• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Internet Speed

S

Shoe

Flightless Bird
I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?
 
P

Peter Taylor

Flightless Bird
On 8/17/2010 1:53 PM, Shoe wrote:
> I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
> laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
> sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
> speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
> awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
> thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?

Did you try speedtest.net?

--
Peter Taylor
 
S

Seth

Flightless Bird
"Shoe" <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kstk669jh62pkpepoeddn1tc5u59dliolh@4ax.com...
> I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
> laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
> sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
> speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
> awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
> thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?

Might be your ISP. Most of them of much lower upload speed vs. download
speed.

If all your machines are behaving the same, I would suspect the problem is
on your end. Last test to try to to take the router out of the equation and
hook one of your machines directly to the ISPs modem.
 
T

Tim Slattery

Flightless Bird
Shoe <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
>laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
>sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
>speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
>awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
>thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?

Many ISPs operate asymmetrically, which is exactly what you're
describing. The idea, I think, is to prevent you from running a web
server from your home computer, which could eat up way too much of
their bandwidth.

That's just speculation, but if there's a better explanation for that
policy, I'd love to hear it.

--
Tim Slattery
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
M

Mike

Flightless Bird
"Shoe" <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kstk669jh62pkpepoeddn1tc5u59dliolh@4ax.com...
> I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
> laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
> sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
> speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
> awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
> thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?

This has what to do with Win 7? Complain to your ISP?

--

"Don't pick a fight with an old man.
If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:11:09 -0400, Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov>
wrote:

>Shoe <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
>>laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
>>sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
>>speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
>>awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
>>thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?
>
>Many ISPs operate asymmetrically, which is exactly what you're
>describing. The idea, I think, is to prevent you from running a web
>server from your home computer, which could eat up way too much of
>their bandwidth.
>
>That's just speculation, but if there's a better explanation for that
>policy, I'd love to hear it.

I believe you have it backwards. It's not that they made the upload
speed small in order to stop you from running a server, but instead
some ISPs don't want you running a server because the upload speed is
small.

It's a simple matter of economics. When the ISPs, the cable companies
and DSL providers, for example, were getting ready to design their
systems, they analyzed the expected user behavior and determined that
most residential users would download far more data than they would
upload, so the download pipes were built bigger than the upload pipes,
saving the ISPs a lot of money in the process. Having done that, it
became necessary to limit the user's ability to upload large amounts
of data because the pipes can't handle it.

That's slowly changing now, with upload speeds being given a little
more room to breathe, but it's still wildly asymmetric, and rightly
so. In my area, the business class accounts are symmetrical, which
also makes sense.
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:11:09 -0400, Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov>
wrote:

> Shoe <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
> >laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
> >sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
> >speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
> >awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
> >thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?
>
> Many ISPs operate asymmetrically, which is exactly what you're
> describing.


Yes, asymmetrically, but nowhere near as much as 57 to 1, which is
what he described.

My ISP is Comcast. I just ran a test on speedtest.net. I got 18.45
Mb/S DL and 4.39Mb/S UL. That's a ratio of only 4 to 1.

Still, I would recommend that he contact his ISP, and ask them why
that's what he's experiencing. It can't hurt, and they might have a
clue for him.


> The idea, I think, is to prevent you from running a web
> server from your home computer, which could eat up way too much of
> their bandwidth.
>
> That's just speculation, but if there's a better explanation for that
> policy, I'd love to hear it.


I don't know either, but your speculation makes sense to me.
 
D

Dave \Crash\ Dummy

Flightless Bird
Tim Slattery wrote:
> Shoe <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
>> laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
>> sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement.
>> Download speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was
>> absolutely awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the
>> wireless laptop. Any thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?
>
> Many ISPs operate asymmetrically, which is exactly what you're
> describing. The idea, I think, is to prevent you from running a web
> server from your home computer, which could eat up way too much of
> their bandwidth.
>
> That's just speculation, but if there's a better explanation for that
> policy, I'd love to hear it.

