Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Mr. Baby Man
26701 Followers
Lederhosed
1192 Followers
Jason Jablonski
3 Followers
Designshop98
223 Followers
thatsnotpudding
31 Followers
infestusAug 18, 2010
My isp has been pretty good over all.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Sucks you're being buried, I get the bandwidth I pay for too...
homercles337Aug 18, 2010
Says the guy from Sweden.
ineffablepolkAug 18, 2010
I live in Indiana. My ISP advertises 20 MBits. I consistently get 18-20 from the right servers. Most servers limit their upload to each connection much lower than that, but that isn't my ISP's fault.
marytormeyAug 18, 2010
It is unfair that you should get what you pay for when the rest of us don't, who is your provider in what area do you live?
7ajiAug 19, 2010
Holly s**t! why the f**k people are burying your comment??
I get the speed that my ISP advertise in the plan too. Sometimes it's slightly less, sometimes it's slightly more.
Also I prefer bananas over oranges (bury that f**ker!)
sciguyajAug 18, 2010
We need new terms to describe broadband! An ISP can be slower than dial up and still call itself broadband on a technicality!
brucemanlyAug 18, 2010
<pedant>
seriously, even the slowest DSL line doesn't go down to slower than dialup, it does go down to say 128k, which with todays internet is pretty unusable, but seriously, slower than dialup? I think you've forgotten how slow the internet used to be......
</pedant>
khastAug 19, 2010
I just had to subscribe to a static ip...otherwise I was getting lightning fast speeds...ONLY ON PORT 21,22,23 and 80...the rest were blocked. (They blanket blocked ports for my protection...how..uh generous of them.)
Through GRC doing the common ports (1-1063) my whole chart was blue (closed) with exception of these 4 ports.
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 (Link to GRC ShieldsUP! website...home of SpinRite)
Every time I asked for a port to be opened, my ISP demanded to know what the purpose and program I intended to use. (An example, I wanted 443 so https and importantly Pandora worked...they reluctantly unblocked it...for a day.)
angelcomaAug 19, 2010
Mine does... :(
IT does go slower than Dial up at times and its sad. But I live in the middle of nowhere, so what do I matter?
drewh1991Aug 19, 2010
My apartment complex tries to tell me that I have to buy s**tty 256/128kbps for $33 a month. Its supposed to be shared by 4 people too (student apartments). Some people are actually convinced that they cant get other service and wind up paying for something that is essentially unusable.
tablatronixAug 18, 2010
Isnt the FCC working on exactly that right now ?
3nder99Aug 18, 2010
The FCC got c**k blocked.
dsmxAug 18, 2010
Well a while back I was with a particulary bad ISP called supanet in the UK and they advertised up to * meg broadband at peak times the download rate dropped to 1.2kb/s and even at 4 in the morning the best it could manage was 400kb/s. Thankfully I left them about 2 weeks later for be* who offer up to 8 meg and even at peak times I get a download rate of 800kb/s on the same line. It's disgusting what companies can get way with advertising.
3nder99Aug 18, 2010
It's not just broadband. During the Health Care Debate Big Pharma promised cuts of "up to" $80 Billion. Which of course went into factoring the super duper savings we all get.
I'll s**t myself if we save $1 Billion let alone 80.
Face it, our government is bought and paid for, expecting them to fix something is just giving them a blank check to spend all they can.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
I say the Term "Broadband" is the maximum ratio of .25 between Price/EQUAL Down and Up speeds.
jantikAug 18, 2010
I have no complaints. My neighbor's wifi connection is performing fine.
mr0nine2fiveAug 18, 2010
Ditto!
jantikAug 18, 2010
I want to thank you for pointing that out. BTW did you know you had a rootkit installed on your computer? If you need help with that, I can remove it remotely.
fall0ut17Aug 18, 2010
i use a mac, therefore i am immune to the interwebz.
/s
shaymojackAug 19, 2010
It's sad how many people I know really believe that.
"D00d did you know that Mac's can't get viruses?!"
vashth3stampedeAug 18, 2010
at first i misread your comment as, "I have no complaints. My neighbor's wife connection is performing fine."
and proceded to lol and question the relevance. but then i reread it.
i guess you could say: first i was like ^_^ but then i was like -_-
trickytAug 18, 2010
I don't know where you guys are that you live that you're still stuck in the stone age. Ever since I switched to Linksys a few years back I've been getting a solid 54Mbps.
omgitssmartAug 18, 2010
You sound like a guy who would run an unlocked connection. May I get your address?
jantikAug 18, 2010
Go to Starbucks, you you pervert.
thelichkingAug 19, 2010
Yeah, Linksys and NETGEAR (with caps) are the best free provides ever!
grinsyAug 19, 2010
Is that you, Vork?
brucealmightyAug 18, 2010
The term "up to" is all but meaningless. ISPs should be required to specify the average speed experienced by users in accordance to a standardized test.
protodonAug 18, 2010
please stop using the phrase 'all but' it literally means the opposite of what people mean it to mean. If that makes sense.
thcobbsAug 18, 2010
Actually, I take it to mean that its almost meaningless, but not quite.
doctechnicalAug 18, 2010
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/all+but
all but something
1. everyone or everything except those mentioned: "All but the weakest plants survived the hot weather."
2. almost: "In some places, bus service has all but disappeared."
