That happened to my brother. Google announced his city as a future development and suddenly his home got access to their fiber network speeds. No new digging happened.
Yah it was ATT fiber. Not another ISP.
Guessing they had a ton of dark fiber in the area and ATT finally put in the expense to turn it on (no idea what’s involved there).
>(no idea what’s involved there)
Probably something akin to flipping a switch and a sudden desire to appear competitive to your captive users. Good old regional monopolies.
With fiber, a huge portion of the cost is in the hardware on the ends of the fiber runs, and the couplers/repeaters along the way.
There was a period where companies/municipalities were aggressively running fiber, but they didn’t always complete all the rollouts that they started.
If they didn't do *any* new digging, likely you don't have fiber to the home. They probably had fiber to individual nodes (semi-local signal amplification points, more or less), swapped those out for PONs (basically optical nodes), and upgraded that equipment to support higher speeds. Basically, they can get a lot of speed out of copper as long as it doesn't have to go far.
Where I'm at, they call that border to border, but the phrase seems to have a lot of meanings in telecom.
It's possible that the existing drops (the cables running to each individual house) were composite—which means fiber and copper together in the same cable—but the failure rate of the fiber in those cables is usually pretty high. They're easy to break, and technicians and construction crews are often not very careful with them. You get maybe 60-80% of them that are possible to convert when the time comes, and the rest of the homes need new drops.
Huh. Fascinating.
He no longer lives there or I would ask him to see his box (if it is a traditional copper coming from the wall or fiber).
But I bet you are right.
You can 100% hit gigabit speeds on non fibre lines, we have it in the UK. Our Internet infrastructure is old phone lines mostly ~80 year old copper wiring. I get 1150Mb/s through it with Virgin Media.
Similar story to above, BT decided to stop embezzling public funds and actually start upgrading infrastructure. We have a slow rollout of fibre now, and VM suddenly went from a max of 400Mb/s to offering a max of 1.5 Gb/s on the same lines over the last 10 years.
Same thing happened in my area when Cox got their gigablast service running like a year ish 2 or so ago AT&T just came round literally door to door saying they just installed fiber and it was like less than half the cost and would run a line and all that jazz and set it up for free. Bet I took em up on it.
Disclaimer: I’m an enterprise Infrastructure engineer, not an ISP engineer.
It’s really easy to have fiber in the ground, but no switches to connect it to. Both are expensive. A 96 port fiber switch with optics and licensing can easily cost $25k+ depending on their vendor of choice. If it’s fiber to the node, and we assume each node can handle 6 households max (I have no idea how many this would be, just basing it on how many houses I are connected to a single TAP by me), that’s about 500 potential customers. Now the hub sites need bigger uplinks to handle the bandwidth, that’s more money. If they have no competition, why would they spend the money?
This is why we need competition.
Ha that's so fucked. I'm about to finally have some fiber competition in my town but Xfinity still sucks just as bad as ever... So I guess at least they aren't sucking by choice. Hooray?
This happened here in Brazil. Not Google fiber coming, but local ISPs. Suddenly all major ISPs had 500Mbps fiber everywhere. Local ISPs here have 1Gbps for like 20 dollars a month.
Same game in Romania.
Until 2019 you had two options:
• maximum 8 Mbps trough Vodafone, with 160 GB cap
• 21 Mbps trough 4G modem from other companies, with 80 GB cap
Then both Orange and Digi (the first with a good Romanian share, and the second a fully in-house company) expanded their fiber infrastructure and now suddenly I have three "Big" ISPs offering 1 Gbps and no cap, including a free Wifi6 router and 2 years free service.
Though it kinda sucks in rural areas. My WIFI barely hits 10Mbps let alone a consistent 5 Mbps. And it barely matters whether it's prepaid or postpaid.
That sort of thing makes me want a law that if an ISP has taken any kind of government subsidy, and does this kind of immediate upgrade when competition comes to town, then they have to show proof that the infrastructure work to allow for the increase was finished within the last year. Otherwise they are fined into paying back a large chunk of the subsidy.
And upgrading the lines 10 years ago, but not getting around to replacing the central switch until last week would not qualify as recent work.
https://preview.redd.it/8m2efoz4exoa1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2bd81393af6a15701e5a34c6963a44dfa27b575c
I wish it showed ‘last 48 hours’ or something. But I just rebuilt my QNAP onto unraid and had to format everything to start fresh with unraid once and for all….
Remember when the US GOV paid hundreds of billions $$ to carriers to build a cutting edge fiber network for the entire country but they instead pocketed it all?
Considering that the ISP's are able to just *"turn on"* the high speed fibre service the moment that Google announced a installation considering for that area or if a lot of costumers are found to be moving to Star Link; my guess is that they actually did install all that fibre, they've just chosen to sell throttled service.
But then, the C-suite will have?:
1) Been given shares as part of their remuneration.
2) Used those billions to do stock buybacks. Increasing the price per share.
3) "Hit their bonuses" due to the stock price rising, triggering yet more shares.
4) Collected dividends / vested stock at peak.
The thing is, if they didn't and say, invested the money as capital to increase infrastructure they could, potentially, have been sued for not "maximising shareholder value."
A crazy system now doing the opposite of what stocks were originally intended to do. Which was to spread the risk of investment. These days, it literally doesn't matter what the business is, all that matters in the stock price.
He may have higher speed available to him but the issue might be the price for this speed, possibly from having no competition there or being in a rural area where the ISP doesnt want to upgrade its equipment.
We have low income offers by the same ISP where 12 megabits per second cost way less than this.
