Router says 2303 kpbs down, 637 kpbs up.
middle of the day, about as good as it gets.
Apparently, the "average" is ten times faster that what I can get.
Your situation with the telco monopoly may about to undergo improvement. [abc.net.au] Got to say, the installation and CPE I've seen in Australia are all high standard.
Yes, Telstra isn't the company it once was..But for now,for broadband, we still have to buy from someone who buys from nbnco [nbnco.com.au]
Not true. I got sick of being yanked around by NBNCo when I recently moved - it seemed that they were never going to be able to get me connected. After a couple of weeks I "pulled the plug" and went wireless.
There are a few providers out there offering pricing roughly around NBN prices. However, I was up and running that day rather than waiting for months, don't suffer slowdown in the evenings (partly because I only tell people outside of my base tower area about how great it is) and can take it with me on holiday.
Speed are around 9-10Mbps, which is enough for Netflix, gaming etc.
Kicked Comcast to the curb two days ago. They kept jacking up the bill to the point they wanted $200 for TV and internet. Doing this on my phone with two bars of LTE. Might get DSL.
But... Concast execs need a new MBZ, because the old ones need an oil change.
So you've switched to an LTE ISP in a Comcast-serviced (that is, United States) market. How many GB per month do you get for tethering?
Not GP, but...
T-mobile does not condone tethering on my plan*, but it appears that all t-mobile does, currently, to detect tethering is user agent sniffing. Running with a mobile browser user agent is annoying, but if you have a box you can ssh into, sshuttle works, a real vpn, or, if you don't have something to ssh/vpn into, tor will also foil their detection.
Negatives are:1) you have to watch how much data you use, T-mobile throttles you to edge speeds after 5GB.2) some sites will ban you since cheap VPSs/tor are used by scammers, and folks tend to block entire netblocks/all tor exit nodes.
Positives are:1) Told Charter to pound sand after they eliminated the speed tier I was on, and tried to double what they were charging me for a slightly faster plan.2) works anywhere I have service.
* I'm using t-mobile pre-paid $30/mo, 100min voice (just use voip; google hangouts is free for US destinations, callcentric is cheap for everything else), unlimited text, and unlimited data (throttled after 5GB).
That's because in Kazakhstan the politicians didn't have to make the hand party for the telcos. Jagshemash!
The internet connectivity in Australia is ridiculous. 1st world country with availability not in parity with just that.
Perhaps time to get a direct connectivity to the sea cable directly? :PPerth and Sydney are the spots where these cables land. Share with other users and get even lower costs.Traralgon is near the three connections to Tasmania.
Obviously there's a squid in the system that screws it up for everyone. Time to take action. And perhaps make a business in the process.
23Mbps down, 0.8Mbps up. I use Centurylink for my ISP. It's also what I run my webserver on. They're nice, unlike Cox. I pay $5 a month for a static IP and they unblocked *all* my ports, even port 25 for smtp. Try getting that with Cox on a residential account.
41.33 Mbps down, 11.66 Mbps upSpectrum ISP in Ohio
Huh. I honestly don't know for sure. I have the plan which Comcast currently charges $49.99/month for, and when that goes up after six months, I call and whine and they give me some different plan that costs about $50/month and then it goes up again after six months. It would be cheaper but I don't have TV service. And about a third of the time at home, I'm using cellular data because LTE is faster when all my neighbors are watching netflix in the evening. But I only use about a GB / month on cellular (Ting, so $16 for that), so whatever.
Pretty sure I'll be switching everything to cellular in the near future. Then I'll have to shut off all those annoying autoplaying videos here on SN.
Oh wait, I won't! Win!
I've got 75/75 symmetric, residential, no need to request any ports be unblocked because none were blocked to begin with. Don't have a static IP, although I've never asked for one either...as far as I can tell it only ever changes after a prolonged power outage...I've had the same IP for more than a year now. Rare enough that I can't even be bothered to fix the script that I already have for updating my DNS entries :) As much as I despise Verizon, their internet is pretty damn good...
