Ravynmagi
Title: Moderator
Posts:
29,978
Registered:
Dec 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 29,452
User ID: 572,278
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
A while ago the FCC asked Americans to become part of a test to measure actual broadband speeds versus what their provider was advertising and they got data from 9,000 people and have the results.
They have a chart that shows average download speeds throughout a 24 hour period. So you can see how much some ISPs may be affected by peak traffic.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/02/fcc-analysis-reveals-isp-speed-winners-and-losers/
The big winner is Verizon FIOS. 115% actual speeds (faster than advertised) and absolutely no drop during peak hours. The only one that pulled that feat off.
Charter, Comcast, and Cox all did pretty well too.
AT&T, Qwest, Verizon (DSL), and a few others never even reached advertised speeds.
And poor Cablevision subscribers. Wow. Maybe ya'll should get together for a class action lawsuit. Those results are criminal, barely 50% during peak hours and the rest of the 24 hour period isn't that good either.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Lonestar_1
Posts:
4,224
Registered:
Aug 26, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,775
User ID: 960,112
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
I did not read the details of this but saw the chart yesterday. Really the chart says it all. You can tell who planned out the network correctly and who did not (or who is not sending all upload peering down 1 pipe for everyone crippling you in the same way). Could also show who is over selling nodes and upgrading to keep loads within reason .
Fiber wins! Be happy anyone sitting on that 
-----signature-----
http://gimpchimp.etilader.com/display.php?user=lonestarr 3500+ solo kills & Lone Enforcer WAR - IronRock Dest- Energist, Moogabooga SWTOR - KV - Energist, Moogabooga
|
|
Link to this post
|
Acao
Posts:
529
Registered:
Nov 29, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 527
User ID: 999,387
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
|
Fiber internet is a young technology. When I first got DSL in the 1990's I was getting 1.1 - 1.2 Mbps downloads on a 512 Kbps line. My current 7.0 Mbps line typically does around 6.0 Mbps. As the technology matures expect those speeds to drop down into the 80 - 95% range.
-----signature-----
Acao Freestar OSS
Master Smuggler, Master Pistoleer, Retired
Cell phones are a lot like religion. Give an arsehole a phone or a god, and they ruin your day.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Rezist
Posts:
????
Registered:
????
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 0
User ID: 0
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
|
That's pretty good results though, when I had cable i never broke 50% of the advertised value regardless of the time of day. Americans have it better then Canadians.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
|
Apparently the ranting about Comcast has been overblown.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Greybear1andonly
Posts:
????
Registered:
????
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 0
User ID: 0
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
|
Lets check these results again when FIOS has gained more steam.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
|
If FIOS works like dial up or DSL then I expect the performance curve to stay fairly flat (over the course of a day). The main reason why the throughput curve on cable (over the course of a day) is so pronounced is because over crowding of clients on local distribution nodes. That's why that nearly flat line of Comcast is actually pretty impressive, it shows them to be managing their network very well.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
IvanDF
Title: Veni, vidi, vici
Posts:
7,219
Registered:
Nov 28, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,007
User ID: 998,645
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
Aerlinthian posted:
Apparently the ranting about Comcast has been overblown.
Most of the ranting I see about comcast is their caps, not the speed.
-----signature-----
360 Gamer Tag: Ivan34
Steam ID: OSUIvan
|
|
Link to this post
|
Kordirn
Title: Pirate Prince
Posts:
23,453
Registered:
Apr 19, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 23,192
User ID: 915,876
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
IvanDF posted:
Aerlinthian posted:
Apparently the ranting about Comcast has been overblown.
Most of the ranting I see about comcast is their caps, not the speed.
Crappy customer service as well, but the speed has always been fine for me.
-----signature-----
ooOooo oOoOO OOo
|
|
Link to this post
|
Lokkie_the_Fierce
Posts:
53,284
Registered:
Dec 12, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 52,351
User ID: 748,022
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
/e loves his fios
That being said, I never really had an issue with Cox and their internet - fairly good speed, little to no downtime.
