Who's #1 in broadband? 1Gbps fiber for $26 in Hong Kong

BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
According to people like Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon's CEO, the US is number one in broadband, no question about it. But one only has to look around the world to see just how specious such claims are.


City Telecom's ad for its 1Gbps service
Take Hong Kong as an example. City Telecom made waves a few months ago with its US$13, symmetric 100Mbps connections. Today, the company slashed prices on its much faster 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home offering; a fully symmetric, 1Gbps connection costs HK$199... or US$26 a month.

Want phone service with that? That'll be US$3. IPTV service will cost another $6-12, depending on the channel package. (There's also a US$115 installation charge to run the fiber link from the building basement up to an individual apartment.)

This is an exceptional offer, but City Telecom isn't alone in offering service that should make US operators cringe—and US customers green with envy. Hutchson Telecom offers 100Mbps symmetric connections for US$13. i-Cable offers 130Mbps downloads for $39 per month using DOCSIS 3.0 tech.

This isn't the US market, so prices aren't directly comparable, but Hong Kong and the US are almost identical when it comes to GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP).

Hong Kong is one of the densest spots on earth. One wouldn't expect to see this level of price and competition across a country as broad and sprawling as the US, but one would expect it to be possible somewhere. Sadly, even something like 100Mbps is hard to come by in most US cities; 1Gbps is unknown, except to tiny specialty operators, even in a place like New York City.

City Telecom took out a full-page ad in the South China Morning Post today, advertising its new offering with the tagline, "1000M: Transform your life."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/1gbps-symmetric-fiber-us26-in-hong-kong.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
 
Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
even if we had that speed it would be useless, most places dont offer transfer speeds from their servers at that speed, considering places like youtube have 100s of 1000s of people dling at once, they would have to have several 100s of tbps of bandwidth, which is not practical considering the speed of the HD videos on youtube run around 1mbps dl speed. maybe practical in the future (50 years from now) when streaming lossless video takes hold, if it does. but for now theres no reason to have a speed like that unless your a server. i have a 28.8 mbps speed and i have yet to find something that can take full advantage of it. (minus the occasional torrent with 354632785637583 seeds)
 
s162216

s162216

Full Audioholic
Be a bit pointless if your using wifi as it can't supply 1gb of data a second. Ethernet would be no good either unless it was gigabyte ethernet. Shame my motherboard died, that had gigabyte ethernet on it:mad:
 
GlocksRock

GlocksRock

Audioholic Spartan
I'd pay $50 a month for that kind of speed, as long as the connection was reliable.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top