>
aren't so diffused in the USA "fast" lines ?The US is a big place.
I'm in Maine. Look on a
map. (I'm near the coast; "nobody" lives where Google put that pointer.)
There's people in Quebec and in Boston. More in New York and some up as far as Portland. I am many hours north of Portland. People are thin here.
(Actually a lot are over-weight, but not a lot of people for all these woods.)I'm up-against the "Last Mile" problem.
Wire-services (telephone, cable TV, DSL...) make money when there are a lot of people in a small area. It is inexpensive per user to bring a fat data-pipe to a city or town. It is expensive to bring data the "Last Mile" to our house.
I found a statistic "25 homes per mile" to justify a new wire down that street. My street has about 45 homes in 2 miles.
We do have basic voice-phone (installed when "universal service" was still a Bell Tel goal). It is very basic, long wires. When I had a "56K" dial-up modem here I got 20K on good days, much less if it was raining or hot or cold...
DSL is not going to happen here. The Bell Tel company sold the whole area to a small operator who is overwhelmed. They can barely maintain the system they got, are not going to upgrade small corners of it. (They did upgrade to DSL service in a nearby area with a lot of wealthy people along a short stretch of road. This was so exciting they put "DSL!" signs along the road.)
This area had Cable TV a long time ago, when over-the-air reception was maybe two snowy channels from far-away transmitters. A local guy put up several of the old 4-meter satellite dishes and ran wires along the street. This was later absorbed by the MAJOR cable company, who upgrades as little as possible, while raising rates constantly.
I (finally!!) got internet via Cable TV. Ideally, this is very fast. However the total bandwidth per street is limited. When everybody else is downloading movies in the evening, my connection gets very slow and jerky.
Not just per street. The internet went out for a day when there was flooding two states over. Turns out that ALL of the area north and west of Boston is served by ONE(*) internet connection from Albany through Vermont, and the flood knocked-out that line.
(* Actually there is a back-up line but it didn't work....) So that's 3 million people on one wire.
Service was
much better an hour outside New York City (50-200 homes per mile of street).
Interestingly, SpeedTest gives decent numbers. By default it connects to a server inside Maine, but even when I change that to a server closer to Hoffman (past the Vermont bottleneck) it isn't bad.
Download 20 Mega bits per second
Upload 1.0-0.5 Mega bits per second
I think I am paying for "Standard - Download speeds up to 10Mbps - Upload speeds up to 1Mbps". I think "Standard" was recently upgraded to 20mbps. So I am getting exactly what they promise. I could get a 50mbps promise for another $50/month.... my time isn't worth that much.
However I used to work on a tightly monitored 10mbps link at a school. It was snappier. I don't think SpeedTest is a good test of overall surfing speed. (I also wonder if the cable company "knows" SpeedTest and gives such packets extra priority.... when I put "speedtest" in Google my cable-company has an ad right above it.)