----
Looks to me like brucealmighty is using it correctly, according to definition #2.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Protodon is correct, Brucealmighty literally said that the term "up to" was everything but meaningless, or in plain english "up to is meaningful" which it is not in this case.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cl1mh4224rdAug 18, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
protodonAug 18, 2010
doctechnical, I also found that but that is the number 2 usage, not number 1 and dumb people keep perpetuating it. Too, this is an acceptable, although uncommon, way to start a sentence . And 'ain't' is a word. It's all bad english. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
volathAug 18, 2010
@Cl1mh4224rd
Except that "I couldn't care less" is the real term, but half the people that say it are dumb asses that just heard it wrong and never thought actually think about what they're saying.
cl1mh4224rdAug 18, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
gerrykAug 19, 2010
Except 'I could care less' wasn't born of anything except stupidity.
shozikuAug 18, 2010
actually the term "up to" has a lot of meaning, and it is used well. It's the idiots reading it that do not actually recognize its importance in a sentence. Pessimists rule here. They'll figure "up to" but expect much less in reality. Some folks see the magic "highest advertised number" and expect it. Not a fault of the advertiser but rather a "caveat emptor". The buyer dreamed of maximum, not even considering for a moment that the meaning also covers values less than the max.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jgzmanAug 18, 2010
My question is why they are allowed to advertise something they are not delivering?
Could I sell a car that gets up to 100 MPG? How fast would I get hit with false advertising?
And if I wouldn't, I should.
novadeezAug 19, 2010
Actually jgzman, that happens all the time. Cars always advertise a pretty much optimal gas mileage while your actual MPG will probably be significantly lower.
jgzmanAug 19, 2010
There's 'optimal' and 'unrealistic.'
I'll bet my car would get better mileage on a frictionless surface, but they don't get to use that for their numbers. As well, most people's driving habits and maintenance practices contribute to the loss of MPG. Those are in my hands, and the manufacturer isn't responsible for them, provided they tell me what maintenance I should do.
invaderdemAug 18, 2010
"Up To" is a loophole. You hear/read " ... speeds up to 10MBPS ... " and your brain immediately thinks that your average speed will be 10MBPS. I always figure 25% of what they advertise is your actual speeds. Expect any more and you'll be disappointed.
Shoziku is right, Pessimists are the least affected by this.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Don't forget to divide by 8 as well since they advertise in megaBITS when it's megaBYTES that actually matter. After the bit byte conversion, you can usually bank on a third to half what you're paying for at any time.
vidorianAug 18, 2010
Yay for low expectations. Can't be disappointed.
The bits vs bytes are foreign to the majority of users, and has turned out to be a marketing dream.
muzzyAug 18, 2010
@awesome
What? I don't see what you're getting at. Network throughput is always measured in megabits per second. Your NIC is measured in megabits, fiber optic backbones are measured in megabits, etc.
It just makes more sense for the amount of data being passed back and forth.
It's not really a marketing ploy, though it does work in the favor of the ISP if folks are too stupid to realize the difference between a bit and a byte.
trickytAug 18, 2010
Divide by 10 then round down to the nearest number you'd be unhappy with.
muzzyAug 20, 2010
@cl1mh4224rd
Yes, but that's not really the fault of the ISPs, that's just the way software developers choose to display the data.
It's a tradeoff, really... network data is better measured in megabits per second, but files stored on a hard drive are better measured in megabytes per second. So which should the browser display? I guess that's a matter of personal preference.
elmuerte17Aug 18, 2010
+1 for correct use of "all but."
sirmasterboyAug 18, 2010
Hmm, I pretty much always get the speed I pay for from my ISP (time warner cable)
And if they are having problems and I don't get my rated speed for a period of time, I call them and they credit my account for that month for whatever they weren't performing.
I wont settle for less than I am paying for.
I also used to do this on my old ISP charter before I moved and I never had a problem getting them to credit.
After reading the comments on this page, I have to wonder why more people don't call up and complain and get some of their money back or their service restored to the level for which they pay.
aminy23Aug 18, 2010
I think Cable Internet actually has more reliable speeds. I have a 12 megabits per second connection from Xfinity, but I always get more than that when I do any speed test. I think that is because Comcast raises the speed for the first few seconds of downloads. When I download torrents, it is usually no lower than 1.5 (1.5 * 8 = 12) megabyte per second if there are a lot of seeders, so I can't complain. I just hate Comcast because every 2-3 months my bill gets higher, and I have to call them, and then they drop it, and I am paying for HD, but it says unavailable for all the HD channels in one package I pay for. I live in island, and the next fastest internet is AT&T, but they only have an up to speed of 6 megabits per second. I just did a quick speedtest.net test, it anyone does not believe me.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/919480694.png
jezsikAug 18, 2010
I like to respond to ISP selling this service that I'm willing to accept their "up to" speed broadband connection by paying "up to" the amount they want. It makes for an interesting phone conversation when they call.
So, how about a service that ties your monthy fees to the monthly average speed of your connection? Wanna bet that we see a significant improvement within months?
invaderdemAug 18, 2010
Because connection speeds aren't solely based on the ISP. The server you're requesting data from may have a high volume of traffic or they may bottleneck their speeds. Not to defend the ISPs, but they're not the culprit all the time.
There are many times I download things from PSN during internet "prime-time" and the speed is terrible. So I just turn it off and restart the download when I wake up at about 5 a.m., and the speed is 100x faster.
andrewjcAug 18, 2010
@InvaderDem: The problem is when they don't properaly allocate their OWN bandwidth to their customers. If you're a cable provider and you put a network node in a neighborhood that has, say, 20Mb allocated to it, but then you divide that amongst 10 homes, it's reasonable to assume that the average network speed of any one of those homes is going to be 2Mbps. Sure, the PEAK speed will be 20Mbps, but there's absolutely no guarantee that anybody will be able to get that at any given time.
vektuzAug 18, 2010
I'd prefer to see 'minimum speed'. And its EASY to figure out, too... no standardized test, even. Divide the maximum throughput of the link (which is known) by the number of people you've jammed on there, and there's your minimum speed (which would actually happen if everyones downloading).