CenturyLink was hounding me about charges to a cancelled account for years. Their customer retention specialist did not allow me to cancel even though I was moving, and it had nothing to do with minimum contract length. Be careful!
did not allow me to cancel
Try taking them to small claims court. It's probably not worth a full blown court case, but maybe you can get a thousand dollars (or more) out of them for harassment. Being hit with a judgement like that would probably end the collection attempts. Chances are, they wouldn't even send a lawyer to defend themselves, LOL!!!!
Ok, my connection is 100Mbit/s (in practice about 99.997MBit/s). So does that put me in the 50-100Mbit or the 100-300Mbit?
Really, around here the common breakpoints include 50Mbit/s, 100Mbit/s and 1000Mbit/s. And you get within -3% to +25% of what you pay for.
Or a bit less ranty: Could be please start to _not_ end the options at an even multiplier of 5 (or 2)?
in practice about 99.997MBit/s
Please select the 50-100 option. You may brag to your friends that you have a 100MB connection, but deep down, you know it's a lie.
I was wondering the same. In the end I settled for mocking chromas on IRC and going with the wiseass answer.
Do a speed test and find out what your real speed is.
Running speedtest-cli while at the same time monitoring the traffic via iptraf-ng.Speedtest-cli: d:96.29Mbit/s u:96.88MBit/siptraf-ng: d: 99997kbps u: 99993kbps
Probably should point out that I do have a bit of other network traffic running as well (such as music), which is part of why iptraf-ng reports higher values.
As I said, we get very close to what we pay for around here (stockholm/sweden)
When we were on AT&T, at times it was so slow I could not even get Speedtest to load.
One reason why I don't like to use the provided modem: I'm pretty sure it proxies speedtest. Things are fishy when speedtest works but pinging google doesn't.
Yeh... sometimes a ping was the only thing I could get through an AT&T connection without getting a timeout.
My primary connection is a symmetric 25 Mbit connection, but that is because I throttle myself on my router. Technically, I'm connected to fiber though that just got extended to 500 Mbits. It's not through an ISP or anything, but an office in an old industrial building where the equipment happens to be. I'm just directly tapped into it :) Not illegally or anything, but certainly not a formal contract or anything either.
At home, which I'm not at home most of the time, is a standard 25 Mbit residential connection provided by those hellbound scum-sucking mother fuckers at Comcast (may they all burn). I tunnel all my traffic back to the office before it goes out to the Internet so they can't violate my privacy constantly. Also, if I have a reallllly big data file that I downloaded to the office, but then transferred to flash drive and drove home, isn't the bandwidth dependent on how fast I can drive?
I think for most of us, we are moving across multiple networks during the day. Bandwidth depends upon where you physically are.
I'm on Comcast so I'm not sure if the correct answer is "50-100Mbps" or "I don't have Internet"
Yeah, I have Facebook. Internet is going costs extra.
I have AT&T, so if I need to use facebook, I need to go use Del Taco's internet... its beyond AT&T capacity to do much more than pop email.
Their landline got so bad neither my ZYXEL 33.6K modem nor my GTE/Lenkurt 300 baud modem would not work on it anymore.
That is one thing I really like about Soylent... I can actually use this site on an AT&T line without having my TCP/IP stack timeout on me.
I've been there. So sorry for you. You must be in a place where the broadband cannot service you for whatever reason. Hughes satellite (or Dish) sucks worst than a 33.6k modem. You're limited to those analog lines. I was over 20k ft from the CO, which meant there were multiple analog/digital transitions to get to me. At least according to the AT&T guy. What it meant in practice was that the compression wouldn't work properly on the line, which drops you down even further. They couldn't offer me ISDN either, and no cablemodem coming for at least a few more years.
In the end what I did was to get 4 analog lines in both my home and the data center where I worked. Bonded 4 modems together (surprisingly easy under Windows Advanced Server 2000), and got just enough bandwidth to reliably control my computer at the office.
Internet got so bad at the house I just shut the whole mess down, and go to DelTaco to use theirs.
I only wish my friends were amateur radio operators... at least that was a reliable form of communication compared to a modern AT&T network.
