Login:
Password:

US Internet speeds still slow compared to the rest of the world

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

August 15, 2008, 5:20 PM

A survey by the Communications Workers of America indicates that the median download speed for US Internet connections has changed little, and remains far slower than the rates experienced in other developed nations.

The typical US Internet connection delivers 2.3 Mbps downloads, according to the CWA's annual survey -- 400 Kbps over the previous year.

Compare this to Japan, whether the median download speed now stands at 63 Mbps. South Korea also is much higher at 49 Mbps, as is Finland (21 Mbps), France (17 Mbps), and even Canada, which has a median speed of 7.6 Mbps.

About 230,000 US residents participated by testing out their connections at a special Web site set up to meter broadband connections and lobby for broadband policy called "Speed Matters."

CWA officials cautioned that America's apparent speed constraints weren't just about downloading movies, but may also have economic implications on the country.

"Speed matters to our economy and our ability to remain competitive in a global marketplace," union president Larry Cohen said. "Rural development, telemedicine, and distance learning all rely on truly high-speed, universal networks."

The union plans to use the data to help convince the Senate to pass a bill called the Broadband Data Improvement Act, which calls for better definitions into what can really be considered true broadband. The bill would issue grants to states for studying the problem of how to roll out broadband lines to more customers, especially in rural areas. The House passed a similar measure earlier this year.

Cohen argues that the US needs a national broadband policy. "We are the only industrialized nation without a national policy to promote universal, high-speed Internet access -- and it shows," he mused. About 15 percent of Americans still use dial-up to connect to the Internet, which means the true median speed could even be lower than what is being presented here.

Add a Comment (69 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Floodland

edited Aug 19, 2008 - 9:41 AM

You can get a 50M link, but if ISPs continue to throttle down connections to limit BT, ed2k and traffic as they please you are worse than China with censorship...

I think today the problem today is not bandwidth but policies, and fraudulent marketing...

Score: 0

By Stormprobe

posted Aug 19, 2008 - 9:34 AM

Why does the U.S. need faster Internet? We're already paying a pretty penny for slow Internet. What's the incentive for the Internet companies to make it any faster?

Score: 0

By Lawrence01

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 11:48 AM

Just like cell phone speeds, and television, we are slowly being beaten in terms of speed/quality day by day. The U.S. is no longer #1 in many things, but more like being in the lower range compared to other countries.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 9:45 AM

Woah.

Deja vu....

Don't we see at least one of these stories a month?

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 5:38 PM

I have 2M right now. I can't even imagine having a 63MBps connection, kind of blows my mind to think about it.

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 1:53 AM

I had 2M few years ago and its enough for one user but even at 8M for two people playing anything at the same time (games, youtube, etc) is impossible. Especially the games + youtube was not "cool".

Currently running ADSL2+ at ~18Mbps, its enough for now but i wonder how long...

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 9:05 AM

Two people using youtube at the same time is too much or impossible on a 2M link? What kind of computer are you on? I was able to run several things over a 3MB connection just 4 years ago, and this was on old p3 667's. 2M is plenty for an average household. My folk's house runs on a 4M line and that supports 4 people. My wife and I run on an 8M pipe and that is OVERKILL for what we need.

Score: 0

By alex_sporik

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 12:54 PM

This is not overkill. More and more Web2-3 application appears online. More traffic hungry media resources and technologies, .Net 3.5 and so on.

Man you just too obsolete for high-speed links :)

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 4:17 PM

OMG. I did not know that there are some developed countries where the situation is worse than here, in Central Europe, which is considered as underdeveloped (my country was in the Eastern Bloc, and it is a part of the EU now). Of course, the situation varies from place to place, e.g. in the rural areas 1 mbps/256kbps for 29 bucks is considered as something standard, however, I live in a pretty large town where 20M/2M is provided for 45 dollars (if you sign up your contract for 12 months). Actually my connection is a bit faster (upload raised to 4M) and I pay less because I decided to sign for quadruple play (TV/landline phone/Internet/WiFi hotspots for free in the country within the network).

I envy people in Scandinavia and Japan. They are far developed than my region and the US.

Score: 0

By dvferret

edited Aug 17, 2008 - 3:15 PM

How sad. What a bunch of dirt cheap no good companies here in the US.

EDIT: Ohh and too difficult or expensive to expand/upgrade our service....bunch of BS.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Aug 17, 2008 - 8:44 PM

Thank the RIAA and MPAA. If they had their way we would all still be using those old 300 baud acoustic coupler modems.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 12:55 PM

Why!? What ARE you using?

