AT&T's 768kbps DSL is dreadful in 2020, but still the only option for some

If you take the mean population density of 62 per sq. km, that's roughly the same as Ukraine, which is a 3rd world country currently at war with Russia, yet 1 Gb internet there is $15 USD.
A truly incredible number of errors in one single sentence. The US mean population density is actually about half that: 35.6/km^2. The Ukraine is a Second World country, their broadband internet is 59th fastest in the world (the US is tenth), Internet penetration rates there are far lower than in the US, and if you adjust that $15 figure based on the difference in wages between the US and Ukraine, it jumps to $194/month.

The entire reason for that $15 figure is because of that war with Russia -- it's caused their currency to drop like a stone, giving the illusory appearance that prices are cheap, when in reality common citizens struggle to find even a sum as small as $15. Based simply on currency exchange rates, the cheapest nation for broadband is Syria, a nation which civil war has torn asunder. Would you prefer to live there?

The number of people per square km isn't a wholly translatable metric to the cost of broadband. Many [sic] of that area is the US is unpopulated or farmland.
As a share of the nation, there's much more farmland in Ukraine than the US (72% of the total nation.) In any case, areas with farms have farmers, and those farmers also desire broadband. In the US, they mostly have it. In Ukraine, they mostly don't.

1. US Citizens do pay an additional fee on their bill that is supposed to go to rural network expansion. Of which Verizon has gotten in trouble on with the New York state attorney general.
I think you're confusing the FCC Universal Service Fund charge with a recently-passed New-York state only broadband fee. As for the USF, the FCC spends most of it in other areas than rural broadband expansion: its latest disbursement tranche was a mere $193 million per year over ten years, for which 100+ carriers bid to provide new service to 700,000 remote locations.

for "the world's greatest nation", I'm awfully tired of people making excuses of why things can't be done. How about someone with the qualifications finally starts getting something done.
By "getting it done", you seem to mean either repealing the laws of economics, or requiring the government to enforce your personal desires as law.
 
Well hopefully the satellites that are in beta will turn out good. The ones that Elon Musk have up there. Reports of beta users see it well over 100 Mbps download and over 15 Mbps upload. I know that may not be better than fiber but heck a lot better than what a lot of Americans have now.
 
You do realize, that the land area of the entire country of England, (England, not including Ireland or Scottland) would fit within the state of Missouri? You could put over 3 England's, within just the land area of the state of Texas. In other words, the United States is pretty spread out. If you go out into the great plains states, there are vast areas you can drive for miles without seeing any homes, then have a farm pop up and another one many miles from each other, and, many miles between any towns or cities. I'm not trying to "forgive" the cable/telcom companies...because in most cities, they have either a monopoly or duopoly which cuts down competition, but, with the vast land areas in the USA, it's pretty tough to spend the money, running fiber all over the place.
Perhaps something needs to be done, similar to the WPA projects of the 30's that allowed electricity to be able to reach pretty much the entire nation.

I'm aware of how big USA is and I understand that could be an obstacle to faster and cheaper broadband for more people but I think the biggest obstacle is simple corporate greed, squize as much money as possible for the shittiest possible service
 
A truly incredible number of errors in one single sentence. The US mean population density is actually about half that: 35.6/km^2.

We are talking about population density NOW. Not population density of the united states over 220 years.

I used this list to calculate median: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...es_of_the_United_States_by_population_density

There are 50 states in the union, therefore the 25th state is the median.

The number from 2020 in the graph you provided shows the population density is even higher than what I provided.


As a share of the nation, there's much more farmland in Ukraine than the US (72% of the total nation.) In any case, areas with farms have farmers, and those farmers also desire broadband. In the US, they mostly have it. In Ukraine, they mostly don't.

https://www.thepigsite.com/news/201...or-broadband-impacts-60-percent-of-us-farmers

60% of farmers do not have fixed broadband. That's considering that the US's definition of broadband service is very low. By definition, a majority don't even have decent internet, let alone broadband.

Who knows though, if Tesla is successful with it's satellite internet, it would mean that you can provide fast internet to rural areas without increasing the costs for everyone else. In essence, it would make distance between customers a lot less relevant.

We were also talking about population density, not farmland percentage. According to your link, Ukraine has a lower population density to the US. Given that you argued that it's more expensive to provide to lower population densities, it should be more costly for Ukraine, which is a 3rd would country.
 
Last edited:
We are talking about population density NOW. Not population density of the united states over 220 years....I used this list to calculate median:
Your original statement claimed it was the mean population density, not the median. Nor is the median even a meaningful measure of central tendency in this context, as the values in question (individual states) are already means of individual values.

Finally, I have no idea where that "over 220 years" statement derives from: the value I gave is the mean density today:

US population (328.M) / Size of US (9.8M sq km) = 34 ppl/sq km.

It's not rocket science.

According to your link, Ukraine has a lower population density to the US.
My link says no such thing, and it's untrue. Ukraine's population density is just over 73 ppl/sq km, or more than double that of the US. Did you confuse density per square mile with that per square kilometer?

it should be more costly for Ukraine, which is a 3rd would country.
There you go again. Ukraine is not a 3rd world country. If you learn what the term means, you're more likely to use it properly.
 
I'm aware of how big USA is and I understand that could be an obstacle to faster and cheaper broadband for more people but I think the biggest obstacle is simple corporate greed, squize as much money as possible for the shittiest possible service

I agree about corporate greed 100%
Maybe the earthlink satellites will "take off" (sorry, no pun intended) and after growing pains and what not, will be more affordable to those out "in the sticks". ANY competition to the cable/ISP types has to be a good thing.
 
