It is pretty difficult to prove a negative assertion so we'll go with what is in front of our faces rather than the opposite IMHO

Digitalfiend wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 19:12:
Teksavvy is just leasing off of Bell's lines anyways and actually provides worse support, according to all the reviews lately. If there is a network problem they have to wait for mother Bell to fix it, and it is no different going with their cable solution which is operated by Rogers. I don't have time to mess around with tech support on the phone for hours on end.

There are situations where the support is an issue. But the degree to which that is an issue is extremely small. The vast majority of people have no (or very minor) problems. If you go to some place like dslreports, yes, you're going to see people posting problems because that's what the site is for. You aren't going to see all the people that don't have problems, because they have no reason to post.

I should have mentioned that Bell dings me $70/mo because I'm grandfathered into their old High Speed Internet unlimited plan. So they are essentially charging me $25 overuse upfront per month. FIBE isn't even offered in our area, which is weird. Teksavvy also doesn't offer 25/10 here (neither does Rogers.)

That's fine, but if you use less than 300GB per month, you could be paying $35/mth for the same connection. If you use more than that, you could be paying $46/mth for the same connection with true unlimited (using Teksavvy's numbers here, there are quite a few others out there to choose from as well). Either way, the choice to pay $70 is yours. You can't use paying $70/mth as a downside to Canadian internet when you've got cheaper options you're ignoring.

For the record, I'm only paying $53/mth for my 25/10 connection. So with my anecdotal evidence, Canadian internet is awesome!

Bhruic wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 03:22:

I do live in Canada, and I have a nice 25/10 connection. You, on the other hand, are getting ripped off because apparently you haven't looked at the alternatives. I dunno if you can get faster - probably not - but you could certainly get cheaper. Check out 3rd party ISPs like Teksavvy, you'll be paying a lot less for your 6/0.8.

Teksavvy is just leasing off of Bell's lines anyways and actually provides worse support, according to all the reviews lately. If there is a network problem they have to wait for mother Bell to fix it, and it is no different going with their cable solution which is operated by Rogers. I don't have time to mess around with tech support on the phone for hours on end.

I should have mentioned that Bell dings me $70/mo because I'm grandfathered into their old High Speed Internet unlimited plan. So they are essentially charging me $25 overuse upfront per month. FIBE isn't even offered in our area, which is weird. Teksavvy also doesn't offer 25/10 here (neither does Rogers.)

Verno wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 09:08:
3rd party ISPs can be really problematic. A guildmate of mine had that ISP you mentioned and it was nothing but problems. Every time there was an issue, he would have to contact Teksavvy who couldn't fix it themselves and instead had to call Bell who took their time with everything. After everything was finally fixed they took him off a remote and put him back on the CO two weeks later. Looking at their forum on dslreports confirms this is a common problem, amongst the other hundreds of support complaints I see on there.

He ended up getting a cheap business package from a cableco and couldn't be happier. No overages and support is stellar.

Certainly it's a common complaint - but you can't judge based on what you see at dslreports. Go look at the Bell forum and you'll see just as many - if not more - complaints and problems getting support.

And it's certainly not a perfect system. Despite the fact our "regulator" has mandated that 3rd party ISPs can use the telecom/cable company's lines, they aren't happy about it, and go out of their way to make things difficult/annoying for customers of those ISPs. Those ISPs, however, have been fighting for consumer rights, and have helped stop things like UBB (which would have massively increased costs for those who use higher amounts of bandwidth). So not only do they cost less and provide more, they're also actively acting in consumer's best interests. That's definitely worth putting up with a bit of extra hassle (and personally I've had only a few problems over the years).

Verno wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 09:08:

Bhruic wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 03:22:
I do live in Canada, and I have a nice 25/10 connection. You, on the other hand, are getting ripped off because apparently you haven't looked at the alternatives. I dunno if you can get faster - probably not - but you could certainly get cheaper. Check out 3rd party ISPs like Teksavvy, you'll be paying a lot less for your 6/0.8.

3rd party ISPs can be really problematic. A guildmate of mine had that ISP you mentioned and it was nothing but problems. Every time there was an issue, he would have to contact Teksavvy who couldn't fix it themselves and instead had to call Bell who took their time with everything. After everything was finally fixed they took him off a remote and put him back on the CO two weeks later. Looking at their forum on dslreports confirms this is a common problem, amongst the other hundreds of support complaints I see on there.

He ended up getting a cheap business package from a cableco and couldn't be happier. No overages and support is stellar.

I had one problem in 10 years with my ISP and it was Bell's fault and they got them to fix it ASAP and my ISP is Montreal for Christ's sake so there's ZERO excuse.

And how about completely urban areas where I still can't get a fiber connection? I live within 30 minutes of two major cities and I have access to slower, overpriced TWC or some podunk DSL connections.

Same, except in my case it's over-priced Comcast and I'm within 15 minutes.