Most ISP's operate asymmetrically because most home users operate
asymmetrically, downloading much, much more than they upload.
Discouraging servers is just an incidental benefit. (My 2 Mb upload speed
doesn't discourage me all that much. :)

But I agree with Ken. The asymmetry is usually more on the order of 10:1, or
less, not the imbalance Shoe reports.
--
Crash

"The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do."
~ B. F. Skinner ~
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:169l66dq2o292o7f3tncjvv3inhk7uq99i@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:11:09 -0400, Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> Shoe <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
>> >laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
>> >sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
>> >speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
>> >awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
>> >thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?
>>
>> Many ISPs operate asymmetrically, which is exactly what you're
>> describing.
>
>
> Yes, asymmetrically, but nowhere near as much as 57 to 1, which is
> what he described.
>
> My ISP is Comcast. I just ran a test on speedtest.net. I got 18.45
> Mb/S DL and 4.39Mb/S UL. That's a ratio of only 4 to 1.
>
> Still, I would recommend that he contact his ISP, and ask them why
> that's what he's experiencing. It can't hurt, and they might have a
> clue for him.
>
>
>> The idea, I think, is to prevent you from running a web
>> server from your home computer, which could eat up way too much of
>> their bandwidth.
>>
>> That's just speculation, but if there's a better explanation for that
>> policy, I'd love to hear it.
>
>
> I don't know either, but your speculation makes sense to me.
>

Depending on who I use to test, my results vary wildly. I can get as good as
6:1 and as poor as 183:1. My advertised rate is 5Mb/S DL, and .5Mb/S UL.

Charter (my ISP) gives me 11.3Mb/S DL/1.0Mb/S UL.
Argonne Nat'l. Labs 6.04/1.05
Speakeasy.net to ATL 10.31/.1
to DC 14.68/.08
to NYC 11.73/.06
Speedtest.net 10.41/.14

And that's during the day which gives me my best times. If I do it late
evening, I sometimes get speeds so slow it locks up IE.

Plus I love that my ISP shows my speeds as twice as fast as what I'm paying
for.

Of course, contacting my ISP is just about the biggest lesson in frustration
I have ever experienced in all my years of working with computers or the
retail public :)

--
SC Tom
-There's no such thing as TMI when asking for tech support.
 
D

Dave \Crash\ Dummy

Flightless Bird
SC Tom wrote:
>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:169l66dq2o292o7f3tncjvv3inhk7uq99i@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:11:09 -0400, Tim Slattery
>> <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Shoe <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a
>>>> wireless laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several
>>>> different web sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in
>>>> agreement. Download speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps.
>>>> Upload speed was absolutely awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar
>>>> results on the wireless laptop. Any thoughts on cause of slow
>>>> upload speed?
>>>
>>> Many ISPs operate asymmetrically, which is exactly what you're
>>> describing.
>>
>>
>> Yes, asymmetrically, but nowhere near as much as 57 to 1, which is
>> what he described.
>>
>> My ISP is Comcast. I just ran a test on speedtest.net. I got 18.45
>> Mb/S DL and 4.39Mb/S UL. That's a ratio of only 4 to 1.
>>
>> Still, I would recommend that he contact his ISP, and ask them why
>> that's what he's experiencing. It can't hurt, and they might have
>> a clue for him.
>>
>>
>>> The idea, I think, is to prevent you from running a web server
>>> from your home computer, which could eat up way too much of their
>>> bandwidth.
>>>
>>> That's just speculation, but if there's a better explanation for
>>> that policy, I'd love to hear it.
>>
>>
>> I don't know either, but your speculation makes sense to me.
>>
>
> Depending on who I use to test, my results vary wildly. I can get as
> good as 6:1 and as poor as 183:1. My advertised rate is 5Mb/S DL, and
> .5Mb/S UL.
>
> Charter (my ISP) gives me 11.3Mb/S DL/1.0Mb/S UL. Argonne Nat'l. Labs
> 6.04/1.05 Speakeasy.net to ATL 10.31/.1 to DC 14.68/.08 to NYC
> 11.73/.06 Speedtest.net 10.41/.14
>
> And that's during the day which gives me my best times. If I do it
> late evening, I sometimes get speeds so slow it locks up IE.
>
> Plus I love that my ISP shows my speeds as twice as fast as what I'm
> paying for.
>
> Of course, contacting my ISP is just about the biggest lesson in
> frustration I have ever experienced in all my years of working with
> computers or the retail public :)

