There was a discussion on the radio about this and someone called in and claimed that the United States has terrible internet compared to European countries.

Can anyone confirm or deny these claims?

(12-15-2017 12:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There was a discussion on the radio about this and someone called in and claimed that the United States has terrible internet compared to European countries.

Can anyone confirm or deny these claims?

Define "terrible".

If you mean speed, South Korea has the best. Some Western Europe countries average 20-23 Mbps. USA's average is 19 Mbps. You should understand why that is. If you mean freedom, Europe is a joke. They ban and censor everything.

(12-15-2017 12:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There was a discussion on the radio about this and someone called in and claimed that the United States has terrible internet compared to European countries.
Can anyone confirm or deny these claims?

Yes, they do, because they kept innovating and improving, which we stopped doing when net neutrality regulations came in. They have preferred competition to regulation, and all of their government efforts have been toward encouraging competition, not regulating providers. So they get innovation where we get stagnation.

Suppose we said that the solution for those 51% (somebody else's number, maybe yours, not mine) who have only one provider available is to force those markets open to competition. You could do something like what was done in Europe, and has been done here with electricity, and force companies to "wheel" for other companies. Or you could place regulations in place, but only where there is only a single provider. Or give single providers one option or the other.

There are lots of ways to solve the problem, if in fact a problem exists. If what we have after net neutrality is like what we had before, then I don't really see a problem.

I understand that yesterday in America neither the government nor anyone else had the right to block internet access. Today that is not true.

(12-15-2017 01:26 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  I understand that yesterday in America neither the government nor anyone else had the right to block internet access. Today that is not true.

The hellfire and brimstone is strong in this one.

(12-15-2017 01:26 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  I understand that yesterday in America neither the government nor anyone else had the right to block internet access. Today that is not true.

You understand wrong.

Yesterday the government had that power. Today nobody does.

(12-15-2017 01:21 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 12:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There was a discussion on the radio about this and someone called in and claimed that the United States has terrible internet compared to European countries.

Can anyone confirm or deny these claims?

Define "terrible".

If you mean speed, South Korea has the best. Some Western Europe countries average 20-23 Mbps. USA's average is 19 Mbps. You should understand why that is. If you mean freedom, Europe is a joke. They ban and censor everything.

I'm just talking about speed.

What the caller said was that in Europe, there is no such thing as high speed internet because everyone has it. It's just internet.

Actually, most of Europe is slower compared to us...

https://www.fastmetrics.com/internet-con...ountry.php

(12-15-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 01:21 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 12:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There was a discussion on the radio about this and someone called in and claimed that the United States has terrible internet compared to European countries.

Can anyone confirm or deny these claims?

Define "terrible".

If you mean speed, South Korea has the best. Some Western Europe countries average 20-23 Mbps. USA's average is 19 Mbps. You should understand why that is. If you mean freedom, Europe is a joke. They ban and censor everything.

I'm just talking about speed.

What the caller said was that in Europe, there is no such thing as high speed internet because everyone has it. It's just internet.

Well, countries like Denmark and Switzerland average 20 Mbps. Italy and Spain are 5 mbps. We have 1 Gbps (1000 Mbps), so just like universal health care, it sounds like they think what they are given is the best because they aren't aware that better quality even exists.

Tim Pool always complains about how bad the internet is in Europe when he's over there doing his reporting.

(12-15-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 01:21 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 12:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There was a discussion on the radio about this and someone called in and claimed that the United States has terrible internet compared to European countries.

Can anyone confirm or deny these claims?

Define "terrible".

If you mean speed, South Korea has the best. Some Western Europe countries average 20-23 Mbps. USA's average is 19 Mbps. You should understand why that is. If you mean freedom, Europe is a joke. They ban and censor everything.

I'm just talking about speed.

What the caller said was that in Europe, there is no such thing as high speed internet because everyone has it. It's just internet.

