On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:10:37 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 17:01:16 -0400, wrote:


I'd be curious to see how much DSL has improved since I used to use it.

I'm not home right now, but I'll try to remember to run wired and
wifi speed tests on my various devices tonight and post the results.


I just tested mine on that site and I am getting 9.96meg down, 720k up

Are you saying you get 9.96 megs per second download speed? I did not
know that was even possible. I'm on dialup, and that is all I can get in
my rural location, unless I was to pay well over $100 a month for
satellite tv and internet. I have no need for the tv part, and wont pay
that much anyhow, particularly when I am finding the whole internet
becoming more and more worthless lately.

My dialup internet is included with my landline phone at no extra cost.
I cant even make phone calls from my cellphone at home (poor signal),
but can usually send and receive texts (If I go outdoors, because my
aluminum siding blocks all signals indoors). So I need a landline either
way....

Anyhow, a local restaurant gets me 1.2 megs per second download speed. I
thought that was incredibly fast. At our library, I only get 300k to
550k downloads (sometimes even slower).

I just checked here and running through a proxy, I measured 12.5\4.2. Unencumbered, late at night when no one else is online, I've seen 54\4.5. The provider is Charter Communications. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Fast Monster

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:00:13 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 5:01:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 11:38:55 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-4, KenK wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote in news:99646e10-c546-48a3-8ddd-
:

How fast is your DSL?

I have no idea. It's back, by the way.

When I went to DSL I first checked into the local high-speed internet
services. All were either tied to also paying for TV (which I never watch)
or had terrible service and product reports. DSL maybe slower, but at least
I've had very few problems - only out twice, a few hours, in all the years
I've used it. Fast enough for pleasant Usenet, email, and Google research.
I've not tried Youtube or other video - will some day.

Try http://www.speedtest.net/

I'd be curious to see how much DSL has improved since I used to use it..

I'm not home right now, but I'll try to remember to run wired and
wifi speed tests on my various devices tonight and post the results.

I just tested mine on that site and I am getting 9.96meg down, 720k up

It's too bad that the Paintster has me plonked because my numbers might blow his mind.

He doesn't think 9.96 down is possible? Wait until he sees my numbers.

Wired PC - 61.97 Mb down, 6.22 Mb up
iPad - 44. 89 Mb down, 6.52 Mb up
Android phone - 60.54 Mb down, 6.2 Mb up

Of course, these numbers will vary with each test and will be slightly lower when multiple
devices are accessing the network.

Who's your service provider? It's Charter Communications here at the center and Charter is providing digital cable TV to the rooms along with WiFi Internet. There are WiFi access points on the hallway ceilings in various places. The cute little Cisco cable boxes are 4X3X1 inches in size and features an extra IR sensor the size of the end of a man's thumb on a 4' cable that plugs into the back of the cable box. There is even an HDMI output on the back of the cable box along with the coax connectors. It's a slick setup and I'm impressed. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Impressed Monster

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 1:03:49 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
When I went to DSL I first checked into the local high-speed internet
services. All were either tied to also paying for TV (which I never
watch) or had terrible service and product reports. DSL maybe slower,
but at least I've had very few problems - only out twice, a few
hours, in all the years I've used it. Fast enough for pleasant
Usenet, email, and Google research. I've not tried Youtube or other
video - will some day.

Try http://www.speedtest.net/

I'd be curious to see how much DSL has improved since I used to use
it.

I'm not home right now, but I'll try to remember to run wired and
wifi speed tests on my various devices tonight and post the results.

11.28 DL, 0.85 UL.

Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).
--
Bod

One more time, which country is smaller and easier to wire? ‰ˆ64 million vs ‰ˆ324 million people and ‰ˆ242,000 sq.km vs ‰ˆ9,150,000 sq.km. Now let me see..... ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Huge Monster

On 07/04/2016 21:43, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 21:09:43 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 07/04/2016 20:54, wrote:

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).

You have almost 260 people per square KM in UK so one fiber will serve
a bunch of people. We are a tad more spread out here. We have 30 per
sq/km overall and some states are more like 2-5 people per sq/km in
some western states. They are not stringing 20 miles of fiber to serve
30 or 40 households.

I understand, but having said that we have a lot of little villages with
only a handful of houses plus many farms out in the sticks.
Scotland and Wales have mountainous terrain.

