mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
yyea..i know difference between average speed and top speed......
and am just concerned with avg speed!!
and heard that USA has 4G networks launched in this year....and they have iPhones droids ipads a.k.a smartphones and tablets which use net significantly....so why dont they have superior speeds..?! oO
That depends on the definition of 4G. If we believe Tikona, that simply means "Wimax". Even LTE is not technically 4G, but it's somewhat closer to the truth.
As for the smartphones and tablets, yes, this has been a huge driver of mobile broadband data growth, but realistically, download speed is usually considered less important on a smartphone than a regular computer - where on a regular computer you're probably watching streaming movies (the recent data about Netflix suggests this to be the case for many) or downloading large files, ergo, speed is vital.
Unlike the way we've seen 3G sold in India where some people are using it as their PRIMARY connection, that's not the case for many in the US - 3G is a secondary/supplementary connection only, so people aren't downloading lots of large files and so on because they have their wired connection for doing that. On a smartphone, you're using VOIP or doing general surfing or maybe a few small file downloads, but not a lot by comparison. If I'm honest, under present circumstances, even 5GB of usage a month is quite a lot for an average smartphone, and you'd probably only use more than this if you were tethering the phone to your PC and/or hitting up the iTunes store 500x a month!
However, given that probably 85% of the content consumed in the USA is actually hosted in the USA, I too am questioning "why don't they have better speeds?" After all, it's not like it has to traverse any cables through International waters like it does 85% of the time for Indian Broadband users - in theory it should be far easier for the US providers to give maximum throughput, but sadly this is not the case.
But they are not leaving with 256 kbps speed like us. They have average speed around 5-10mbps at affordable price.
But as I know, they have started replacing copper cables with Fiber around the nation. First example is Google FIOS. I know tariffs has not declared yet. It is under development. That project will give each user 1 GBPS but Fiber development in USA will not go like India development speed once all will start replacing cables in USA.
The USA has it's own set of problems - a Broadband utopia it is definitely not. It is a lot like India in that in many areas - Broadband and 3G services simply are not available, and they have similar territorial wars to India (although on a much larger scale - AT&T usually won't provide service where Verizon does and so forth).
These factors are contributing to the reason you're now starting to read about so many of these community fibre projects: people are simply sick of waiting for Broadband, and it's pretty easy to convince one of the backbone providers to pull a single fibre to a town (because they're going to get a lot of money for doing so) as compared to convincing that same provider to also pull fibre throughout the last mile to all the resident's homes, and this is also one of the things that I got told when I was first talking to people back in 2009: Railtel basically told me "build a last mile, and we'll provide the backbone to where ever you need it" because *apparently*, they can't (or can't be bothered to) build that last mile.
and am just concerned with avg speed!!
and heard that USA has 4G networks launched in this year....and they have iPhones droids ipads a.k.a smartphones and tablets which use net significantly....so why dont they have superior speeds..?! oO
That depends on the definition of 4G. If we believe Tikona, that simply means "Wimax". Even LTE is not technically 4G, but it's somewhat closer to the truth.
As for the smartphones and tablets, yes, this has been a huge driver of mobile broadband data growth, but realistically, download speed is usually considered less important on a smartphone than a regular computer - where on a regular computer you're probably watching streaming movies (the recent data about Netflix suggests this to be the case for many) or downloading large files, ergo, speed is vital.
Unlike the way we've seen 3G sold in India where some people are using it as their PRIMARY connection, that's not the case for many in the US - 3G is a secondary/supplementary connection only, so people aren't downloading lots of large files and so on because they have their wired connection for doing that. On a smartphone, you're using VOIP or doing general surfing or maybe a few small file downloads, but not a lot by comparison. If I'm honest, under present circumstances, even 5GB of usage a month is quite a lot for an average smartphone, and you'd probably only use more than this if you were tethering the phone to your PC and/or hitting up the iTunes store 500x a month!
However, given that probably 85% of the content consumed in the USA is actually hosted in the USA, I too am questioning "why don't they have better speeds?" After all, it's not like it has to traverse any cables through International waters like it does 85% of the time for Indian Broadband users - in theory it should be far easier for the US providers to give maximum throughput, but sadly this is not the case.
But they are not leaving with 256 kbps speed like us. They have average speed around 5-10mbps at affordable price.
But as I know, they have started replacing copper cables with Fiber around the nation. First example is Google FIOS. I know tariffs has not declared yet. It is under development. That project will give each user 1 GBPS but Fiber development in USA will not go like India development speed once all will start replacing cables in USA.
The USA has it's own set of problems - a Broadband utopia it is definitely not. It is a lot like India in that in many areas - Broadband and 3G services simply are not available, and they have similar territorial wars to India (although on a much larger scale - AT&T usually won't provide service where Verizon does and so forth).
These factors are contributing to the reason you're now starting to read about so many of these community fibre projects: people are simply sick of waiting for Broadband, and it's pretty easy to convince one of the backbone providers to pull a single fibre to a town (because they're going to get a lot of money for doing so) as compared to convincing that same provider to also pull fibre throughout the last mile to all the resident's homes, and this is also one of the things that I got told when I was first talking to people back in 2009: Railtel basically told me "build a last mile, and we'll provide the backbone to where ever you need it" because *apparently*, they can't (or can't be bothered to) build that last mile.
: 
anybody confirm this plz..