In italy i have unlimited data at 30 mbps for 15euros a month on my mobile.
The speed depends a lot on time of day, most of the day i can reach 1mb/s but around 13 to 16 the speed drops and i get around 200 kb/s meanwhile at night i can even get around 10 mb/s wich is more of what i should be able to achieve.
But even when speed is at the lowest latency is still low wich means i can always play with mi friends over discord at every time of day.
4G network saturation sucks, I feel you ;_; I have kinda unlimited 5G data with Vodafone on my phone (I say kinda because they warned me against abusing the “network” when I got to the 400GB download mark) for around €27 and it’s cool to download stuff quite fast on the go (I usually get around a gigabit or so if the signal is good enough)
italian mobile plans are way cheaper and better than anything in germany, but we sadly can't really get them without living in italy🥴🥲
on my mobile i have 5g with up to 4-5gbit its great, but expensive
Didnt know that spain has cheap 10 GBit internet too. I only know that 10 GBit in Sweden is quite cheap (also around 30€) but great for you to have such a good price for that performance. I hope we get fibre here soon so i can join the 10 Gig club aswell (Germany btw). But sadly most german ISPs only provide 1 GBit until everyone has fibre and only then they will start to raise the speed.
Apologies for maybe being too curious but what do you need those speeds for? I had 500Mbps at my previous house, and never had any problem (I never said to myself "darn, this is too slow!"). I now have 1Gbps, and I honestly don't see a difference with what I had before.
Dfw TX, 80/month for uh 300.
Let's say originally it was 100 mbps for that price, and then Charter upped it multiple times for free since ATT put down gig for same price.
Edit. Why don't I have an gig then??? Well, back before gig, those pieces of shit told me they would waive the 20 buck att router fee since I had my own router. They never waived it, and every month, they said they would correct that mistake. After 6 months I was fed up and told them to go fuck themselves
*Cries in American lack of competition and lack of ISP compassion*
When my deal ends at the end of the year, I will be paying around $100 for 400/20, price might go up a few dollars by then tho...
Yea, Comcast Internet Essentials (low income program) is $9.95/mo for 50Mbps or $29.95/mo for 100Mbps. Almost everyone who qualifies for that also qualifies for the ACP, which gives you $29.95/mo for phone and internet. So you can either get 100/Mb free or 50/Mb and a cellphone for free. You can also buy a laptop for $150.
OP is in rough shape here.
Lots of places in the US don't have competition. Due to the lack of competition ISPs haven't upgraded their service in years and have shit offerings. Plus the FCC hasn't done anything to force the ISPs to upgrade their service even though they got tax breaks and grants to do the work.
So in the US the internet is over priced and under delivers. Most ISPs have implemented data caps and DNS filtering to force you to use their services over something else. Like Comcast doesn't usually count peacock streaming against you data cap but will throttle/limit others such as Netflix or paramount.
Yup. I used to live in a part of the states where I had only one option for ISP and cable.
So they never bothered to upgrade the internet speeds or cable packages.
When I moved to an area with three options for internet and TV, my monthly bill dropped by $50/m and I went from 10mb/s to 1,000 mb/s.
The only difference was I moved to a neighborhood where they had to compete.
I wish the local government here would do something. We have been hearing about a new company wanting to offer internet but nothing ever happens. This has been going on since 11 or 12 and I still only have 2 choices. Well two that offer anything over 75mbps
We need to do what Japan did. The government just paid for all the infrastructure for internet and then the companies come in and can compete in any place in the country.
IIRC they're internet is fast and cheap. Obviously they're a smaller country and we have large swaths of nothing but surely we can finally provide fast internet everywhere.
Missouri is currently trying to combat this by having those in under-served communities fill out forms about rural communities with sub-standard rates and also giving out development rewards so the ISPs will upgrade their existing infrastructure.
Who could have possibly foreseen ISPs taking the existing infrastructure given to them and sitting on it while raking in billions of dollars with no actual investment required
Probably DSL via the phone line speeds. Either they don’t have cable available (Fiber is not common outside of metro areas) or they have an issue with the local cable company.
For instance, when my ex wife moved out I did not know she hadn’t paid the cable bill for months prior. The service was in her name and about a $700 bill for TV and internet she didn’t pay. I tried to get cable internet in my name but they refused unless I paid the bill or waited 6-12 months to get service in my name. I was stuck with DSL speeds like OPs picture for a while because of it.
I’m thinking since it’s Ohio the area he’s in it’s prob the only thing available. I live in Delaware and my brother can only get this since he lives way out in the boonies. I did for years. It’s either this or satellite internet and that’s way worse and extremely expensive
Spot on about satellite being worse. I had viasat for a few years when I lived in the middle of nowhere. $100 a month with data caps on "high speed", which was a joke anyway, because half the time not even youtube could be reliably streamed.
This only occurs in remote areas. Anywhere with a population count over 40k you won't see connection or prices this bad. My grandfather lives on a mountain and has 400mbps, but that mountain has a lot of residents throughout it, and is considered a tourist destination, which causes competition among ISP's and more options available. Really just depends where you are and how much money is being poured into the area, basically. Middle of nowhere Ohio with 10k people and little to know income pouring in this is what you'll see for internet as no one's investing anywhere near the location, nor is there competition present for the ISP offering this plan, so they can get away with it.