Those are the 5% I imagine.
The US has not really put that much emphasis on getting fiber to the
home. The cable companies have no real incentive since coax meets the
needs of their primary business, TV and the telephone companies are
slow to expand "last mile" infrastructure when everyone is going
wireless.
I think the biggest thing we could do to unleash this business would
be to unbundle content from data and create competition in the data
business. It probably would result in data being metered by the
gigabyte but I don't see a huge problem with that. If they are selling
data, they will be trying to get you to use more so faster would be
better for them.
Competition would control prices. Right now, virtually all "cable"
operates as a monopoly.

I see. My connection is FTTC not cable.
I get unlimited data and no traffic shaping etc, but not all ISPs offer
that here, but in general the data allowances from those companies are
normally fairly generous.
Is that the case on your side?

--
Bod

On 07/04/2016 21:48, Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/04/2016 21:00, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:12:27 +0100, Bod wrote:



A few lucky buggers over here can get Hyperoptic @ *1Gb* down AND 1 Gb
upload speed. Mindblowing!

At a certain point you are only going as fast as the site you are
downloading from and the slowest link in that path.
Speeds like that might be appropriate for a business with lots of
users but for your casual homeowner it is just bragging rights.

I agree.

I wish that I lived in town for the internet. They have the fiber and
forgot the speed,but did get a tour with a group through their equipment
room. They have the fastest speed in the state. Somehow got in before
there was some kind of speed ruleing on how fast they could run. I think it
is either a gigabit or terabit.
This is for a county of probably less than 50,000 people.

For the home user, I think there are lots of sites that have a hard time
sending back even the 20 meg or so that many are rated for on the downlink.


I think we have rules over here whereas the company has to give you an
estimate of the mimimum speed you are likely to get and that is
generally adhered to. So in effect if they say the minimum is, say, 20
down, then you'll be pretty sure that it will be at least what they say.
They err on the conservative side with their estimates.
eg; My ISP quoted a minimum of 19 and max of 31 down, when in effect I
get a steady 50 down.

--
Bod

On 07/04/2016 21:51, Joe (not really) wrote:
On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:20:48 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


I am suspose to get 50 meg on my cable. By the TWC (Time Warner Cable)
speed test I seldon see 30 and usualy less down. I do get atleast 5 or
slightly over on the up like I am suspose to get.

Some of the other test sites will give 35 to 40 down and the same 5 or
slightly over up.

I have been thinking about getting in touch and finding out why I am not
getting over 30 reported by their speed test. I have bought my own
modem,but it is the one they recommend on their web site and it
should be
capable of atleast 100 or more if cable was sending it.

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

It really doesn't have to be that way.
I have Comcast's 100/20 package. It *always* tests and performs 120Mb/24Mb.


Nice one, that's the sort of speed that every ISP should aspire to
deliver, IMO.

--
Bod

On 07/04/2016 21:52, Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message
...

You have almost 260 people per square KM in UK so one fiber will serve
a bunch of people. We are a tad more spread out here. We have 30 per
sq/km overall and some states are more like 2-5 people per sq/km in
some western states. They are not stringing 20 miles of fiber to serve
30 or 40 households.

I understand, but having said that we have a lot of little villages with
only a handful of houses plus many farms out in the sticks.
Scotland and Wales have mountainous terrain.

Those are the 5% I imagine.
The US has not really put that much emphasis on getting fiber to the
home. The cable companies have no real incentive since coax meets the
needs of their primary business, TV and the telephone companies are
slow to expand "last mile" infrastructure when everyone is going
wireless.
I think the biggest thing we could do to unleash this business would
be to unbundle content from data and create competition in the data
business. It probably would result in data being metered by the
gigabyte but I don't see a huge problem with that. If they are selling
data, they will be trying to get you to use more so faster would be
better for them.
Competition would control prices. Right now, virtually all "cable"
operates as a monopoly.

They did install lots of fiber for our town that services only about 30,000
people or less. It was not done by the cabe company,but a fiber optics
company. Seems there are lots of unused fiber cables all over the US that
was installed,but not used. The fiber companies are jumping on those lines
for internet and TV.


Gotcha.

--
Bod

On 07/04/2016 22:31, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:51:01 -0500, "Joe (not really)"
wrote:

On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:20:48 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


I am suspose to get 50 meg on my cable. By the TWC (Time Warner Cable)
speed test I seldon see 30 and usualy less down. I do get atleast 5 or
slightly over on the up like I am suspose to get.