What did they charge you for 4 land lines? Here in BC, it's close to $50cdn for one land line, which seems to be rusty barbed wire. With a good modem (USR Robotics Sportster), I usually could get 26.4 down and much shittier up, tried a few other modems that would train down to zero pretty quick. The there were the copper thieves.ISP dropped dial up a couple of years back but it kept working (it's an essential service in Canada) and the charge for unlimited went from $45 to zero. End of last year they finally put up a cell tower and rather then run fibre out here, they have a rural LTE internet plan, 250 GB limit, usually about 10 Mbs down and 2 up, though I've seen 25 down, for close to a $100 a month including payments on the crap internet hub ($300/2 years).
Internet without net neutrality sucks. Pay pet service.
Sorry. Internet service is not available in your area any longer due to the lack of regulation.
If you would like to be notified if internet service becomes available in your area, please enter your email address here.
Comcast cable: 70.5Mbps down, 5.84Mbps up.
Now, lets talk about the 18 months and 12 phone calls it took to get them to repair the cable that would drop connection after a rainstorm, and the additional 9 months, 5 phone calls and a visit to the local office it took to get them to come back and bury the cable after the repair. Then we can talk about how our bill for service is now triple what it was 5 years ago and how they are constantly wheedling to try to cram in additional services so they can charge even more.
The best thing I can say for Comcast is: they're not AT&T.
Do I choose the last option or the second to last?
If your speed is consistently, exactly 1000, then, why you could choose either.
If a speed test usually shows nine hundred-ninety something, the former.
If a speed test usually shows a thousand and something, the latter.
I know it's a complicated thing, but this should get you started.
Here in Yuma, AZ the only option I've got is Spectrum (formerly TimeWarner Cable), and despite their advertising starting service at 60 Mbps, and available 940 Mbps aka Gbps, the best I can do is 30 Mbps down, and a measly 3.5 Mbps up. In the Eastbay, NorCal, I've got Astound (Wave) at a rock solid as advertised 50 Mbps up and down, but their are also other options, aka competition.
also don't use frequent values for bins demarcations
Well, Bell tells me i get
2018-06-27 21:04:10 167.04 Mbps 166.17 Mbps
speedtest-cli tells me
Download: 17.42 Mbit/sUpload: 18.72 Mbit/s
I guess it's Megabytes vs Megabits?Dunno. Gonna go to sleep. Brain tired. Go sleepy. Buhbye.
17.4mbit/second means megabit per second
What is "Bell"?
Crappy Canadian ISP.
Assuming it's his ISP, then they could both be right - the bell speedtest server could be consumer side of the bottleneck
This is where the concept of 'speed' of your ISP falls apart, you do have contention, everyone does, the question is where those bottlenecks are
What has that to do with Hermione?
Router says around 19Mbps (~= 2.4MBps):
Mode: ADSL2+Traffic Type: ATM
Downstream UpstreamLine Coding(Trellis): On OnSNR Margin (0.1 dB): 101 95Attenuation (0.1 dB): 80 61Output Power (0.1 dBm): 0 126Attainable Rate (Kbps): 24552 1108
Path 0 Path 1
Downstream Upstream Downstream UpstreamRate (Kbps): 18939 919 1664 416
Practically speaking I almost never get 1080p off youtube without it freezing to buffer every few seconds. Recently I've switched to using an OpenWRT hub as the dialer to my ISP provided router-turned-bridge and that new SQM thing solved enough of the bufferbloat to play online multiplayer games and reach the occasional 1MBps while downloading stuff. But youtube still sucks while I can only live stream the highest compression feeds.
What's with all the negative speeds?
—5 Mbps, —10 Mbps, —35 Mbps, —50 Mbps, —200 Mbps, —7000 Mbps, —9,000 Mbps
That's the metric known as the 'internet SUCK factor'. Not only is it sucking the interwebs out of your computer, it's also sucking the life out of you. Welcome to the US. ;-)
Speed at which NSA extracts data from your equipment, rather than the speed you getting the data you want from the Internet
My connection describes itself as:
Broadband 50:Download: 50 Mbps/sUpload: 50 Mbps/s
The poll is badly formed: not only does it not take into account that some people have symmetric connections and others have asymmetric, the ranges (I assume they re ranges) have common boundaries.
