Broadband Speeds

[xoxoxoBruce]

The FCC report on US broadband suppliers from 2013. This report is compiled under contract by Sam Knows , which operates world wide, primarily by volunteers having a box in their house measuring their providers performance. I have one of these boxes and get monthly reports on how well my provider(Verizon) is serving me. There are some interesting results, especially in satellite service.


This compares how they've been doing compared to what they promised. Of course what they promise and what they cost are also important. The broadband scene has become so complicated with local ordinances, state/federal law, convoluted contracts with jurisdictions/content providers/cable companies, the future looks like competition is dying. Satellite might be able to circumvent the morass but you can be sure the major players will fight tooth and nail... with your money.

[Gravdigr]

Some guy just busted Verizon by 'proving' they were throttling Netflix streams. He was getting 0.5% of the speed he was paying for while watching Netflix.

I'd give ya a link, but, I'm a lazy bastidge.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, saw that. They're all scumbags, fortunately for me I don't stream.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They're all scumbags, fortunately for me I don't stream

But you pay a bill. This is part of a compaign to destroy net neutrality and to increase their profit at your expense. It will succeed if so many do not understand what they are doing and why. This began when Michael Powell intentionally subverted part of the 1996 Federal Communication Act to intentionally create duopolies. To intentionally undermine or destroy the many other broadband providers. He is now a major lobbyist for these 'selected' broadband providers who have been caught suberting Netflix, Skype, and other internet communication to increase their profits.

We went through same with modems. Telcos complained modems were consuming too many trunk lines inside the CO. Using similar reasons now being used for internet traffic. But when informed people said liar, then suddenly all this modem traffic was no longer obstructing trunk lines. They did not get special charges imposed on people who use modems. Now they want special charges imposed on some internet services - to increase profits. As if Comcast needs more profits.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Long ago and far away, when the US government actually cared how the ISPs were performing, they hired Sam Knows to find out.
I volunteered to be a guinea pig for a 6 month test. They sent me a numbered(under 600) black NETGEAR box(they use White now).
Not much labeling on it just letters like NSA, KGB, MI-6, Mossad, and blinky lights.

At the end of the 6 month test I didn't send it back(I still have the pre-labeled return box) and they didn't ask for it, so every month
I get an email with the upload and download speeds, latency and packet loss, for each day.
I knew there was more available by going to their site and logging in but logging in is hhaarrdd...
you know, remembering your password and shit.

But this month the email gave only up and down speeds so I logged on and then had to choose what parameter I wanted to see.
I'm guessing that's not the jitters I'm familiar with. Next the time frame, like the last hour, last two days, last six months, oh bother.
But it did provide a surprise. They don't care that I've never gone to Netflix, they kept track of how it would have worked if I had.
Step aside boy, we want data.



Looks like less than 16 Mbps provides 100% Netflix quality, like UT has been telling us.
But unlike tw, he won't thumb his nose chanting nah nah told you so.
Well he might quietly thumb his nose but he won't taunt, because Katkeeper would slap him upside the head.



It did get a little shaky at the end of June, practicing for The end of Net Neutrality?



Besides YouTube and Netflix, they are adding Hula and Amazon in the near future.
I wondered if Fios knows I have a box, figured it can't hurt. Looking at the FAQs, yes, the data is shared with my provider,
as well as NSA, KGB, and MI-6, Mossad, etc.

[Undertoad]

Netflix told ME! Netflix offers these guidelines for what it takes to stream:

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

0.5 Megabits per second - Required broadband connection speed
1.5 Megabits per second - Recommended broadband connection speed
3.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for SD quality
5.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for HD quality
25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality

So, if you don't have a 4K TV and 4K routed through whatever devices you're connecting to your TV, or aren't watching on a 4K monitor, you really only need 5 Mbps.

Per movie, that is, and so with 16 Mbps you'd have the bandwidth to watch 3 HD movies at a time.

Netflix offers their own version of speedtest.net here:

https://fast.com/

This is only download speeds, but it's from Netflix's locations, so it's testing the speed from Netflix.

[Griff]

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Looks like less than 16 Mbps provides 100% Netflix quality, like UT has been telling us.
But unlike tw, he won't thumb his nose chanting nah nah told you so.

Had you read what I wrote rather than read with a snarky attitude, then you knew 2 mps was more than sufficient for TV. Have been saying so for a long time. Rochester Telephone was doing a Netflix type connection back in the late 1980s. Your numbers only confirm what I wrote. HDTV on 5 mps would cost about $10 per month - if free market competition existed in the last mile. Cheapest internet is now at or exceeding $50 per month - in the US.

One attack on net neutrality was to subvert all competition back in 2002. Last of the competition is gone or not taking any new business. So internet/cable/phone rates are rising significantly. $10 per month for 5 mps could be available and profitable if free market competition was not subverted. CLECs are almost all gone.

Problem with satellite is not data rates. Problem is latency.

[Gravdigr]

My ATT internet cost $30 per month. In the U.S..

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

Griff, Frontier is one of the baddies in West Virginia's attempts to improve internet service.

Originally Posted by tw

Had you read what I wrote rather than read with a snarky attitude, then you knew 2 mps was more than sufficient for TV.

If you read what I wrote for comprehension, you would know I wasn't disagreeing with your numbers but your attitude, which you just confirmed.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If you read what I wrote for comprehension, you would know I wasn't disagreeing with your numbers but your attitude, which you just confirmed.

That is you inventing my attitude. Read only what I wrote. Please do not impose your emotions on my replies. Then you comprehend what I wrote.

[Gravdigr]

Has he EVER made three posts without repeating that bullshit line he's so in love with?

He could just post "emotions, child, business school graduate" and it would be equivalent to any post of his I've ever read.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Has he EVER made three posts without repeating that bullshit line he's so in love with?

If it always to the same emotional adults who are more worried about how they feel rather than the facts. It stops when those emotional types stop reading what they feel and only read what is written.

You don't like it? Then say nothing. Because your emotions have no relevance to broadband speeds.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's right, neither do, "emotions", "child", or "MBA".

[tw]

From The Economist of 29 Jul 2017:

Without competitors breathing down their necks, monopolists find it easy to make large profits: just ask the 46m American households served by only one broadband provider, who pay high prices for poor service. As a result, trustbusting is one of those rare causes that can unite raging populists with sober academics.

Why do so many Americans pay so much for slower speeds? Why do so many only have one provider? Why so few choices? So many providers (PSINet, Covad, Teligent, Winstar, 360Networks, Viatel, etc) are gone. The philosophy was clearly stated. Net neutrality was wrong because it was done by Clinton. The theory was only a few providers means faster growth. Wrong. Competition and the resulting innovations create growth.

46 million Americans now have no other choice due to no competition. That number increases massively since their political philosophy created duopolies - most everyone only has two (expensive) choices.