Some of the other test sites will give 35 to 40 down and the same 5 or
slightly over up.

I have been thinking about getting in touch and finding out why I am not
getting over 30 reported by their speed test. I have bought my own
modem,but it is the one they recommend on their web site and it should be
capable of atleast 100 or more if cable was sending it.

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

It really doesn't have to be that way.
I have Comcast's 100/20 package. It *always* tests and performs 120Mb/24Mb.


I have Comcast 75mb service.
This morning it was 90/12 on Speedtest.net
On xfinity.speedtest.com it was 20/12
Just checked ten minutes ago and it was 33/12 on Speedtest.net.
And about 2 minutes ago it was 90/12 again.
On xfinity.speedtest.net it stayed at 20/12.
Anyway, it's fast enough for me.

Blimey, that's *very* erratic speeds.

--
Bod

On 08/04/2016 06:53, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 1:03:49 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
When I went to DSL I first checked into the local high-speed internet
services. All were either tied to also paying for TV (which I never
watch) or had terrible service and product reports. DSL maybe slower,
but at least I've had very few problems - only out twice, a few
hours, in all the years I've used it. Fast enough for pleasant
Usenet, email, and Google research. I've not tried Youtube or other
video - will some day.

Try http://www.speedtest.net/

I'd be curious to see how much DSL has improved since I used to use
it.

I'm not home right now, but I'll try to remember to run wired and
wifi speed tests on my various devices tonight and post the results.

11.28 DL, 0.85 UL.

Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).
--
Bod

One more time, which country is smaller and easier to wire? ‰ˆ64 million vs ‰ˆ324 million people and ‰ˆ242,000 sq.km vs ‰ˆ9,150,000 sq.km. Now let me see..... ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Huge Monster

I understand that , I'm just interested.


--
Bod

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:03:44 +0100, Bod wrote:


When I went to DSL I first checked into the local high-speed internet
services. All were either tied to also paying for TV (which I never
watch) or had terrible service and product reports. DSL maybe slower,
but at least I've had very few problems - only out twice, a few
hours, in all the years I've used it. Fast enough for pleasant
Usenet, email, and Google research. I've not tried Youtube or other
video - will some day.


Try http://www.speedtest.net/

I'd be curious to see how much DSL has improved since I used to use
it.

I'm not home right now, but I'll try to remember to run wired and
wifi speed tests on my various devices tonight and post the results.

11.28 DL, 0.85 UL.


Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).

You have almost 260 people per square KM in UK so one fiber will serve
a bunch of people. We are a tad more spread out here. We have 30 per
sq/km overall and some states are more like 2-5 people per sq/km in
some western states. They are not stringing 20 miles of fiber to serve
30 or 40 households.

My Limey cousins can't grok the differences in scale between The U.S. and The UK. Some of them have arrived in New York in the morning and thought they could drive to Los Angeles to have dinner. No clue. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Immense Monster

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:49:15 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message
...

You have almost 260 people per square KM in UK so one fiber will serve
a bunch of people. We are a tad more spread out here. We have 30 per
sq/km overall and some states are more like 2-5 people per sq/km in
some western states. They are not stringing 20 miles of fiber to serve
30 or 40 households.

I understand, but having said that we have a lot of little villages with
only a handful of houses plus many farms out in the sticks.
Scotland and Wales have mountainous terrain.

Those are the 5% I imagine.
The US has not really put that much emphasis on getting fiber to the
home. The cable companies have no real incentive since coax meets the
needs of their primary business, TV and the telephone companies are
slow to expand "last mile" infrastructure when everyone is going
wireless.
I think the biggest thing we could do to unleash this business would
be to unbundle content from data and create competition in the data
business. It probably would result in data being metered by the
gigabyte but I don't see a huge problem with that. If they are selling
data, they will be trying to get you to use more so faster would be
better for them.
Competition would control prices. Right now, virtually all "cable"
operates as a monopoly.

They did install lots of fiber for our town that services only about 30,000
people or less. It was not done by the cabe company,but a fiber optics
company. Seems there are lots of unused fiber cables all over the US that
was installed,but not used. The fiber companies are jumping on those lines
for internet and TV.

