Question about DSL
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Bob on October 29, 2005, 8:27 pm
Please log in for more thread options Bullshit. -- If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Kurt on October 29, 2005, 11:36 pm
Please log in for more thread options But I just did a speed test (at y boss's house) and downloaded at 30KB. You're entitled to your opinion and to be as rude as you see fit. ....kurt > On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:55:42 -0700, "Kurt"
> >>It all depends on where you live. DSL here (Qwest, not Verizon) gets 300 -
>>400K downloads from Symantec on a 5Mb connection ($79.95). 1 Meg is >>$21.95. >>Both are less than the full pipe, but compare favorably to cable. Cable is >>cheaper if you understand that "up to 5 Mbps" also means "down to 20 or >>30KB" (less than 256K) during peak times, and far slower upload speeds. >
> Bullshit. > > > -- > > If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you > set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by kony on October 30, 2005, 7:36 am
Please log in for more thread options On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:36:38 -0700, "Kurt"
>I was talking about where I live. I'm sure cable is perfect where you are.
>But I just did a speed test (at y boss's house) and downloaded at 30KB. >You're entitled to your opinion and to be as rude as you see fit. Momentary download speeds are not necessarily a reliable indication of speed at the receiver's end. Better to use a 'site set up to do the test, actually not one but from several locations like those listed at http://www.dslreports.com/stest | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Bob on October 30, 2005, 11:56 am
Please log in for more thread options
>Momentary download speeds are not necessarily a reliable
>indication of speed at the receiver's end. Better to use a >'site set up to do the test, actually not one but from >several locations like those listed at >http://www.dslreports.com/stest Those tests require traversing the Internet and therefore do not provide meaningful results of the speed of the ISP connection. If you want to report the speed of Internet connections, then it is not appropriate to reference the ISP connection as long as it is substantially faster than the Internet in general. My cable connection in Houston is with Warner Cable and Road Runner. I live not too far from the main HQ for Warner. When I run a speed test I use the one provided by RR that connects from my computer to a network computer at RR. I am getting around 5,000 kilobits/second. There is no way I am getting that if I traverse the Internet in general. -- If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by kony on October 30, 2005, 5:20 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:56:18 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:
>
>>Momentary download speeds are not necessarily a reliable
>>indication of speed at the receiver's end. Better to use a >>'site set up to do the test, actually not one but from >>several locations like those listed at >>http://www.dslreports.com/stest >
>Those tests require traversing the Internet and therefore do not >provide meaningful results of the speed of the ISP connection. They are still meaningful, because there is a database and one can compare their results to those attained by others. Further, those tests are deliberately set up with servers on fat pipes, meant to not have the bottlenecks. >If you want to report the speed of Internet connections, then it is
>not appropriate to reference the ISP connection as long as it is >substantially faster than the Internet in general. Usually that's somewhat true, BUT if you are doing a test where there is no bandwidth limit, it can be useful. One really need not know their maximum download speed though, rather, a median value will suffice since there is no need to know how the system can download from only the ISP if that box is never downloading from the ISP in regular use. >
>My cable connection in Houston is with Warner Cable and Road Runner. I >live not too far from the main HQ for Warner. When I run a speed test >I use the one provided by RR that connects from my computer to a >network computer at RR. I am getting around 5,000 kilobits/second. >There is no way I am getting that if I traverse the Internet in >general. If that was an accurate test, not deliberately (or not) skewed by using text that can be compressed for example, you should approach that same speed in a test with one of the choices in the link I provided. I have seen them provide at rates higher than the 5000Kbps you mentioned. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| AT/ATX PS question | July 10, 2005, 11:49 pm |
| UPS Question | September 29, 2005, 9:55 am |
| Question about DSL | October 29, 2005, 11:29 am |
| LCD question | November 10, 2005, 12:07 pm |
| PSU question???/ | November 26, 2005, 11:30 pm |
| HDD Question | December 21, 2005, 12:00 pm |
| DVD-RW question | January 11, 2006, 9:51 am |
| Question regarding 32- and 64-bit PCI | March 8, 2006, 12:05 am |
| usb question | May 25, 2006, 10:59 pm |
| Question about PSU | August 13, 2006, 8:07 pm |
| UPS question | October 21, 2006, 3:24 pm |
| fsb question | October 29, 2006, 2:43 pm |
| Ram question... | November 6, 2006, 5:35 pm |
| DR2 question ? | November 29, 2006, 7:51 pm |
| RAN Question | January 11, 2007, 1:57 pm |
>400K downloads from Symantec on a 5Mb connection ($79.95). 1 Meg is $21.95.
>Both are less than the full pipe, but compare favorably to cable. Cable is
>cheaper if you understand that "up to 5 Mbps" also means "down to 20 or
>30KB" (less than 256K) during peak times, and far slower upload speeds.