Was just coming in here to say this. With the exception of Russia the Ukraine is the largest at 233,000 square miles. That’s 5.8% of the size of the US.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T Bringing $180/Month 5-Gigabit Internet to 70 Cities
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sweden has a far lower population density than the US and still broadband Internet prices are lower.
I think it's the lack of competition in many areas.
I called to complain about the latency in my U-Verse service, and was told that I would have fiber TO MY HOUSE in the next 2 to 3 months.
Now? Now so much... They love to promise things they know they won't deliver for YEARS!
Yeah, nope.
Now? Now so much... They love to promise things they know they won't deliver for YEARS!
Yeah, nope.
Ummmm , who Video producers ? Very few applications benefit from GIG let alone 5. Your employers VPN is likely to be 5Gbps if that for the entire organization let alone allocated to one user. If your data is on spinning disks, you can't saturate 5Gbps.
Yes here in the Silicon Valley when you look at established neighborhoods you see AT&T pitching their twisted wire DSL with speeds up to 25 Mbps for $55. If you're closer to a junction box you can get up to 75 Mbps for $55 also. As you implied its like hanging out with the dinosaurs. see Check availability
Last edited:
Competition is good. Just checked the website and they offer 1GB fiber for $80, and 500MB fiber for $65 in SoCal. I'll take that plus $300 dollars in giftcards!
Inhabited by 10 million people, and with vast expanses with very few people.
Besides, none of the big broadband providers in the US cover the entire country. The cable companies have neatly divvied up their territories and enjoy the comforts of their local quasi monopolies.
The WiFi router I currently have supports 6 gbps. People working from home doing video editing or remotely controlling live streaming shows could definitely use this.
I feel sorry for you, pal. I don't know where you live, but here in metro San Diego, this is what pathetic internet we get from AT&T:
How about people who want it and can afford it? Who said they have to “need” it?
I really don’t understand people bitching about normal consumers having this high speed service in their homes. Who said people have to “need” it. Maybe they want it and can afford it.
Yea its apples to...whatever fruit they predominantly eat in sweden. US is 3rd in population but 185th in population density. It isn't just the low density, its the low density paired with the high number. One could argue that that distribution makes it harder for companies to compete. Why would companies want to compete over who is going to get the 150 families in a rural town in the middle of no where?
edit: number 1 fruit crop in sweden is apples. That didn't help my argument, but I stand by my point.
I am a big proponent of municipal broadband. The market is open, challenge is that the cost of build out is so great that most dont even try. One has to get very significant market saturation to make build costs, even in a small subdivision possible.
Second option, open market so that if ATT has infrastructure, they MUST lease it to a third part at the market rate.
WiFi 6 can get up to 9.6Gb. Homes with multiple work-at-home users, and/or multiple streaming devices (TV's, etc) certainly can use this.
Just because you haven't given up your horse-and-buggy, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't like to drive a Porsche.
In Australia I play $100 per month for 100 Mbps. Mine would be considered “fast” by others.
Who on earth would use 5 Gbps and ever more importantly who would believe the people that tried to mislead customers with the 5G network icons on 4G phone.
That's crazy. In NZ (a country that definitely isn't known for affordable broadband) I can get 300Mbps for less than that. It blows my mind how different the quality of internet is in the US, from blazing-fast (theoretically) in main centers to what I would have considered slow 5+ years ago in others, and all at the same high pricepoint.
Not arguing that there is zero benefit. Is all your media on SSD ? If not, you can't read off disk quickly enough to saturate 5Gbps. Most spinning disks will top out at less than 200MB/sec which equates to 1.6 Gbps at 100% efficiency. Earlier SSDs top out at around 600MB/sec which would be closer to the 5Gbps of the service.
AT&T is more that happy to charge for 5Gbps, knowing that most will not even come close to saturating 1 Gbps.
And yet, you'll have 5 ISPs competing for the same metropolitan area....Then you get me... 12 miles outside of town, and I can't even get crappy DSL.
They figure that there's more money to be made getting 5% of a big city, than there is to actually service rural areas.
It's not about the size of our country; it's about ISP's not giving a crap about us.
Population density is probably a misleading statistic. A country can have a lower population density while at the same time each person lives closer to more people, on average.
Like Canada is huge, but 70% of their population lives south of the 49th Parallel, the line that forms the border with the US in the west.
I pay $150 a month for cellular internet, which gets me anywhere from 3-40 mbit down, if I'm having a good day.