Even assuming that all it took to get an internet connection was "a cable line" - which isn't true - that doesn't change the fact that population density is a huge factor when it comes to what areas get covered. In a lot of remote areas, there just aren't enough people to justify the cost of the hardware that would be required to allow high(er) speed access.

And how about completely urban areas where I still can't get a fiber connection? I live within 30 minutes of two major cities and I have access to slower, overpriced TWC or some podunk DSL connections.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 03:22:
I do live in Canada, and I have a nice 25/10 connection. You, on the other hand, are getting ripped off because apparently you haven't looked at the alternatives. I dunno if you can get faster - probably not - but you could certainly get cheaper. Check out 3rd party ISPs like Teksavvy, you'll be paying a lot less for your 6/0.8.

3rd party ISPs can be really problematic. A guildmate of mine had that ISP you mentioned and it was nothing but problems. Every time there was an issue, he would have to contact Teksavvy who couldn't fix it themselves and instead had to call Bell who took their time with everything. After everything was finally fixed they took him off a remote and put him back on the CO two weeks later. Looking at their forum on dslreports confirms this is a common problem, amongst the other hundreds of support complaints I see on there.

He ended up getting a cheap business package from a cableco and couldn't be happier. No overages and support is stellar.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 03:22:

Digitalfiend wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 02:16:
Try living in Canada...

I live in a recently built subdivision (~5 years old) that is just north (~2 km) of a reasonably sized city (122K+) and I'm stuck with DSL (Bell) at *6* Mbps down/1Mbps up. Rogers (cable), which is faster, has serious issues with bandwidth during peak hours and throttles torrents (80kbps). Also Rogers limits all of their plans, except their "Ultimate" package (which is $122/mo) to *1* Mbps. Even their $70mo plan is limited to *1*Mbps. Bell charges me almost $70/mo for 6Mbps.

Now THAT is called being ripped off...

I do live in Canada, and I have a nice 25/10 connection. You, on the other hand, are getting ripped off because apparently you haven't looked at the alternatives. I dunno if you can get faster - probably not - but you could certainly get cheaper. Check out 3rd party ISPs like Teksavvy, you'll be paying a lot less for your 6/0.8.

AEI Internet they've been my ISP for over a decade now. $30 per month 5down/1up no caps, no throttling. And yes, there is Teksavy and others just do some research.

The major problem in the US however seems to be that not only are the cablecos/telcos not expanding as they're supposed to given their monopoly status in some areas but preventing people who live in those areas from doing anything about it themselves by suing them. That's insane.

This is why the US is so far behind these other countries and it's not because of population density.

The popluation density disparity between South Korea and the US is most certainly a significant factor, but I don't believe it is what poses the greatest obstacle to better affordable broadband penetration in the US. Just my opinion based on what I've seen in the different cities I've lived in.

Digitalfiend wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 02:16:
Try living in Canada...

I live in a recently built subdivision (~5 years old) that is just north (~2 km) of a reasonably sized city (122K+) and I'm stuck with DSL (Bell) at *6* Mbps down/1Mbps up. Rogers (cable), which is faster, has serious issues with bandwidth during peak hours and throttles torrents (80kbps). Also Rogers limits all of their plans, except their "Ultimate" package (which is $122/mo) to *1* Mbps. Even their $70mo plan is limited to *1*Mbps. Bell charges me almost $70/mo for 6Mbps.

Now THAT is called being ripped off...

I'm similar, DSL is my only option at 6 Mbps down/Less than 1 Mbps up. Cable doesn't work, as Rogers' lines need to be redone (and they won't do them). So its Bell or other small providers on the same DSL lines. $70/month, the only positive is that its unlimited bandwidth (though at such slow speeds it takes forever to use it).

Canada has similar internet quality to 3rd world African countries, we can only dream of US internet speeds. The wonders of a government regulated monopoly (when two providers work at similar prices and never compete - its a monopoly).

Digitalfiend wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 02:16:
Try living in Canada...

I live in a recently built subdivision (~5 years old) that is just north (~2 km) of a reasonably sized city (122K+) and I'm stuck with DSL (Bell) at *6* Mbps down/1Mbps up. Rogers (cable), which is faster, has serious issues with bandwidth during peak hours and throttles torrents (80kbps). Also Rogers limits all of their plans, except their "Ultimate" package (which is $122/mo) to *1* Mbps. Even their $70mo plan is limited to *1*Mbps. Bell charges me almost $70/mo for 6Mbps.

Now THAT is called being ripped off...

I do live in Canada, and I have a nice 25/10 connection. You, on the other hand, are getting ripped off because apparently you haven't looked at the alternatives. I dunno if you can get faster - probably not - but you could certainly get cheaper. Check out 3rd party ISPs like Teksavvy, you'll be paying a lot less for your 6/0.8.

Try living in Canada...