Of course the ISPs would SQUEAL at this idea because they know that the real problem is they're jamming 10,000 people onto lines meant for 100 and then running with the profit, instead of building infrastructure... but maybe its about time people realized this.
dacentaurNov 11, 2010
Well said. What I'd like to see is governments forcing the ISPs to advertise their minimum speed - and that too sustained speed when downloading a 100 MB file NOT just burst transmission.
There could be a verification server which could be run either by the government and/or third parties.
homercles337Aug 18, 2010
Average +/- the standard deviation or the median.
godsbongAug 18, 2010
Chances are that "test" was bought or sponsored by the ISP in question to have the results show in their favor.. At least that seems like a possibility in the world we live in today.
oriondrAug 19, 2010
http://www.speedtest.net/result/919934719.png
Though that's not really a 'real world' test. I'm pretty satisfied with my internet, as long as it's not completely down.
sewermuttAug 18, 2010
I don't want to brag but I've never had less than 90% of the "up to" speed in the 4 years I've had my internet. Then again... it's only a 1500/500 service.
hortnonAug 18, 2010
I get 32mb down and 8mb up, with something they call "speed boost" where my speed actually bursts up to about 40mb for the first 15sec of a big download. It costs me between 60 and 70 a month, I forget the exact amount. They just introduced a 50mb tier but that runs almost 100 a month.
Cox has horrible customer service, but as long as the actual internet is working, it's great...and I've rarely had downtime.
Cool story, etc....But I recommend if anyone is in a market that Cox is in, take a good look at them...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
com2Aug 18, 2010
Brought to you by Cox Cable Communications.
funkylokiAug 18, 2010
It sounds like Hortnon loves the Cox
aminy23Aug 18, 2010
I had Comcast, I paid for 12 megabits per second, and I always got 1.5 megabytes per second download speeds, so I am very happy. There customer service sucks cox, but then they switched to Xfinity, and I got there "Turbo Boost" which f**ks up all my speed tests, because it raises the connection speed for the first few seconds of the download. I just did a speed test, http://www.speedtest.net/result/919480694.png and turbo boost made it over exaggerated.
smotpokerAug 18, 2010
I've had Cox, Comcast and TWC over the years. Of the three, TWC has had the highest speed and usually gets well over the advertised amount. My biggest problem has been with the amount you have to spend just to get broadband service with no TV (though it is not exactly unreasonable) and service interruptions (which are pretty rare these days, might have been regional and have usually been related to weather conditions).
With both Cox and Comcast they would filter incoming ports so that I couldn't run the services I wanted and had lower speeds. Though I don't really like TWC's size, marketing and plans too much, they have always provided the most freedom and speed of the three Cable broadband providers I've tried.
kevenmAug 18, 2010
Is it possible you're comparing your Mbps to their MBps?
There's a big difference.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
I thought everybody already knew this. I usually average about half of the advertised speed.
kerrigoreAug 18, 2010
I always hear everyone complaining about it, but I routinely get the advertised max for my ISP and so do plenty of other people I know. Plus, they double the speed for the first 15-30sec or so, which can make some good headway. Of course, not everything can actually saturate your connection.
I can't help wondering about the testing methodology they are using and whether they are just averaging the speed people get regardless of source, or if they are just looking at the speed people get from a source that can actually saturate their connection.
Still though, it seems there is a healthy minority of users whose ISP's actually deliver on their claims, so no, not "everybody already knew this".
nevariusAug 18, 2010
Unfortunately, the increase of speed for the first 15-30 seconds screws with speed tests since most speed tests only run for that amount of time.
Ive heard that this is done on purpose to give a false idea of true upload/download speeds, but there may be a logical, non-sneaky reason for it.
entroperAug 19, 2010
@Kerrigore: I actually find the "turboboost" incredibly annoying for streaming videos. The video software assumes you have a really fast connection, and starts playing the video, but then your speed slows down and your video starts hiccuping. We had this problem constantly with Cox, but don't have it at all with FiOS because they're actually fast.
I think the original idea was that most files are small, so if you turboboost for 5-10 seconds, you get those files out of the way really fast. The large files that take a while are going to take a while anyway. IMO it's not a great network management strategy, but it sure is a good marketing gimmick.
hardwalkerAug 18, 2010
ya who actually takes "up to" seriously
when you go to a sale that advertises up to 90% off do you expect any more than a couple of things marked down that low?
the avg connection in the chart more than covers streams or something, typically at 300-400kps, or a 720p stream which is only a little more than 1mps tops. if you're downloading a 4 gig movie off of torrents you're not paying for, suck it up at wait an hour :/
oitherwise, who really needs a 10mps line? i don't, and i don't want my bill going up for it either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
snoogsAug 18, 2010
It's like tax at McDonald's... Now what pisses me off is when they advertise the dollar menu in commercials, and the guy brings in one damn dollar and gets served! Where the hell does that actually happen?
peschelnetAug 18, 2010
Oregon
tnoyAug 19, 2010
Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Oregon.
Though, some parts of Oregon have taxes on prepared food.
milsorgnAug 18, 2010
Of course they are bogus, these companies have every incentive to oversell capacity and almost none to invest in infrastructure.
Personally I feel that if they are going to usurp our public infrastructure to string their wires and build their towers then they should be obliged to exist as not-for-profit entities so that they might have a chance to work for the communities that support them.
jftitanAug 18, 2010
Excellent argument which should also note, most if not a good portion of the telecoms infrastructure was paid for by taxpayers. and then these companies also take tax breaks of excess of 70% of their income. Tax loopholes which allows these companies to own their own real estate/financial services in other states.