I get the best and most consistent results with a mini speedtest.net engine
installed on my own website. My website is hosted by 1 and 1, but I have no
idea where it is located geographically. I installed it primarily to
test my website availability, but it works both ways. It has the
advantage of being completely free of any extraneous crap, like ads.
It's not really intended for public use, but you are welcome to it as
long as it is up.
http://thedatalist.com/speedtest/
--
Crash

What happens online, stays online.
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
"Dave "Crash" Dummy" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:BGAao.63960$Bh2.1532@newsfe04.iad...
> SC Tom wrote:
>>
>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:169l66dq2o292o7f3tncjvv3inhk7uq99i@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:11:09 -0400, Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shoe <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
>>>>> laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
>>>>> sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
>>>>> speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
>>>>> awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
>>>>> thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?
>>>>
>>>> Many ISPs operate asymmetrically, which is exactly what you're
>>>> describing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, asymmetrically, but nowhere near as much as 57 to 1, which is
>>> what he described.
>>>
>>> My ISP is Comcast. I just ran a test on speedtest.net. I got 18.45
>>> Mb/S DL and 4.39Mb/S UL. That's a ratio of only 4 to 1.
>>>
>>> Still, I would recommend that he contact his ISP, and ask them why
>>> that's what he's experiencing. It can't hurt, and they might have
>>> a clue for him.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The idea, I think, is to prevent you from running a web server from
>>>> your home computer, which could eat up way too much of their
>>>> bandwidth.
>>>>
>>>> That's just speculation, but if there's a better explanation for that
>>>> policy, I'd love to hear it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know either, but your speculation makes sense to me.
>>>
>>
>> Depending on who I use to test, my results vary wildly. I can get as good
>> as 6:1 and as poor as 183:1. My advertised rate is 5Mb/S DL, and
>> .5Mb/S UL.
>>
>> Charter (my ISP) gives me 11.3Mb/S DL/1.0Mb/S UL. Argonne Nat'l. Labs
>> 6.04/1.05 Speakeasy.net to ATL 10.31/.1 to DC 14.68/.08 to NYC 11.73/.06
>> Speedtest.net 10.41/.14
>>
>> And that's during the day which gives me my best times. If I do it late
>> evening, I sometimes get speeds so slow it locks up IE.
>>
>> Plus I love that my ISP shows my speeds as twice as fast as what I'm
>> paying for.
>>
>> Of course, contacting my ISP is just about the biggest lesson in
>> frustration I have ever experienced in all my years of working with
>> computers or the retail public :)
>
> I get the best and most consistent results with a mini speedtest.net
> engine
> installed on my own website. My website is hosted by 1 and 1, but I have
> no
> idea where it is located geographically. I installed it primarily to
> test my website availability, but it works both ways. It has the
> advantage of being completely free of any extraneous crap, like ads.
> It's not really intended for public use, but you are welcome to it as long
> as it is up.
> http://thedatalist.com/speedtest/
> --
> Crash
>
> What happens online, stays online.

Thanks! I tried your link and got 1218kbps/31kbps.
--
SC Tom
-There's no such thing as TMI when asking for tech support.
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:32:28 -0400, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote:

>
> "Dave "Crash" Dummy" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:BGAao.63960$Bh2.1532@newsfe04.iad...



