[GRLUG] Testing Comcast vs AT&T

[Bob Kline]

OK, meaningless in a general context - are
we getting closer?

Re "that's just nuts," why not let
each person speak for themself?
Or are we in to casting aspersions now?
I'd say there's a certain arrogance in
assuming one is the last word on an
issue - my take is that this forum is
for discussions, not for those with too
much testosterone to declare themselves
the ultimate authority on an issue.
Issues get bounced around, and most
often eventually the level of detail the
person asking a question requires is
forthcoming.  A back and forth process.
Someone named Greg got so agitated
a while back that he claimed we are
all idiots for not accepting his point of
view on many things, and stomped off
in a huff.  Is that the kind of group some
people want?

Anyway, a useful notion of bandwidth
for me is how quickly a file arrives,
irrespective of the details. I don't care
whether it's in 100 Mbps bursts, followed
by 0 Mbps periods, or a uniform bit rate.
Comcast can offer more predictable
rates, and does in some regions with it's
business services.  i.e., one gets
preferential treatment.  But for now we
MI folks can't get the services AFAIK.

Re T3 line, I see things like $3K to $4K
a month.  Like T1 lines, they were vastly
more than that not so long ago.  Demand
is likely going away, as fewer can justify
the cost.  A 50 Mbps service from Comcast
costs $100 per month in the Houston area.

Just a few more things to fret about I guess.

   -- Bob


On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then call it "meaningless in a general context"
>
> Yes, the test has meaning for particular contexts. When looking
> specifically at one's internet connection, it only means "I know my
> internet connection *can* go at *least* this fast, for this kind of
> transferred." It doesn't speak to a broader-term connection maximum,
> or a broader-term connection minimum.
>
> There are several parts of the problem:
> 1) People use tests like speedtest as a reflection of their internet
> connection, to the ignorance of other potential network effects. If I
> had run that speed test over 802.11b, for example, my throughput would
> have been far worse. If I had run that speed test on a day when
> comcast's edge routers were having difficulties (say there were a
> failing NIC somewhere, or backhoe fade mid-transfer), my throughput
> would have been far worse.
> 2) People expect an internet connection like cable, ADSL or VDSL to
> have precise, measurable behavior. It doesn't, it won't and it can't.
> In cable's case, you're sharing your connection medium (a coax line)
> with up to a couple hundred other users, and their behavior on that
> line will affect your own performance. In ADSL and VDSL's cases, there
> are physical limitations driven by distance and wiring quality which
> mean that I wasn't going to get 6Mb/s (though I always got a *solid*
> 5Mb/s day-to-day)
>
> I'd say, "remove the rate caps, charge by the gigabyte", but that'd be
> a disaster, like setting up a bar tab for someone who doesn't know
> when to stop; at the end of the day, they'll be looking at a $200 bill
> and not remember what they spent it on.
>
> If people want predictable, guaranteed behavior, there are services
> for that; DS0, DS1, DS3, OC3, etc. They simply cost much more money,
> and people aren't willing to pay for it. They're barely willing to pay
> for residential knock-offs, and then they'll complain royally when
> they're not getting the service for something that costs far more.
>
> Put another way, I'm paying $80/mo for just cable internet. By my
> speed tests, I'm getting anywhere from 42% to 82% of the throughput of
> a T3. At something like 10% of the cost*. And people like Bob think I
> should be raising hell because I'm not getting 44% instead of 42%, or
> not getting 82% all the time. That's just nuts.
>
> * Ok, I don't know what a T3 costs. Last time I looked hard at those
> numbers, a *T1* cost a couple grand a month, and I know it's a lot
> cheaper, now. Still, a T3 carries 28 times the bandwidth of a T1.
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Bill Creswell
> <bcreswel at morrison-ind.com> wrote:
> >> But "meaningless" still strikes me as too
> >> strong a way to describe attempts to see
> >> one's connection speed.
> >>
> >
> > I might also add that I believe Comcast's powerburst, is really just a
> cap
> > that gets put on after a few MBs, perhaps even designed to look good in
> > these tests?
> >
> >
> http://customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQViewer.aspx?seoid=How-long-does-the-PowerBoost-burst-last&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > grlug mailing list
> > grlug at grlug.org
> > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> >
>
>
>
> --
> :wq
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20110711/52c16f97/attachment-0001.html>