Global Broadband Speeds - US, UK suck...

[0098386]

@raggedjimmi, how did you find out your town was on the list for 40 - 50 mbps? I have been looking at the BT site and haven't seen any info on the upgrade at all

Couldn't find the page on BT (I posted a link to it a while ago, so its around somewhere) but this lists the 40-50mbit areas http://www.broadbandwatchdog.co.uk/news/230309-310.

Don't think I'll be going for the top service, 8mbps would be good enough for me.

Edit: found the original link http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/ShowArticle.cfm?ArticleID=9C80BCCC-31C8-4588-B11A-E10C7D47E991

 

[kdum8]

Having been in Japan for 6 years I am a little out of touch with UK broadband speeds. I kind of assumed that they may have caught up a little. Boy was I wrong

Internet is so fast here I don't even bother with a TV. Just 25MBPs would be a good start.

 

[neiltc13]

And later this year 40-50mbps connections are being rolled out by BT, that should bump us up a little (still chuffed that my towns on the list ). But seriously, to say we're only a small island where opposing coasts can be reached within a couple of hours driving we do have sucky internet.

The problem is that the areas which will get the fast broadband already have access to good speeds. ISPs like O2 and Be offer up to 24Mbit/sec in some areas and it will be these densely populated areas which get the even faster speeds, while others where the fastest available is 8Mbit/sec will have to continue with that connection.

It's not fair and the Government should be doing a lot more to encourage BT and other companies to put good equipment in lesser areas. A tough task I know, but it is worth doing.

 

[bartelby]

Well virgin media are testing 200mb connections...

I wish the buggers would get rid of traffic profiling and sort out HD channels instead of pissing about with broadband speeds

 

[Fizzoid]

Ah, so UK's figure in the article OP linked to also apples to major cities like London. I thought the internet was much faster in cities like London than the average shown in the graph.

I'm not in the outskirts of London either, I'm in Zone 2. The problem is, I live too far from the exchange to get any faster using the current twisted copper network.

 

[peskaa]

The problem is that the areas which will get the fast broadband already have access to good speeds. ISPs like O2 and Be offer up to 24Mbit/sec in some areas and it will be these densely populated areas which get the even faster speeds, while others where the fastest available is 8Mbit/sec will have to continue with that connection.

It's not fair and the Government should be doing a lot more to encourage BT and other companies to put good equipment in lesser areas. A tough task I know, but it is worth doing.

Does nobody read previous posts?

BT are beginning the process of migrating the whole network over to 21CN, which will enable ADSL2+ (ie: 24mbit) in all exchanges - obviously your distance from the exchange will still heavily impact on your real speed. Be/O2 do offer ADSL2+ already using their own DSLAMs, but frequently users find they get less than 8mbit and then switch to one of their cheaper 8mbit packages.

Now, 21CN isn't linked to population density, simply to exchanges. The issue of getting fast speeds to those who are too far from exchanges is a whole other kettle of fish, requiring large sums of money to implement. FTTH/N is the way forward for ridiculous speeds, and variable solutions (such as WiFi) can provide coverage when fibre is simply not practical (such as remote rural areas with a handful of houses).

 

[neiltc13]

Does nobody read previous posts?

BT are beginning the process of migrating the whole network over to 21CN, which will enable ADSL2+ (ie: 24mbit) in all exchanges - obviously your distance from the exchange will still heavily impact on your real speed. Be/O2 do offer ADSL2+ already using their own DSLAMs, but frequently users find they get less than 8mbit and then switch to one of their cheaper 8mbit packages.

Yes, but my point is that BT always do this in the same order. My town has a population of about 6000, yet we waited until 2004 to get broadband. It's always the South East first, then to Birmingham then elsewhere. It's not fair - what is the point of giving areas priority installations of 21CN when they already have ISPs providing ADSL2+ via LLU?

My point is nothing about distance from the exchange - it's the fact that the rollout always occurs in this order. My town is down 21CN in Q3 2011. My point really is that if they are going to switch them all over anyway, why does it have to be the most densely populated areas first, especially when these areas already have effective communications links?

 

[Fizzoid]

why does it have to be the most densely populated areas first, especially when these areas already have effective communications links?

Because of the higher concentration of small businesses and home consumers, to who they can charge a premium for their improved services. It's simple economics

 

[peskaa]

Yes, but my point is that BT always do this in the same order. My town has a population of about 6000, yet we waited until 2004 to get broadband. It's always the South East first, then to Birmingham then elsewhere. It's not fair - what is the point of giving areas priority installations of 21CN when they already have ISPs providing ADSL2+ via LLU?

My point is nothing about distance from the exchange - it's the fact that the rollout always occurs in this order. My town is down 21CN in Q3 2011. My point really is that if they are going to switch them all over anyway, why does it have to be the most densely populated areas first, especially when these areas already have effective communications links?

