- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
LOL - 1st world issue: my fast technology isn't working fast enough. Wah wah.
Except that people do live there. It's funny that you're trying to justify why infrastructure in the USA is no better than Russia's.
Me: The EU has a faster average download time than the USA.
You: The USA is more rural, that's why.
Me: Russia is more rural than the USA, yet they have the same download time as we do.
You: That's because it's rural and nobody lives in those areas.
LOL.
LOL - 1st world issue: my fast technology isn't working fast enough. Wah wah.
Oh, I freely admit we're not the best and I've been trying to explain why it's that way - besides us being just plain cheap.
LOL - 1st world issue: my fast technology isn't working fast enough. Wah wah.
We should be the best in the world, and we aren't. That's not acceptable.
What exactly is 70 mbs going to get me that I don't get with 21 mb?
I can upload email, stream HD movies and use SIP based software for phones at the same time during the busy network hours of 11 am to 3 pm local time and I do that with 20 mb down and 3mb up consistently. Given that websites, routers and most servers which have high traffic already throttle inbound traffic and load balance to provide a more consistent experience, what is 70mb going to give me other than a larger bill?
We should be the best in the world, and we aren't. That's not acceptable.
THE WORLD, Baby, Yeah!
You could have the whole WIDE world and not just your Hemispherical version of it.
What exactly is 70 mbs going to get me that I don't get with 21 mb?
I can upload email, stream HD movies and use SIP based software for phones at the same time during the busy network hours of 11 am to 3 pm local time and I do that with 20 mb down and 3mb up consistently. Given that websites, routers and most servers which have high traffic already throttle inbound traffic and load balance to provide a more consistent experience, what is 70mb going to give me other than a larger bill?
So faster download to you equals "best". :lamo
There's your problem.
I don't want nor need the whole wide world.
I have a car, it goes 100 miles an hour and I only need it to go 70. You're telling me I should have access to a car that goes 250 mph. I don't want it nor do I need it. Live within your means instead of wasting resources.What's a car gonna give you that a horse won't? What's an HD TV gonna do that a regular TV can't? Give me a break. If we all have gigabit internet (1000 mbps, which is what Google Fiber is offering) then you don't think there would be content developed for it?
You remind me of idiots I deal with in the public. The midsized business owner says he wants a full gigabit network end to end and is shocked when I tell him that all the PC's on his prem that he has have gigabit network cards in them, yet the PC itself cannot push that much data, nor can all the PC's on his network. He's adamant that he wants everything gigabit and is then shocked about the cost to pull fiber. He's shocked further about putting in high availability redundant connections for failover.It's called making technical progress, and it used to be what we did better here in America than anywhere else in the world. Then we got fat and lazy and content.
Faster > Slower.
Any more brain busters?
What part of the list disproves his statement. Because so far as I can tell it only supports it.Uhh.....
Wow. Look at the list again dude.
This may be a valid point.Not really... just a lame excuse. Most populations live in clusters, which are easy to service if you just try. Of course there will always be those that live in the middle of no where, and there might be more of those in the US and Russia and Canada, but they are a relative statistical irrelevancy when 99% of the population lives in clusters.
It all comes down to investment and willingness to do so by companies and government, and here places like the US and others lower on the list are not willing to do the investment needed because there is no real competition to drive such investment. If you look at the list also, the countries at the top are also countries with lots and lots of choice... something those lower on the list dont have in many areas.
I have a car, it goes 100 miles an hour and I only need it to go 70. You're telling me I should have access to a car that goes 250 mph. I don't want it nor do I need it. Live within your means instead of wasting resources.
You remind me of idiots I deal with in the public. The midsized business owner says he wants a full gigabit network end to end and is shocked when I tell him that all the PC's on his prem that he has have gigabit network cards in them, yet the PC itself cannot push that much data, nor can all the PC's on his network. He's adamant that he wants everything gigabit and is then shocked about the cost to pull fiber. He's shocked further about putting in high availability redundant connections for failover.
Technical progress is great - no one wants to pay for gigabit. The ignorance is not knowing how the internet backbone works - not just in the US but around the world. That because 70mb is faster than 20mb doesn't make it better especially when it's not needed. All you end up doing is paying more... and for companies that own those networks people like you who pay more for usage they don't come close to maxing out, is soooo good for business.
Average download speeds by country below. This is a good indicator of the state of infrastructural development in each country. Once upon a time, the United States was the most developed country in the world. Now, we lag behind almost everybody.
In my opinion, this is an unacceptable report card. America gets an "F." We need legislative action to fix it immediately. What say you?
*All values in mbps
1. Hong Kong 72.06
2. Singapore 60.76
3. Romania 56.81
4. South Korea 51.70
5. Japan 42.24
6. Sweden 40.80
7. Lithuania 39.99
8. Andorra 39.84
9. Macau 39.83
10. Netherlands 39.35
11. Switzerland 38.82
12. Denmark 36.54
13. Taiwan 35.71
14. Luxemborg 34.22
15. Latvia 33.54
16. Iceland 32.21
17. Moldova 30.98
18. Bulgaria 29.09
19. Belgium 28.97
20. Norway 27.29
21. France 27.18
22. Finland 26.63
23. Germany 25.20
24. Portugal 24.95
25. Hungary 24.21
26. Estonia 24.17
27. Czech 23.70
28. UK 23.48
29. Aland 23.23
30. Liechtenstein 23.14
31. Israel 21.80
32. United States 21.48
33. Russia 21.28
36. Canada 20.29
44. China 16.76
87 Italy 7.78
**All data from ooka.com
Made me curiousNot really. This almost reads as the countries by population density in the developed world. I think that's probably a factor.
Not really... just a lame excuse. Most populations live in clusters, which are easy to service if you just try. Of course there will always be those that live in the middle of no where, and there might be more of those in the US and Russia and Canada, but they are a relative statistical irrelevancy when 99% of the population lives in clusters.
It all comes down to investment and willingness to do so by companies and government, and here places like the US and others lower on the list are not willing to do the investment needed because there is no real competition to drive such investment. If you look at the list also, the countries at the top are also countries with lots and lots of choice... something those lower on the list dont have in many areas.
Uhh.....
Wow. Look at the list again dude.
Not just A railroad, THE railroad.Are they gonna put a spool of fiber cable on the back of a railroad and let 'er rip? Come on, how does having a railroad that runs through Novosibirsk make it easier to run internet cable out there?
By the way, people do live out there, since the area is very resource rich.
And your comments demonstrate an inability to understand distance and size. We are talking about HUGH countries. Even though people may be clustered in groups. There are far MORE groups in the US, Canada, China, and Russia than there would be in any in single nation in Europe.