Many companies, banks and educational institutions are buying dark fiber in order to set up their own networks. I've a feeling that banks like the security of having their own network and not having to send information over The Internet. ^_^

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-dark-fiber.htm

[8~{} Uncle Fiber Monster

On 08/04/2016 07:58, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:03:44 +0100, Bod wrote:


When I went to DSL I first checked into the local high-speed internet
services. All were either tied to also paying for TV (which I never
watch) or had terrible service and product reports. DSL maybe slower,
but at least I've had very few problems - only out twice, a few
hours, in all the years I've used it. Fast enough for pleasant
Usenet, email, and Google research. I've not tried Youtube or other
video - will some day.


Try http://www.speedtest.net/

I'd be curious to see how much DSL has improved since I used to use
it.

I'm not home right now, but I'll try to remember to run wired and
wifi speed tests on my various devices tonight and post the results.

11.28 DL, 0.85 UL.


Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).

You have almost 260 people per square KM in UK so one fiber will serve
a bunch of people. We are a tad more spread out here. We have 30 per
sq/km overall and some states are more like 2-5 people per sq/km in
some western states. They are not stringing 20 miles of fiber to serve
30 or 40 households.

My Limey cousins can't grok the differences in scale between The U.S. and The UK. Some of them have arrived in New York in the morning and thought they could drive to Los Angeles to have dinner. No clue. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Immense Monster

What's the matter with you, you seem to be wanting to prove something.
I'm fully aware of the difference in scale. *I only asked out of interest*.
I've been to the US and visted a couple of states plus driven quite
a few miles over there.

--
Bod

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:55:33 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:00:13 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 5:01:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 11:38:55 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-4, KenK wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote in news:99646e10-c546-48a3-8ddd-
:

How fast is your DSL?

I have no idea. It's back, by the way.

When I went to DSL I first checked into the local high-speed internet
services. All were either tied to also paying for TV (which I never watch)
or had terrible service and product reports. DSL maybe slower, but at least
I've had very few problems - only out twice, a few hours, in all the years
I've used it. Fast enough for pleasant Usenet, email, and Google research.
I've not tried Youtube or other video - will some day.

Try http://www.speedtest.net/

I'd be curious to see how much DSL has improved since I used to use it.

I'm not home right now, but I'll try to remember to run wired and
wifi speed tests on my various devices tonight and post the results.

I just tested mine on that site and I am getting 9.96meg down, 720k up

It's too bad that the Paintster has me plonked because my numbers might blow his mind.

He doesn't think 9.96 down is possible? Wait until he sees my numbers.

Wired PC - 61.97 Mb down, 6.22 Mb up
iPad - 44. 89 Mb down, 6.52 Mb up
Android phone - 60.54 Mb down, 6.2 Mb up

Of course, these numbers will vary with each test and will be slightly lower when multiple
devices are accessing the network.

Who's your service provider? It's Charter Communications here at the center and Charter is providing digital cable TV to the rooms along with WiFi Internet. There are WiFi access points on the hallway ceilings in various places. The cute little Cisco cable boxes are 4X3X1 inches in size and features an extra IR sensor the size of the end of a man's thumb on a 4' cable that plugs into the back of the cable box. There is even an HDMI output on the back of the cable box along with the coax connectors. It's a slick setup and I'm impressed. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Impressed Monster

TWC

Cousin Cable-Bundled Monster

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
Wired PC 29 Mb down, 5 up
Android phone at other end of house from router, 16 down, 5 up

That's with cable, lowest/standard speed. Cablevision has two higher
levels of service speed available for additional cost.

I am suspose to get 50 meg on my cable. By the TWC (Time Warner Cable)
speed test I seldon see 30 and usualy less down. I do get atleast 5 or
slightly over on the up like I am suspose to get.

Wired or wireless can make a difference, as can the device. As I noted,
the speed on my iPad is 10Mb slower than my Android phone or wired PC.

Actually, that just made me chuckle.

The 10 Mb that I *lose* on my iPad is faster than some others get in the
first place and 20 times *faster* than PaintMan can get at the library.

Man, that must s-u-c-k!


Some of the other test sites will give 35 to 40 down and the same 5 or
slightly over up.

I have been thinking about getting in touch and finding out why I am not
getting over 30 reported by their speed test. I have bought my own
modem,but it is the one they recommend on their web site and it should
be
capable of atleast 100 or more if cable was sending it.