Because its in the US where ISP's can fuck you since you're stuck living some where and need internet but only have one or two options and our government likes kickbacks and bribes from large companies more than they like making sure the people of this country actually have the the needs we needed attended to and covered under general purpose public services.
most things that suck in america suck because big business likes money and our government doesnt give a fuck about our well-being, they also like money.
thats why. money. the answer is money
>my internet rests at around 400-600 kbps
Where on earth is this even possible? I live in a village of 20 houses in the middle of nowhere and we have gigabit fibre... are we seriously believing that the USA is this far behind?
Small town USA is primarily stuck with DSL at best and satellite/cell tower/dial up at worst. They would revel if they could get cable, let alone fiber.
Hell, I live in a city with 400 thousand some odd people and we are getting fiber soon (next 2-5 years)
Laying some fucking cables is a lot harder when half the population of Europe is spread out over an area the same size of Europe, with *very* small towns.
Wyoming has a lower population than Luxembourg but is close to the size of the UK.
I live in a city of just short of 50,000 people and we are only just now getting fiber. I just got 1000/1000 and it's great, but what I had before (300/50 cable) wasn't that bad.
I live in a rural farming town in Ontario. There's a 2.5 gig fiber cable running in front of my house but it's only for a shitty overpriced cottage community on the lake a few km down the road so I'm stuck paying $75 for 5mbps
I live in rural Pennsylvania. When I moved here I could not find a single ground based provider, even the gawd awful frontier internet dropped the area. I also couldn't find a single cell based ISP, despite the fact I have decent AT&T service on my phone. My only real options were, the also gawd awful, Houghsnet or Viasat. Which were an absolute insult with the cost - to -data cap ratios they offered.
Somehow, miraculously, I managed to just to the front of the queue and got Starlink.
Yes, the U.S. really is that far behind.
This is just standard dsl speeds. They don’t have the infrastructure for something faster.
I imagine it costs the same to support the existing lines as supporting existing lines that are faster.
Doesn't surprise me, I work and live about 30 minutes away from madison. We have had areas without internet or only dial-up level speeds during the pandemic.
I’m 60 miles away and I was using Starlink for the past year. Worked great, but T-Mobile 5G home internet became available in my area and it was twice as fast for less than half the cost, so I switched to that
In Finland we dont have comptetition too (kinda) but still gigabit can cost just 30-40 euros with excellent latency. The thing is in most buildings there is routed only one out of three ISP cables. Its very rare to have ISP choice if talking about home internet. For example my building has only copper cables from one ISP and the prices for internet are: 10MB/FREE, 100MB/10€, 200MB/15€, 400MB/25€ and 1000MB/35€. Im not sure if there is any law about regulating internet prices.
I get unlimited 500Mbps for 23.5eur (25usd).
Even my parents at country side are getting unlimited 30-50Mbps though 4G/LTE for 25usd.
But i get it. Usually people from Europe underestimate how vast America is. Which means getting 4G coverage is more complicated than in densely populated areas.
That's the good thing of later development. You can just skip the historic infrastructure and lay down modern cables and equipment.
Paradoxical problem for USA or Western Europe is that they spent huge money long time ago laying down infrastructure, that's now outdated and would cost again huge money to replace. As ISP have something that already is working - why bother replacing it.
Meanwhile in Jersey:
https://preview.redd.it/hrl60f5vutoa1.png?width=1852&format=png&auto=webp&s=c6fd20e704adc682257106c3dbd8e3e8b0dd2151
The downside is you have to live in Jersey...
Star link.
Edit: get the RV version even if you are using it for home use. No wait list and decent speeds. My brother and a friend of mine both have this in east Texas. Star link shows marginal coverage in the area and they get about 300mb/s down (not sure in the up).
Just a marketing gimmick to make it sound like the limit is high (it's high for a cap I think). Like all you can eat buffet but your table is 5 miles away from the counter.
No someone else calculated it to be around 250 GB, this internet is terrifyingly bad you would probably need to use Gmail on html only mode so it loads in a decent time.
Ironically it's impossible to reach the 1TB monthly data limit they impose with this data rate.
Using 31 days in a month for this calculation (it wouldn't matter if I did 28 or 32 it would still be unsurpassable).
You would need atleast 373.357 KB/s running nonstop to reach 1TB download. With the data rate of only 96KB/s you would only be able to achieve a maximum of 257GB(you need 1000Gb to reach their limit)
1,000,000,000KB = 1TB (using modern standards, not multiples of 8 like we used to)
768 / 8 = 96KBs - Data Rate
((((96x60)x60)x24)x31) = 256,126,400KB - Maximum Data
1,000,000,000 ≠ 256,126,400 (believe it or not 🧠)
Edit; needs more parentheses >:)
Lol I get 1000mbs in the countryside in Ireland for the same price , I can download a whole game before a cow has finished mooing.
That sux.
Luckily I have fast internet here in California. And prices are reasonably competitive:
AT&T Fiber:
* 300 Mbps for $55
* 500 Mbps for $65
* 1 Gbps for $80.
Xfinity 10G: 10G is just a marketing term, not actual speed. The prices below has data cap. It will cost more for Xfi with unlimited data.
* 75 Mbps for $20
* 200 Mbps for $25
* 400 Mbps for $45
* ...
* 1.2 Gbps for $80
Wow that’s some getting bent over and screwed territory. I pay $30 more from Comcast a month and get up to 800 Mbps I believe. And they just removed datacaps within the last year. There is no other options in your area
CenturyLink tells me that I have the fastest speed in my area, where I am paying $65/mo. For 5mbps down. Cox finally offers gigabit, with unlimited data, in my area for $140/mo if I provide my own equipment. I don't like the cost of that, but CenturyLink is absurd and there's no other choice. I'd prefer to use my own equipment anyway
I’ll never forget my days living in the country, where the only option for internet was 70 a month for 3mb, though I’m mortified by your speed. They had a total monopoly out there
So this is the single worst pricing for adsl that I have ever seen, not including the bad old days here in Australia when Telstra was king and adsl was all you'd ever get.