I live in a recently built subdivision (~5 years old) that is just north (~2 km) of a reasonably sized city (122K+) and I'm stuck with DSL (Bell) at *6* Mbps down/1Mbps up. Rogers (cable), which is faster, has serious issues with bandwidth during peak hours and throttles torrents (80kbps). Also Rogers limits all of their plans, except their "Ultimate" package (which is $122/mo) to *1* Mbps. Even their $70mo plan is limited to *1*Mbps. Bell charges me almost $70/mo for 6Mbps.

Now THAT is called being ripped off...

Tom wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 00:29:
Even aside from rural areas where lower population density is an issue, broadband in the US still sucks. There is a serious lack of competition. Too many places have only one viable broadband option, and that single company with the monopoly has zero incentive to provide competitive service at a competitive price. And thanks to corruption, they tend to be quite successful at defending their monopoly status.

This is why the US is so far behind these other countries and it's not because of population density.

There's no denying that the US has less competition than some other countries. There's no denying that's a factor. But it's not the only factor and very likely isn't the most significant factor.

Population density is definitely one of those factors, and likely one of the most important ones when it comes to "average" speed. Heck, at 20/2, you have a higher speed than the average speed in South Korea (17.5) - and they have if not the best, definitely one of the top 3 best internet connections in the world.

As for your other point, it's not competition that fuels the internet development in South Korea, it's the government. To quote another article:
"A big difference is that (South) Korea made a decisive move to expand Internet in the country," he said. "They said we want to be very good at connecting to the Internet. A lot of government money was thrown at it."

The US tends to leave things to the private sector, and the private sector is interested in making money. It's hardly a surprise they are going to make that their priority rather than increasing connection speeds.

Even aside from rural areas where lower population density is an issue, broadband in the US still sucks. There is a serious lack of competition. Too many places have only one viable broadband option, and that single company with the monopoly has zero incentive to provide competitive service at a competitive price. And thanks to corruption, they tend to be quite successful at defending their monopoly status.

I currently live in a city in which Time Warner Cable is the only option for speeds faster than DSL. Thanks to the complete lack of competition, they still haven't even upgraded their equipment beyond DOCSIS 2.0. DOCSIS 3.0 has been around for over 6 years now. When they announced they were going to start charging modem rental fees and everyone was up in arms, well, it didn't happen here because they apparently don't have the balls to charge a rental fee for obsolete DOCSIS 2.0 modems.

It costs me $60/month for 20/2. Not that I even get anywhere near the 20 most of the time on YouTube thanks to their meddling. Speed tests always show a solid 20Mbps down, so it's not a last mile issue. So even when you can actually pay for a decent speed (not good or great but decent), you don't even get that all the time.

This is why the US is so far behind these other countries and it's not because of population density.

PHJF wrote on Oct 21, 2012, 22:52:
Installing, operating and maintaining rail != laying down/hanging a cable line.

Telecoms have consistently been raising prices without increasing access or quality of service.

Even assuming that all it took to get an internet connection was "a cable line" - which isn't true - that doesn't change the fact that population density is a huge factor when it comes to what areas get covered. In a lot of remote areas, there just aren't enough people to justify the cost of the hardware that would be required to allow high(er) speed access.

If you live in a city, you likely have access to decent high speed internet (that may well be overpriced). But if you have to average that in with all the people in rural areas that - at best - only have access to satellite or dialup, then the overall rate is certain to look worse than a country like South Korea.

But it is. Just like it is why, in general, public transportation is no useful in the US except for a few cities, where it is very useful in other countries.

Installing, operating and maintaining rail != laying down/hanging a cable line.

Telecoms have consistently been raising prices without increasing access or quality of service.

Tom wrote on Oct 21, 2012, 21:58:

Bhruic wrote on Oct 21, 2012, 21:16:
Population density of South Korea: 503 pop/km^2
Population density of the US: 34 pop/km^2

This is not an acceptable excuse.

But it is. Just like it is why, in general, public transportation is no useful in the US except for a few cities, where it is very useful in other countries.


Ireland, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index), is at the top of the quality of life index for 2005 data. Much higher then the US or South Korea.

Where is there population density is 65pop/km^2 (wikipedia again), and they have a broad band internet access penetration rate of ~30% (http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg09101.pdf)


Population density is really the only major significant difference in which sets highly developed countries apart.

And it plays a critical role in everything, from transportation, energy, cost, technology, etc.

I.E. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Ch3e3d.png broadband internet access is readily available to those that live in the larger population density. But it is really easy to skew averages down.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 21, 2012, 21:16:
Population density of South Korea: 503 pop/km^2
Population density of the US: 34 pop/km^2

This is not an acceptable excuse.

Prez wrote on Oct 21, 2012, 20:15:
Or am I supposed to believe that South Korea can do it but a country with the vast resources and know-how of the US can't? I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.

Population density of South Korea: 503 pop/km^2
Population density of the US: 34 pop/km^2