I mean common, these people are raking in in profits, with marginal costs being subsidized and they still under provide the consumer.
Gotta love this bs.
atarioAug 19, 2010
*come on
jftitanAug 19, 2010
thanks for the correction.
(I used to be a speeling nazi, but then I realized my grammar was just as bad.) LoL
lognoseAug 18, 2010
While you're fixing this FCC, also fix the volume on my television commercials.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
I think their current policy is the commercial can only be as loud as the scene prior to the commercial set. If there were explosions and gunshots you are screwed.. :)
I dont watch commercials anymore though, use dvr and start watching about 15 minutes after the show starts, gives you enough leeway to fast forward commercials and get to the live program near the end :)
doctechnicalAug 18, 2010
That policy would be trivial to overcome, just make sure your fade-out music hits a big crescendo. Problem solved.
leamancAug 18, 2010
Your close, but not quite. It has nothing to do with the scene before, the rule states that commercials are only allowed to hit the maximum volume that the TV shows themselves are allowed to. It's just that the TV shows aren't running at full blast for the entire episode. Dialogue is quieter, music cues a little louder, explosions and gunshots really loud. The commercials just keep their volume at explosions level for the entirety of the ad.
mxm111Aug 18, 2010
The term "LOUD" is also not well defined. Modern compression techniques can make sound much louder and still be withing the max rms voltage
fsumoonAug 18, 2010
When it occurs to me that my commercials are too loud, which is on nearly every commercial break; I don't lower the volume -- I hit the mute button and disengage from my television. Pop-ups have more effect on me than muted TV ads. Way to push yourselves right out of the ad market, Networks.
blueplanetAug 19, 2010
When it occurs to me that my commercials are too loud I, oh yeah that doesn't happen I use a DVR to record all my shows.
hermmunsterAug 18, 2010
I dumped hulu completely when they began doing this.
rpatrick819Aug 18, 2010
Problem is that it's simply limited to the loudest decibel in the content. However, decibels are not the only thing that dictate just how "loud" something sounds.
shozikuAug 18, 2010
yeah, commercials are on a standard higher volume by design. they must have raised the allowable number there because they are much louder than they used to be a few years ago. If I get assaulted by a commercial I will either turn off the TV or change the channel altogether, and not care what I was watching. The silence is so soothing that I never regret missing that show I was watching anyway. do it. step away from the TV and see what I mean.
dzhuo04Aug 18, 2010
It's worse on Hulu.
rakerisAug 18, 2010
I'm glad on the satellite I have the commercials are all the same volume, that would get annoying.
greevarAug 18, 2010
Actually, the commercials are not "louder". They simply compress the audio to the mid-range frequencies that the human ear can more easily hear, which makes it seem louder. It used to be done to prevent over modulation of the transmission which would result in poorer reception, but now they just do it because you can hear it better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesAug 18, 2010
In other words, they're louder.
greevarAug 18, 2010
No, a decibel meter would show both the compressed and uncompressed versions to be the same. The only difference is your perception of louder audio. Think of it like infrared light and visible light. Is infrared darker than visible light because your eye can't detect it as well?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aquileriaAug 18, 2010
So what you're saying is it's louder?
3atwo1Aug 19, 2010
these people are the exact reason i hate looking at discussions on digg.
djmattb241Aug 18, 2010
Torrents fix this.
http://ezrss.it
asrrin29Aug 18, 2010
Technically commercials are never any louder than the loudest sound of the show they follow. However, they boost frequencies and compress the audio and keep it at the highest possible decibel so that your brain interprets it as louder. It sucks and should be changed, but every time the FCC makes rules to stop annoying commercials, they always find a loophole.
entroperAug 19, 2010
They should just have a "complain" button on your remote control, and you pay a fine or lose your air time if you operate above a certain complaint ratio.
maxxellAug 18, 2010
What's the difference? Every apartment I've lived in the for the past 5 years has had only one choice of internet provider anyway. They can advertise all they want, but when they have an exclusive deal with my apartment building, they have no incentive to provide quality connection or quality service.
beervolcanoAug 18, 2010
Actually, they can no longer exclude other ISPs from offering service. They are still allowed to offer exclusive deals (eg reduced rates), but they must allow you to choose another ISP if they offer service in the area.
My apartments partnered with some overpriced crap company, but I was able to get Qwest DSL after causing a little ruckus.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/federal-court-upholds-fcc-ban-on-exclusive-cable-deals.ars
trickytAug 18, 2010
It's amazing how much that "if they offer service in the area" totally screws over this argument.
beervolcanoAug 18, 2010
Not necessarily.
In my case, there was an exclusive deal with Ygnition, but they're s**tty. I contacted Qwest and Cox to see if service was available. It wasn't, but they both responded saying that they would need to survey the area before extending service. I checked back in 30 days and Qwest was now available!