I received another computer yesterday and ran some speed tests on the TWC
cable internet. The new computer ( which is a used Dell running 3 gb and
win 10 ) is getting around 50 meg now. I checked the other 2 computers I
have and they are both around 25 meg. It must be something in the computers
either net cards or settings that are doing that.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4:00:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:12:27 +0100, Bod wrote:



A few lucky buggers over here can get Hyperoptic @ *1Gb* down AND 1 Gb
upload speed. Mindblowing!

At a certain point you are only going as fast as the site you are
downloading from and the slowest link in that path.
Speeds like that might be appropriate for a business with lots of
users but for your casual homeowner it is just bragging rights.

Same thing with upload speed, for most of us at least. I never upload
anything of size. All the stuff of size is coming down. I doubt that
having anything above maybe 1 MB up would make any difference for me.

On 08/04/2016 15:06, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4:00:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:12:27 +0100, Bod wrote:



A few lucky buggers over here can get Hyperoptic @ *1Gb* down AND 1 Gb
upload speed. Mindblowing!

At a certain point you are only going as fast as the site you are
downloading from and the slowest link in that path.
Speeds like that might be appropriate for a business with lots of
users but for your casual homeowner it is just bragging rights.

Same thing with upload speed, for most of us at least. I never upload
anything of size. All the stuff of size is coming down. I doubt that
having anything above maybe 1 MB up would make any difference for me.

The thing that a fast upload is good for is if you send a lot of data to
the Cloud.

--
Bod

On 4/7/2016 11:34 PM, Bod wrote:
On 07/04/2016 21:48, Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/04/2016 21:00, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:12:27 +0100, Bod wrote:



A few lucky buggers over here can get Hyperoptic @ *1Gb* down AND
1 Gb
upload speed. Mindblowing!

At a certain point you are only going as fast as the site you are
downloading from and the slowest link in that path.
Speeds like that might be appropriate for a business with lots of
users but for your casual homeowner it is just bragging rights.

I agree.

I wish that I lived in town for the internet. They have the fiber and
forgot the speed,but did get a tour with a group through their equipment
room. They have the fastest speed in the state. Somehow got in before
there was some kind of speed ruleing on how fast they could run. I
think it
is either a gigabit or terabit.
This is for a county of probably less than 50,000 people.

For the home user, I think there are lots of sites that have a hard time
sending back even the 20 meg or so that many are rated for on the
downlink.


I think we have rules over here whereas the company has to give you an
estimate of the mimimum speed you are likely to get and that is
generally adhered to. So in effect if they say the minimum is, say, 20
down, then you'll be pretty sure that it will be at least what they say.
They err on the conservative side with their estimates.
eg; My ISP quoted a minimum of 19 and max of 31 down, when in effect I
get a steady 50 down.

Very similar in the U.S.. When I had DSL they looked at the distance
from the Central Office and told me the speed I'd get. They charged the
same regardless of the speed. Mine was very low. My friend's was high.

Then AT&T ran FTTN and used DSL for the last 100-1000 feet. They could
match Comcast's speed. Then they ran FTTH and started offering gigabit
service ($70 per month if you let them spy on you). Now Comcast has run
FTTP (fiber to the pole) with the last 100 feet or so on coax and when
they light it up later this year they can do gigabit service too, though
the reality is that most residential installations will see no benefit
from 1000 Mb/s versus 100 Mb/s or even 50 Mb/s.

Since running fiber is expensive, they carefully pick and choose where
to run it.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 00:11:28 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Many companies, banks and educational institutions are buying dark fiber in order to set up their own networks. I've a feeling that banks like the security of having their own network and not having to send information over The Internet. ^_^

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-dark-fiber.htm

[8~{} Uncle Fiber Monster

It used to be all that way before the internet and they ran on leased
4 wire. That was very secure but expensive. I remember on the early
90s one company was leasing space on a TV cable, getting the
equivalent of a T1 line and the question was, "how secure was that"?
In those days it was pretty secure because the hardware to extract
that data was pretty rare but it was going to every set top box on
that node.

On 04/07/2016 10:01 AM, wrote:

[snip]

Cable is a lot faster here too but Comcast reliability stinks and
their customer service is simply dismal. My cable drop is still
swinging in the air, from the hardline as high up as I could reach. I
set their modem on the curb and told them to come get it.