This is true. And this has also been the case for a long time. Even the type of cable they have been putting in the ground has been more advanced than what we have been using, from fiber cable, to cat 7 cable. We are slowly catching up, but rural areas are still hurting for high speed internet.

I am getting 2 mpbs when we are supposed to be 15. What we have are Suddenlink, CenturyTel or Earthlink. Earthlink sucks. Call a tech for support, and we get rerouted to somebody in India. Outsourcing Tech support to another country when both parties can't understand each other.

Received an offer in the mail today from Spectrum. They are now offering 100 Mbps in my area, 5x my current speed.

muh net neutrality

(12-16-2017 06:45 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Received an offer in the mail today from Spectrum. They are now offering 100 Mbps in my area, 5x my current speed.

muh net neutrality

They started offering 100mbps in my area a couple years ago. You typically get less than 20mbps with that plan.

I'm supposed to get 50. I just tested at 14.34.

(12-16-2017 10:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 06:45 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Received an offer in the mail today from Spectrum. They are now offering 100 Mbps in my area, 5x my current speed.

muh net neutrality

They started offering 100mbps in my area a couple years ago. You typically get less than 20mbps with that plan.

I'm supposed to get 50. I just tested at 14.34.

That’s weird. I’m supposed to get 20/2, and usually get 22/2.5 or so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-16-2017 10:02 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 10:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 06:45 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Received an offer in the mail today from Spectrum. They are now offering 100 Mbps in my area, 5x my current speed.

muh net neutrality

They started offering 100mbps in my area a couple years ago. You typically get less than 20mbps with that plan.

I'm supposed to get 50. I just tested at 14.34.

That’s weird. I’m supposed to get 20/2, and usually get 22/2.5 or so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure infrastructure is different in different areas. Their speeds are below advertised around here. Could just be because I live in a densely populated area of the city and cable speeds struggle when nodes see heavy use. Regardless, to me, it is unacceptable to advertise speeds and then come nowhere near meeting them.

(12-16-2017 10:45 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 10:02 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 10:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 06:45 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Received an offer in the mail today from Spectrum. They are now offering 100 Mbps in my area, 5x my current speed.

muh net neutrality

They started offering 100mbps in my area a couple years ago. You typically get less than 20mbps with that plan.

I'm supposed to get 50. I just tested at 14.34.

That’s weird. I’m supposed to get 20/2, and usually get 22/2.5 or so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure infrastructure is different in different areas. Their speeds are below advertised around here. Could just be because I live in a densely populated area of the city and cable speeds struggle when nodes see heavy use. Regardless, to me, it is unacceptable to advertise speeds and then come nowhere near meeting them.

Or living in rural areas like I am when the equipment and cable for internet is not up too par.

(12-16-2017 01:00 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I am getting 2 mpbs when we are supposed to be 15. What we have are Suddenlink, CenturyTel or Earthlink. Earthlink sucks. Call a tech for support, and we get rerouted to somebody in India. Outsourcing Tech support to another country when both parties can't understand each other.

Pretty racist. Why don’t you effort to understand them?

Utterly triggered

The majority of Americans have one choice for an ISP, and many more have just two which is a bit like choosing between two kinds of **** pie.

Government supported monopolies are the worst kind.

(12-16-2017 06:45 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Received an offer in the mail today from Spectrum. They are now offering 100 Mbps in my area, 5x my current speed.

muh net neutrality

you know those 2 aren't related, right?

(12-20-2017 03:27 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 06:45 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Received an offer in the mail today from Spectrum. They are now offering 100 Mbps in my area, 5x my current speed.

muh net neutrality

you know those 2 aren't related, right?

All I know is that I was told I would be throttled, and all that has happened so far is that my service has gotten 5x better. Perhaps the alt-left got out over their skis again?

If you're going to come back with a smug talking point that you got from john oliver, because you think that makes you tech-savvy, save it, I'm not interested.