Granted, I couldn't get their highest package (20 Mbps) but the next one down was still vastly better than what I had.
trickytAug 18, 2010
Your story sounds like one of those things that only happens in the movies. Next you'll be telling me I can do (more than 5gb/mo) tethering on my phone.
beervolcanoAug 18, 2010
I tether my phone all the time. I use the Tether app for Blackberry. ;-)
jackschitttAug 18, 2010
This should really not come as a surprise to anybody.
hypedAug 18, 2010
no way! quick! someone get this to the front page of digg! /s
murgamanplusAug 18, 2010
DONE!
ohitsdomAug 18, 2010
REMOVE THAT /S SOLDIER!
clippclopAug 18, 2010
Soon after, the FCC realized that if the server you are connecting to cannot offer the maximum speed of your connection, then you wont get that speed!
rpatrick819Aug 18, 2010
"I get my speed, therefore the FCC is full of s**t and the whole world is lying! ISPs are the greatest!"
clippclopAug 18, 2010
Ok then smart ass. Why don't you point me to the tests that the fcc did to measure the download speeds of various ISPs and their advertised : actual ratio then.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
The ISP I work for advertises 15/2 or 30/5 to customers, but when someone calls in, I almost never see people hitting those speeds.
sirbetaAug 18, 2010
I was going to say this, but that's really only half true. Most ISPs do not offer the speed they're claiming they do, despite the issue with the servers.
My previous ISP had given me about 15mbps, but I was getting closer to 7 in pretty much everything I did, even torrents.
These days it's much better, but I'm still not getting what was advertised to me. I'm being sold 26mbps, but I'm getting closer to 18, with 21 being my highest throughput so far. I don't really care about the disparity there since obviously it's still ridiculously fast and love my ISP, but even pushing torrents to the max I can't actually hit the high mark.
kerrigoreAug 18, 2010
I think the point is, it's unclear whether the FCC was taking into account the upload limitations of what most people are DL'ing from when they were doing these tests.
genmaAug 18, 2010
same for my optimum/cablevision connection, you can only expect maximum speed from high capacity/low traffic sources. I can even max out the downlink with steam, since I'm lucky to be near a good node. but I've been with other isp's that either never reached it, or at some point became so saturated that even 50% wasn't possible. and they have absolutely no obligation to do anything about it, when there's no other choice of service.
all fcc needs to do is require some sort of accountability for advertising, along with getting rid of all that obfuscation, for instance do some random line tests from discreet locations at certain intervals. just to prove that those connections do indeed reach the advertised speeds at *some point* during the day, from able sources of course. if they were to say "maintain x speed for y amount of time in z% of each billing cycle, otherwise customers deserve compensation", then the phrase "up to" would actually mean something, 50% of the cap is not good enough to allow use of the term "up to".
boxxaAug 18, 2010
FIOS was the most reliable with the advertised speeds and actual ones you got. DSL was slower but at least they were pretty consistent too.
crunchdiggAug 18, 2010
I always translate "up to" as "guaranteed not to exceed"
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
My translation is similar: guaranteed not to come close"
wontstoptalkingAug 18, 2010
I'm actually surprised with my ISP....my plan promises "up to" 20Mbps, but I'm getting 24.
And, uh, it's Comcast.
I'm so confused and conflicted.
danj484Aug 18, 2010
"Up to" as in "our system can theoretically support it." They leave out the "but we're not interested in trying, though, so f**k you."
slashdotordiggAug 18, 2010
actually mine exceeds 10Mbps as advertised. It almost exceeded 11Mbits per saturday.
taaybAug 18, 2010
That's funny. I always translate "up to" as "guaranteed not to exceed half of this number."
If I want to average 6 MBps I need to purchase 13+ from whoever is offering it. If I actually purchased the 6MBps plan I can expect speeds to average around 2-3 MBps during off-peak hours.
eroc668Aug 19, 2010
Thats not really your translation as much as it is just the actual definition
gravydavyAug 19, 2010
@wontstoptalking: Yeah, surprisingly with Charter Communications, I have "up to" a 30Mbps download, and I am getting 32-34. Here's a great website to test your download and upload speeds:
http://speedtest.net/
belebihAug 18, 2010
I actually got lucky with my local cable company here in PR (Choice Cable) after they made some big changes in speeds and prices. I'm now paying $25/month for 6.0Mb and it's always been between 5.75 and 6.0 Mbps so far (cheapest ever on the island). The other few ISPs here are just terrible though, like DMAX (part of that whole Claro/Verizon mess) offering 5Mbps for $85/month. Still, with their little geographical monopolies they try to not step on each others toes too much so they can all fleece consumers as much as possible.
joelav22Aug 18, 2010
Does this take into account end-to-end connections? it's not your fault if the server/site you are connected to shapes traffic. I didn't see any data on how actual speeds are measured.
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
No, it does not. This whole argument is like all the people who think they're watching HD television because they're TV is an HD TV.
chadsexingtimeAug 18, 2010
Shocking!
I bought broadband that was "up to" 7. I got 1.5. I complained, they told me it was "up to", and I shouldn't worry. I asked how fast I would get if I purchased one of the several packages that was "up to" a number higher than what I was getting, but cheaper than what I was paying.
busabladeAug 18, 2010
It would be nice to say back to them "I will pay up to what you are billing me for!".
ssomu007Aug 18, 2010
please understand, nothing is perfect. it is online media. up to 5MB provided. but at 4 MB in reality. Some factors influence. once more it is common.
wtheonewAug 19, 2010
You're not syntaxgs, you need to learn how to effectively convey a thought.
smemilyAug 18, 2010
Sad but true. I pay for 1.5mbps connection from Qwest but currently my modem says "Downstream Rate: 1088 Kbps, Upstream Rate: 512 Kbps" and speedtest.net puts me at .94mbps down and .41mbps up. Qwest can't/won't do s**t about it; I'm limited by the phonelines in this area, and they have no plans to upgrade, like, ever.
BTW they are charging me MORE than they charge people in better areas for 40mbps connections. Bastards.
funkylokiAug 18, 2010
1.5 Mbps is not broadband by any definition of the term. That is only 187 KBps. If you are paying for that plan, you are definitely getting screwed. I'm hoping you mistyped it somehow, like maybe 15 Mbps.
misanthropeAug 18, 2010
The man said 187KBps, which is correct. Kilobyte...not Kilobit.