Considering customer service, when my first cable modem (Toshiba from
cable company, Cox at the time) was failing I called customer service
and (surprisingly) got a woman who understood what I was saying (about
getting 75% packet loss or worse).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing."

On 08/04/2016 15:18, sms wrote:
On 4/7/2016 11:34 PM, Bod wrote:
On 07/04/2016 21:48, Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/04/2016 21:00, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:12:27 +0100, Bod wrote:



A few lucky buggers over here can get Hyperoptic @ *1Gb* down AND
1 Gb
upload speed. Mindblowing!

At a certain point you are only going as fast as the site you are
downloading from and the slowest link in that path.
Speeds like that might be appropriate for a business with lots of
users but for your casual homeowner it is just bragging rights.

I agree.

I wish that I lived in town for the internet. They have the fiber and
forgot the speed,but did get a tour with a group through their
equipment
room. They have the fastest speed in the state. Somehow got in before
there was some kind of speed ruleing on how fast they could run. I
think it
is either a gigabit or terabit.
This is for a county of probably less than 50,000 people.

For the home user, I think there are lots of sites that have a hard time
sending back even the 20 meg or so that many are rated for on the
downlink.


I think we have rules over here whereas the company has to give you an
estimate of the mimimum speed you are likely to get and that is
generally adhered to. So in effect if they say the minimum is, say, 20
down, then you'll be pretty sure that it will be at least what they say.
They err on the conservative side with their estimates.
eg; My ISP quoted a minimum of 19 and max of 31 down, when in effect I
get a steady 50 down.

Very similar in the U.S.. When I had DSL they looked at the distance
from the Central Office and told me the speed I'd get. They charged the
same regardless of the speed. Mine was very low. My friend's was high.

Then AT&T ran FTTN and used DSL for the last 100-1000 feet. They could
match Comcast's speed. Then they ran FTTH and started offering gigabit
service ($70 per month if you let them spy on you). Now Comcast has run
FTTP (fiber to the pole) with the last 100 feet or so on coax and when
they light it up later this year they can do gigabit service too, though
the reality is that most residential installations will see no benefit
from 1000 Mb/s versus 100 Mb/s or even 50 Mb/s.

Since running fiber is expensive, they carefully pick and choose where
to run it.

Understood and thanks for the info.

--
Bod

On 04/07/2016 01:03 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).


The maximum here (medium-size town in Texas) is 150Mbps down / 7.5Mbps
up. They're talking about eventually having 1Gbps.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing."

On 08/04/2016 16:19, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/07/2016 01:03 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).


The maximum here (medium-size town in Texas) is 150Mbps down / 7.5Mbps
up. They're talking about eventually having 1Gbps.

That'd be very nice. At least to have the choice.

--
Bod

On 04/07/2016 01:26 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

[snip]

I'm very surprised at the 19Mb up. Any idea if that is typical for your
side of the pond? Mid-to-High single digits seems to be the norm for those
of us using the higher speed offerings.

As I posted earlier, my numbers are as follows:

Here, the cable ISP just (almost a year ago) started using bonded
channels for downlink, explaining the 150Mbps max. They are not yet
using bonded channels for uplink.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing."

On 04/07/2016 01:51 PM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

[snip]

We have Charter -- a somewhat upscale package: 60mbps down, 4mbps up.
There's a 100mbps down package, but still, I think, only 4mbps up. Even
the business packages are not symmetrical, as far as I know.

Perce


The packages here are (in Mb) 50/5, 75/7.5, 100/7.5, and 150/7.5.
They're not using bonded channels for upstream, which may explain why
the upload speed is limited.

BTW, as I write this, I look at my cable modem to verify that only one
(downstream) of the LEDs is blue (blue indicates bonded channels).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing."

On 04/07/2016 02:12 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

A few lucky buggers over here can get Hyperoptic @ *1Gb* down AND 1 Gb
upload speed. Mindblowing!


I can see one of the ads (for 1Gb internet) that shows you can download
a movie in 32 seconds.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing."

On 08/04/2016 16:28, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/07/2016 01:51 PM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

[snip]

We have Charter -- a somewhat upscale package: 60mbps down, 4mbps up.
There's a 100mbps down package, but still, I think, only 4mbps up. Even
the business packages are not symmetrical, as far as I know.

