and what provider do you have!? I have to pay about $80 to even hope for the chance at that, when in reality the highest I've ever gotten is only 5...

I pay $80 a month (it would be $60 but I am forced to pay $20 for a landline that I never use) to get 6 mb/s of internet.

Yay monopolies!

Oh, and I have cable fibre, so my isp could easily give me way better speeds for cheaper.

Oh man, that 's just evil.

I'm currently paying about $60 for a 75/75 mb/s connection, phone and cable service.
I thank the gods that we've started large scale fibre building in my part of the country!

Strazdas:

BishopOfBattle:
Post says:

[quote="Devin Connors" post="7.854395.21146436"]
Post includes a picture showing:

The top three spots going to South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong...

I'm just saying... ;)

many surveys exclude city-states in such lists because they have it much easier with instructor, all being one big city and all.

Even if you exclude city states the data is still misleading. Around of 20% of the population of South Korea live in Seoul. Most of the population of Sweden lives on in the southern part of the country.

albino boo:

Strazdas:

BishopOfBattle:
Post says:

[quote="Devin Connors" post="7.854395.21146436"]
Post includes a picture showing:

The top three spots going to South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong...

I'm just saying... ;)

many surveys exclude city-states in such lists because they have it much easier with instructor, all being one big city and all.

Even if you exclude city states the data is still misleading. Around of 20% of the population of South Korea live in Seoul. Most of the population of Sweden lives on in the southern part of the country.

and a most of the population of US lives on coastlines. your point?

Strazdas:

albino boo:

Strazdas:

many surveys exclude city-states in such lists because they have it much easier with instructor, all being one big city and all.

Even if you exclude city states the data is still misleading. Around of 20% of the population of South Korea live in Seoul. Most of the population of Sweden lives on in the southern part of the country.

and a most of the population of US lives on coastlines. your point?

20% of the US population does not live in one single city. 70% of the population of the united states does not live in New York State. You are the one who decided to mention population density as being the prime factor, well guess what those countries have very high population densities in the areas that are inhabited.

albino boo:

Strazdas:

albino boo:

Even if you exclude city states the data is still misleading. Around of 20% of the population of South Korea live in Seoul. Most of the population of Sweden lives on in the southern part of the country.

and a most of the population of US lives on coastlines. your point?

20% of the US population does not live in one single city. 70% of the population of the united states does not live in New York State. You are the one who decided to mention population density as being the prime factor, well guess what those countries have very high population densities in the areas that are inhabited.

Neither does 20% of europes population, and US is even bigger. Looking at population density on the whole country is what i wanted to compare, not capital city. according to Wikipedia, around 40% of New York State, which is larger than many countries elsewhere, live in New York. So 20% living in Seoul would be a comparison that puts New York at a worse position. Us has very high population density in areas that are inhabited too, this is not the difference you will find solace in. The density of whole US is lower due to large sparcely populated areas in the north-middle part. This creates low density in whole country, but where majority of population lives its still quite dense.

Latvia is high up that list. As far as Density goes, Riga - the capital - isnt close to major US Cities.

I mentioned density, because the other guy was mentioning landmass, which does not say much, as for example half of landmass of canada is basically snowy mountains that very few people live in.

Strazdas:

albino boo:

Strazdas:

and a most of the population of US lives on coastlines. your point?

20% of the US population does not live in one single city. 70% of the population of the united states does not live in New York State. You are the one who decided to mention population density as being the prime factor, well guess what those countries have very high population densities in the areas that are inhabited.

Neither does 20% of europes population, and US is even bigger. Looking at population density on the whole country is what i wanted to compare, not capital city. according to Wikipedia, around 40% of New York State, which is larger than many countries elsewhere, live in New York. So 20% living in Seoul would be a comparison that puts New York at a worse position. Us has very high population density in areas that are inhabited too, this is not the difference you will find solace in. The density of whole US is lower due to large sparcely populated areas in the north-middle part. This creates low density in whole country, but where majority of population lives its still quite dense.

Latvia is high up that list. As far as Density goes, Riga - the capital - isnt close to major US Cities.

I mentioned density, because the other guy was mentioning landmass, which does not say much, as for example half of landmass of canada is basically snowy mountains that very few people live in.

Look when you are in a hole stop digging. When the majority of the population live in small area it is very easy to provide services. 35% of the population of Latvia lives in Riga, for New York to have the same % of the US population it would have 122 million people living there. For it to have the same effect New York would have to be 15 times larger than it is. For New York State to have be the same % of the US population as Southern Sweden it needs to have 245 million people living there. New York state's population would have to be 12 times higher for it have to same distortion on the figures.

albino boo:

Strazdas:

Neither does 20% of europes population, and US is even bigger. Looking at population density on the whole country is what i wanted to compare, not capital city. according to Wikipedia, around 40% of New York State, which is larger than many countries elsewhere, live in New York. So 20% living in Seoul would be a comparison that puts New York at a worse position. Us has very high population density in areas that are inhabited too, this is not the difference you will find solace in. The density of whole US is lower due to large sparcely populated areas in the north-middle part. This creates low density in whole country, but where majority of population lives its still quite dense.

Latvia is high up that list. As far as Density goes, Riga - the capital - isnt close to major US Cities.

I mentioned density, because the other guy was mentioning landmass, which does not say much, as for example half of landmass of canada is basically snowy mountains that very few people live in.

Look when you are in a hole stop digging. When the majority of the population live in small area it is very easy to provide services. 35% of the population of Latvia lives in Riga, for New York to have the same % of the US population it would have 122 million people living there. For it to have the same effect New York would have to be 15 times larger than it is. For New York State to have be the same % of the US population as Southern Sweden it needs to have 245 million people living there. New York state's population would have to be 12 times higher for it have to same distortion on the figures.

Fair enough, you have a point here when comparing it to whole united states that distortion here exists in more than just raw density. However if we look at similar landmass areas such as Latvia vs New York State then the distortion would become towards the US data. Of course, that would require the data to be collected on per-state basis, which i think would be much better representation to begin with considering diversity of things in US and how much self-regulation states have to begin with.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here