Jump to content

Study shows you’re probably not getting the broadband speeds you’re paying for


Paynefanbro

Recommended Posts

Yeah, how dare they give me a better-than-advertised rate!

No, the complaint here is different.. Powerboost works for the first 30-60ish seconds of a download to boost the speeds and then drops down to normal. If you are on a "powerboost" or speed boost ISP you will notice that on longer speedtests your average speed will often dip below the advertised rates and you will also not hit your advertised rates on even the fastest servers when doing a sustained download (Microsoft.com?). Basically these powerboost programs are specifically there to make your slower internet briefly faster and non coincidentally make speedtests rate your speed as higher than the actual sustained speed.

 

It is all a sham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the complaint here is different.. Powerboost works for the first 30-60ish seconds of a download to boost the speeds and then drops down to normal. If you are on a "powerboost" or speed boost ISP you will notice that on longer speedtests your average speed will often dip below the advertised rates and you will also not hit your advertised rates on even the fastest servers when doing a sustained download (Microsoft.com?). Basically these powerboost programs are specifically there to make your slower internet briefly faster and non coincidentally make speedtests rate your speed as higher than the actual sustained speed.

 

It is all a sham.

 

I understand the complaint, and it is not warranted. My speeds rarely, if ever, drop below advertised rates, even with sustained usage. In fact, I have tested this by queuing multiple Linux distribution torrents and watching the download rate consistently rise higher than my advertised rates over time.

 

EDIT: Case in point -- sustained download rate of 6.7 MB/s (53.6 Mb/s). The speeds did dip briefly at one point... while my disk was overloaded. This is encrypted torrent traffic.

 

9TNXj6M.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the complaint, and it is not warranted. My speeds rarely, if ever, drop below advertised rates, even with sustained usage. In fact, I have tested this by queuing multiple Linux distribution torrents and watching the download rate consistently rise higher than my advertised rates over time.

Wow that is nice then. When I had Comcast in Chicago I definitely got the Powerboost runaround and usually only had 70% of my advertised speeds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow that is nice then. When I had Comcast in Chicago I definitely got the Powerboost runaround and usually only had 70% of my advertised speeds. 

See my edit above for an example. Comcast has been busy upgrading their network all across the country. They offer residential service in my area up to 105 Mbps (as well as even faster business packages).

 

If you are referring to sustained download speeds from a single server for a single file, you'll probably see those drop down over time on any ISP. This is a side effect of both the server you are downloading from and TCP flow control. Long-term single connection sustained rates aren't really indicative of ISP performance. Notice in my screenshot that there are a sum total of 249 download connections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the complaint, and it is not warranted. My speeds rarely, if ever, drop below advertised rates...

 

 

Hold on.  How can you say unequivocally that the complaint is "unwarranted"?  cletus specifically used the qualifier "here."  Do you have experience with his ISP where "here" is to him?  I doubt it.

 

To add to the data set, I do not have many complaints about my local ISP, but since I upgraded to a DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem a few years ago, I have consistently seen over provisioning on the uplink that persists for a few seconds, then is throttled back to a lower rate.  However, the lower rate is at/near the advertised level, so I am primarily receiving a perk.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on.  How can you say unequivocally that the complaint is "unwarranted"?  cletus specifically used the qualifier "here."  Do you have experience with his ISP where "here" is to him?  I doubt it.

 

To add to the data set, I do not have many complaints about my local ISP, but since I upgraded to a DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem a few years ago, I have consistently seen over provisioning on the uplink that persists for a few seconds, then is throttled back to a lower rate.  However, the lower rate is at/near the advertised level, so I am primarily receiving a perk.

 

AJ

 

Because it wasn't his complaint, it was digiblur's complaint. And it doesn't really matter where "here" is [EDIT: to cletus] because he's referring to a sustained download rate for a single file from a server which is not under his control. The server he is downloading from is in no way required to continuously deliver it to him at his maximum sustainable rate.

 

My overall point was that complaining about a feature that actually *helps* you by briefly over-delivering on advertised rates is pretty silly. If performance is going to degrade due to capacity, it's going to do it either way; having it over-deliver at the beginning doesn't hurt anyone because it only does it when capacity is available. It's no different than how Sprint advertises average rates of 5-8 Mbps on band 25 but will let you use 35 Mbps if capacity is available. I know none of us are complaining that we aren't capped to 8 Mbps like AIO is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it wasn't his complaint, it was digiblur's complaint. And it doesn't really matter where "here" is [EDIT: to cletus] because he's referring to a sustained download rate for a single file from a server which is not under his control.

 

No, it was cletus' complaint.  You replied to and directly quoted his post.  Either you are "moving the goalposts" or you made a mistake in your quote selection earlier in the thread.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it was cletus' complaint.  You replied to and directly quoted his post.  Either you are "moving the goalposts" or you made a mistake in your quote selection earlier in the thread.

 

AJ

I'm pretty sure that cletus's post was quantifying digiblur's complaint after I responded sarcastically to it, especially since it begins with "No, the complaint here is"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that cletus's post was quantifying digiblur's complaint after I responded sarcastically to it, especially since it begins with "No, the complaint here is"

 

You have already gone back and edited at least one of your previous posts, so that is implicit admission that you made a mistake, changed your mind, or "moved the goalposts."

 

Honestly, I am not sure why you are bothering to defend Comcast.  It is a major player in our broadband dysfunction and arguably the most disliked company in the country.  This is a serious question:  do you have a vested interest?

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have already gone back and edited at least one of your previous posts, so that is implicit admission that you made a mistake, changed your mind, or "moved the goalposts."