Score: 0

By Kahuna

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 5:42 AM

The day I would trust the motive of the CWA.....
The US is indeed falling behind on the bandwidth train. Some folks are correct in mentioning the geography being one of the challenges. Having such an old cable plant is another. AT&T is spending a ton of money conditioning pairs to get VDSL2 working at >4000'. While Verizon is spending tons and tons of money on FTTx. Verizon not only had to build a new infrastructure around FTTx but hey had to train their technicians to install and test it not to mention all the new equipment cost.

The backbone definetly needs to catch up. We are lucky in that that during the tech boom tons of fiber was put in the ground. With advances in DWDM technology and 100G the backbone could be upgraded fairly easy in comparison to the last mile.

Score: 0

By Wynner3

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 2:32 AM

No one will update the speed in my city so the max is 1.5mbps and it's slow. My ex-girlfriend gets 6.0mbps and she doesn't need it.

Score: 0

By alex_sporik

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 12:57 PM

Maybe for now. As soon as you fridge and oven start to be web-connected, as soon as you get HD IP-TV..... then she change the habits.

Score: 0

By fadeblack

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 10:58 PM

56k sucks! I hope one day it gets faster.

Score: 0

By hamstang

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 9:50 PM

The average US internet user probably has no clue what their download speed is...I said AVERAGE user......

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 7:30 PM

Verizon brags about the speed of FIOS, but I'll be 6 feet under before it's available. I'm paying big bucks for 750kps and that's at peak performance.

I live in Central Illinois and the nearest city which has FIOS is Fort Wayne, Indiana. You talk to them and all they have are excuses.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 1:36 PM

*laughing*

I swear all you do here is whine.

Verizon is laying down entirely new infrastructure for this. Considering that fact, you might be a bit more lenient on the timetables...

...if you weren't simply looking for more to complain about.

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 9:44 PM

I say sh*t taste bad. You probably consider it a delicacy.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 19, 2008 - 9:00 AM

Yeah, because you mean that much to me....

But you'd never say that. You'd just eat it and then whine about it as though the world made you do it and we should all feel so very sorry for you.

We do.

Really.

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 4:07 PM

"and even Canada, which has a median speed of 7.6 Mbps."

Even Canada. LMAO

Score: 0

By templarâ„¢

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 10:57 PM

LOL

Bad BN. Stop using Canada as a whipping boy.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 9:21 AM

Besides, we *all* know...they're not our whipping boy, they're our hat. ;)

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 3:11 PM

lol

Score: 0

By mdotwills

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 9:51 AM

1.5mbits is considered fast here in AUS. Do something you lazy government!

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 9:39 AM

I live 45 min away from the Nations Capital and i still have to use this crappy dialup......

No DSL for the next 10 years No cable

so go figure

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 10:52 PM

Let's see....considering traffic, that would put you in Anacostia...

And with the rampant cable theft, fiber may be the answer...

;-)

Score: 0

By vyrwz

edited Aug 15, 2008 - 7:42 PM

Im in Mexico a still a "third world" country and I live miles away from my nearest neighbor, i live in one of the poorest states called oaxaca which is mostly jungle and mountains, only a dirt road to get here . .

and still i have boardband 32MBdown and 4MBup and its fairly cheap $20 american dollars per month aprox.

dont know what's wrong with ISP's in america . .

Score: 0

By arq_carlos1

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 4:38 PM

Who is your ISP!!??? I live in Zacatecas and get 1024-128k. Real 400k and I pay 30 USD. Telmex?

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 1:00 PM

I think you ordered the wrong keyboard. Your K and M keys are swapped.

Score: 0

By DataWeasel

posted Aug 15, 2008 - 9:36 PM

Viva Mexico! Paying $39.99 for 1.5 Down and 256 up in Minnesota.

It's not the ISPs. People accept it in the US because 97% of the Internet users don't know how far behind the US speeds really are. We bend over backwards to get connected, get a computer to do what we need it to do, etc...then we bend over forwards and pay the bill every month.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 9:20 AM

Paying $39.99 for 1.5 Down and 256 up in Minnesota.

Just because you're a sucker doesn't mean it's anyone's fault but your own.

I live in MN as well. I get 10Mbps. I *could* get 50, for a nice bump in costs.

Score: 0

By sjc001

edited Aug 16, 2008 - 5:14 AM

That's the truth. American corporations are allowed to get away with the lie that it would be too difficult or expensive to upgrade their systems to the standard of the rest of the world at the same pace, but in reality they just want to get as much profit out of what they already have as they can. Profit is more important than service. And those apologists, for the Reich-wing, are constantly defending this belief that is ruining America.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Aug 18, 2008 - 1:32 PM

this belief that is ruining America.

