DescentBB

You're right. In fact, only need a fast connection mobile communications and the Internet for people to work or talk with the girls and share of meaningless photos with the beaches of Thailand... Mature people are much smarter and they do not spend time and money on this nonsense.

The truth is sigma, I don't have to use the phone much. My husband and I are retired, we don't travel due to his illness and we don't have most of our relatives left alive to talk to, so why spend money on something we don't need? A landline is sufficient. Now, if we were younger, healthier and still working, that would be a whole different matter. With the shift to broadband for entertainment, that's a problem I'm hoping someone will solve by coming in, upgrading the infrustructure, and giving a little stiff competition to the 2 telecoms who now sit on their butts milking their old architecture monopoly they currently have here. I'm willing to pay for gigabit access, so they're missing out on at least one customer. I know a few of my neighbors wouldn't mind more speed too.

You reminded me of a story. Two years ago, I took care of an elderly couple. The old man had a problem with blood vessels, which ultimately ended in gangrene of the legs and stroke. But you know what struck me? This old man until the end of his days studying! He has always been on the computer desk books "Computers For Dummies" and "Internet for Dummies".

tunnelcat wrote: I'm willing to pay for gigabit access, so they're missing out on at least one customer. I know a few of my neighbors wouldn't mind more speed too.

It may be better to move to Minnesota?

They do even better than that: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Minn ... 400-132094

10 gbps, yours for just $400/mo.

I just do not believe my eyes. $47 for 100 Mbps? My ISP gives me 100 Mbps + 164 channel cable digital TV is cost $7.5 a month. If it's not a secret, I ask you, what the average salary in the United States?
P.S. TC, I did not know about it earlier. Continue to use a landline phone...

Average household income in the US is around $55,000/year.

It's good money, but I can not understand how they survive with such prices.

Krom wrote:They do even better than that: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Minn ... 400-132094

10 gbps, yours for just $400/mo.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK! I'm not THAT rich. I'd even settle for 100mbps at this point.

You would settle for 100 mbps?

I can get by on 5 mbps without much difficulty, 10 mbps easily. Pretty much everything higher than that is just gradually increasing levels of convenience, with 100 mbps being pretty darn convenient. Granted, as files grow bigger over time I've found that the "get by" mark has been gradually rising, a decade ago 2 mbps was more than I would have possibly needed but probably in a couple more years that mark will move more towards 10 mbps. I might get spoiled a little sooner than the rest of you though, because I ran a speed test this morning and well...

Well, it's better than 1.5 mbps and 1 gbps IS a pipe dream.

But yeah, it looks like we can now get 10 mbps from Century Link. I guess that'll have to do. "sighs"

TC, try changing your browser and take advantage of namebench

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your download speed governed by the website you are downloading from and the server/connection they have?

Your download speed is governed by the speed of the slowest link between you and the server (further subtracting congestion if applicable), latency also plays a role but as long as it is under ~100 MS it is minor. For most people, the slowest link between them and the server is their own home internet connection which in the US currently averages about 11 mbps.

For me it is. My DSL supplier is the actual choke point, the slowest link in the chain.