In a way, DOCSIS 3 has been a set back for consumers. On comcast the lowest speed you can order where you get fiber internet is 2gbps, and because DOCSIS 3.1 now allows 10+ gbps cable internet, Comcast fiber may become a thing of the past. If you order gigabit cable internet they will run the fiber to your front yard but not let you connect to it directly. Today, the average home shares their bandwidth with between 0 and 3 other houses. Now there is DOCSIS 3.0 which does channel bonding, so a single person can have up to the equivalent of 32 TV channels of data, getting up to 1.2 gbps if unshared. This was in defense of Google Fiber, so they could switch people to fiber gigabit easily with little transition. ![]() Then Google Fiber came out and ISPs started running fiber to the streets of most houses, but not running fiber directly to each house. This is how you'd get the standard 6-26 mbps home internet. Then DOCSIS 2.0 came out and those 200 people were split between roughly 7 TV channels worth of data. It used to be my coax node was shared by over 200 people, and that was 1 TV channel equivalent of data. I know the HN crowd is fairly technically competent but I've seen plenty of competent people who I think knew this in an abstract sense but it just hadn't clicked for them what the practical consequences were. However when I use a different local ISP that doesn't peer with the remote network, I see significantly reduced speeds, because the route taken to exchange data isn't optimal. Depending on the specifics of those interconnections, you will see different performance characteristics depending on what you're doing.įor example my ISP peers with a particular network that hosts servers ~600km away that I exchange a ton of data with. Their network will then interconnect with other networks. When your ISP offers you "1Gbps" internet, they're not guaranteeing that whatever your activity, you will get 1Gbps, they're just giving you a 1Gbps connection to their network. The internet isn't a monolithic service you connect to. You might know this but in case others don't, seeing different speed test results to different services/servers is completely normal.Ī lot of people forget or don't understand the "net" part of "internet". ![]() Confirmed that my router is measuring the same amount, so Ookla isn't just making up these numbers. Speedtest (Ookla) with server manually set to Windstream in Ashburn, VA: 886 Mbps down, 900 Mbps up. : 800-900 Mbps down / 800-900 Mbps up (multiple tests to servers in Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, seems to bounce around each time I reload the page). ![]() Even with 1Gps, when I'm out in CA, sites typically feel faster. I guess the smaller sizes are to better emulate downloading web pages, but in that case, the latency is probably what matters more. I care most about my 1Gps when I'm downloading the latest version of Xcode or some other huge file. 170 Mbps avg vs 7 Mbs average for a 10 kB file). The upload measurements are much smaller for the same file sizes (e.g. It's biased against upload measurements too since there's download files sizes of 25MB and 100MB whereas upload tests only up to 10MB file size. Test run using Safari, macOS 10.15.4, Thunderbolt Ethernet.Įdit: the small file sizes used for some of the tests seem to drag down the overall speed measurement quite a bit. Ookla (): 928 Mbps down / 938 Mbps up / Ping 1 ms / Server: Raleigh via IPv4.ĭSL Reports ( ): 611 Mbps down / 929 Mbps up / ping 16-41ms / Servers: Houston, Dallas, Newcastle DE, Nashville TN, Dallas. Netflix (): 790 Mbps down / 950 Mbps up / Latency 8 ms unloaded, 12 ms loaded / Server: Ashburn via IPv6. Cloudflare: 455 Mbps down / 73.1 Mbps up / Latency 13.0 ms / Jitter 2.26 ms / Server: Ashburn via IPv6.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |