What kind of internet connection do you have?

For the sake of simplicity, if you have more than 1 internet connection, just list the main one

 

One thing...
Don't tkey echnologies vary slightly from country to country?
So DSL for Europe, but more cable for the US, and optial fibres for East Asia?

 

It's not so much that "the technologies vary slightly", it's more like some parts of the world are technologically behind compared to others. In an ideal world, everyone would be using either fiber (for computers) or cellular broadband (for cellphones).

 

I use cellular broadband for my notebook.

 

And that's only if fibre optics are done right...

I knwo they started on fibre optics in Germany... then cam DSL... and the people who got the optical cables are stuck with lower speeds.

 

Something seems fishy about that. Even the fiber that was laid 10+ years ago during the dot-com boom is expected to scale up to at least terabits per second, and a good deal of it is indeed running at those speeds today.

So either the ISP's haven't been updating their other equipment to take advantage of faster speeds, or they're purposely capping speeds.

 

Fiber ftw!

 

It was only one ISP - Deutsche Telekom which was since cut up by the government into smaller companies (which are still under the same parent company) - and I think the problem is, at the time fibre optics was too expensive, along came DSL so they didn't invest in it any more.

And I actually don't expect fibre optics to be widespread in Europe any time soon.

I know Intel was working on Fibre optics for home users - once that becomes available companies may upgrade.
Part of the problem is the masive costs to upgrade the network - yes, its a one off, but companies hve lost the ability to plan for longer than 6 months.
(If you meet your 6 months aim, good, no matter if you fall apart in 2 yeas time...)

I think the keyadvantage of DSL is that it allows ISPs to use existing copper phone lines - thus the cost was much lower.

Also, you have people calling for low cost access - people aren't willing to spend a lot.

And in terms of nicely priced speeds, in Germany my grandfather has a 16MBit/s connetion for around 20ish € a monh (25 but with cheaper phone calls abroad and free landline calls inside Germany) - I think he may be paying 29 per month, but he got vouchers for the shop where he siged up (large one, and very good ) worth over 100€ - I think 150 or even 180€ odd... so in the end he actually doesn't pay as much over 2 years
Now, that line hits 40MBit/s on SPeedtest.net quite regularly.
What was the cost to the ISP? Very little - the phone line already existed in the house so all they had to do was flick a switch to make it work (it was disconnected before)
The thing is, at these speeds you don't need fibre optics - there are very few legal uses that actually need that much bandwidth at any given time.

In the UK however, we pay somwhere close to 30 Pounds per month for a connection that gets about 3MBit/s (pay for 8 to have no data cap) and free calls within the UK as well as certain other countries (including Germany).

Even on slow poke 3MBit/s 2 people can watch the BBC iplayer simultaneously.

 

Maybe they should start investing again... Unless if someone comes up with a breakthrough, DSL maxes out at about 20-25 Mbps. Speeds above that can't be guaranteed for the most distant homes.

I thought fiber was almost universal in Scandinavia, and France seems to have quite a bit of it as well.

You're right, last mile fiber is extremely expensive. Verizon's budget for FiOS is currently $18 billion, and that doesn't even cover all the markets (cities) they hope to eventually serve.

In South Korea, a 100 Mbit fiber connection costs the equivalent of $30 USD a month. In Japan, it's about $40 to $45.

The thing is, Asian governments recognize the importance of staying up to date with technology, so they give huge subsidies to the telecoms that are willing to make the investment. As a result, people in these countries can get lightning fast internet at very affordable prices.

On the other hand, if Verizon didn't charge what they charge, they'd never make their $18 billion back. And besides, not every ISP is as big as Verizon - few ISPs can afford an $18 billion investment to begin with.

Having every webpage load instantly is nice. In fact, it makes the speed difference between Firefox/Chrome/IE very apparent. Besides, I try a lot of random MMORPG's, and the installers are usually somewhere between 5 and 10 GB each, and I sure wouldn't mind shaving off 75% or more of the download time every other week or so. Not to mention all the software I get from Microsoft that comes in the form of downloadable DVD ISO's.

UK internet is... expensive.

 

BT broadband so DSL. I'm meant to be on 20meg speeds. You can get cable in the UK, Sky, Virgin and other companies offer this.

