World internet speeds

[Alefroth]

Just turn the modem upside down.

Now I can't read the results.

[Daehawk]

Got an offer from Spectrum today to upgrade and double my internet speed to 1 gig for only $20 extra a month and they'll toss in a free year of 1 line of 5g mobile. I passed.

That would be $79 for 1 gig..until my special rate died then I dont want to even think.

[Jaymann]

I wouldn't trust Spectrum anyway. Right now I'm at 562/23, but sometimes it dips below 10 download! Or even goes out entirely. Usually a reboot of my PC or the router fixes it. Usually, but no guarantee and what a hassle.

[stessier]

Counterpoint - my Spectrum is rock solid - I don't remember the last time we had an outage.

Still, I can't imagine you needing 1gig speed.

[Blackhawk]

A regional place is actually laying fiber in the area. I'm on the notification list for when it becomes available. As long as there aren't obnoxious data caps and the price isn't higher than what I have, I'll be dumping Comcast as soon as it's feasible. You've seen my Comcast support posts - putting them in the rear view mirror would be a joy.

[Daehawk]

I wouldn't trust Spectrum anyway. Right now I'm at 562/23, but sometimes it dips below 10 download! Or even goes out entirely. Usually a reboot of my PC or the router fixes it. Usually, but no guarantee and what a hassle.

Mines been pretty great except for months the connection will stall out randomly. It doesn't disconnect but a page will stop loading and new tabs wont load....lasts about 5 sec - 15 sec...then back to normal. It happened one time that I noticed today but can happen multiple times.

[ImLawBoy]

A regional place is actually laying fiber in the area. I'm on the notification list for when it becomes available. As long as there aren't obnoxious data caps and the price isn't higher than what I have, I'll be dumping Comcast as soon as it's feasible. You've seen my Comcast support posts - putting them in the rear view mirror would be a joy.

Indiana has been really aggressive about using federal ARPA funds to subsidize broadband deployment in non and underserved areas. It may take a couple of years for everything to get fully built out, but a lot of parts of Indiana will be seeing improved broadband at reasonable prices.

[Daehawk]

TN wont allow shit here for broadband..AT&T and Comcast has them in their pockets.

[Max Peck]

I suppose I should update, since I've whined profusely in this thread. I now have Starlink's "Best Effort". Kinda like Residential, but not guaranteed. So, sometimes 5-6 MBS, sometimes 150 MBS. Drops packets, so not great but I'll take it over what I used to have.

Starlink explains why its FCC map listings are so different from reality

SpaceX has offered a public explanation for why Starlink's actual service availability falls far short of what it claimed on the Federal Communications Commission's national broadband map.

SpaceX's FCC filings indicate it offers fixed broadband at virtually every address in the US even though the Starlink website's service map shows it has a waitlist in huge portions of the country. As we previously reported, SpaceX removed some homes from the FCC database when residents filed challenges because they were unable to order Starlink at addresses listed as served on the FCC map.

SpaceX tried to clear up the confusion in an FCC filing last week. The company says it followed FCC rules when submitting data and blamed the FCC system for not allowing it to report data more precisely. Under the map system rules, SpaceX argues that it is allowed to report an address as "served" even if the resident can only order Starlink's RV service.

Whether someone can order residential Starlink service at their address depends on "available capacity," which is "driven by local subscription levels," SpaceX wrote. The filing went on to explain the mismatch between the FCC map and Starlink's actual availability:

To address this confusion, SpaceX has been discussing with Commission staff the best way to reflect the availability of its services within the National Broadband Map. Commission staff suggested, and SpaceX agreed, that SpaceX should submit data only for its Residential and Business plans and mirror the map and other information on www.starlink.com. Unfortunately, the filing portal's technical constraints have prevented SpaceX from making this change. When these technical constraints are removed, SpaceX will supplement this filing, which should remove a key source of confusion.

Until then, in accordance with program rules, SpaceX will continue to populate the National Broadband Map with information on the availability of all Starlink plans that can provide service to a residence or small business; these plans are branded as Residential, Business, and RV. SpaceX encourages those interested in purchasing or learning more about these plans to consult the Starlink website, www.starlink.com, which will always be the best resource on the current availability of Starlink services.

I cannot help but note that SpaceX's excuse is that the FCC allows them to exaggerate service availability, not that it forces them to do it.

Between stuff like this, and Tesla steering wheels falling off and everything about Twitter 2.0, it sometimes seems like anything that Musk touches ends up shittier than it needs to be.

