[tedunangst]

Pretty inaccurate article I'd say. The general premise of "broadband is faster, but there's more to download" is close to right, and I'll agree that 8 seconds was about how long it took to load web pages back when, but it's a very rare page (other than HN itself, ironically) that takes more than about 3 seconds to load on even middling DSL.

And I have no idea why streaming video requires 60ms latency.

[_delirium]

On my middling DSL (320 kbps symmetric) there's a lot of pages that take more than 3 seconds to load, especially if you're not using AdBlock. There are some Flash ads that take 5+ seconds to load just by themselves!

The typical for a large corporate site seems to be 4-6 sec for me. I just timed cnn.com and yahoo.com both at 5s total load time, and aol.com at 8s (all in Chrome on Linux).

edit: Found a new winner: foxnews.com consistently takes between 25 and 33 seconds to load.

[doronba]

obviously its not a uniform experience, and there are problems with the article, but i do think it stands to reason that rich content, and in my mind especially Advertising, grind the experience which I recall was faster in many cases.

[xiaoma]

On my middling ADSL (10M/2M), Fox takes about 4 seconds, but it's readable after 1 or 2. Not bad for being on the other side of the Pacific.

FF3.6, all plugins disabled.

[mikeytown2]

foxnews just took me 8 seconds to load. All the JS took 1.42 seconds and flash took about a second as well; 3MB for everything. I have a fairly fast cable connection.

Tested in chrome 5.0 dev