> > I get the best and most consistent results with a mini speedtest.net
> > engine
> > installed on my own website. My website is hosted by 1 and 1, but I have
> > no
> > idea where it is located geographically. I installed it primarily to
> > test my website availability, but it works both ways. It has the
> > advantage of being completely free of any extraneous crap, like ads.
> > It's not really intended for public use, but you are welcome to it as long
> > as it is up.
> > http://thedatalist.com/speedtest/
> > --
> > Crash
> >
> > What happens online, stays online.
>
> Thanks! I tried your link and got 1218kbps/31kbps.


Typo? Did you mean Mbps, not Kbps?

I tried it too. I get 11902 Kbps and 331 Kbps. Our numbers are very
close if you meant Mbps.
 
D

David

Flightless Bird
"SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote in message
news:ctBao.53626$F%7.49102@newsfe10.iad...
>
> "Dave "Crash" Dummy" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> message news:BGAao.63960$Bh2.1532@newsfe04.iad...
>> SC Tom wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:169l66dq2o292o7f3tncjvv3inhk7uq99i@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:11:09 -0400, Tim Slattery
>>>> <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shoe <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and
>>>>>> a wireless laptop and printer. I ran speed checks
>>>>>> from several different web sites yesterday and they
>>>>>> were all pretty much in agreement. Download speed
>>>>>> was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was
>>>>>> absolutely awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results
>>>>>> on the wireless laptop. Any thoughts on cause of slow
>>>>>> upload speed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many ISPs operate asymmetrically, which is exactly
>>>>> what you're describing.

There are technical reasons for asymmetric upstream and
downstream rates. For cable, the upstream bandwidth on the
physical cable line is much greater than the downstream.
This is fixed and determined by the cable facilities and the
amplifiers that power them so whatever portion of the
upstream bandwidth (shared by the TV services) the company
allocates to data access can be quite large. For DSL, the
bandwidth of the line has a certain up + down capacity and
the company decides how much goes up and down. This ratio is
time consuming to change dynamically (because of training)
so it is usually fixed for a certain customer to a smaller
upload rate and a greater download rate.

David
..
 
D

Dave \Crash\ Dummy

Flightless Bird
Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:32:28 -0400, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote:
>
>> "Dave "Crash" Dummy" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:BGAao.63960$Bh2.1532@newsfe04.iad...
>
>
>
>>> I get the best and most consistent results with a mini
>>> speedtest.net engine installed on my own website. My website is
>>> hosted by 1 and 1, but I have no idea where it is located
>>> geographically. I installed it primarily to test my website
>>> availability, but it works both ways. It has the advantage of
>>> being completely free of any extraneous crap, like ads. It's not
>>> really intended for public use, but you are welcome to it as long
>>> as it is up. http://thedatalist.com/speedtest/ -- Crash
>>>
>>> What happens online, stays online.
>> Thanks! I tried your link and got 1218kbps/31kbps.
>
>
> Typo? Did you mean Mbps, not Kbps?
>
> I tried it too. I get 11902 Kbps and 331 Kbps. Our numbers are very
> close if you meant Mbps.

As I said, I don't know where the server is, but I'm in the northwest
corner of North Carolina, and I get 20487 kbs and 2129 kbs, which is
what I am paying for. I rarely get readings like that at any of the
popular speed test sites.

