Average broadband speeds in US now at 6.7 Mbps

The United States still trails a number of other countries around the world in terms of Internet broadband speeds, but the US is making some progress. That's according to the new "State of the Internet' report released today by the cloud-based Internet service Akamai.

The report claims that for the first quarter of 2012, the average broadband speeds for Internet access in the US was set at 6.7 Mbps. That's up 29 percent compared to a year ago and up 17 percent compared to the previous quarter.

Even with these improvements, the US is still rated 12th in the world on the list of Internet broadband speeds. South Korea is still number one with an average speed of 15.7 Mbps, followed by Japan with an 10.7 Mbps average speed and Hong Hong comes in third with 9.3 Mbps.

Recently we have seen the Internet "speed wars" take on a new level in the US, as Verizon FiOS announced a bump up to an upper speed limit of 300 Mbps and Comcast offering a 305 Mbps speed option in some areas.

A few weeks ago, Google gave the first details of its Google Fiber project in Kansas City, which is aiming to give customers speeds of up to 1 Gbps, for both uploads and downloads.

Via: DSLReports.com
Source: Akamai | Image via Akamai

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Debian drops GNOME, chooses Xfce as default desktop

Next Story

Microsoft to replace 'Metro-Style" with "Windows 8 application"

29 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

pretty sad... japan has speeds of over 1 gbps, I have 25mb speed via xfinity, their best is now 300mb, but Im not paying $250 a month for it

Heh...We used to get 6mbps DSL through ATT/Yahoo. Or should I say we PAID for 6 mbps; we rarely got a sustained rate, usually dipping down to about half that during a download that took longer than a few minutes.

After we started getting a lot of disconnects we contacted ATT/Yahoo, and they sent some yahoo to check the lines. He told us he couldn't find the problem (because ultimately he wasn't even looking at the right line outside). We requested another technician, who told us that the company should never have let us have 6 mbps because we were too far from whatever connector determined that rate!

He recommended we dial the speed back down to 3 mbps, which we did; it made exactly a $3 difference in the monthly billing, and we were still having the occasional problem.

I first got a new wireless router, which just seemed to make the problem worse, but today I installed a combo router/ADSL modem (the modem we got from the company was the same one we got from them when we started the service back in 2002). It's working right now, but if we have a recurrence of the problem, I shall be looking for another provider.

It really is misleading. You can't go into any city and not have decent speeds from at least one ISP. It wouldn't make sense that none of the ISPs invested in the area in the past 10 years. It's the mid-west and hugely rural areas that get screwed. I have a client in Washington where his only way of getting internet is by bridging from a wireless carrier. Well that and satellite but consider that not an option.

Xenosion said,
It really is misleading. You can't go into any city and not have decent speeds from at least one ISP. It wouldn't make sense that none of the ISPs invested in the area in the past 10 years. It's the mid-west and hugely rural areas that get screwed. I have a client in Washington where his only way of getting internet is by bridging from a wireless carrier. Well that and satellite but consider that not an option.
The mid-west does get screwed. a 25 Mbps connection is around $80 or more. That's considered fast. Of course we *can* get 50 and even 100 Mbps connections (still under the rest of the country) but those are rare (usually through TW) and cost well over $100.

Recently, probably due to Google's fiber network being rolled out, TW lowered it's prices. Now $80 for a 50 Mbps connection. Still, that's the top speed they offer and only in a few places.

Thankfully Google is here now and I'm pre-registered.

For the size of our country, it's not bad. Could it be better? Always. All the countries that rank above us are small. I'm sorry, if your country is the size of freaking New Jersey, you better have super high speed internet.

neufuse said,

*shrugs* I have a 150Mbit/65Mbit fiber line at home in the USA *rubs it in on you also*

We pay about £26 for our broadband, how much is yours?

Tony. said,

We pay about £26 for our broadband, how much is yours?

I'm on BT, and I pay £55 a month for 5MB/s.

McKay said,

I'm on BT, and I pay £55 a month for 5MB/s.


Is that a business line? If not why is it so expensive? I only pay £35 / month for 330Mbit (41.25MB/s) with BT.

neufuse said,
*shrugs* I have a 150Mbit/65Mbit fiber line at home in the USA *rubs it in on you also*
Ahhhh, but how much do you pay?

McKay said,

I'm on BT, and I pay £55 a month for 5MB/s.

Did you mean to put MB/s or did you mean Mbps? If that's the case then you have a 40 Mbps connection? I'd still say you are being taken to the cleaners based on other peoples speed vs price ratios.

Then again, you're still doing much better than America.

are they including wireless in this number? Or is this all hardline? I could see wireless causing a skew when in a LOT of the country wireless sucks... minus the LTE sites that are poping up now...

Digging ditches or renting/buying fiber in NYC is gonna be expensive, probably a lot more expensive than fiber between two townships in rural US, that's why they don't go there.

That's still not very good for a country of our size. We really need to get it together. Google Fiber can come to Illinois next.

KSib said,
That's still not very good for a country of our size. We really need to get it together. Google Fiber can come to Illinois next.

Or Texas

Tekkerson said,

Or Texas

Maaaaybe haha. I just don't want it going to a huge city like NYC or Chicago next, but like a... Quad Cities, IA/IL. They get all the good stuff already.

KSib said,

Maaaaybe haha. I just don't want it going to a huge city like NYC or Chicago next, but like a... Quad Cities, IA/IL. They get all the good stuff already.

That's because it is profitable there.

KSib said,
That's still not very good for a country of our size. We really need to get it together. Google Fiber can come to Illinois next.

Actually it's the exact opposite. It's quite good for a country of this size. The bigger the country, the harder and more expensive it gets to provide and upgrade the broadband internet infrastructure.

eddman said,

Actually it's the exact opposite. It's quite good for a country of this size. The bigger the country, the harder and more expensive it gets to provide and upgrade the broadband internet infrastructure.

Especially seeing as we aren't condensed in one specific area. We have vastly wide open land, mountainous regions, and so forth in between towns and cities. Sucks if you live out in those areas especially. (though, "sucks" is a relative term, as waking up to see mountains would be nice...)

eddman said,

Actually it's the exact opposite. It's quite good for a country of this size. The bigger the country, the harder and more expensive it gets to provide and upgrade the broadband internet infrastructure.

+1

Every other country on the list is no larger than the average size of one of our states and most are quite a bit smaller in land size. The cost of providing the types of average speeds in a continental sized country like ours is astronomical compared to these highly condensed countries that always beat us in these list.

The United States is actually very competitive if not at the top when you compare the average speeds of our more condensed population centers to these other countries.

KSib said,
That's still not very good for a country of our size. We really need to get it together. Google Fiber can come to Illinois next.
I want it to come to Nebraska, we never get anything good