Internet speeds...

**rennq** · 08-12-2012, 12:06 AM

I, admittedly, have not been keeping up with internet speed advancements over the years and only recently realized that I'm still on the same 6 Mbps DSL speed that I signed up for years ago. At the time 6 was considered fast, I think. I hadn't realized that there are now speeds of up to 50Mbps and even 100Mbps available (cable). I think it's time to look into a speed upgrade (although, I haven't really had any trouble streaming video, streaming to my iPad, or iTunes remote control problems at the 6Mb speed).

I'm just curious to know what type of internet speeds other members are working with? What's a good internet speed price/performance ratio for the basic computer audiophile home user? Thanks!

**Al Jones** · 08-12-2012, 03:49 AM

My cable TV provider here in Denmark delivers true 111 down/11 up.

Mostly, it's noticeable for my 19-year-old online gamer. Downloads that take him 15 minutes take the others 2-3 hours. I only appreciate the difference when downloading programs or hdtracks hirez albums.

Wireless, on various iPad 's, netbooks and laptops, it's usually 30 down/12 up.

**rennq** · 08-12-2012, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by Al Jones

My cable TV provider here in Denmark delivers true 111 down/11 up.

And you probably get that 111 speed at a relatively reasonable price compared to what subscribers in the U.S. would be charged? I bet there are very few here with that level of speed. Surfing the net must be a complete joy for you.

I recall reading, a while back, that European countries are way ahead of the U.S. in terms of broadband infrastructure, not sure if that's still the case.

**Julf** · 08-12-2012, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by rennq

I recall reading, a while back, that European countries are way ahead of the U.S. in terms of broadband infrastructure, not sure if that's still the case.

Unfortunately probably even more so.

**Paul.Raulerson** · 08-12-2012, 08:12 AM

The "sweet spot" here is 30mbs service for $68/month plus taxes. Since it requires a Docsis-3 modem, that means it will go quite a bit faster if unused bandwidth is available. 107mbs service is available, but given our local provider, paying for it is problematical. ($125/month) The top speeds we see from 107mbs service are higher yes, but Netflix, iTunes, and such are apparently throttled somewhere, because downloads from them are slower. Much slower.

I have not taken the time to track down what is slowing those, and other services down, but it is not the local loop. I begin to think it is regional infrastructure delays - central Texas is just overloaded.

-Paul

**Julf** · 08-12-2012, 08:24 AM

Internet Speeds Around the World [infographic]

**orgel** · 08-12-2012, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Julf

Internet Speeds Around the World [infographic]

I'm sure that map is accurate, but it's perhaps a little misleading in terms of what bandwidth a given user can expect to get in the US. Rural areas are typically grossly underserved, but in a metropolitan area that the large Internet providers believe is worthy of infrastructure investment, one can get pretty good bandwidth, albeit at a higher cost than in many other developed countries.

For example, at home I have the first-level Verizon FiOS service upgrade, which gets me nominal 50 Mbps down / 25 Mbps up service. That's currently advertised at $75/mo. … but the pricing quickly gets confusing because of various bundling options. Real bandwidth with this service is pretty good — I just tested with speedtest.net and got 42.6 down / 28.6 up (over my home WiFi network).

In many metropolitan areas, both large and smallish cable providers offer residential service that may not be quite as beefy as FiOS (say, 25-30 Mbps down) but can be cheaper, depending on the market, the competitive environment, etc.

--David

**wgscott** · 08-12-2012, 04:59 PM

I am really getting my money's worth:

Not.

My combined internet and phone bill is about $85/mo. I have a phone phobia and hardly ever use it.

**rennq** · 08-12-2012, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

The top speeds we see from 107mbs service are higher yes, but Netflix, iTunes, and such are apparently throttled somewhere, because downloads from them are slower. Much slower.

I have not taken the time to track down what is slowing those, and other services down, but it is not the local loop. I begin to think it is regional infrastructure delays - central Texas is just overloaded.

-Paul

This is one benefit of DSL versus cable (coax). Apparently, with cable, caps exist on the core network and access network and may explain the slow speeds you experience with Netflix, etc. On the other hand, DSL speed capabilities are quite limited compared to cable. The question is: is it better to have un-throttled DSL at 6Mbps (max here), or 30Mbps throttled cable? ATT also has U-Verse coax (18Mbps max). If going the coax route, it might be best to go with the cable company rather than the phone company version? I'm not sure.