Their TV service though sucked arse - constant pixelation and horrid PQ.
-----signature-----
WARLORD OF PI Lokkie_the_Fierce (+3.14) http://c.mymovies.dk/ryejay123
|
|
Link to this post
|
Blisteringballs
Posts:
2,247
Registered:
Aug 12, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,247
User ID: 1,366,612
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
|
I get higher than advertised speeds with Cox often. It's flaky though, and slows down at peak hours and can go down like a whore at any minute.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Marzuk
Posts:
12,545
Registered:
Oct 21, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,348
User ID: 729,742
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
Aerlinthian posted:
Apparently the ranting about Comcast has been overblown.
I have to agree that its mostly the caps that are in place that are the source of the irritation. I can say that being able to see what Comcast will hold you to in terms of traffic (rather than attempting to rely on something they would ignore) is pretty nice.
So far when I note a significant mistake, its in my favor not theirs. In June, they were 100GB off and I'm not sure what happened but I'm fine with that.
A 250gb cap is still pretty decent (and far better than 150gb) but the funny part is that 4 or 5 years ago, I just used bit torrent a alot. Now I use Steam and Netflix, and use more than I ever did. Legitimate traffic is growing quite a bit, and I hope there is a plan other than "leave the cap at 250GB for the next 10 years".
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Greybear1andonly
Posts:
????
Registered:
????
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 0
User ID: 0
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
I would like to mention to those using CABLE internet services...
The main cable that enters the dwelling should goto a 2spliter, with 1 line running to the modem, the other side for TVs....These can become degraded in approx 3years and needs to be changed....service for TV will not have any issues, but service for cable will....I would use a 5mHz-2500mHz unit.
This will save you a $100 inside home service call, and weeks of frustration.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Marzuk
Posts:
12,545
Registered:
Oct 21, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,348
User ID: 729,742
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
|
AFAIK the main reason they split it off, is because you cannot have an amplifier on the same line as the modem. In houses with several TVs, having an inline amp to maintain picture quality is almost a must.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Lonestar_1
Posts:
4,224
Registered:
Aug 26, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,775
User ID: 960,112
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
Never really had a splitter slowly die on me. Lightning on the other hand...
I saw a full page add in the paper highlighting this graph. Cablevision vs Fios, kinda made me chuckle.
-----signature-----
http://gimpchimp.etilader.com/display.php?user=lonestarr 3500+ solo kills & Lone Enforcer WAR - IronRock Dest- Energist, Moogabooga SWTOR - KV - Energist, Moogabooga
|
|
Link to this post
|
Koneg
Title: Evil Genius
Posts:
31,388
Registered:
Dec 4, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,579
User ID: 530,943
|
Subject:
FCC advertised vs actual download speed report published
|
Acao posted:
Fiber internet is a young technology. When I first got DSL in the 1990's I was getting 1.1 - 1.2 Mbps downloads on a 512 Kbps line. My current 7.0 Mbps line typically does around 6.0 Mbps. As the technology matures expect those speeds to drop down into the 80 - 95% range.
6Mbps on a 7Mbps line is actually 7Mbps.
What you don't see in any speed test is the bandwidth being used for other purposes besides your speed test. ACKs, Retransmissions, CRCs, keepalives, DNS, TCP headers, WAN and LAN broadcasts, ARPs etc etc ad infinitum.
At a minimum, 10% of your bandwidth is being consumed by this secondary stuff - but usually it's closer to 15%. If you don't want to do the math yourself that means the 7Mbps line will always "speed test" right at 6.0Mbps.
This is true of all speeds, all technologies. If you set up a simple 100Mbps LAN via a switch and test the speed between two machines plugged into that LAN - they'll "speed test" at ~85Mbps. The other 15Mbps is there, it's just being used for housekeeping so the speed test can't measure it.
-----signature-----
* First rule of a gun fight: Have a gun.
|
"Any sufficiently advanced idiocy is
indistinguishable from trolling." -- Arthur C Clarke
|
|
Link to this post
|