Trying moving to poorer countries. DSL would seem like lightening speeds compared to what they use. If you said dial up is dreadful in 2020 I would agree. instead this comes off as a reflection of spoiled.
 
My experience when I was In a rural area is that cellular is the the best service by speed and cost. It's overall better than satellite. You just need to invest in a signal booster with an outside directional antenna and an inside repeater for the home. In the U. S., you're required to register the booster because of the way it communicates with the tower. It's no big deal. 3G HSPA is very much streamable. In fact, I would lock that in as the only signal. It may be different now since 2G was shutdown and supposedly repurposed for 4G. Using the OpenSignal app on your phone, you dial in where the nearest cell tower servicing your location and point the antenna in that direction and you're good.
 
The lamest excuse on a tech forum??

"The US is too big a country to have fast, affordable internet".....

Meanwhile, AT&T, Verizon and other local monopolies are charging anything they want for DSL!!

Pathetic.
 
Meanwhile, AT&T, Verizon and other local monopolies are charging anything they want for DSL!!
You'd have convinced me if you'd only included that third exclamation mark. Instead, I must point out that in my area, there are three broadband providers options (four, if you count Dish, et. al.) -- far from a monopoly. If you believe broadband prices are a profit-laden gravy train, there's nothing preventing you from setting up in competition with them. Of course, moaning into your beer about "corporate greed" is easier.

It's illuminating to look at the actual profit margins these entities receive. Comcast is averaging about a 10% net margin, while AT&T is ~7%. Verizon is much better (~14%), but even still, if they suddenly decided to forego all profits and give you broadband at cost, you'd only save a whopping 14% off your bill.
 
Last edited:
If you believe broadband prices are a profit-laden gravy train
They are choosing to charge only twice the price for 100+ times the speed for inner cities. It is not our fault they are choosing to squander bandwidth, which could be used as a bargaining tool for upgrading infrastructure. But no! They would rather pander upgrades to people who need it less.
 
Why do you say that ? We do have DSL services comfortably managing 10mbps speed which is good for almost everything. It works even when there is power outage in the area if I am running my modem/router off a UPS. We do not need higher speed for streaming Netflix or Prime video because we can get close to 500 channels on cable TV for just around $10/- per month.
 
You'd have convinced me if you'd only included that third exclamation mark. Instead, I must point out that in my area, there are three broadband providers options (four, if you count Dish, et. al.) -- far from a monopoly. If you believe broadband prices are a profit-laden gravy train, there's nothing preventing you from setting up in competition with them. Of course, moaning into your beer about "corporate greed" is easier.

It's illuminating to look at the actual profit margins these entities receive. Comcast is averaging about a 10% net margin, while AT&T is ~7%. Verizon is much better (~14%), but even still, if they suddenly decided to forego all profits and give you broadband at cost, you'd only save a whopping 14% off your bill.

You are one amazingly smart, and most of all, lucky guy!

Because "in your area" there is no monopoly then the rest of us, by your brilliant assumption, cannot possibly be living with a single provider!

Earth to Mr. Genius, not all of us live in big cities or in big metropolitan areas. You remind me of those other brilliant souls who claim that since their swimming pool has not boiled over, then there is no climate change!!

And your defence of the telecoms, who according to your "facts", are living in the poor-house, says a lot about your "facts". These are extremely profitable companies, by any measure!

I apologize for having misled you that I care a fig about your dubious opinion or the poor economic status of your beloved telecoms who are "all over your area"!!.
 
And your defence of the telecoms, who according to your "facts", are living in the poor-house, says a lot about your "facts". These are extremely profitable companies!
You failed to address the point. Even if those companies forego all profits, it would change your monthly bill by only a few percent. Your broadband costs more than you like not because of "greedy fat cats", but because installing and maintaining thousands of miles of underground fiber into remote areas is astonishingly expensive.

You are one amazingly smart, and most of all, lucky guy!
While I appreciate the compliment, I'd appreciate a rational response even more.
 
You failed to address the point. Even if those companies forego all profits, it would change your monthly bill by only a few percent. Your broadband costs more than you like not because of "greedy fat cats", but because installing and maintaining thousands of miles of underground fiber into remote areas is astonishingly expensive.

While I appreciate the compliment, I'd appreciate a rational response even more.

You have no point and stop embarrassing yourself.

This is not a kindergarten where one has to spoon-feed "adults" like you a modicum of logic to make them realize the obvious.

If other companies in other countries can provide high speed at much lower prices, then why can't US companies? Either due to incompetence or greed or both.

And don't regurgitate the stupid argument "it's not possible because the US is a bigger country...."

You are on ignore as of now, I have better things to do with my time than argue with the likes of you. But feel free to embarrass yourself further for the enjoyment of others.
 
If other companies in other countries can provide high speed at much lower prices, then why can't US companies?
A fair question. We've already established that "corporate greed" is not the issue. The US is far from the most expensive nation for broadband: it runs about the middle of the pack, depending on the metric used. There are indeed many nations with cheaper service. They do so via one or more of the following three factors:

1. Collapse of their currency through civil war or economic disaster, leading to absurdly low comparisons to the US dollar.
2. A tax structure (often include a VAT) that means the average citizen pays thousands or tens of thousands more in taxes, some portion of which is used to subsidize lower broadband costs, allowing people to regain a few hundred dollars of that extra expense.
3. Failing to provide access to remote areas with low population densities (or a nation which has few or none such areas to start).

None of the three are particularly attractive options for us here in the U.S. to consider implementing.
 
Back