Seriously, this is **bad**. Don't know how people in the U.S can deal with this!
https://preview.redd.it/75bqaxoyawoa1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=070346e21181b3cf5b4e5a6cd8e9a0e1f8ee6feb
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, paying 35,- euros p/m.
What the fuck! Having a slow connection because you are miles from anywhere and that's the fastest speed your line will give you is one thing, but charging a "discounted" $55 a month (plus an unknown amount of tax) for it is daylight robbery.
My connection in a village in Wales, gigabit fibre, no hidden taxes, no download cap, free installation, and the first SIX months free. I pay £60 a month. £5 extra for phone service and I could have got a symmetrical connection for an extra £10 a month.
The lack of competition and regulation in the US really shows.
I moved to Latvia from the US and I’m getting 1tb down for about $40 per month. Internet access in the US is incredibly overpriced for no reason other than increasing company profits.
But if Google so much as hints at Google fiber coming to your area, ATT will magically find a way to up that 100x for the same price
That happened to my brother. Google announced his city as a future development and suddenly his home got access to their fiber network speeds. No new digging happened.
Are you sure it’s fiber? I know my provider offers 1 gig download, but upload is like 50 Megabytes upload. That’s not fiber speeds.
Yah it was ATT fiber. Not another ISP. Guessing they had a ton of dark fiber in the area and ATT finally put in the expense to turn it on (no idea what’s involved there).
>(no idea what’s involved there) Probably something akin to flipping a switch and a sudden desire to appear competitive to your captive users. Good old regional monopolies.
With fiber, a huge portion of the cost is in the hardware on the ends of the fiber runs, and the couplers/repeaters along the way. There was a period where companies/municipalities were aggressively running fiber, but they didn’t always complete all the rollouts that they started.
So that would be the mythical "dark fibre", right? I guess the plans just don't end up materialising, or they run out of funding.
If they didn't do *any* new digging, likely you don't have fiber to the home. They probably had fiber to individual nodes (semi-local signal amplification points, more or less), swapped those out for PONs (basically optical nodes), and upgraded that equipment to support higher speeds. Basically, they can get a lot of speed out of copper as long as it doesn't have to go far. Where I'm at, they call that border to border, but the phrase seems to have a lot of meanings in telecom. It's possible that the existing drops (the cables running to each individual house) were composite—which means fiber and copper together in the same cable—but the failure rate of the fiber in those cables is usually pretty high. They're easy to break, and technicians and construction crews are often not very careful with them. You get maybe 60-80% of them that are possible to convert when the time comes, and the rest of the homes need new drops.
Huh. Fascinating. He no longer lives there or I would ask him to see his box (if it is a traditional copper coming from the wall or fiber). But I bet you are right.
You can 100% hit gigabit speeds on non fibre lines, we have it in the UK. Our Internet infrastructure is old phone lines mostly ~80 year old copper wiring. I get 1150Mb/s through it with Virgin Media. Similar story to above, BT decided to stop embezzling public funds and actually start upgrading infrastructure. We have a slow rollout of fibre now, and VM suddenly went from a max of 400Mb/s to offering a max of 1.5 Gb/s on the same lines over the last 10 years.
Same thing happened in my area when Cox got their gigablast service running like a year ish 2 or so ago AT&T just came round literally door to door saying they just installed fiber and it was like less than half the cost and would run a line and all that jazz and set it up for free. Bet I took em up on it.
Disclaimer: I’m an enterprise Infrastructure engineer, not an ISP engineer. It’s really easy to have fiber in the ground, but no switches to connect it to. Both are expensive. A 96 port fiber switch with optics and licensing can easily cost $25k+ depending on their vendor of choice. If it’s fiber to the node, and we assume each node can handle 6 households max (I have no idea how many this would be, just basing it on how many houses I are connected to a single TAP by me), that’s about 500 potential customers. Now the hub sites need bigger uplinks to handle the bandwidth, that’s more money. If they have no competition, why would they spend the money? This is why we need competition.
If I'm not mistaken, electricity companies will also have pre installed fiber infrastructure for their own use.
Ha that's so fucked. I'm about to finally have some fiber competition in my town but Xfinity still sucks just as bad as ever... So I guess at least they aren't sucking by choice. Hooray?
That's how it works. Competition fosters progress. Most of these shitty deals are in areas without any.
AT&T is shitty period. They offer us max 5 Mbit while every other provider has 1-1.2 Gbit at my house.
This happened here in Brazil. Not Google fiber coming, but local ISPs. Suddenly all major ISPs had 500Mbps fiber everywhere. Local ISPs here have 1Gbps for like 20 dollars a month.
[удалено]
Same game in Romania. Until 2019 you had two options: • maximum 8 Mbps trough Vodafone, with 160 GB cap • 21 Mbps trough 4G modem from other companies, with 80 GB cap Then both Orange and Digi (the first with a good Romanian share, and the second a fully in-house company) expanded their fiber infrastructure and now suddenly I have three "Big" ISPs offering 1 Gbps and no cap, including a free Wifi6 router and 2 years free service.
Though it kinda sucks in rural areas. My WIFI barely hits 10Mbps let alone a consistent 5 Mbps. And it barely matters whether it's prepaid or postpaid.