21CN rollout is truly random, without priority to high population centres. Frequently London is left until last, as they want the transition to be as smooth as possible (from practice) due to the large numbers of customers involved. I've heard of 21CN upgrades taking weeks, rather than days - BT would rather piss off 1000 customers than 20,000. My exchange is already 21CN enabled (not that I care, as I'm on Be's LLU), and I wouldn't class Oxford (Headington exchange) as being *that* big, particularly compared to other exchanges.

Then, look at the trial exchanges for FTTN. Wales? Manchester? Birmingham not in sight? Handful of minor London exchanges? Hm, seems to be a fair geographical spread to me, covering a range of exchange types.

The problem is, there's a huge number of exchanges, numbering the thousands. Somebody has to come last.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Slight rant follows. Feel free to skip.
It amuses me when people say that America is "the greatest country on earth".

Well, in all fairness, most people do have a natural bias in favor of the country they're born in. If I had been born on Mars, I'm sure I'd be proud to be Martian.

 

[iNikon]

Slight rant follows. Feel free to skip.
It amuses me when people say that America is "the greatest country on earth". Sure, there are some things to admire without doubt, but in many areas the US is way behind. Health Care, homicide & crime rates/capita, railway infrastructure, highest number of people in jail per capita of any developed country etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I like the US. But complacency is the surest way to failure.

I guess the net speeds will gradually improve. A little too slowly for me though,

The United States has the most advanced healthcare in the world. Are you referring to healthcare technology, or socialized healthcare? Comparing our railway system is like comparing your highway system to our interstate. Each country is best served by many factors - and our interstate system is highly developed and the main means of travel, both commercial and private.

I would also like you to cite your statistics on all of those claims.

 

[kdum8]

The United States has the most advanced healthcare in the world. Are you referring to healthcare technology, or socialized healthcare? Comparing our railway system is like comparing your highway system to our interstate. Each country is best served by many factors - and our interstate system is highly developed and the main means of travel, both commercial and private.

I would also like you to cite your statistics on all of those claims.

OK, I'll take your points one at a time.

1. Heathcare:

It is probably fair to say that at the top end, the US has the most advanced health care for cutting edge operations of anywhere in the world. Most of Europe isn't exactly far behind here, but sure a lot of new developments still come out of the US. If you have money it is great. I agree. However, I was referring not to those at the top end, but overall. The US spends far more GDP/capita on health care than any country in the world and yet gets overall an inferior system. It doesn't do a lot for a large number of people at the bottom, it is inferior for most and costs much more than a socialised system would. You are getting less than most of the social-European systems and it costs you more. Worst in nearly all respects. (Except at the top I grant you). A little reform and you could probably have the best of both worlds. My goal is not to bash the US, far from it. But to face reality.

This is a well known statistic often quoted in The Economist. But I don't currently have a subscription so I can't access their graphs. However you can see data pertaining to this here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

Various graphs show varying levels of difference, but all show the US spending the most on healthcare of any country, per capita.

2. Next homicide rates/capita:

These naturally fluctuate from year to year but since the year 2000, the rates of homicide per 100,000 in the US have been: 5.6, 5.7, 5.7, 5.7, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 6.1, 5.8, 5.8. I.e between 5.5-6.0

Let's compare that with some averages over the same period for Western European countries:

UK: ~2
France: ~1.6
Germany: ~1
Sweden: ~2.2
Greece: ~0.76
Australia: ~1.45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

Even countries that many US citizens might be scared to visit have lower rates than the US. E.g. Palestine (3-4), Israel (1.87), Côte d'Ivoire (4.07) and some others. Sure there are also plenty of countries much higher on the list as well, but they are not developed, advanced societies like the US. Clearly the US has a violence problem. (Actually a gun problem).


3. Infrastructure:

The US is huge and is not ideally suited to a continental high speed rail network at present. (Maglev technology with speeds upto and over 500km/h though may change that). However along the high density eastern and western seaboards it is very feasible. (I am aware of the Acela express based on the French TGV and plans for highspeed rail in California). Infrastructure like this though requires state subsidy to get built and that lacks in the US. The interstate network in the US as you say is the main means of getting around, (along with flight). But Western Europe and Japan also have highly developed systems at least onpar with that in the US. Again, it is a matter of priorities. Still rather have both though.

4. Incarceration Rates:

The US has the highest levels of incarceration of any country in the world (source:UN see link below), at 737/100,000. Compared to England & Wales at 139/100,000 and Norway at 59. Even China and Russia don't lock up as many people. Somewhere like Denmark only has 3774 people in jail in total. The average in Europe is around 130/100,000. I.e there are 5 times more people in jail in the US on average than in Europe. There are also more Black people in jail in the US than are in higher education. Tell me that isn't a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States

Whichever category you look at, it isn't very pretty.

One cannot improve if one first does not acknowledge a problem.