Perce


The packages here are (in Mb) 50/5, 75/7.5, 100/7.5, and 150/7.5.
They're not using bonded channels for upstream, which may explain why
the upload speed is limited.

BTW, as I write this, I look at my cable modem to verify that only one
(downstream) of the LEDs is blue (blue indicates bonded channels).

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK. I assume that it is just the rate
that they've decided to offer.

--
Bod

On 08/04/2016 16:32, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/07/2016 02:12 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

A few lucky buggers over here can get Hyperoptic @ *1Gb* down AND 1 Gb
upload speed. Mindblowing!


I can see one of the ads (for 1Gb internet) that shows you can download
a movie in 32 seconds.

Now that's fast. I bet that a standard length music track would take
about a second -ish at that rate.

--
Bod

On 04/07/2016 02:20 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

[snip]

I have bought my own
modem,but it is the one they recommend on their web site and it should be
capable of atleast 100 or more if cable was sending it.

Probably DOCSIS 3, 4X. According to wikepedia, that modem should be able
to handle 152 Mbps downstream and 108 Mbps upstream.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing."

On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

This is often used to claim that DSL is better. the rest of the internet
uses shared connections too.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing."

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:31:36 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2016 07:58, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:03:44 +0100, Bod wrote:

When I went to DSL I first checked into the local high-speed internet
services. All were either tied to also paying for TV (which I never
watch) or had terrible service and product reports. DSL maybe slower,
but at least I've had very few problems - only out twice, a few
hours, in all the years I've used it. Fast enough for pleasant
Usenet, email, and Google research. I've not tried Youtube or other
video - will some day.

Try http://www.speedtest.net/

I'd be curious to see how much DSL has improved since I used to use
it.

I'm not home right now, but I'll try to remember to run wired and
wifi speed tests on my various devices tonight and post the results.

11.28 DL, 0.85 UL.

Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).

You have almost 260 people per square KM in UK so one fiber will serve
a bunch of people. We are a tad more spread out here. We have 30 per
sq/km overall and some states are more like 2-5 people per sq/km in
some western states. They are not stringing 20 miles of fiber to serve
30 or 40 households.

My Limey cousins can't grok the differences in scale between The U.S. and The UK. Some of them have arrived in New York in the morning and thought they could drive to Los Angeles to have dinner. No clue. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Immense Monster

What's the matter with you, you seem to be wanting to prove something.
I'm fully aware of the difference in scale. *I only asked out of interest*.
I've been to the US and visted a couple of states plus driven quite
a few miles over there.
--
Bod

Oh my goodness! I didn't realise you couldn't handle being teased. I must apologise to you. You sheep shagger. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Tease Monster

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:34:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:32:32 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

I can see one of the ads (for 1Gb internet) that shows you can download
a movie in 32 seconds.

Large cities, like Las Vegas, are moving to 1Gb for government
offices, business, etc.
--
Liberals are like Chameleons. They keep changing colors. -- © Oren

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:45:07 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

This is often used to claim that DSL is better. the rest of the internet
uses shared connections too.

Certainly the whole internet is a shared resource but when internet
speeds to the node were fairly slow, you could tell when the kids got
home from school because your cable feed dropped to a crawl. I haven't
been on cable for quite a while but based on how often my cable
subscriber neighbors want to skim my wifi, it is still not that
reliable.
I keep my DMZ router turned off unless someone asks me to turn it on
or the kids are here. It sits in the front window with clear line of
sight to the 3 neighbors who want to skim.

On 08/04/2016 16:54, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:31:36 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2016 07:58, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:03:44 +0100, Bod wrote:

When I went to DSL I first checked into the local high-speed internet
services. All were either tied to also paying for TV (which I never
watch) or had terrible service and product reports. DSL maybe slower,
but at least I've had very few problems - only out twice, a few
hours, in all the years I've used it. Fast enough for pleasant
Usenet, email, and Google research. I've not tried Youtube or other
video - will some day.

Try http://www.speedtest.net/

I'd be curious to see how much DSL has improved since I used to use
it.

I'm not home right now, but I'll try to remember to run wired and
wifi speed tests on my various devices tonight and post the results.

11.28 DL, 0.85 UL.

Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).