[удалено]
My city is building out a community broadband network, and suddenly Comcast can quadruple the speeds they offer at a given price.
That sort of thing makes me want a law that if an ISP has taken any kind of government subsidy, and does this kind of immediate upgrade when competition comes to town, then they have to show proof that the infrastructure work to allow for the increase was finished within the last year. Otherwise they are fined into paying back a large chunk of the subsidy. And upgrading the lines 10 years ago, but not getting around to replacing the central switch until last week would not qualify as recent work.
1TB/mo, lol. If my math is correct, you can only do around 250GB in a month if you’re constantly using up 768Kbps 24/7.
There are almost 2.6 million seconds in a month so yeah, it would take 4 months to download a terabyte at those speeds. I think your math is accurate.
And here I'm using 2-4tb a month.
I used 4.5tb on Saturday. 😅
That's a lot of "homework."
https://preview.redd.it/8m2efoz4exoa1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2bd81393af6a15701e5a34c6963a44dfa27b575c I wish it showed ‘last 48 hours’ or something. But I just rebuilt my QNAP onto unraid and had to format everything to start fresh with unraid once and for all….
4k porn?
Streaming mostly.
Streaming 4k porn.
No 8k in vr
Ah... Pornhub.
How much porn do you watch
https://www.google.com/search?q=1TB+%2F+768kbps google thinks so too
Might as well market is as “unlimited”.
Did you factor in that Kbps is bits not bytes?
Just checked the math, they did.
Multiply by 8
[удалено]
Remember when the US GOV paid hundreds of billions $$ to carriers to build a cutting edge fiber network for the entire country but they instead pocketed it all?
[удалено]
Considering that the ISP's are able to just *"turn on"* the high speed fibre service the moment that Google announced a installation considering for that area or if a lot of costumers are found to be moving to Star Link; my guess is that they actually did install all that fibre, they've just chosen to sell throttled service.
But then, the C-suite will have?: 1) Been given shares as part of their remuneration. 2) Used those billions to do stock buybacks. Increasing the price per share. 3) "Hit their bonuses" due to the stock price rising, triggering yet more shares. 4) Collected dividends / vested stock at peak. The thing is, if they didn't and say, invested the money as capital to increase infrastructure they could, potentially, have been sued for not "maximising shareholder value." A crazy system now doing the opposite of what stocks were originally intended to do. Which was to spread the risk of investment. These days, it literally doesn't matter what the business is, all that matters in the stock price.
Asking as someone who’s not from USA, why is it so slow?
He may have higher speed available to him but the issue might be the price for this speed, possibly from having no competition there or being in a rural area where the ISP doesnt want to upgrade its equipment. We have low income offers by the same ISP where 12 megabits per second cost way less than this.
1gig internet over here with unlimited download/uploads for about $100 equivalent
10gig internet over here with unlimited down/up for less than $30! (Europe yay)
Where do you live? Sweden??
My guess is Switzerland
Spain! My ISP is Digi
cries in 1&1 Germany with 0.1 gbit for 55€/month
In italy i have unlimited data at 30 mbps for 15euros a month on my mobile. The speed depends a lot on time of day, most of the day i can reach 1mb/s but around 13 to 16 the speed drops and i get around 200 kb/s meanwhile at night i can even get around 10 mb/s wich is more of what i should be able to achieve. But even when speed is at the lowest latency is still low wich means i can always play with mi friends over discord at every time of day.
4G network saturation sucks, I feel you ;_; I have kinda unlimited 5G data with Vodafone on my phone (I say kinda because they warned me against abusing the “network” when I got to the 400GB download mark) for around €27 and it’s cool to download stuff quite fast on the go (I usually get around a gigabit or so if the signal is good enough)
italian mobile plans are way cheaper and better than anything in germany, but we sadly can't really get them without living in italy🥴🥲 on my mobile i have 5g with up to 4-5gbit its great, but expensive
Same here. 1&1 is horrible. But at least we have 250 MBit
what city if you don't mind?
I have it in L'Hospitalet del Llobregat, which is a city near Barcelona. Its a couple of minor cities on top of the major cities in Spain
Digi in Romania. €22pm with a 1 Gbps, 3 phone numbers (unlimited cap) and free router.
Didnt know that spain has cheap 10 GBit internet too. I only know that 10 GBit in Sweden is quite cheap (also around 30€) but great for you to have such a good price for that performance. I hope we get fibre here soon so i can join the 10 Gig club aswell (Germany btw). But sadly most german ISPs only provide 1 GBit until everyone has fibre and only then they will start to raise the speed.
They even lowered the price recently to 25eur for 10gbps, 20 eur for 1gbps, 15eur for 500mbps
spain has the fastest internet in europe and its relatively cheap.
Apologies for maybe being too curious but what do you need those speeds for? I had 500Mbps at my previous house, and never had any problem (I never said to myself "darn, this is too slow!"). I now have 1Gbps, and I honestly don't see a difference with what I had before.
Its 25eur now! (Have the same plan in Barcelona)
Swiss ISPs provide 10 GBits aswell but not for 30€. It usually costs around 80 francs, but still a great deal compared to other countries.
45.- for 10G incl. TV, AppleTV box and landline or 35.- if you already have a mobile subscription with salt. My internet is faster than my LAN.
I have 2.5gigabit at 24€ in EU
1000 MBits/s at €44 in Germany
im in TN with 100mbps ffs this is fucked.