[Scraper]

My only land line based option is 18mbps down. Until recently that's what I had. I just switched to T-Mobile 5G home. Now mind you I live on the top of a hill and we have a T-Mobile tower within 5 miles. But my speeds are usually around 200Mbps down. It can vary depending on how busy the tower is, so around 5pm when people get off work the speed goes down to about 80mbps. Which is still tons better than the 18 I had before.

So far T-Mobile has been a good option for me. I know people who live in more populated areas with more towers get speeds around 400mbps from T-Mobile. Plus it's only $50 a month. Which is $20 cheaper than my 18mbps plan was.

So if you live in the country and your land line options suck, you may want to check out T-Mobile.

[telcta]

I've had T-Mobile 5G Internet for about a month now after separating from Comcast Xfinity. So far it's been stable averaging between 200 and 400mbps. My upload is 3x faster than Xfinity so I'm happy about that. Out of 5 bars, my connection is usually 4 (Very Good) but sometimes dips to 3.

The only issue I had was the gateway dropped all wifi connections and nothing would reconnect with the existing password. After power cycling the gateway it was working again. I wish their app had more options for troubleshooting and I would like to rename the connected devices so I can tell what they are.

The best part of this setup is it's only costing me $30/month. Having T-Mobile's Magenta Max plan gives me a $20 discount each month. I'll take that.

[Daehawk]

Kinda crazy that Chattanooga's EPB offer 25 gig speed.

[Isgrimnur]

Ookla tells me I'm getting 228 down. Mail from Spectrum tells me they'll be bumping me to 300 sometime next month.

[Daehawk]

Hope you put that wet string somewhere where it can be admired.

[Daehawk]

Spectrum has gone up on their internet rates by $5. So now my bill is $64.99 for 500 gig . I get a $30 promotion on it for a couple more years. Otherwise it was be $94.99. Can you believe they charge that much just for internet?? Thats the way it is thanks to them, AT&T and Comcast paying to have 27 lawyers when our state looked at allowing municipal broadband to be in other counties other than its own. EPB of Chattanooga...a power company...wanted to partner with our power company and offer their broadband. 1 gig is like $60. They have 10 gig...and now i think 25 gig service.

But the state said nope..fuck you damn citizens someone put money in our pockets..plus we're gun loving money grubbers.

I remember when my grandmother got cable tv in the early 80s. Was $25 a month. Of course it was only 13 channels and one was the weather channel lol. With one movie channle...HBO. At least i got to see cool movies like Excalibur.

[Smoove_B]

Can you believe they charge that much just for internet??

I can. I also can't imagine how you could possibly need that speed, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Blackhawk]

It's enough to stream in 4k - 20 times, simultaneously.

For me, I get about half again that much. But dropping it down to a lower tier doesn't save much of anything, and would reduce my upstream speed to just that edge of useless - fast enough to send a page request of game data, but so slow that uploading anything over a few megabytes is an overnight task.

[Daehawk]

Can you believe they charge that much just for internet??

I can. I also can't imagine how you could possibly need that speed, but maybe I'm missing something.

Welp they offer ONLY 300 / 500 / and 1 gig. I got the 500 at the same price or better than the 300 wit ha 3 year promotion. Thats how.

[Smoove_B]

Welp they offer ONLY 300 / 500 / and 1 gig. I got the 500 at the same price or better than the 300 wit ha 3 year promotion. Thats how.

That's insane. It's like they're justifying high prices by only offering ridiculous speeds. What if you're a senior? Living alone? You need to pay $100 a month to be able to stream Matlock?

[Isgrimnur]

https://www.fcc.gov/acp

[Smoove_B]

Right, I think that's what he is taking advantage of. But if the *slowest* speed they offer costs $100 a month, you're still paying $70 (potentially) as a senior citizen to get access to the internet. It's terrific they offer such crazy speeds but I don't believe for a second they can't figure out a way to offer someone 100 or 50 instead of a minimum of 300 and charge them accordingly.

[Daehawk]

Supposedly they have a poverty person offer...like 25 meg for $16 or something like that. i tried to get it...not available in my area.....of course f'n not.

[RMC]

We have nothing anywhere close to those speeds where I live, the "cable" company only offer 8 down and 1 up. I finally switche to T-Mobil Home Internet, because there is a tower close enough. I now get between 60-100 down amd 30-40 up. Which even with teenagers, and working from home on a VPN, I can do things. It's also a lot chaper than the old cable company prices. Like less than 1/2 cheaper.

