The internet is dead.

[Ivo]

Popo, we live in the same area. How come yours is so much faster?!

He must be closer to a source.

My test is very weird. I had 3.0 Mbps down and 4.4 Mbps up...

Ivo.

[Xeogred]

Meh.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

[alienjesus]

Huh, I live in the middle of the countryside, so this is pretty good. Where I lived for Uni was about twice this fast though.

[Zing]

Usage-based billing is on it's way.

It's been here in Canada for years, with little ill effect in regards to the number of internet users.

meh. The provider who decides to do this will lose a bunch of customers. (You can switch service providers, y'know?)

For many people, there is only one broadband provider. For most people, there are a few, but when all of them impose these fees, or it is governmentally mandated, it doesn't matter.

Look at the bright side: bandwidth caps pretty much kill that digital-only future you guys have been fearing.

ISPs have been taking advantage of their own UBB by either directly providing for the service desired, or striking up exclusive deals with other companies. In both cases, they exempt the service from UBB. For example, Bell offers TV over IP. The alternative is Netflix online. Guess which one Bell doesn't count toward your monthly bandwidth limit?

Canada has been fighting this for years. Currently, third party ISPs are exempt from the incumbent's UBB. So, if you are lucky enough to live in an area serviced by a third-party and not the "big two", you can still get virtually unlimited bandwidth. However, the incumbents have been working overtime to rectify this with the regulatory body. A massive shift in the attitude in the US could easily push it over the edge here.

[MrPopo]

Popo, we live in the same area. How come yours is so much faster?!

I actually just got upgraded to the next service tier. I signed up for another 2 years (that I was going to use anyway) and they gave me faster internet for less.

[o.pwuaioc]

[AmishSamurai]

Not bad considering their nearest server is in an entirely different state.

[OldSchool_Boy]

Its pretty funny how the topic came to a dick measuring contest of internet speed and Zing tried to bring the topic back but then it went back to dick measuring

[J T]

It's hard to rely on competition to drive prices down in the ISP world because it costs a fortune to lay down all the cable required to compete. The cost of entry is so high for a new ISP company that we just don't see new ones develop, and if they do, it's usually in a new location where there will be less competition to begin with. Companies like Comcast that already laid the groundwork as cable companies have a clear advantage over any and all competitors. When new companies do attempt to start up, Comcast just provides temporary special packages that crush the competition's chances of ever getting off the ground. And of course, as a business, there's nothing stopping them from protecting their position in the number one spot.

It's just unfortunate because high speed internet has nearly become a necessity for modern life. Everything is online now, and if you don't have internet access, you don't have access to many things and you certainly lose almost all competitiveness on the job market. It's all so weird because the internet requires businesses like Comcast to run it, but I also agree with the notion that the internet should be a human right in the modern age. I don't know what the best way to handle it is, because I'm not sure if it's better left in the hands of private industry as it is now, or to launch a government program to provide internet access. It seems like things aren't so bad yet that it needs a federal program, but it could get there if ISPs runs prices too high and retains what is essentially a monopoly in each locale they operate (meaning, there are multiple ISPs, but each one usually runs without competition in their region).