Personally, I take the view that asymmetric connections are pushing the role of 'consumer of media' rather than 'participant in the Internet'. I used to find it especially galling that the asymmetric connection over DSL I could get made it impossible to have a decent quality video-stream in the upstream direction, making teleconferencing with my colleagues from my home office impossible*. Both codecs and upstream capacities have improved, but sadly, I no longer work for that employer.
A more interesting poll would be along the lines of:
What is your upstream Internet connection capacity? With a set of ranges covering differing technologies: POTS modems, ISDN, DSL, DOCSIS, GPON etc e.g:
1) Up to 56 kbit/s (You are probably using a POTS modem)2) More than 56 kbit/s up to 128 kbit/s (You are probably using ISDN BRI)3) More than 128 kbit/s up to 1024 kbit/s (You are probably on ADSL)...
You could probably wangle this info into a poll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interface_bit_rates#Wide_area_networks [wikipedia.org]
*The Cisco software probably also played a role, but when it worked, it was impressive. Unfortunately, it was also running on a Windows XP machine which would hit paging hell with monotonous regularity. Also, my colleagues had no interest in learning how the V/C software worked. Then the company ditched Cisco's VoIP for Lync, and nothing worked.
Oh, and just to add, as far as telecomms is concerned a kilobit is 1 000 bits, NOT 1 024 bits, and a Megabit is 1 000 000 bits, NOT 1 048 576 bits. Some applications report capacities in Mebibytes per second (with a byte assumed to be 8 bits) which is just plain RONG.
When handling memory, base 2 works very good. Telecomms has been in base 10 for a long time..However HDD capacity going from base-2 to base-10 sucked.
Oh and the units KiB, MiB, GiB *yuck*..
Well, it comes down to whoever chose the 8000 samples per second sampling rate for PCM audio on voice telephony calls.
Experimental testing shows that most of the intelligibility of the human voice is maintained if you transmit only the frequencies between roughly 340 and 3400 Hz. Allowing more frequencies above about 3400 Hz improves the perceived quality, but doesn't add a great deal to the intelligibility.Application of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem tells you that to be able to digitally sample a signal of up to 3400 Hz so you can reconstruct the sampled frequencies without error, you need to sample at at least 6800 samples per second. Someone decided to round that up to 8000 samples per second, using 8-bit sample resolution, so a single voice channel would require 64000 bits per second - i.e. not 65536 samples per second. As a result, telephony carrier circuits are specified in kbit/s, where the kilo is 1000, not 1024. Since the SI prefixes are well defined, it means that kilo- mega- giga- and tera- in telecommunications are powers of 10, not powers of 2.This means that applications that measure throughput on a telecommunications circuit in kibi-, mebi, gibi- and tebi- bits/second are not helping, as actual circuit capacities don't fall naturally on those boundaries. It would be nice if applications allowed one to display either, as an option, to give the end user the opportunity of choosing the option that works best for them in the context of the throughput they are measuring.
Telecommunications circuit capacities also have irritating effects - like the differences between 10 Gbit/s Ethernet LAN-PHY and 10 Gbit/s Ethernet WAN-PHY [wikipedia.org].
(I've not linked to lots of references, partly due to my own laziness, and partly because searching on the Internet for a few key terms will give you the background, where you can learn about things like robbed-bit signalling, and a-law and mu-law companding. Wide-area telecommunications has a long and rich history, and it's own standards and vocabulary.)
The 300-1000 bracket is perfect for me because I have a Gigabit connection but OpenWRT on the C7 Archer only does 300Mbps routing I have effective 300. One of these days I will find an OpenWRT compatible router that can do gigabit routing.
We don't have wired service on the farm, but we can use a Verizon hotspot. The hotspot lasts about 2-4 days at full speed depending on the number of software updates that have piled up and then it is throttled the rest of the month. During that rest of the month we get about 450 kbps down and 550 kbps up according to https://testmy.net/ [testmy.net].