If you look at the internet speed in many places in Germany and then compare it internationally, most people in Germany have a bamboo line. Not even everyone in Germany has an Internet connection and, even worse, millions of people don't even have fiber optics. In an international comparison, people have around 50 Mbites and in Germany 16 Mbites. In the US, people have over 100Mbites per second. Even Romania has faster internet.
Why are we so extremely weak? All other countries can do it too? A friend of mine from the USA lives in a city that has and joke on the PS4 200 Mbites per second and I only 15Mbites.
Would you like to name numbers and your sources?
Because broadband expansion in the USA is so extensive, e.g. Not. To me that sounds like little knowledge and a lot of opinion.
While in countries like Romania the internet lines are completely laid and the most modern standard is applied, in Germany the focus is more on exhausting the previous systems. You don't seem to notice that this is completely senseless and helpless.
So it is surprising that Germany has the largest Internet hub in the world. How do you explain that to yourself?
Subsidies, Advertising and Prosperity.
But that contradicts your statement. The backbone of the German network seems to be up to date.
https://www.maz-online.de/Nachrichten/Politik/Mobilfunk-in-Deutschland-Ein-Land-im-Funkloch
Hey, at least there are 2 countries in Europe that are worse than us in the 4G area. There's still hope…
and we're still doing pretty well on the internet, although it is new territory… https://soundbites.de/tag/internet/
https://www.bild.de/digital/internet/internet/akaimai-state-of-the-internet-45062888.bild.html
or rather that?
https://www.cable.co.uk/broadband/speed/worldwide-speed-league/
https://de.statista.com/infografik/breitband%20breitbandanschl%C3%BCsse%20breitband-internet/
These are average values. In the USA you get e.g. Gigabit / s in metropolitan areas and a bell wire in rural areas. Overall, the situation in the USA is therefore not really better.
Because it costs money. (In the USA, by the way, it is also more difficult or the internet costs more - because they have a lower population density.)
So first of all, money has to come from somewhere - that you can use it for more important things.
Fast lines are not really needed. At least not yet or not for so many applications. You can receive TV via satellite and occasional streaming in medium quality - nothing breaks you if you "only" have 16k.
For a long time I only had 6k, then increased it to 16k (I think it's up to 50, in the next larger city up to 100, especially via cable) - that's enough. If you don't just do file sharing all the time, 24/7. (And let things be loaded that you need in a targeted manner. Not just before you need each other and then complain because it won't be charged in a few minutes.)
Here it would be more important to bring the authorities online - a lot has happened. But still has to do more. Then you could see if there's a lot of everyday use that needs a super-fast line for everyone.
Personally, I don't yet know why I should pay the few euro more for more than 16k (on 50, on 100 I would be even further). I'd rather save it. Even if it is much higher from 16 to 50k for a comparatively little extra charge.
Surely there are enough people who think that way - and if the companies earn less money then it is less worthwhile. The state would have to pump in enough billions.
But if you keep posting such reputable sources, then I've got a nice number for you 60. In over 60% of the United States, you can't even get reception with your mobile phone.
This is wrong when you look at the population density across the United States and the population density in Germany. With a population density of 237, Germany is much more densely populated than the USA with 33 in total, Germany should do much better, but it doesn't.
I think such comparisons are very questionable because they simply do not take into account a lot of framework conditions. In the Augsburger Allgemeine I read z. B. An article from 2012:
"Romania is a poor European country. In 2011, the average net income there was only 354 euro. In percentage terms, however, more Romanians are connected than Germans.
Romania depends on Germany: while more than 1 percent of all households there surf the Internet quickly, in Germany just 0.44 percent of households are directly connected to the fiber optic network. The European Coordination Center Fiber to the Home (FTTH) uses these figures to document the progress made in broadband expansion. "
Yes, it sounds backward for Germany. First of all, the comparison of the net income: Who cares about the amount in euro if I get bread for 1 euro in Romania, while in Germany I have to shell out 6 euro for it?
Here: https://www.jurj.de/internet-geschwindigkeit-deutschland-vs-rumaenien/ there's a price comparison. Sure, around 9 euro for a gigabit flat rate sounds like a bargain. But that is 2.5 percent of net income. In Germany, the average net income is around 1,900 euro. 2.5 percent would then be just under 50 euro. Sure, Germany is still more expensive, but at the prices mentioned only by a factor of 2 and not a factor of 13.
If we look at Bucharest: 10 percent of the population live there. Let us assume that all households are in Bucharest with fiber optic connections, only 10 percent of the city has fiber optics.
Germany does not have a city where 10 percent of the population live. So to achieve the same connection rate, you don't just have to expand one city.
But yes, right, Germany is behind. One of the reasons for this is that z. B. Telekom, as a former state-owned company and endowed with a huge inheritance in the form of the telephone network, sticks to this network and clings to it in order to squeeze out the last euro. Fiber optic expansion is a very large investment. If you can still tease out a few Mbit / s with technical tricks such as vectoring and sell that to the customer at a high price, that will be done. The margin is higher than with a completely new investment. The fact that every manager looks at the quarterly balance sheet also contributes to this. Long-term investments do not have a positive effect on him. There's a big minus, the big plus will then be followed by a successor. Is of course ugly.
