I can well believe that. The Bay Area, for example, has a chronic lack of decent internet. Staggering when you consider how much internet technology is developed there!

I'm in New England, which has FTTP (both Comcast and Verizon) widely deployed.

Edited by toph3r (Mon 25-Aug-14 18:55:50)

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

You can go even further - I think you'll find the average speed in the whole of the US is now lower than that of the UK.

Not a fair comparison though. England should be compared to individual (equivalent) states, such as MA, CA, CT, NY, WO, MD rather than the US as a whole.

He's in Seattle where they don't have Verizon's Fios - I think right now he might be with Comcast, but he was mentioning something about some new FTTH plans in the area, or something like that.

His gripe was with countless issues with his cellular contract with Verizon.

Virgin Media got caught out as their network couldn't cope with the growth and demand for faster internet. The same can be said for some other large ISPs (TalkTalk and Sky being two of the other big ones). I think now though, most ISPs have upscaled their networks and they continue to invest to meet the growth and demand for faster speeds.

How so though?

For me, you have to compare a country as a whole rather than picking certain parts.

Because each state is potentially completely different from the next. You should view the US in the same way as you would view England within the EU.

VZW is run as a separate division. I've never used them, and never will unless someone else pays their stupidly high wireless prices. It's unfair to label a companies internet product based on their (separate) wireless offering in my opinion.

Virgin needs to increase their upload speeds. It's a joke that they offer 100mbit+ down, yet only 10Mbit up.

there is traffic shaping in the .us in the form of traffic routing.

e.g. stick netflix over a congested transit until netflix pay a fee to the isp.

As for FTTP, I think a big part of the problem is that BT have been doing it in rural areas where it will be more expensive. Another part is of course doing it underground. BT are going for coverage vs headline speeds.

I haven't labelled them though.

I've just posted what's has been discussed left, right and centre in the US regarding their congested interconnects.

And counties in the UK are not different?

It's like comparing Virginia vs Alaska and Cornwall vs Conwy.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

And counties in the UK are not different?

No. They're not. Attempting to compare counties of England to States of the United States is facile.

Stop being stupid now, OK?