[petercooper]

I ostensibly have a 12Mbps connection, yet only get between 2-6Mbps depending on the time of day due to contention. And I live in an area with reasonably good broadband.

Things have a long way to go before a majority of westerners have access to solid, reliable 10Mbps connections.

[rue]

> And I live in an area with reasonably good broadband.

Clearly you do not.

[petercooper]

You can't know that without knowing where I live. It's reasonably good by British standards, though perhaps not in an absolute sense.

My connection is somewhat above the surveyed "average" speeds and stability for the UK, as frequently reported in the media here. One such story puts the average true throughput of a 10-12Mbps DSL connection at around 3.3Mbps: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/news/a251311/uks-avera... .. As mine is usually around 5-6Mbps (though dropping to 2-3 at peak, sometimes) my connection is, I believe, "reasonably good" by national standards.

[rue]

> You can't know that without knowing where I live.

Yes, I can. It is an absolute measure. Yours may well be well above the average for the region or even the nation, but it is still not good. Mind, slightly tongue-in-cheek since estimating actual required level of service is a bit tricky. I meant it mostly in the sense of "do not let the telcos tell you that is 'good enough'".

Personally, I would put the "reasonably good" barrier for this day and age at about 20/10Mbps. (I pay about 40€ for a nominal 100Mbps - which, in a quick test right now, gives me 24/13Mbps to/from the UK, over Wi-Fi LAN).

[nuclear_eclipse]

I think the missing phrase is relative compared to the average. "Good" broadband in many parts (the majority?) of the US is still crap shoved upon citizens with no other choice but dialup.

[petercooper]

It's not missing - the word "reasonably" covers it with "reasonable" meaning fair, average, not excessive.