Speed increase means nothing

It looks like you're confusing file transfer speed with wire speed.

I take that to mean that the file you're downloading is 5001 kB.

5001 / 11.466 = 436.159, *8 = 3489.272, which means these:

are describing *file* speed, not wire speed. Those 5,001,000 end-user file bytes were carried in data packets that required TCP, IP, and Ethernet headers. Once you include all those extra bytes, then you can compare the result with the 5Mbit/sec advertised (wire) speed. -WBE

I didn't realize that when Cox raised your cap it automatically raised the latency.

Well you tell me, you seem to be the hot shot gamer with an answer for everything. All I do is admin servers and a gaming site. I very very rarely get real high downloads from servers I get files from, including EA.

I just got 3860 and 477 on the Cox Speed test.

Think of it this way: The max speed increase causes more traffic to go over the same network. More traffic causes the routers to have to handle more packets, increasing the router load. And that means increased latency, unless the routers get upgraded. It gets even worse if the increased load causes packets to be dropped and retransmitted, of course, but hopefully, Cox' trunks should be big enough to handle this. Their routers, on the other hand, are getting slower as the traffic increases.

Regards,

Oh, now the truth comes out. *YOU* don't get high speeds from game servers, therefore we all are highly unlikely to get 4 Mbps downloads from "servers that are busy in far away places".

When someone says "If I _were_ a gamer", it's generally understood that they are not. Thus, I'm not a gamer, and you are once again wrong. You're on a roll. Good job!

Just because I showed that you were wrong about downloading speeds from game servers in the "real world", doesn't mean I have the answers for everything. You don't have to be bitter because someone else knew or experience something you didn't. Don't be jealous of our good performance. Just because *you* don't see an increase in download speeds from game servers, doesn't mean you have to "seriously doubt that" other people do.

You were wrong; so what? Just say so. Accept it. There's no need to try and come up with a witty come back... because quite frankly, your's suck anyway.

Wow. Just as I didn't realize that I said it does. You really should practice your reading comprehension skill.

In this area latency tends to be a problem. So if I were a gamer (just to help you out this time, that means I am not) *I* would rather have the latency problem corrected instead of having faster download speeds.

How much for dial-up? Here, outside of Portland, OR, I'd have to pay $34/month just for the extra phone line. Already that's more than $29.95, and we haven't even paid for an ISP service for my 56k modem. Second phone lines may cost less in other areas. Add the price of a second phone line to ISP service, and tell me if you come in under $29.95.

The prime target of the $29.95 package is people who currently only have one phone line, but are finding their Internet usage is increasing to the point that they're considering a second phone line. They may not be able to afford the $39.95 package -- or they might not be giving it serious consideration. Throw the $29.95 package out in front of them, and they'll pay attention. Maybe they'll choose the $39.95 package right from the start. Maybe they'll move up later. But whatever happens, the $29.95 package gets them in the door.

Sure, they could price it lower than $29.95, and get more people in the door, but if they did so, fewer would ever upgrade, and more would eventually go back to dial-up. You just don't need to get a lot of customers in the door with your loss leader. You need to get the right customers through the door.

Is it a good deal? Not compared to the $39.95 package. But there are plenty of other things that we don't buy the best deal, and do so on purpose. The first time I try a breakfast cereal, I don't buy the jumbo family size. I buy a smaller box. I might never try the cereal if all that's available is the jumbo family size no matter how good of a deal it is.

Rip-off? No. Not the best deal? Yes.

I think you can get a DSL line here for $30 and since you can run your phone on the same line, that would probably be a better choice than a 384/128 cable line and I'm pretty sure faster (but not sure what the speeds are).

I pay about $120 for cable with two boxes, one a DVR, and 3mbps/256kbps internet. No premium channels. Electricity is about $175, phone about $47, water/sewer/trash about $47, no gas. The only one I really hate to pay is the phone bill as I don't need the land line as I have a cell phone, but my wife can't seem to get around the idea of cutting the wires.

The price/performance ratio is lousy, compared with the higher speed tier. The base service is over-priced by comparison. Compared to dialup, it looks good. Before I got cable, I was paying $20 for an ISP and $35 a month for a phone line. Cable internet cost (then) $54 a month for 6 mbps/768kpbs service, including modem rental. Not a hard choice.

That does not necessarily follow, but it is possible.

I'll be sure to do that, and you can stop practicing your trolling asshole skils. You've got that one down pat.

As the pot called the kettle black.

}Joseph, } }Where are you testing your speeds? How are you judging that your }connection is running slow? } }One good site to test your speed at is

- }please post your results. } }Also, if you give me the MAC address to your modem, I can run some tests }on it and try to handle your speed issue from that angle.

who do I call directly. Someone from COX called and my wife was making a call at the same X and it got cut off and they never called back. I had to go to work so I couldn't rectify the situation.

I don't feel like calling level 1 support and getting the reboot your computer spiel. Your assistance is appreciated. I will also rectify my posts in the newsgroup to extol COX if we can get this problem solved. It probably is my signal or modem. I tried at

3:30AM in Atlanta and the best I can do 3.5, 3.6 Mbps

Also I hear from some in this NG that the Toshiba PCX 1100 is crap for higher speeds Mine is about 3 years old. } }-CoxTech1 }Cox Communications } } }Joseph L wrote: }> TO all, }> What good is a speed increase from the cable companies when websites and such are }> saturated and U can only get a fraction of the bandwidth available anyway. I just went }> with COX's 5MB/768K plan. I havent seen anything faster than say maybe

2MB/sec. when dl }> and such.

at the same

couldn't rectify

spiel. Your

Does your Toshiba have a config page ? If so, what does it show your maximum badwidth up/down at ?

Did you adjust your tcp buffer size, enable window scaling and selective ACKs for the theoretical maximum speed? If not, go to

do the speed test, and adjust these values as recommended. Reboot and try the speed test again.

I did all that. I had to buy Motorola SB5100 modem and I bought new LinkSys card and it snapsd the way it should } }Did you adjust your tcp buffer size, enable window scaling and selective }ACKs for the theoretical maximum speed? If not, go to }

do the speed test, and adjust these values }as recommended. Reboot and try the speed test again. }