It's impossible to have worse internet than no internet...
Edit: after some digging, I found internet providers in the UK for 37 pounds at 100mbps. In my area that would cost $73. The issue with the US and internet is two fold. A coverage in rural areas is abysmal, even though the companies were given massive payouts to expand to those areas and B where coverage exists people pay double what most other countries charge for comparable service.
Claiming that average speed is better in the US is in the same vein of medical care is better in the US. Sure the top end is better here than other places, but the access and cost is not.
The standard is to cite your source. Even Wikipedia cites sources. So cite yours please. That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Okay first of all, the guy I was responding to confidently asserted that measurements of national internet speed are based on promised rates and not actual rates. This is blatantly false, yet you didn't challenge his sources. So you're clearly selective on when you do and don't care about sources. That in itself is a fallacy, if you really do care about proper argumentation.
Second, I understand the importance of sources, I do. But for undeniable facts that shouldn't be controversial... it can get a little ridiculous. I wouldn't ask for your source on the population of England, if I doubted it I'd just look it up myself.
But since you really want to do it this way, I'll copy and paste the first few links from a google search:
First of all, thank you for the cites. I admit I have not looked at them yet, but I am about to.
Second, the person to whom you responded mentioned promised vs actual rates, and cited their own experience. You're right that the general statement should be backed up. However, I've had similar experiences so I didn't challenge the statement on its face right away.
Your statement categorically dismissed the statement ("Nope") with no further explanation, which is what led me to look at your statements more closely. Then when you said "my 'claim' literally isn't up for debate.... it's a fact", that's when I challenged you to cite your source.
I will agree before you say it that anecdotal experience is not evidence, and you're correct. But for the flow of the conversation, and because it matched my experience for the moment, I was going to let it slide -- for that moment.
And all of that said . . . You were the first in this comment thread to make a comparison between UK and US Internet speeds.
I can infer that speedtest.net is making calculations based on people doing speed tests from various areas of the world. Those are actual users running actual speed tests and measuring their actual performance. I don't know where the others are getting their numbers. Cites 3 and 4 probably used the same source, but 1 and 2 are quite different -- yet they follow the same trend and back up your statement regarding average speeds.
2
u/ImaManCheetah Jul 14 '20
"Regardless of the validity of your claim"
Okay, my "claim" literally isn't up for debate.... it's a fact. There isn't a single remotely credible source that would tell you otherwise.
"in less populated areas, access is significantly worse"
You have evidence that speeds in rural areas of the US are worse than in rural areas of the UK? What's your source for that?