You have almost 260 people per square KM in UK so one fiber will serve
a bunch of people. We are a tad more spread out here. We have 30 per
sq/km overall and some states are more like 2-5 people per sq/km in
some western states. They are not stringing 20 miles of fiber to serve
30 or 40 households.

My Limey cousins can't grok the differences in scale between The U.S. and The UK. Some of them have arrived in New York in the morning and thought they could drive to Los Angeles to have dinner. No clue. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Immense Monster

What's the matter with you, you seem to be wanting to prove something.
I'm fully aware of the difference in scale. *I only asked out of interest*.
I've been to the US and visted a couple of states plus driven quite
a few miles over there.
--
Bod

Oh my goodness! I didn't realise you couldn't handle being teased. I must apologise to you. You sheep shagger. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Tease Monster

;-)

--
Bod

On 08/04/2016 17:18, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:34:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

The cunning stunts :-)

--
Bod

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 04/07/2016 02:20 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

[snip]

I have bought my own
modem,but it is the one they recommend on their web site and it should
be
capable of atleast 100 or more if cable was sending it.

Probably DOCSIS 3, 4X. According to wikepedia, that modem should be able
to handle 152 Mbps downstream and 108 Mbps upstream.

--

It is a Surfboard 6121. A DOCSIS 3.0 from the docs. Should be able to do
172 Mbps download. That is over 3 times the speed of 50 Mbps that I am
suspose to be getting.

It must be something between the modem, router, and computer. I just got a
Win 10 computer and it will show 50 mbps downlink while another 2 computers
will only give 10 to 25 mbps plugged into the same eithernet cable. The old
and new computers both have a 3 Ghz processor and are almost identical in
most things such as memory and processor.

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 11:45:12 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

This is often used to claim that DSL is better. the rest of the internet
uses shared connections too.


I'd like to see the actual claim.

A claim that DSL is "better" because you don't share your connection means
nothing unless you back that up with some numbers.

If I take an isolated back road to Grandma's house, I don't have to
share the road with anyone. However, if I take a shared highway, I can
get there in half the time. Is the back road "better" merely because
I didn't have to share it?

On 4/8/2016 1:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 11:45:12 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

This is often used to claim that DSL is better. the rest of the internet
uses shared connections too.


I'd like to see the actual claim.

A claim that DSL is "better" because you don't share your connection means
nothing unless you back that up with some numbers.

If I take an isolated back road to Grandma's house, I don't have to
share the road with anyone. However, if I take a shared highway, I can
get there in half the time. Is the back road "better" merely because
I didn't have to share it?


The claim made sense when cable speeds were very close to DSL speeds.
If DSL was 3 mb and cable was 5 mb sharing would cut it back quite a bit
at peak times. Potentially it could be slower than DSL

Now that DSL is 6 mb and cable is 60 mb or more, sharing cuts it down
just a tiny be that you'd not notice or care about.

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:29:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/8/2016 1:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 11:45:12 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

This is often used to claim that DSL is better. the rest of the internet
uses shared connections too.


I'd like to see the actual claim.

A claim that DSL is "better" because you don't share your connection means
nothing unless you back that up with some numbers.

If I take an isolated back road to Grandma's house, I don't have to
share the road with anyone. However, if I take a shared highway, I can
get there in half the time. Is the back road "better" merely because
I didn't have to share it?


The claim made sense when cable speeds were very close to DSL speeds.
If DSL was 3 mb and cable was 5 mb sharing would cut it back quite a bit
at peak times. Potentially it could be slower than DSL

Now that DSL is 6 mb and cable is 60 mb or more, sharing cuts it down
just a tiny be that you'd not notice or care about.

My point exactly. Without numbers to back it up, the "unshared is better"
claim is accurate but holds no real world advantage.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:06:46 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 11:45:12 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

This is often used to claim that DSL is better. the rest of the internet
uses shared connections too.


I'd like to see the actual claim.

A claim that DSL is "better" because you don't share your connection means
nothing unless you back that up with some numbers.

If I take an isolated back road to Grandma's house, I don't have to
share the road with anyone. However, if I take a shared highway, I can
get there in half the time. Is the back road "better" merely because
I didn't have to share it?

I use DSL because a 10 meg connection that is working beats the hell
out of a 50 meg connection that is down.
I understand Comcast may be OK in other places but they suck here and
that is the only other wired option.