I pay less than 30/month with those speeds, because I switched all my phoens over to the plan, and I pay on a schedule from my checking account. The cable company charged like 60 bucks if you had the cable, and 80 if you didn't? It was awful service as well, that was out half the time.

Also, I know the cable company got federal funding during covid, but they increased support and speeds in other areas than where I live. <shrug> Living in rural settings can be bad for internet, etc..

[Blackhawk]

I can still choose between Comcast and Xfinity.

[Max Peck]

I'm paying for 150Mbps down, and that's what I get for sustained transfers, but the first few seconds of a transfer are much faster, over 400Mbps. I'm not sure why the ISP does that, but it has the effect of making speed tests meaningless because they report that initial burst speed rather than the actual sustained speed (e.g. Ookla just clocked me at 428Mbps down).

[Daehawk]

I can still choose between Comcast and Xfinity.

Im sorry.


Im not sure why mine wont match upspeed to down.

[Isgrimnur]

[gilraen]

Im not sure why mine wont match upspeed to down.

Cable and DSL are asymmetric by design. The upload channels operate on a different frequency and are usually allocated to be much narrower than download channels. They can literally only increase upload speed at the expense of download (if at all). Plus most people don't care about the upload speed, since they hardly ever need it for anything other than email attachments.

I'm paying for 150Mbps down, and that's what I get for sustained transfers, but the first few seconds of a transfer are much faster, over 400Mbps. I'm not sure why the ISP does that

Comcast used to do that years ago (might have been in pre-Xfinity days). They called it Comcast Burst. The idea was that if you download a relatively small file (like an individual song or or a PDF), you get the benefit of much faster speed, and someone probably did some marketing study to discover that it made x number of customers just as happy as if Comcast actually increased their overall speed.

[Max Peck]

Possibly, but they don't publicize it as such. I only stumbled across it when I did a speed test after an update to my plan and noticed that the downlink seemed much faster than expected. For a while I thought they had misconfigured the service, but eventually I noticed that the download ramped back down to my nominal speed for larger data transfers, such as Steam downloads. It might just be a feature built into the technology for the reasons you suggest, but they aren't bothering to promote it as a feature.

[Max Peck]

OK, I went digging and it looks like their name for it is SpeedBoost.

From reddit:

Speedboost is designed for browsing. It basically uncaps the initial part of a transfer so you can load pages faster. For a larger, sustained download, it will stabilize at your package speed.

It was probably a feature worth bragging about a few years ago, when they offered significantly slower bandwidth than they do now. For things like web browsing, the difference between loading a web page at 150Mbps and 420Mbps isn't really significant, but back in the day with slower download rates it would have been a bigger deal.

[Daehawk]

My down and up have always been higher than what Im supposed to get. I should get 500/20 but I get like 570/22.5 . Hell that little extra I get is still probably 100x the old days of 33.6 and such lol.

OOKLA
Download Mbps 570.06 / Upload Mbps 23.04



My first cable modem was around 2002 and it was down speed only. i still had to use my dial up for up. I still have that cable modem too. It looks like a harmonica welded to it.

[Alefroth]

Can you believe they charge that much just for internet??

I can. I also can't imagine how you could possibly need that speed, but maybe I'm missing something.

Welp they offer ONLY 300 / 500 / and 1 gig. I got the 500 at the same price or better than the 300 wit ha 3 year promotion. Thats how.

That makes more sense. You said 500GB before.

[Daehawk]

I may say 600 tomorrow. Im just not sure of my surroundings. Hey, is that a foxhole!?

[TheMix]

Dae, you are fixing on the wrong piece of data. The issue was not with "500". It was using "GB" when you meant "MB".

[coopasonic]

Dae, you are fixing on the wrong piece of data. The issue was not with "500". It was using "GB" when you meant "MB".

Mb

Ackshually.

[TheMix]

Dae, you are fixing on the wrong piece of data. The issue was not with "500". It was using "GB" when you meant "MB".

Mb

Ackshually.

I did pause on that. But I decided to keep it simple. He put caps, so I stuck with it. That and I can never remember when things should be 'bits' and when they should be 'bytes'.

[Isgrimnur]

bits is smaller than Bytes by a factor of 8.

[Max Peck]

I'm old enough to remember when you had to specify the number of bits in your bytes, because it wasn't a given that there'd be 8 of them.

[Isgrimnur]

It's been like this or worse since Friday. Tech is due out tomorrow.

[Daehawk]

OOfhh. Well enjoy clipart if ya can till then.