Quote from wikipedia link;

"In many situations, each user of a network is expected to use high speed transmission for only a short time, for example to download a megabyte web page in less than a second. When use is continuous, as it might be in the case of file sharing, Internet radio or streaming video, a few users who use the connection at high rates for hours at a time may seriously impair the service of others. The concept is more relevant in cable internet where both the core network and the access network are shared, than in DSL where the core network is shared but the access network is not. It is most relevant in wireless internet, particularly satellite internet, where both the core network and the access network are shared and total network bandwidth is relatively narrow."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_cap

A good article Julf. Hopefully the U.S. will catch up with some of those more broadband advanced countries.

**rennq** · 08-12-2012, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by wgscott

I am really getting my money's worth:

Not.

My combined internet and phone bill is about $85/mo. I have a phone phobia and hardly ever use it.

I love the area in that speed test that states: slower than 69% of US. Not a good feeling for us 5-6MBps internet users'.

$85/mo seems really high for 6Mbps DSL these days. You might want to give the phone company a call this week.

I pay $19.95 for the 6Mbps service (have my own modem/router) and, I think, around $10 for basic phone and opted for no long distance carrier service. I don't use the phone at all (only cell phone). No contract and DSL price is good for 1 year.

The terms are not accurate in this link. It says for new customers, etc., but not true.

AT&T - Terms and Conditions - Residential - CA

**Paul.Raulerson** · 08-12-2012, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by rennq

This is one benefit of DSL versus cable (coax). Apparently, with cable, caps exist on the core network and access network and may explain the slow speeds you experience with Netflix, etc. On the other hand, DSL speed capabilities are quite limited compared to cable. The question is: is it better to have un-throttled DSL at 6Mbps (max here), or 30Mbps throttled cable? ATT also has U-Verse coax (18Mbps max). If going the coax route, it might be best to go with the cable company rather than the phone company version? I'm not sure.

Quote from wikipedia link;

"In many situations, each user of a network is expected to use high speed transmission for only a short time, for example to download a megabyte web page in less than a second. When use is continuous, as it might be in the case of file sharing, Internet radio or streaming video, a few users who use the connection at high rates for hours at a time may seriously impair the service of others. The concept is more relevant in cable internet where both the core network and the access network are shared, than in DSL where the core network is shared but the access network is not. It is most relevant in wireless internet, particularly satellite internet, where both the core network and the access network are shared and total network bandwidth is relatively narrow."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_cap

A good article Julf. Hopefully the U.S. will catch up with some of those more broadband advanced countries.

Yes, and no. Cable networks are shared, but once you get past the DSLAM for DSL, so are DSL networks. The "last mile" is different, but once the traffic hits main routers for any network, it's pretty much all the same.

Going a little bit deeper, both DSL and broadband networks are affected by the age of the infrastructure they traverse. Since the U.S. deployed Internet service much earlier than many other countries, older gear and infrastructure can (and does) bottleneck transmissions in some cases. A 20 year old broadband plant between you and your destination is often the cause of a terrific slowdown.

I predict the U.S. will leapfrog over Europe and Asia into higher capacity networks with the next major upgrade cycle, but that may take some time. The cellular data networks are where the lion's share of the attention and funding is going right now. It's all inter-related too, and I am not convinced anyone really has the whole picture and can adequately evaluate it.

-Paul

**rennq** · 08-12-2012, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

Yes, and no. Cable networks are shared, but once you get past the DSLAM for DSL, so are DSL networks. The "last mile" is different, but once the traffic hits main routers for any network, it's pretty much all the same.

Going a little bit deeper, both DSL and broadband networks are affected by the age of the infrastructure they traverse. Since the U.S. deployed Internet service much earlier than many other countries, older gear and infrastructure can (and does) bottleneck transmissions in some cases. A 20 year old broadband plant between you and your destination is often the cause of a terrific slowdown.

I predict the U.S. will leapfrog over Europe and Asia into higher capacity networks with the next major upgrade cycle, but that may take some time. The cellular data networks are where the lion's share of the attention and funding is going right now. It's all inter-related too, and I am not convinced anyone really has the whole picture and can adequately evaluate it.