Dude, according to you, *everything* is ruining America.

lmao...

You're almost as bad as those "MS is Doomed!" twats.

Score: 0

By clay_N

posted Aug 15, 2008 - 7:26 PM

Statistics, you can make the numbers say whatever you want. The US has 1) more land mass than all of the other countries mentioned combined. 2) the oldest telephone and cable TV infrastructure in the world. 3) More miles of this old cabling than all other countries combined. Verizon and Comcast will help to catch us up to the rest of the planet. Unfortunately, at&t's UVerse plan doesn't cut the mustard as a suitable next gen technology.

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 3:51 AM

It cannot be any excuse. More than 90% of Finland are forests and a part of the country is even behind the North Pole (Santa Claus lives there :-) http://www.santaclausvillage.info ). The density of population is one of the lowest in the world. On the other hand almost 80% of the area of Japan are high mountains similar to the higher parts of the Rockies. Moreover, the Japanese have earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and volcanoes. Not an easy place for providing the Net.

Score: 0

By Replytodumbass

edited Aug 16, 2008 - 2:29 AM

Have you not looked at a map lately?

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 3:15 PM

Apparently you haven't looked at a population density map recently.

Score: 0

By sjc001

edited Aug 15, 2008 - 8:45 PM

Not larger than Canada. Canada is the second largest nation on Earth, second to Russia. America is either third or forth now. In 1958, the CBC completed the longest television network in the world, from Sydney, Nova Scotia to Victoria, British Columbia. Reportedly, the first continuous live broadcast of a breaking news story in the world was conducted by the CBC during the Springhill Mining Disaster which began on October 23 of that year.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 7:19 PM

Most of Canada's pop is along the border. Far easier to bring the last mile. Much of the U.S. is rural.

Score: 0

By alex_sporik

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 1:01 PM

In Russia MOST of the territory is rural or better say extreme wild. But government manage to install satellite/fiber and provide connection wherever its needed. Especially focused on remote learning, tele-medicine, conferences, voip and so on.

Shame on you americans!

Score: 0

By pmmr

edited Aug 15, 2008 - 7:19 PM

I'm from Portugal and I've got 24 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream ;)

Score: 0

By xanax

posted Aug 15, 2008 - 5:57 PM

Read carefully guys, MEDIAN download speed. Yes, we can get fast connections here in Canada, but you'll pay big bucks. My ISP offers 50 Mbps but there's limit (combined) of 50 GB. What's the point?! I'm still using the good old unlimited 7 Mbps.

Score: 0

By shicaca

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 6:01 PM

Yeah. Median. That means middle. That means statistically speaking (if this is just including HOME users) the middle of the road w/ all customers are able to get those speeds. From what it sounds, they don't include dialup either.

I personally worked at an ISP

Score: 0

By sjc001

edited Aug 15, 2008 - 7:07 PM

My provider doesn't have any limits..... Plus, when it went from 10Mbps to 15 they only raised the price by a dollar and that from 5 to 10 $5 more.

Score: 0

By Jordanr05

edited Aug 15, 2008 - 6:07 PM

To be honest, that's more than enough if you're an average home user (the 7Mpbs).

Score: 0

By xanax

posted Aug 15, 2008 - 6:28 PM

It's quite good but I must admit I'm a bit disappointed. Our ISPs and cell companies seem to go backwards. I've been on the 10 Mbps plan (UNLIMITED) for years and they suddenly decided to force limits. The funny thing is they used to tell me: "More than 90% customers don't download more than X GB per month". So, why the limit now? They just can't give me a straight answer. What? Suddenly, 5-10% of the customers are sucking ALL the bandwith? Whatever.

Oh, and Euros got better connections overall. They have amazing upload speeds too..

I like my ISP anyway, rock solid, practically no downtime and my download speed is very stable. I just had to get used to 815KB/s downloads, compared to 1150KB/s heh!

Score: 0

By lazarus98

posted Aug 15, 2008 - 5:54 PM

In the US, the ISP's are all about the money. The Bandwidth is there, but they want the money for the speed.

Score: 0

By rsx508

edited Aug 15, 2008 - 9:09 PM

As if ISP's are some sort of public charity or utility service. They're not. They qualify as businesses so, like all businesses, they exist purely for profit. Nothing else.

In any case, back on the original topic: Many countries didn't have legacy infrastructure to deal with, so whatever they have is probably their first deployment. Let's see if they can keep up with current technology in ten years and compare it to the US.

Score: 0

By dan-0

edited Aug 18, 2008 - 10:11 PM

While you paint the picture that these companies are "just doing business", the digression that they represent in the name of money is appalling. They regularly throw money at congressmen for favors and keep the profit streams rolling.