--
Crash

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
~ Grace Hopper (RADM, USNR) ~
 
D

Dave \Crash\ Dummy

Flightless Bird
Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:
> Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:32:28 -0400, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Dave "Crash" Dummy" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:BGAao.63960$Bh2.1532@newsfe04.iad...
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I get the best and most consistent results with a mini
>>>> speedtest.net engine installed on my own website. My website is
>>>> hosted by 1 and 1, but I have no idea where it is located
>>>> geographically. I installed it primarily to test my website
>>>> availability, but it works both ways. It has the advantage of
>>>> being completely free of any extraneous crap, like ads. It's
>>>> not really intended for public use, but you are welcome to it
>>>> as long as it is up. http://thedatalist.com/speedtest/ -- Crash
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What happens online, stays online.
>>> Thanks! I tried your link and got 1218kbps/31kbps.
>>
>>
>> Typo? Did you mean Mbps, not Kbps?
>>
>> I tried it too. I get 11902 Kbps and 331 Kbps. Our numbers are very
>> close if you meant Mbps.
>
> As I said, I don't know where the server is, but I'm in the northwest
> corner of North Carolina, and I get 20487 kbs and 2129 kbs, which is
> what I am paying for. I rarely get readings like that at any of the
> popular speed test sites.

As close as I can tell, my website host server is in Atlanta, Georgia,
which would be favorable for me.

--
Crash

"The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do."
~ B. F. Skinner ~
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:5cpl66tbg2pcsfr6j49m6dj1nt8fnouvde@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:32:28 -0400, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks! I tried your link and got 1218kbps/31kbps.
>
>
> Typo? Did you mean Mbps, not Kbps?
>
> I tried it too. I get 11902 Kbps and 331 Kbps. Our numbers are very
> close if you meant Mbps.
>

Nope, no typo :-(
I just reran it and got 1329/37 Kbps, so it's gotten better :) But when I
click on the link to run it from Columbia, SC, I get 9.01/.16 Mbps. I'm
located in the SE tip of SC, near Parris Island (Ooo-rah!!!)
--
SC Tom
-There's no such thing as TMI when asking for tech support.
 
D

Dave \Crash\ Dummy

Flightless Bird
SC Tom wrote:
>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:5cpl66tbg2pcsfr6j49m6dj1nt8fnouvde@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:32:28 -0400, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks! I tried your link and got 1218kbps/31kbps.
>>
>>
>> Typo? Did you mean Mbps, not Kbps?
>>
>> I tried it too. I get 11902 Kbps and 331 Kbps. Our numbers are very
>> close if you meant Mbps.
>>
>
> Nope, no typo :-( I just reran it and got 1329/37 Kbps, so it's
> gotten better :) But when I click on the link to run it from
> Columbia, SC, I get 9.01/.16 Mbps. I'm located in the SE tip of SC,
> near Parris Island (Ooo-rah!!!)

Well, those suggested links are the three test sites closest to you.
When I run the test at the Columbia, SC site, I get 28.57 Mbs / 2.14
Mbs. I'd have to say your service sucks, semper fi, or not.
--
Crash

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
~ Grace Hopper (RADM, USNR) ~
 