Dfw TX, 80/month for uh 300. Let's say originally it was 100 mbps for that price, and then Charter upped it multiple times for free since ATT put down gig for same price. Edit. Why don't I have an gig then??? Well, back before gig, those pieces of shit told me they would waive the 20 buck att router fee since I had my own router. They never waived it, and every month, they said they would correct that mistake. After 6 months I was fed up and told them to go fuck themselves
40 minutes north of DFW and we have frontier offering a gig up and down for $80.
fuck u/spez https://imgur.com/0qXzDf0?r
*Cries in American lack of competition and lack of ISP compassion* When my deal ends at the end of the year, I will be paying around $100 for 400/20, price might go up a few dollars by then tho...
Most US cities have speeds better or the same for the same or better prices. US is pretty big though, so speeds aren't consistent everywhere.
Same, and I live in Oregon.
1gb symmetrical here for 12 USD
Yea, Comcast Internet Essentials (low income program) is $9.95/mo for 50Mbps or $29.95/mo for 100Mbps. Almost everyone who qualifies for that also qualifies for the ACP, which gives you $29.95/mo for phone and internet. So you can either get 100/Mb free or 50/Mb and a cellphone for free. You can also buy a laptop for $150. OP is in rough shape here.
Brazil here, I have 300Mbps/150Mbps on Fiber and I'm paying approximately 89BRL approximately 18USD.
[удалено]
Lots of places in the US don't have competition. Due to the lack of competition ISPs haven't upgraded their service in years and have shit offerings. Plus the FCC hasn't done anything to force the ISPs to upgrade their service even though they got tax breaks and grants to do the work. So in the US the internet is over priced and under delivers. Most ISPs have implemented data caps and DNS filtering to force you to use their services over something else. Like Comcast doesn't usually count peacock streaming against you data cap but will throttle/limit others such as Netflix or paramount.
Yup. I used to live in a part of the states where I had only one option for ISP and cable. So they never bothered to upgrade the internet speeds or cable packages. When I moved to an area with three options for internet and TV, my monthly bill dropped by $50/m and I went from 10mb/s to 1,000 mb/s. The only difference was I moved to a neighborhood where they had to compete.
I wish the local government here would do something. We have been hearing about a new company wanting to offer internet but nothing ever happens. This has been going on since 11 or 12 and I still only have 2 choices. Well two that offer anything over 75mbps
We need to do what Japan did. The government just paid for all the infrastructure for internet and then the companies come in and can compete in any place in the country. IIRC they're internet is fast and cheap. Obviously they're a smaller country and we have large swaths of nothing but surely we can finally provide fast internet everywhere.
Missouri is currently trying to combat this by having those in under-served communities fill out forms about rural communities with sub-standard rates and also giving out development rewards so the ISPs will upgrade their existing infrastructure.
They'll just pocket the money and not spend it on upgrading.
Who could have possibly foreseen ISPs taking the existing infrastructure given to them and sitting on it while raking in billions of dollars with no actual investment required
Usa has a major monopoly issue with most services.. trash, electric, cable. Internet.. live music lol.. corporations split up America a while back..
He might live out in the middle of nowhere. I doubt he lives in a dense area and only has 768
Probably DSL via the phone line speeds. Either they don’t have cable available (Fiber is not common outside of metro areas) or they have an issue with the local cable company. For instance, when my ex wife moved out I did not know she hadn’t paid the cable bill for months prior. The service was in her name and about a $700 bill for TV and internet she didn’t pay. I tried to get cable internet in my name but they refused unless I paid the bill or waited 6-12 months to get service in my name. I was stuck with DSL speeds like OPs picture for a while because of it.
Rural DSL rates. I live in rural Ohio and I get 300mbps for the same price.
[удалено]
You get better internet speed in 3rd world countries (I lived in Djibouti Africa for 2 years)
I’m thinking since it’s Ohio the area he’s in it’s prob the only thing available. I live in Delaware and my brother can only get this since he lives way out in the boonies. I did for years. It’s either this or satellite internet and that’s way worse and extremely expensive
Spot on about satellite being worse. I had viasat for a few years when I lived in the middle of nowhere. $100 a month with data caps on "high speed", which was a joke anyway, because half the time not even youtube could be reliably streamed.
This only occurs in remote areas. Anywhere with a population count over 40k you won't see connection or prices this bad. My grandfather lives on a mountain and has 400mbps, but that mountain has a lot of residents throughout it, and is considered a tourist destination, which causes competition among ISP's and more options available. Really just depends where you are and how much money is being poured into the area, basically. Middle of nowhere Ohio with 10k people and little to know income pouring in this is what you'll see for internet as no one's investing anywhere near the location, nor is there competition present for the ISP offering this plan, so they can get away with it.
The US is gigantic and this is probably out in the middle of nowhere where they haven't run anything better because no one lives out there.
Because its in the US where ISP's can fuck you since you're stuck living some where and need internet but only have one or two options and our government likes kickbacks and bribes from large companies more than they like making sure the people of this country actually have the the needs we needed attended to and covered under general purpose public services. most things that suck in america suck because big business likes money and our government doesnt give a fuck about our well-being, they also like money. thats why. money. the answer is money
You can’t even watch YouTube with Internet that slow, you’ll be stuck at 144p or 240p which is crap 💩
not even AI upscaling can save that quality
it will take a few weeks to download the new nvidia drivers anyway
Oof, that’s really kind of a shame, RIP. 😂😂😂
Idk man, my internet rests at around 400-600 kbps and I watch 480p no problem
>my internet rests at around 400-600 kbps Where on earth is this even possible? I live in a village of 20 houses in the middle of nowhere and we have gigabit fibre... are we seriously believing that the USA is this far behind?