We suck at providing to our people. Aren't we the ones that are supposed to make these decisions? Lemmings. If you don't protest, make your voice heard, all you will have is 1.5 for 24.99 with a telco, and they won't offer it for the second year or 6 Mb (and this is what the offer contrary to MB) for $45 with the cable provider, if you have one...

But if you get the triple play...

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 5:10 AM

Have you been to Europe?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Aug 15, 2008 - 6:14 PM

Such a simplistic analysis.

Nevermind issues of population densities and distances, just reduce it to ISP "greed".

Here's a suggestion you will be sure to like...How about YOU shoulder the real costs of delivering the necessary infrastructure to a remote location so that you and maybe one other neighbor can benefit rather then expecting everyone else to subsidize the costs? Or, do you want to shoulder the costs of the buildout of the network sufficient to support 100% broadband? You might want to to examine some of the physical topology of the terrain as well as population densities in places such as rural New Mexico, Nevada, and other rugged sparsely populated areas.

The fact is, but virtue that the US is one of the FEW countries (especially considering size!) that is essentially fully electrified and wired for landline, 'all' have at least dialup access. But unfortunately, that is not the sole determinant for 'broadband/high speed' access!

But then someone familiar with the technological requirements of telephony and networking, in addition to the associated costs, would know that and not simply make overly simplistic attributions that lack substance or credibility.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Aug 15, 2008 - 7:03 PM

Shill.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 10:49 PM

Poor baby...

Score: 0

By lazarus98

posted Aug 15, 2008 - 6:51 PM

Of course it's simplistic. It comes down to that. As far as me shouldering the expense. I already do to some extent. I've been in the business for 20+ years helping design this stuff. Mixing your overly academic viewpoint of a simple situation is to erudite for me.

Score: 0

By Jordanr05

edited Aug 15, 2008 - 5:45 PM

I've got 25 Mbps here in Canada (Shaw Nitro). And what's with the article saying, "Even Canada...". ****ers.

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 1:12 AM

Must be nice shaw hasn't got extreme or nitro in my area yet been waiting forever it seems.

Score: 0

By gregmlr

posted Aug 15, 2008 - 11:45 PM

Hahahaha, I just noticed the humor in that statement!

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Aug 15, 2008 - 5:35 PM

My ISP offers 15 Mbps in part of Canada.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 9:15 AM

My ISP offers 50 Mbps. I Minneapolis. Minnesota. USA.

Imagine that....

Score: 0

By i2k

posted Aug 16, 2008 - 12:27 PM

FIOS
20 up 20 down.

Score: 0

By traumadoc

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 1:57 AM

Come on over to China folks. I have a 10 MB (megabyte, not megabit) line in my complex and I pay the equivalent of $180 per YEAR with no limits of control. Sure as hell beats the numbers discussed here like I had when I still lived back home in Texas.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 3:18 PM

Screw China.

Score: 0

By luna

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 8:03 AM

So all that government monitoring and blocking doesn't slow down the connection?

Score: 0

By duhovnik

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 12:53 PM

filtering pictures of the freedom square with demonstrants and texts including phrase "chinese president is a red commie pig" is much easier than decoding tons of pgped messages to look for potential terrorist threats (and oversea commercial espionage) and visual check of pictures and videos whether they do not contain kiddy porn. go figure!

Score: 0

By traumadoc

posted Aug 17, 2008 - 12:22 PM

How, pray tell, would MONITORING slow the internet? And, for that matter, how would the inability to get to a page or two, make the internet slower ? That makes no sense.

In fact, the "great firewall" is completely bypassable. To be honest, there is very little I'm unable to see because of government intervention. The things that are banned are basically things I don't give a crrrrap about. When needing to get to something that is blocked, a simple proxy, shell, etc are entirely usable. There is no blocking of files sharing such as torrent, etc.

It's seemless for the most part

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 2:04 AM

Please read the research and test cases before mouthing off about it. In regards to firewalls, the latest filtering tests run in Australia CLEARLY demonstrated it's still slows internet access, sometimes quite significantly. Also the pages (wrongly) blocked are still far too high - even at 1%, you're talking hundreds of thousands of pages being blocked.

And as you say, filtering only works on HTTP and sometimes HTTPS. Completely waste of time and money. :P

Score: 0

By skua

posted Aug 18, 2008 - 11:03 AM

Still stuck with dial-up here in NE PA... about halfway between New York City and Philadelphia. Don't give me any population density or oldest infrastructure bull... there's absolutely no excuse. Welcome to the new Third World baby.

Score: 0