K

KCB

Flightless Bird
"Dave "Crash" Dummy" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:BGAao.63960$Bh2.1532@newsfe04.iad...
> SC Tom wrote:
>>
>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:169l66dq2o292o7f3tncjvv3inhk7uq99i@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:11:09 -0400, Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shoe <j_shoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a wireless router with hard-wired desktops and a wireless
>>>>> laptop and printer. I ran speed checks from several different web
>>>>> sites yesterday and they were all pretty much in agreement. Download
>>>>> speed was terrific, around 18,000 Kbps. Upload speed was absolutely
>>>>> awful at 350 Kbps. I got similar results on the wireless laptop. Any
>>>>> thoughts on cause of slow upload speed?
>>>>
>>>> Many ISPs operate asymmetrically, which is exactly what you're
>>>> describing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, asymmetrically, but nowhere near as much as 57 to 1, which is
>>> what he described.
>>>
>>> My ISP is Comcast. I just ran a test on speedtest.net. I got 18.45
>>> Mb/S DL and 4.39Mb/S UL. That's a ratio of only 4 to 1.
>>>
>>> Still, I would recommend that he contact his ISP, and ask them why
>>> that's what he's experiencing. It can't hurt, and they might have
>>> a clue for him.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The idea, I think, is to prevent you from running a web server from
>>>> your home computer, which could eat up way too much of their
>>>> bandwidth.
>>>>
>>>> That's just speculation, but if there's a better explanation for that
>>>> policy, I'd love to hear it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know either, but your speculation makes sense to me.
>>>
>>
>> Depending on who I use to test, my results vary wildly. I can get as good
>> as 6:1 and as poor as 183:1. My advertised rate is 5Mb/S DL, and
>> .5Mb/S UL.
>>
>> Charter (my ISP) gives me 11.3Mb/S DL/1.0Mb/S UL. Argonne Nat'l. Labs
>> 6.04/1.05 Speakeasy.net to ATL 10.31/.1 to DC 14.68/.08 to NYC 11.73/.06
>> Speedtest.net 10.41/.14
>>
>> And that's during the day which gives me my best times. If I do it late
>> evening, I sometimes get speeds so slow it locks up IE.
>>
>> Plus I love that my ISP shows my speeds as twice as fast as what I'm
>> paying for.
>>
>> Of course, contacting my ISP is just about the biggest lesson in
>> frustration I have ever experienced in all my years of working with
>> computers or the retail public :)
>
> I get the best and most consistent results with a mini speedtest.net
> engine
> installed on my own website. My website is hosted by 1 and 1, but I have
> no
> idea where it is located geographically. I installed it primarily to
> test my website availability, but it works both ways. It has the
> advantage of being completely free of any extraneous crap, like ads.
> It's not really intended for public use, but you are welcome to it as long
> as it is up.
> http://thedatalist.com/speedtest/
> --
> Crash

Speakeasy.net has a good speed test:
http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/

Using the New York server gives me about 25 Mbps down, and 1.9 Mbps up.
Chicago and DC are around 20 down, 1.9 up. I'm near Pittsburgh.
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
"Dave "Crash" Dummy" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:N2Eao.83121$xZ2.26232@newsfe07.iad...
> SC Tom wrote:
>>
>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:5cpl66tbg2pcsfr6j49m6dj1nt8fnouvde@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:32:28 -0400, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks! I tried your link and got 1218kbps/31kbps.
>>>
>>>
>>> Typo? Did you mean Mbps, not Kbps?
>>>
>>> I tried it too. I get 11902 Kbps and 331 Kbps. Our numbers are very
>>> close if you meant Mbps.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, no typo :-( I just reran it and got 1329/37 Kbps, so it's gotten
>> better :) But when I click on the link to run it from Columbia, SC, I
>> get 9.01/.16 Mbps. I'm located in the SE tip of SC, near Parris Island
>> (Ooo-rah!!!)
>
> Well, those suggested links are the three test sites closest to you.
> When I run the test at the Columbia, SC site, I get 28.57 Mbs / 2.14
> Mbs. I'd have to say your service sucks, semper fi, or not.
> --
I've known that for quite a while, but unfortunately, they're the only game
in this part of town. Although I guess if I'm paying for 5Mb and I get
better than 6 or 7 on most test sites, I can't complain too much. And since
I don't do too much uploading, it doesn't matter much that its speed sucks
the big one big time.
--
SC Tom
-There's no such thing as TMI when asking for tech support.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:09:34 -0500, "David" <someone@somewhere.com>
wrote:

>There are technical reasons for asymmetric upstream and
>downstream rates. For cable, the upstream bandwidth on the
>physical cable line is much greater than the downstream.

Other way around - downstream bandwidth is much greater than upstream
bandwidth.

>This is fixed and determined by the cable facilities and the
>amplifiers that power them so whatever portion of the
>upstream bandwidth (shared by the TV services) the company
>allocates to data access can be quite large. For DSL, the
>bandwidth of the line has a certain up + down capacity and
>the company decides how much goes up and down. This ratio is
>time consuming to change dynamically (because of training)
>so it is usually fixed for a certain customer to a smaller
>upload rate and a greater download rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top