>Still, the United States only ranks 25 out of 39 nations in 2013, according to the FCC. It said the United States was behind many countries including France, Canada, Germany and Japan -- but ahead of Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Israel. The fastest was Luxembourg with average download speeds of 47.32 Mbps.
A lot of technology infrastructures (Internet service, cell-phone coverage, Credit transactions) were first established in America long before many other countries.
So what you have are these massively sized infrastructures that are outdated but get the job done, and are too big to actually upgrade or re-build.
Not when it "gets the job done."
One town probably has a lot of people who would love something like Google Fiber. But there is probably twenty times that amount of people who use the internet for simple website browsing and likely don't even know what a megabit per second is.
In my city enough people complained en masse that Time Warner's Roadrunner service got rid of their datacaps and now offer truly unlimited internet.
Those same people threatened to leave Roadrunner when Google came to town, so in response Time Warner upgraded their infrastructure and more than tripled everyone customer's mbps for the same price. I myself went from 20 to 100 mbps and I pay the same.
Time Warner knows that the increased cost of that infrastructure upgrade will be paid off in no time through keeping customers loyal and charging them slightly more, thus rendering them profit and making the shareholders happy. It's a win/win to upgrade infrastructure if only the management of these ISP/media megacorporations like Comcast and Time Warner Cable would take the initial risk of investment.
If we agree that the only reason your town got it's infrastructure upgraded because the entire city's populace cared enough about fast internet and we agree most of America's ISP infrastructure is outdated or in poor quality, the logical conclusion is that only towns with people who care about fast internet get their infrastructure upgraded and that there are very few towns that do indeed have upgraded infrastructure because there aren't many people who care about fast internet.
Which was my original point that you have just agreed with now. What the fuck nigga?
I'm simply skeptical that people are willing to settle for antiquated 20th century coax cable infrastructure for very long, no matter how small the town is.
The profit motive of the media/cableTV corporations that are also the major ISPs is all too apparent and naked in everything they do from the net neutrality debate to the willing cooperation with the worst parts of the DIA and NSA to their congressional lobbying and litigiousness on intellectual property law .
>I'm simply skeptical that people are willing to settle for antiquated 20th century coax cable infrastructure for very long, no matter how small the town is.
Keep in mind that most people are using the internet for Facebook and video streaming. Both of which are easily done on 1mb/s and up.
I agree with you that it sucks, but it is simply companies responding to the wants of their majority customers. Or in this case, not responding to the unwanted things of the majority customers. Of course, as the current generation moves into their own houses, I'm sure we will see a lot more places banding together and demanding better internet speeds.
>Keep in mind that most people are using the internet for Facebook and video streaming. Both of which are easily done on 1mb/s and up.
Ahh yes the standard talking point of the corporate ISP. They've been saying that since 2008 at least. I'm not saying I don't believe it, I'd just like to see one traffic stat that backs that up. If you google it you get a million clickbait stories with varying stats from the time Comcast and Netflix were suing each other.
Im in rural washington man, I feel you. Centurylink is total jew tier, we lose internet at least once every few days if not multiple times a day. We lost internet for a month a year ago and they said there was nothing wrong with the internet, and when we got it back we had dial up speeds for a few days for it.
The issue is, we allow these companies to get monopolies so they charge you out the ass for shit service.
>we allow these companies to get monopolies so they charge you out the ass for shit service.
People just expect them to be absolute shit at service and customer relations so nobody complains when they live up to their reputation.
I can say without a doubt that 1mb service is not good enough to stream netflix on hd without having to buffer every other second.
Source: the backwater town my aunt lives in.
I personally dont think anything is going to change untill the majority of customers have an issue with it. Which has already been stated.
But i really think that when things like 360 video, vr, and more powerful tablets/smartphones take off (which i give 2-3 years) you will see a much larger neccesity for higher speeds and companies will have to oblige. But even then its still just dependent on demand. Places like mississipi or montana are probably not going to have a large enough population of people who care. Whereas more modern cities with higher population of younger citizens and more software development startups and buisnesses are. You are going to see the demand.
What google is doing is weird. It seems like they are just trying to force other isps to compete without focusing on getting people on fiber. Its actually pretty smart because even if people dont switch to their google fiber service and just stay with their service provider who bumped up there speed that means that those people would still be using google quicker, looking at more ads, all at the same time becoming more used to the internet and using it more.
or maybe i have no idea what im talking about
>10meg DSL and love Century Link.
This is disgusting.
It's like someone who had never watched television before in 2016 getting a Black and White TV set from 1975 and thinking it's the best thing ever.
Century link has you thinking 1999 level DSL is acceptable. Even if you don't use the bandwidth, you shouldn't settle for 10% of the speed they have in other rural communities simply because your ISP can't be bothered to invest in their own infrastructure.
>What do I need faster internet for?
That you haven't figure out what you need it for yet is no excuse not to have it.
If you truly have a max speed of 10mbps, that's what the lowest tier speed is in my area. People are paying $7.95 per month here for that level of service. What are you paying?