For Fast Internet in the US, Virginia Tops the Charts

According to data gathered by Akamai, an analysis from Broadview Networks comes to the conclusion that the top five U.S. states for broadband speed are Virginia (at the top of the list, with an average transfer speed of 13.78 Mbps), Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington, with Washington, D.C. slightly edging out the similarly-named state; Alaska comes in dead last. These are average speeds, though, and big states have more variation to account for, including connections in the hinterlands. You could still have a fast connection in Chattanooga, or be stuck on dial-up in the Texas panhandle.

Re:Fiber to the Home

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, here in Sweden:
- my parents in law get 1000/1000 Mbps (real speed 950 Mbps up/down) for ~$60 / month
- my parents get 100/100 Mbps for ~$15
- my own house gets 100/100 Mbps for $50 / month
- my friends in a rural area / village of 20 people get 100/100 for $30 / month

All of them FTTH delivered via (un)restricted 1 Gbit/s ethernet.

Installation cost is typically $400-$2000.

Peter

Re:And yet here I am

[drkim]

Here I am, in downtown Richmond... ...3Mbps DSL.

You do know that they are talking about the average speed for the state..?

The way it breaks down in Virginia is:

You (and everybody else) = 3 Mbps
The CIA in Langley = 2000 Tbps

State average = 13.7 Mbps

Re:Fiber to the Home

[Charliemopps]

ISP rates are directly related to population density.

Citation please. I know plenty of people in both urban and rural areas, and they pay about the same. Far more important is the amount of local competition, and American ISPs have carved up both urban and rural areas to prevent that as much as possible.

I've worked for multiple ISPs for over 15yrs in nearly every department you can imagine. I'm my own citation.
You're right, people do pay the same in Urban and Rural areas. But that's because of federal law, not because it costs the same.
Remember how people complain about the "monopoly" the phone company has? That's not really a monopoly... there's an agreement between the Local government, the FCC and the telecommunications company in the area. They are very long and complex agreements but basically they boil down to:

The FCC will set some/most rates and fees for the telecom. Changes to these rates must be approved by the FCC.
The Telecom will charge everyone the same rate, and will not discriminate based on location. (location discrimination is specifically why the FCC regulates telecomes. The government wanted rural phone service and this was the only way to make it affordable)
The telecom will provide service to everyone with rare exceptions (your house is on an island for example)
In return for this the Local government will give the Telecom exclusive right to serve that area.

Now, the telecom does have some leeway in the rates they charge. But it's not a lot. The FCC will definitely get involved and definitely charge them fines if they do something wrong. I've seen billing mistakes lead to fines before. But what really keeps rates down are cellphones. People are moving to cellular in droves. It's to the point that POTs service and internet access are not profitable at all. Trust me, I've seen the numbers... landline stuff barely breaks even. But, where the telecoms make most of their money is in services to business. Managed networks, managed software, IP phones, collocation services, etc... if the telecom is the incumbent in the area, they are likely the first company a business will call about that sort of thing and those services are almost pure profit.

The best way to think about the whole thing is to realize how the equipment works. DSL works to about 30,000 feet. Meaning, you have a DSL card at one end, the furthest away you can go before the noise makes the DSL not work anymore is 30,000 feet. You may have heard of some new tech that lets it go farther. But I've seen real world tests of that stuff and it's all failed. So the phone company puts in a building in your town... everyone within 30k feet of that building is golden. After 30k feet the phone company has to install what we call a "DSA" this is basically a mini-switch that they run trunks to. Once again, everyone within 30k feet of that DSA is good. The problem is, each of those remotes pretty much costs the same. They're a few million dollars. They now have mini-DSA's that are basically just plastic boxes that cost a few hundred thousand, but they are still expensive.

So, you can probobly see where this is heading... you make as much money off that DSA as there are people within 30,000 feet of it. The more people, the more money you make. But I've seen DSA's that literally serve 20 people before. Think about that, a minimum $500,000 install to serve 20 people. So, the FCC mandates the phone company charges everyone the same. So the rates for people in town go up, to lower the rates for the people in rural areas. Like it or not, that's the way it works in this country. And before you rant on about rich people living on their ranches, these people are by and large poor and rural. Think of the Appalachian mountains. That's one of the most expensive areas to serve that I've seen. But without the subsidized service those people would not even have phone service. It would have a huge impact on their economy.

I wish there was more info out there for you to read about this. Unfortunately its something you pick up in the industry. You could start by looking at the FCC website. I tried to find more info for you but it's really lacking out there.