Of course your 1500kbps is also correct.
But yeah, slow as poop.
smemilyAug 18, 2010
Oh, good call. I did not even know that capitalization was important on this.
misanthropeAug 18, 2010
It's a common mistake. No worries.
Just something to keep in mind.
spinky342Aug 19, 2010
Ya a lot of people see 20Mb/s and go yay! I can dl at 20 Megabytes / second. Which is wrong.
secrityAug 18, 2010
Do you live in a small mountain town?
4degreesAug 18, 2010
i pay for the 20Mb from qwest and only get <5 on a good day.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
I had Qwest and they're complete BS. Switched to cable and getting around 10/1, meh same story like all of us but a margin better than Qrap.
cco805Aug 18, 2010
I envy everyone out there who actually have a choice in their provider. The only choice I have for DSL in my area is Verizon. On top of that, I've been told that because my house is too far away from them that my max speed is 1.5Mb. Even that speed sometimes drop down to half for no reason.
remingtonhAug 18, 2010
time warner in texas I get 800+ KB/s downloads on my 7Mbs tier. (only 512 up though)
nichowaAug 19, 2010
You realize that 7mbps is 7000/8 = 875 KBps right?
remingtonhAug 19, 2010
yeah - there are some CRC bits in that so the math doesn't quite work out so perfectly. My point was that I get the speed advertised.
plopfishAug 18, 2010
I always wanted to tell my cable internet provider that "I'll pay UP TO $55/mo. for their UP TO 10mb/s down."
In the end, I'm getting Fios soon.....
v3rtex7740Aug 18, 2010
Do it. They don't even filter torrents.... yet.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
I've had experience with this in the past. At one point I had 6mbps DSL and was only getting about 700kbps download speed on it. When I called to complain, they said that its "up to" 6mbps and that as long as the speed qualified as broadband by their definition (which was 384kbps), I was s**t out of luck and they would do nothing.
These days, that's not really the experience I have, however. I currently have a service that advertises "up to" 24mbps, of which I get about 23 plus a little more (and I'm sure it's capable of more, and just being throttled). I also found that to generally be my experience with cable providers. They would say "up to" 6, 8, or 10mbps and I would get 5, 7, and 9 plus change respectively.
I think this is more a problem with DSL than cable or fiber due to the distance restrictions. My only experiences with DSL have been frought with "Well that's just too bad, you're too far away from the box to go any faster."
bigdorkaramaAug 18, 2010
I wish I got half. I get one-sixth the speed I'm supposed to on my DSL in the evening, presumably because of all the other people using it? I thought DSL wasn't supposed to work like that? Of course, Verizon is useless unless you want to spend all day every day on the phone with them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
muti277Aug 18, 2010
Ever since I switched to FiOS I actually get the advertised speeds, I have 30mbps down, 20mbps up which is the basic plan I just run a test that is showing 31.5mbps down and 20.7mbps up. This is something that never happen with cable where I was always showing about 70% of the advertised speeds. I feel for everyone that can't get fiber to their home though cuz that is the way to go if its available!
metalcastrAug 19, 2010
Same here, if the server I'm getting content from is willing to give it at my full speed (Steam, etc.) I get the full rated speed of 15/5 megabits. Sometimes I even get a bit more.
supernova36Aug 18, 2010
"Most Americans get half the "up to" speed they purchased."
As a long irritated Briton, I would like to say that this is by no means an America-only problem.
beerrulesAug 18, 2010
Next thing your gonna tell me santa clause isn't real?
schneidz101Aug 18, 2010
this reminds me of the class action lawsuit against comcast for their 'power boost' bandwidth throttling:
http://digg.com/tech_news/comcast_class_action_lawsuit
mysql101Aug 18, 2010
I regularly see 3.1 meg/second download, and 2.5 meg/sec upload on my 30/20 FIOS connection :) Not bad for $49.99 a month.
Eat that 1995! I was paying $39.95/mo for 20 HOURS of internet on a dialup connection.
boner79Aug 19, 2010
Good for you. 15 years later you're paying $10.04 more per month for internet.
mysql101Aug 19, 2010
Considering how much less our $10 USD is worth, and how much more bandwidth I'm getting, not a bad deal.
mrnaturalAug 18, 2010
I enjoy living in the boonies, but my only realistic option is satellite internet. I pay for Wildblue's Platinum package which bundled with dish network is over $100 (plus another $103 for TV). I get less than 1Mb down and about 540Kb up. No Skype, no streaming video and every time I have to reload Windows and do the updates it takes me over my rolling monthly limit (17Gb). Then I'm throttled back to sub dialup speeds until my rolling average is 30% of my monthly allotment. Usually takes about 3 weeks.
Good thing I can get a lot of essentials on my iPhone over 3G on the old unlimited plan!
dolomite808Aug 18, 2010
Sounds like you would be better off tethering, lol.
spacemanspiff22Aug 18, 2010
If you have 3g coverage in the area, why don't you get a 3g data card? Those run ~$60 a month and while they aren't great they should be better than what you've currently got. I always thought satellite provided decent speeds but terrible ping times, but it looks like you've got the worst of both worlds.
leamancAug 18, 2010
I have an "up to" 20 Megabit download. Speakeasy tests always show it at at least 20, usually 21 or 22.
However, I participated in the FCC test, and it only rated at around 8 Mbps. So was the FCC methodology flawed, or is Speakeasy in cahoots with the ISP's to fool people into thinking they are getting their "up to" speed?