-Paul

I was under the impression that because DSL does not share the access network (only the core network) that DSL subscribers avoid the peak hour slow-downs. Not always so… So there really is no benefit to going DSL over cable? Perhaps that's why they have lowered their prices so much. DSL providers don't want to lose customers to cable.

**Paul.Raulerson** · 08-12-2012, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by rennq

I was under the impression that because DSL does not share the access network (only the core network) that DSL subscribers avoid the peak hour slow-downs. Not always so… So there really is no benefit to going DSL over cable? Perhaps that's why they have lowered their prices so much. DSL providers don't want to lose customers to cable.

Not really much at all, I am afraid. If you have 10 houses on your block, each with a ADSL account, then there will be 10 lines to the local DSLAM, but all 10 lines will share from the DLSAM on the corner out. Note, if your ADSL has speeds of 20mbs or better, then it is a different story, but that is rare around here.

Cable does share directly between you and your neighbor, but there is a lot more to share. Also, with DOCSIS modems, the modems are operating a much higher speeds, and will reach out and grab available bandwidth, up to 3X the throttled speed, if it is available. This happens on an "instantaneous" basis, meaning the bandwidth available will vary from second to second, but on the average you usually get really good speed.

The downside with cable really lies with your cable company. Some cable companies are awful in a technical sense. ADSL is most often offered by phone companies, and almost every phone company has excellent technical resources. It's worse than picking out speaker cables, except you have far less choice in most cases.

-Paul

**rennq** · 08-12-2012, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

Note, if your ADSL has speeds of 20mbs or better, then it is a different story, but that is rare around here.
-Paul

Rare indeed. ATT DSL is a pathetic 6Mbps max around here (densely populated area, SoCal).

The downside with cable really lies with your cable company.

That's exactly what I was thinking. The main issue it that they like to raise prices on established customers. I got rid of their service completely (TV) and now looks like I have to go back (if I want faster internet).

Thanks Paul!

**Chipper** · 08-14-2012, 07:06 AM

Faster than half of the U.S. with this result, and this isn't even super fast compared to college networks, or what they get over in South Korea. $55 per month for Road Runner...I have no tv service with them, nor a phone bill, so this is pretty much the flat rate. Time Warner basically has a monopoly on the area.

**orgel** · 08-14-2012, 07:17 AM

Couldn't resist ...

(I grew up in Syracuse. Nottingham High.)

--David

**jtwrace** · 08-14-2012, 10:14 AM

**jhwalker** · 08-14-2012, 01:32 PM

Time Warner (Roadrunner) Cable

**The Computer Audiophile** · 08-14-2012, 02:19 PM

Comcast

**jhwalker** · 08-14-2012, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile

Comcast

Now I have Internet envy

**orgel** · 08-14-2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by jhwalker

Now I have Internet envy

Looks like Chris has the bragging rights. (He can probably deduct his Internet service.)

For my neighborhood, FiOS offers three tiers above mine, but they start to get pricey:

75 down / 35 up: $90/mo.
150 down / 65 up: $100/mo.
300 down / 65 up: $210/mo.

Come to think of it, what I have now seems to work for us pretty well, so maybe I don't need to be envious. What a concept!

--David

**REShaman** · 08-14-2012, 04:12 PM

Verizon Fios. Similar results if I choose Optimum Online in NYC. Good enough,
Richard

**rennq** · 08-14-2012, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by jhwalker

Now I have Internet envy

Me too!

Some pretty impressive speeds here. I really am in the broadband dark ages at 6Mb/s (max DSL here). Not looking forward to dealing with the Time Warner monopoly, but DSL will always be limited compared to coax, so I figure I'll have to switch some time.

**REShaman** · 08-15-2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by rennq

Me too!

Some pretty impressive speeds here. I really am in the broadband dark ages at 6Mb/s (max DSL here). Not looking forward to dealing with the Time Warner monopoly, but DSL will always be limited compared to coax, so I figure I'll have to switch some time.

This morning's test result. The value is in Verizon's mostly uniform service. Yesterday I used a server nearby/across the River (Hudson) in NJ. Today, a server in NYC with almost the same result. It's this consistency that I find attractive. But Verizon charges dearly for their services. Still download times are consistently in the seconds for most. I have no idea what the experience of having Chris download times. A blink of the eye and violá?
Best,
Richard

**Alan Brown** · 08-15-2012, 08:14 AM

Typical slow upload speed here in UK.

Thread: Internet speeds...

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Internet speeds...