I think it's pretty clear that my edit only added a screenshot and text refuting the argument that advertised speeds are "all a sham." I'm sure you either have the power to see that or know someone that does.

 

Honestly, I am not sure why you are bothering to defend Comcast.  It is a major player in our broadband dysfunction and arguably the most disliked company in the country.  This is a serious question:  do you have a vested interest?

 

AJ

Right, because any time anyone ever says something positive about a large corporation on the Internet, they're automatically a paid shill. If you go through my online posting history, that must also make me a shill for Google, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, Apple, Nokia, Samsung, Comcast, Cox, Sprint, AT&T, Walmart, Capital One, and plenty of other companies. Spare me, please. I'm an advocate of municipal fiber, but I don't go around preaching that Comcast is the devil.

 

I was defending what was referred to as "The powerboost inflation factor" and that should be pretty obvious if you follow the quote trail from my original post. The fact that it's Comcast here is irrelevant. Every ISP I've ever used, including Cox, Comcast, and LUS Fiber have done it. All the big players do it, and all of them are doing major upgrades, and none of them are selling consumer connections with speed SLAs. End thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • So, in summary, here are the options I tested: T-Mobile intl roaming - LTE on SoftBank, routes back to the US (~220ms to 4.2.2.4) IIJ physical SIM - LTE on NTT, local routing Airalo - LTE on SoftBank and KDDI (seems to prefer SoftBank), routed through Singapore (SingTel) Ubigi - 5G on NTT, routed through Singapore (Transatel) US Mobile East Asia roaming - 5G on SoftBank, routed through Singapore (Club SIM) Saily - 5G on NTT, routed through Hong Kong (Truphone)...seems to be poorer routing my1010 - LTE on SoftBank and KDDI (seems to prefer KDDI), routed through Taiwan (Chunghwa Telecom) I wouldn't buy up on the T-Mobile international roaming, but it's a solid fallback. If you have the US Mobile roaming eSIM that's a great option. Otherwise Ubigi, Airalo, or my1010 are all solid options, so get whatever's cheapest. I wouldn't bother trying to find a physical SIM from IIJ...the Japanese IP is nice but there's enough WiFi that you can get a Japanese IP enough for whatever you need, and eSIM flexibility is great (IIJ as eSIM but seems a bit more involved to get it to work).
    • So, the rural part of the journey still has cell service for nearly all the way, usually on B18/19/8 (depending on whether we're talking about KDDI/NTT/SoftBank). I think I saw a bit of B28 and even n28 early on in the trip, though that faded out after a bit. Once we got to where we were going though, KDDI had enough B41 to pull 150+ Mbps, while NTT and SoftBank had B1/B3 IIRC. Cell service was likewise generally fine from Kawaguchiko Station to Tokyo on the express bus to Shinjuku Station, though there were some cases where only low-band LTE was available and capacity seemed to struggle. I also figured out what I was seeing with SoftBank on 40 MHz vs. 100 MHz n77: the 40 MHz blocks are actually inside the n78 band class, but SoftBank advertises them as n77, probably to facilitate NR CA. My phone likely preferred the 40 MHz slices as they're *much* lower-frequency, ~3.4 GHz rather than ~3.9, though of course I did see the 100 MHz slice being used rather often. By contrast, when I got NR on NTT it was either n28 10x10 or, more often, 100 MHz n78. As usual, EMEA bands on my S24 don't CA, so any data speeds I saw were the result of either one LTE carrier or one LTE carrier plus one NR carrier...except for B41 LTE. KDDI seems to have more B41 bandwidth live at this point, so my1010 or Airalo works well for this, and honestly while SoftBank and NTT 5G (in descending order of availability) have 5G that's readily available it may be diminishing returns, particularly given that I still don't know how to, as someone not from Hong Kong, get an eSIM that runs on SoftBank 5G that isn't the USM "comes for free with the unlimited premium package" roaming eSIM (NTT is easy enough thanks to Ubigi). In other news, I was able to borrow someone's Rakuten eSIM and...got LTE with it. 40 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, 40ms latency to Tokyo while in Tokyo...which isn't any worse than the Japan-based physical SIMs I had used earlier. But not getting n77 or n257 was disappointing, though I had to test the eSIM from one spot rather than bouncing around the city to find somewhere with better reception. It's currently impossible to get a SIM as a foreigner that runs on Rakuten, so that was the best I could do. Also, I know my phone doesn't have all the LTE and 5G bands needed to take full advantage of Japanese networks. My S24 is missing: B21 (1500 MHz) - NTT B11 (1500 MHz) - KDDI, SoftBank B42 (3500 MHz) - NTT, KDDI, SoftBank n79 (4900 MHz) - NTT Of the above, B42/n79 are available on the latest iPhones, though you lose n257, and I'm guessing you're not going to find B11/B21 on a phone sold outside Japan.
    • T-Mobile acquiring SoniqWave's 2.5 GHz spectrum  Another spectrum speculator down! T-Mobile is acquiring all of their licenses and their leases. Details are lacking but it looks like T-Mobile might be giving them 3.45GHz in exchange in some of the markets where they're acquiring BRS/EBS to sweeten the deal and stay below the spectrum screen. Hopefully NextWave is at the negotiating table with T-Mobile so NYC can finally get access to the full BRS/EBS band as well. 
    • Maybe. The taller buildings on one side of the street all have Fios access and the NYCHA buildings are surrounded by Verizon macros that have mmWave. I don’t think this site will add much coverage. It’d be better off inside the complex itself.
    • Looks like a great place for for FWA. Many apartment dwellers only have one overpriced choice.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...