For what it's worth, large file downloads are usually in the 10-12 Mbps range, but I have seen it hit 15 Mbps. But I've got a lot of computers on my LAN, all almost always doing something, and it's a 802.11n WiFI LAN at that, so speeds will always be variable.
funkylokiAug 18, 2010
Speakeasy sells their own connections as an ISP, I do not think they are in cahoots with any of the other providers over manipulating speed tests. It would benefit them more to show you speeds that were slower.
I just did both tests (Speakeasy and FCC) one after the other and the results were very close, and within the range of advertised speeds from my provider, Comcast.
nevariusAug 18, 2010
Your ISP might be boosting the speed for the first 15-30 seconds of download/upload, which will give you a false speedtest reading. Or they might be allowing full speed for speedtest sites.
petro62Aug 18, 2010
It is all BS and people should be able to sue for it. I deal with the same thing with Charter Cable and I was on 5 Meg at the time and noticed I was only get 1-2 most of the time. Kept calling them and they kept sending people out and they couldn't figure it. Finally the technician they were going to send out the 3rd time called and asked me what the problem was. I told him and he said he couldn't fix it because they had too many customers and not enough bandwidth or something till they were able to drop another line in. So essentially Charter sold more then they could handle, but kept charging full price. I essentially told them this was a scam that they sold me on one thing and gave me another. The ended up giving me several months free and got the issue fixed it seemed, but it was a pain in the ass. It is stupid because you know most people never check to see what their internet speed actually is. If everyone knew that they were paying for something they weren't getting then it would get changed fast.
twinklyjesusAug 18, 2010
The FCC's days are numbered. Their jurisdiction is specifically over "broadcast" services. Since broadcast TV and radio are dying out, being replaced by the internet, cable tv and satellite radio/tv, the government is quickly trying to gain control in areas they don't currently have.
The FCC and the governemnent currently have no control over the internet or cable and satellite. These are not "broadcast" they are primarily subscription services that are provided via wire.
Now comes the Net Neutrality bogey man. But, the government needs your help. It needs you to willingly give up certain freedoms to grant the FCC access to a non-broadcast service. So the evil corporatist slave-drivers are now being exposed as "sticking" it to the honest citizen and the government wants to help.
(remember the biggest lies ever told? #1 being "I'm from the government, I'm here to help.")
Now, the evil ISP corporate pirate-thieves-from-hell are lying to you about bandwidth speeds....says the FCC...who have no stake in this game...they are just from the government are are only here to help.
Now, oddly, in a backroom, is a plan to levy taxes on internet use, by the Federal government. But, you need to be able to regulate the services before you can tax the citizens. See, if the ISPs are not forced to report usage by user, and keep records, taxpayers cannot be held accountable. This is really why the FCC is involved. They will regulate, control data and records of internet use to be reported to the treasury/IRS.
You will be taxed on your bandwidth or packets sent/received.
But you will willingly beg them to save you from the phony evil monsters out to get you, or so they say...
Yeah keep screaming for the FCC to get control of the ISPs to save you from Net Neutrality and "free speech" You'll be paying internet taxes damned quick.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrnaturalAug 18, 2010
I love it! Someone more cynical than I am!!
thebucaAug 18, 2010
The FCC was created to replace the Federal Radio Commission because the government needed regulate other aspects of communication than radio spectrum. The FCC has authority over:
* Radio spectrum
* All national telecommunications (wired, as in cable tv, internet and satellite)
* All international telecommunications that begin or end in the US
The FCC does regulate cable TV and satellite. The exact same rules apply to them as broadcast radio/TV. The FCC just doesn't take enforcement action against them because it is a subscription service.
Source: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html
furatailAug 18, 2010
I work for a small ISP near my home town. Our policy is to give you what you pay for. Our speeds are slow, 6mbps max, but at least we account for overhead. So we sell you 6mbps, but you link up around 8mb so that your actual payload is about 6mb.
At home I use ATT. I pay for 6, I get 4.5.
netlogicAug 18, 2010
We are a small ISP and do the same. Package is set for around 6.8 so that the speed test shows 6 when running it.
imandysmithAug 18, 2010
the up-to is because the cables can support the future speed of internet of up-to those speeds. For instance you can not push 100 GB/s through an up to 3 Gb/s lineComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spydr101Aug 18, 2010
I got pretty lucky. I used to have comcast and it was decent, but they kept jacking prices and I was pretty unhappy with that (the last month I had to pay $63). I moved and now I have cox, and I got a 35 down / 2 up connection for $45, and I easily get 30-35mbps down and usually 7-9mbps up. Anyone know if cox has a bandwidth cap?
secrityAug 18, 2010
I have Cox and haven't seen nor heard of any sort of cap. I am quite happy with Cox. The only real issues I have at all is that port 25 is filtered (not really a problem) and that they had been intercepting bad DNS lookups and providing an IP address to their own web page (they don't seem to be doing it any more).
Although I don't have a problem with them, I still won't bundle my telephone with them; I prefer to not put all of my eggs in one basket.
maddprofAug 18, 2010
I barely get the 3MB/s connection I pay for from Cox, but they do have a 250GB/month limit written in my ToS.
But seriously, 250GB is a lot of data.
maccawaccaAug 18, 2010
i was scared? i had no idea.. besides mine runs as advertised 10mbits download and always within 10% of that speed
max1001Aug 18, 2010
Verizon FIOS. I dled 19.7gb in 2 1/2 hrs yesterday. :)
elmuerte17Aug 18, 2010
"broadband users get, on average, a mere 50 percent of that "up to" speed they had hoped to achieve."
I should be so lucky...
Carlitto Aug 18, 2010
If I were reading this when I stilled live in Japan, in the middle of no where, and getting 100bps and thinking... 'I'm only getting 1/2??'