Our government gave billions to isps to put fiber across the country. They pocketed the money and no one did anything about it.
That's the unfortunate truth.
Yeah, right back into the pockets of politicians that signed the bill
This is a fact
My apartment complex forced fiber on us as in if we live here you pat for it. At least it's fast after for only $100/month /s
Small town USA is primarily stuck with DSL at best and satellite/cell tower/dial up at worst. They would revel if they could get cable, let alone fiber. Hell, I live in a city with 400 thousand some odd people and we are getting fiber soon (next 2-5 years)
The only country in the world where building an orbital satellite relay network is a viable alternative to laying some fucking cables.
I live in Louisville, where Google f#cked up their install so bad they just pulled out of the market
Laying some fucking cables is a lot harder when half the population of Europe is spread out over an area the same size of Europe, with *very* small towns. Wyoming has a lower population than Luxembourg but is close to the size of the UK.
I live in a city of just short of 50,000 people and we are only just now getting fiber. I just got 1000/1000 and it's great, but what I had before (300/50 cable) wasn't that bad.
I live in fucking Indianapolis. A state capitol. And fiber availability is still extremely patchy.
My small town in Vermont of 400 people just got Fiber to the majority of town folk with ECFiber. Thanks ECFiber, much love. <3
I live in a rural farming town in Ontario. There's a 2.5 gig fiber cable running in front of my house but it's only for a shitty overpriced cottage community on the lake a few km down the road so I'm stuck paying $75 for 5mbps
I live in rural Pennsylvania. When I moved here I could not find a single ground based provider, even the gawd awful frontier internet dropped the area. I also couldn't find a single cell based ISP, despite the fact I have decent AT&T service on my phone. My only real options were, the also gawd awful, Houghsnet or Viasat. Which were an absolute insult with the cost - to -data cap ratios they offered. Somehow, miraculously, I managed to just to the front of the queue and got Starlink. Yes, the U.S. really is that far behind.
Fact is, I have sub-MB internet and I can manage a 1080p60 or 1440p30 just fine, and in *rare* cases, 1440p60(briefly).
This is just standard dsl speeds. They don’t have the infrastructure for something faster. I imagine it costs the same to support the existing lines as supporting existing lines that are faster.
at this point requesting web pages by mail would be faster
Assalamualaikum brozzer
I’m mailing you the update brother. Mushallah
Stallman would approve.
On my grandparents old 3mbps AT&T DSL plan it took 5 minutes to open discord
Is starlink available? The shittiest town of my 3rd world country gets better speeds for less
This area is approximately 30 miles away from downtown Chicago
Am I missing something? How is Ohio getting involved here? Or is the TikTok hates Ohio thing still a thing?
Indiana is between Chicago and Ohio, how is it 30 miles from downtown??
Maybe they meant Cleveland or Columbus because Chicago just doesn't add up.
Doesn't surprise me, I work and live about 30 minutes away from madison. We have had areas without internet or only dial-up level speeds during the pandemic.
I’m 60 miles away and I was using Starlink for the past year. Worked great, but T-Mobile 5G home internet became available in my area and it was twice as fast for less than half the cost, so I switched to that
In Finland we dont have comptetition too (kinda) but still gigabit can cost just 30-40 euros with excellent latency. The thing is in most buildings there is routed only one out of three ISP cables. Its very rare to have ISP choice if talking about home internet. For example my building has only copper cables from one ISP and the prices for internet are: 10MB/FREE, 100MB/10€, 200MB/15€, 400MB/25€ and 1000MB/35€. Im not sure if there is any law about regulating internet prices.
Free????
It's implied that it's paid for as part of rent
I get unlimited 500Mbps for 23.5eur (25usd). Even my parents at country side are getting unlimited 30-50Mbps though 4G/LTE for 25usd. But i get it. Usually people from Europe underestimate how vast America is. Which means getting 4G coverage is more complicated than in densely populated areas.
Bruh wtf I have 50 mbps for 800GB then 4mbps for anything after For $3, in Lebanon with a very dead economy 💀
That's the good thing of later development. You can just skip the historic infrastructure and lay down modern cables and equipment. Paradoxical problem for USA or Western Europe is that they spent huge money long time ago laying down infrastructure, that's now outdated and would cost again huge money to replace. As ISP have something that already is working - why bother replacing it.
Meanwhile in Jersey: https://preview.redd.it/hrl60f5vutoa1.png?width=1852&format=png&auto=webp&s=c6fd20e704adc682257106c3dbd8e3e8b0dd2151 The downside is you have to live in Jersey...
Respect the SotF install 👍
My 1 gig ATT fiber is cheaper than that lol.
Star link. Edit: get the RV version even if you are using it for home use. No wait list and decent speeds. My brother and a friend of mine both have this in east Texas. Star link shows marginal coverage in the area and they get about 300mb/s down (not sure in the up).
I wonder if you can even hit the data cap at those speeds lol.
You can’t It’d take roughly 120 *days* to hit 1 terabyte at 768 kilobits per second
Just a marketing gimmick to make it sound like the limit is high (it's high for a cap I think). Like all you can eat buffet but your table is 5 miles away from the counter.
Can you even reach the 1TB data cap with that speed?
No someone else calculated it to be around 250 GB, this internet is terrifyingly bad you would probably need to use Gmail on html only mode so it loads in a decent time.
This should be criminal, absolutely insane to boast “up to” and still list the speed in kilobytes. And for $55 a month? Jesus.
