Internet Speed

[BobH]

How does this compare with your Internet speeds?

Speed results.GIF

[HansV]

This is mine. Higher download speed, slower upload.

S1922.png

[StuartR]

Here's mine. I could probably improve the numbers a bit if I closed the email and the 15 browser tabs I have open

[John Gray]

I didn't want to pay for 350 Mbps...

netspeed.png

[PaulB]

Here are Speedtest results from my iPad. My ISP provides me with a service that is nominally 100Mbps down, 10Mbps up. The reason the download speeds are much higher is that the service comes with something called Speedboost that allocates more bandwidth when there is any available to spare. Note that these speed were achieved on the 5 GHz band. Results are much lower on the 2.4 GHz band.

The Speedtest server I am using is located in Potsdam, NY, about 60 miles away. I chose that location for no reason other than it is the ISP used by my niece.

speedtest.jpg

[TonyE]

My ISP is typically good for download speeds, but poor for upload. It nearly always exceeds the advertised 70Mbps download speeds.

screenshot-www.speedtest.net-2017-11-08-20-46-46.png

[jonwallace]

Clipboard02.png

I can't seem to stop Virgin Media upgrading my connection

[Rudi]

I did this test at my workplace. My home wifi is only about a third of the download speed.

Image 008.jpg

[Roderunner]

Could be worse.

RR.png

[HansV]

That's the kind of speed we had 10 years or so ago...

[BobH]

Thank you, Gentlemen!

I'm not unhappy with my upload speed, but I don't think I'm getting what I pay for on download. I pay $45/mo. plus taxes for this. How does it compare to your rates? Mine are not bundled with cable services because I cut the cord and stream entertainment and news content without CATV.

You European folks get great download speeds.

[HansV]

I pay €25/month ($29 / £22).

[Argus]

FWIW; a couple of servers in the region, using Speedtest.

20171109_B.png

[HansV]

That's an extremely fast upload speed - it's usually much lower than download speed!

[Argus]

Yes, asymmetrical bandwidth has been very common (even when not talking xDSL), such as 30/10, 100/10 MBps, but symmetrical access has also been available, 10/10, 30/30, 100/100, 200/200 etc. and more frequently since some 6-8 years ago. At the lower end I think it will be difficult to find 10/1 MBps today. (In my area and with my ISP above 100 MBps it's all asymmetrical bandwidth, 250/100, 500/100 and 1000/100 MBps, at the moment; in other parts of the county and country there's also 500/500 and 1000/1000 MBps etc.).

That said, both bandwidths, up and down, and latency can vary quite a bit at times as we all know.

[DaveA]

Most will say UPTO xx speed, and that means anywhere from 0-XX speed.

Edit and the sold speed is for Cat type of connection. WiFi will even be slower.

[AlanMiller]

If you want to be "resatisfied" with your internet speed, come and enjoy Australia's for a while. This is mine for ADSL2+ at AU$50/month

speedtest.png

And this is considered quite good!

Alan

[Jay Freedman]

1.png

[Rudi]

Yes, asymmetrical bandwidth has been very common (even when not talking xDSL), such as 30/10, 100/10 MBps, but symmetrical access has also been available, 10/10, 30/30, 100/100, 200/200 etc...

Interesting; My ethernet (wired) connection seems asymmetrical (image in previous post), but my wifi connection looks to be symmetrical based on the description given by Argus.

Image 011.jpg

[Argus]

And behind that Wi-Fi connection I assume you have a wired one. Yes, I guess that one should be symmetrical.

But then there are other differences. I don't know much about Wi-Fi but think it can be called half duplex (remember the old comparison; full duplex: a telephone both can speak and hear each other simultaneously; half duplex is like a walkie-talkie). Ethernet, now, is full duplex, Wi-Fi isn't. Not much problem I guess if only one device. Then they have added things such as dual-band (2.4 & 5 GHz) etc.

I guess the quite common asymmetrical plans for Internet access, for non-business, residential, use is down to economy, to differentiate, consumers consume (and many didn't want them running (Internet connected) servers at home), not technical limits.

BTW, I should have written Mbps, not MBps.
BTW 2, my plan isn't symmetrical.