I also have a mobile broadband package as well with BT which works out fine for me as i get that free.

I don't think what i pay in the UK is expensive. I pay £15.95 a month and i got a free wireless hub, 1GB of mobile broadband use a month, can use BT Openzone and get 10GB a month.

I have also used AOL in the past and i was with them for about 5yrs but i left because of bad service.

 

Wait, so Rachel, you're paying just over half what DetlevCM does and you get over 5x the speeds? I guess it really varies...

 

It seems like DetlevCM may be overpaying. There are better deals out there. I know people that also get their internet practically for free because of existing contracts.

I'm on BT Option 1, but when i was renewing my contract i managed to get some freebies thrown in like the free mobile broadband. I didn't pay a one off fee for it.

For unlimited it is £25 a month for 20 meg with different things thrown in.
http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayCategory.do?categoryId=CON-TOTAL-BB-R1

BT are as well far from being cheapest out there.

 

As seen in the UK.... in Sunderland we got around 7 MBit/s during daytime and up to 9MBit/s when no-one was online..
(Paying for 8)

No idea - I'm nopt living there but would be nice

I'm not sure a lot of people would like to pay 30€ a month for Internet access...
Maybe 30€ for high sped access, but less for slower speeds - technically the 25 odd € my grandfather pays aren't cheap, he could get less, but then he would have a cap... if we have Skype running for a few hours... then maybe get him to use his internet.. have him send me files overnight...
Point is - most people in Europe want good quality at a reasonable price.
(I.e. not overpriced, but not cheap junk either - that's why Aldi is so successful)

I think few companies can - I suppose the government has to help here.

My Webpages open pretty much instantaneously on a 3MBit/s connection - so what pages do you visit?
If something loads slow its the browser in my case... (I think Youtube is sower on FF than IE for me???) - but its not the connection that's the issue here.
And multi player games... the "Killer" of social life...
ISOs - you don't download them that often - just run it overnight.
I had no problem runnin a MSDN-AA download and just browsing normally for a few hours when home.

Yepp....
And I think the most expensive part is getting rid of the data cap.

 

We also need calls to Germany on a regular basis... we get them free as part of the contract.

Its Tiscali the way...

 

Any uncached page is far from instantaneous on my current connection. It actually takes several seconds for all images to load.

On the other hand, on an 100 Mbps connection, there's no difference between a cached page and an uncached page, which is how the internet should be.

I don't really know how to explain it since it's one of those things you have to experience for yourself to really understand, but let's just say that near instantaneous isn't the same thing as instantaneous, and once you've seen it, the difference is obvious.

 

What kind of pages do you load?

Heavy graphics and flash??

 

Let's just say this page. When uncached, the NotebookReview.com logo takes a moment to load. Not instantaneous.

Doesn't have to be a heavy graphics and flash page for there to be a difference, though the difference is definitely more pronounced on sites like yahoo.com or microsoft.com or youtube.com

 

Hmm... I tend not to notice that...

I only notice lag with overloaded sites.... and that's more the browser.

 

Thanks to caching, it's one of those things you don't notice until you're used to something better.

Kind of like how people were satisfied with CRT TV's for decades, but if you asked someone today who has a 1080p plasma TV to go back to a CRT TV, they'd probably start complaining within minutes.

 

Hmm... maybe.... or maybe not...

My gradmother's plasma, vs. the CRT that moved to my grandfather vs. my 13,3" Vaio screen - I take my Vaio's screen any time.

Its small and I can see it easily without moving my head.

And even after clearing the cache - if I open Flickr its pretty quick for me.
And if something loads a bit longer its too big.
The internet isn't meat to load 1MB Flash adds, or 3MB pictures.

Heck, the old ISDN connections in Germany worked well...

 

That's not the comparison I was making.

I beg to differ - the future of the internet is clearly HD video on demand, and with digital cameras taking bigger and bigger pictures, internet connections need to keep up. Frankly, the "if something loads a bit longer its too big" attitude is stifling innovation.

As for ISDN... If you feel like living in the past, more power to you.

 

Well, 2 people can watch the BBC iplayer comfortably on a 3MBit/s connection.

 

Comcast cable here. FIOS will be arriving in my neighborhood soon (Philadelphia) and when that time comes, ill definitely give it a look.