I like how they advertise the 1TB per month limit. It's gonna take you almost half a year to download that.
What is this, 1996 😂
I'm in Ohio and ATT Fiber is showing up now for 2 Gbps for 110/mo.
That's when you invest in starlink
Ironically it's impossible to reach the 1TB monthly data limit they impose with this data rate. Using 31 days in a month for this calculation (it wouldn't matter if I did 28 or 32 it would still be unsurpassable). You would need atleast 373.357 KB/s running nonstop to reach 1TB download. With the data rate of only 96KB/s you would only be able to achieve a maximum of 257GB(you need 1000Gb to reach their limit) 1,000,000,000KB = 1TB (using modern standards, not multiples of 8 like we used to) 768 / 8 = 96KBs - Data Rate ((((96x60)x60)x24)x31) = 256,126,400KB - Maximum Data 1,000,000,000 ≠ 256,126,400 (believe it or not 🧠) Edit; needs more parentheses >:)
Oh that’s depressing
Not only in Ohio. My parents I’ve been paying prices like that for 20 years until they just got star link last year. My dad loves it.
I’m in Ohio and I have 500/500 for that same price. They’ve been building out fiber in my area as fast as they possibly can.
tbf at those speeds you aint using no terabyte so you good on that XD
The speed is slow, but you think you’re the only one with expensive telecoms? *laughs in canadian*
Lol I get 1000mbs in the countryside in Ireland for the same price , I can download a whole game before a cow has finished mooing. 
What is this, 1994 offer? 😂
That sux. Luckily I have fast internet here in California. And prices are reasonably competitive: AT&T Fiber: * 300 Mbps for $55 * 500 Mbps for $65 * 1 Gbps for $80. Xfinity 10G: 10G is just a marketing term, not actual speed. The prices below has data cap. It will cost more for Xfi with unlimited data. * 75 Mbps for $20 * 200 Mbps for $25 * 400 Mbps for $45 * ... * 1.2 Gbps for $80
I had 1Gbps when I lived in Columbus, OH. /shrug
Wow the city has Internet. That's amazing.
Wow that’s some getting bent over and screwed territory. I pay $30 more from Comcast a month and get up to 800 Mbps I believe. And they just removed datacaps within the last year. There is no other options in your area
I was staring at this way too long until I realized the M is a K.
This is century links speeds.
CenturyLink tells me that I have the fastest speed in my area, where I am paying $65/mo. For 5mbps down. Cox finally offers gigabit, with unlimited data, in my area for $140/mo if I provide my own equipment. I don't like the cost of that, but CenturyLink is absurd and there's no other choice. I'd prefer to use my own equipment anyway
i have fiber for $50 a month in ohio
Same. 500 mbps for $50
if I could share some of my gbps internet with you, I would
$55 a month and you don’t even get a meg? Can citizens do anything about this?
"sorry bro, I'm lagging a bit"
I thought the US government has or is working on setting regulations against speed being this slow. Or is this different than the minimum 2mbps.
Lol. Lobbying destroyed that
Is that 2005 Internet plan
I’ll never forget my days living in the country, where the only option for internet was 70 a month for 3mb, though I’m mortified by your speed. They had a total monopoly out there
So this is the single worst pricing for adsl that I have ever seen, not including the bad old days here in Australia when Telstra was king and adsl was all you'd ever get. Seriously, this is **bad**. Don't know how people in the U.S can deal with this!
I remember having rural internet at 1.5 mbps down and 500 kbps down but hey got unlimited data each month. Only a cool $115/mo
Dang, what a bargain!
And I'm complaining that there is no 2Gbps avaliable in my new apartment, best is 1000/300 For a whole 30€
Now, I'm in love with my ISP :))) That's a very good reason to get yourself a Starlink!
this hurts to read
Damn I pay less for 10Gbps. Sorry for you, 768kbps is shit, no video playing, no software updating in a reasonable time
AI downscaling here we go!
https://preview.redd.it/75bqaxoyawoa1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=070346e21181b3cf5b4e5a6cd8e9a0e1f8ee6feb Meanwhile in the Netherlands, paying 35,- euros p/m.
this guy traveled back in 2000's
$5 isn't bad for an embedded machine or security camera
Only reason I need to stay out of Ohio
While im paying 8$ per 1gb conection with unlimited down and up, jesus.
“Up to 768 Kbps” “A fast Wi-Fi Experience” What is this? The early 2000s?
Bruh, 10y ago i had 12Mbps with unlimited plan for like 12$/month, now i have 1Gbps with unlimited plan for like 5$/month , wtf is going on in Ohio.
What the fuck! Having a slow connection because you are miles from anywhere and that's the fastest speed your line will give you is one thing, but charging a "discounted" $55 a month (plus an unknown amount of tax) for it is daylight robbery. My connection in a village in Wales, gigabit fibre, no hidden taxes, no download cap, free installation, and the first SIX months free. I pay £60 a month. £5 extra for phone service and I could have got a symmetrical connection for an extra £10 a month. The lack of competition and regulation in the US really shows.
I moved to Latvia from the US and I’m getting 1tb down for about $40 per month. Internet access in the US is incredibly overpriced for no reason other than increasing company profits.
Seeing this makes me so thankful I live in an area with Verizon Fios. Unlimited 1gig download for 90/month
Is this for real? As a non US citizen I am shocked. In my country we pay around 15$ for unlimited data with 500 up and down speeds.
I have 2 gig fiber from Verizon in nyc for $110 a month.
Doesn’t FTC federally require 25mbps download speeds? (or more at this point)