I would still be making out at $55 a month that it use to cost me.
lol
On a side note... How many of us hate 'teaser/intro rates?' Please raise your hand!
Come on, theres nothing worse that getting a letter from ATT...
Elite DSL for only $19 a month.*
* Discount is for only first 3 months. Regular price $99,999. a month. 10 year contract is required. Early trmination fee $999.99. What, you still reading our disclaimer?!
I hate that. Just give me low cost for life and don't d@ck around.
keraneuologyAug 18, 2010
Ok, they'll give you $19/month for three months then kill you.
bdbrAug 18, 2010
I realize that a lot of you don't read the article, so let me point this out: "The less-than-ideal speeds aren't necessarily the "fault" of the ISP, either; crufty computers, poky routers, misconfigured WiFi, transient line noise, and Internet congestion all play a role."
People run SpeedTest that hits a server near their city that doesn't transit ISPs, and think they're going to get that in practice (or blame the ISP when they don't). SpeedTest is a best-case scenario (minuscule latency and no ISP peer transits) and only really validates your local access. Its not completely applicable to real-world situations, particularly when older TCP stacks come into play.
rawlerAug 18, 2010
In Canada, I pay $35.99/month for 3Mb with a bandwidth cap of 15 GB/month. Rogers, of course.
thraxywaxyAug 18, 2010
What a surprise! I get 1.5 down and .7 up on speedtest even though i'm supposed to be getting either up to 5 or 10 I dont remember.
cyclozionAug 18, 2010
If you don't remember what your internet plan is, you have no right to complain.
thraxywaxyAug 18, 2010
I'm pretty sure 1.5 is neither equal to 5 OR 10, so either way I'm getting gyped.
mbtriaAug 18, 2010
I suspect that at least some ISPs have managed to game the speed tests. I pay for 6Mb download. My ISP provides an intermittent turbo mode that sometimes kicks that speed up to around 10Mb for short periods. Running the FCC test never showed the download rate lower that 12Mb, most usually around 22Mb, and sometimes above 26Mb. I would be ecstatic to have that kind of download speed, but those numbers just aren't real. I emailed the FCC about this, but never got a response.
Most of the time the download speeds are not the important numbers for the online experience. Other metrics are much more important. Not my specialty. Stuff like DNS query time -- its not just the DNS request for the page you see, but all those that are hidden in the page, sometimes dozens of them. Latency. Bad packets. Network availability. And more.
To get an rough idea of the impact, try doing a ping or tracert on say www.cisco.com. The ping time (round trip) is probably down around 60ms or so, but the wall time is around a second. That is about a 17x difference between what can be claimed as response time as far as the ping goes, and the response time that the user actually experiences.
Even when the ISP isn't gaming the system, the download speed doesn't usually matter much unless you are moving movies or operating systems. But the total user response time, from when you hit enter to the time you can again do something, really makes or breaks the surfing experience.
antixianAug 18, 2010
my fios measures what i pay for...i check periodically.
vektuzAug 18, 2010
Its like that Sandvine thing that comcast is still rolling out (and now others, too!).
They cry "network management" but what they really mean is "slowing down the fastest users to squeeze even more people onto the same line".
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Oh I'm so shocked!
visionviperAug 18, 2010
I am one of the very few lucky people whose connection actually exceeds the "up to" speed given by my ISP.
tsuruchibrianAug 18, 2010
Almost everyone knows what their real internet speed is. Every time you download a file, it tells you how fast it's going.
Some downloads are faster and some are slower. But if after 4 years, your download speed achieved but never exceeded 1.2MB/s, then that's your internet speed.
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
That doesn't mean that's the service being provided. Any single connection is only as fast as the slowest device in the path... that's probably not your provider.
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
No, I read it and stand by my statement. It most certainly is not and accurate of your internet speed.
tsuruchibrianAug 18, 2010
The reason I didn't think you read my 2nd paragraph is because your response only addresses the 1st paragraph.
It is about as accurate as any measurement can be.
You test a wide range of connections to various internet sites. Some will be slower than your ISP and some will be faster. The ones that are faster will be restricted by your ISP. You will have a distribution of speeds that ranges from nearly 0, through some middle ground, and a clump at the maximum (where all the otherwise faster connections will be capped).
Connections to your ISP will also likely be in this clump at the maximum bandwidth.
Maybe there is still a website out there that when I connect to it, it will go even faster. There is always that possibility. But all you can do is take a wide sample and assume it also characterizes all the other untested cases.
I really don't see how you can do any better than that.
tsuruchibrianAug 18, 2010
The reason I didn't think you read my 2nd paragraph is because your response only addresses the 1st paragraph.
It is about as accurate as any measurement can be.
You test a wide range of connections to various internet sites. Some will be slower than your ISP and some will be faster. The ones that are faster will be restricted by your ISP. You will have a distribution of speeds that ranges from nearly 0, through some middle ground, and a clump at the maximum (where all the otherwise faster connections will be capped).
Connections to your ISP will also likely be in this clump at the maximum bandwidth.
Maybe there is still a website out there that when I connect to it, it will go even faster. There is always that possibility. But all you can do is take a wide sample and assume it also characterizes all the other untested cases.
I really don't see how you can do any better than that.
martoqAug 18, 2010
"Up To" and "Unlimited Bandwidth" is just legal jargon. In the end the consumer gets f**ked. What if you you applied these same phrases to other consumer products? It all comes down to lobbyist and money in the pockets of our "elected officials".
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
I think those attitudes are propagated by people that don't know the difference between mega-bits per second and mega-bytes per second.
My connection well outperforms what I'm paying for.