What's Your Internet Speed/Reliability SATISFACTION?

[Renegade]

Sigh... I'm getting less than 1 digit of DL speed in kbps...

So, how does your connection stack up?

[Josh]

25Down 10Up FIOS. Loving it!

[nite_monkey]

Im over at my friend's house right now, and he gets
1.50 down
0.27 up
...It is AWESOME!!! (end sarcasm)

I forget exactly what I get back at my house. I know it is a lot better though.

[justice]

Very good thanks cable fiber internet seems to be a lot more reliable than adsl.

[f0dder]

20/2mbit ADSL2+, which is somewhat more than adequate . I pay about $60/mo for this line, which I find to be expensive, but it's normal price here in .dk.

Line is mostly stable, but if I really maxx it out it sometimes dies, and I have to power-cycle my modem (and I have to wait a few minutes before turning back on, or it doesn't connect). Not sure exactly why it happens, but it's mostly if there's high bandwidth usage and a lot of connections - I suspect it's more a matter of unstable firmware than the raw copper not being good enough quality.

I'm tempted to move to another service provider that does VDSL and can offer me 30/2 + IP telephony for the same price as my current subscription. Wish I could get FIOS... there's craploads and more craploads right out there in the road, and a large hosting facility right across the street. But can I get my hands on it, as a regular guy living in an apartment? Nope.

[Carol Haynes]

20/2mbit ADSL2+, which is somewhat more than adequate . I pay about $60/mo for this line, which I find to be expensive, but it's normal price here in .dk.

Is that the actual speed you get or is that the advertised headline rate?

My headline rate is 20mbit ADSL - in fact I achieve around 6.7mbit where I live (which given my location is actually pretty good - given that people within sight of my house are getting 256kbit download speeds). Upload speed is supposed to be 0.5Mbit but I mostly don't get much more than 0.34-0.38 - which is pretty crap when you are trying to do website work.

[f0dder]

I can get around 2Mbyte/sec download and 200Kbyte/sec upload speeds - haven't checked exactly how fast it goes, but it's a bit faster than those rough figures. Depends on a bit of factors, and it's not often that a single server can offer full speed (I just did a speedtest.net to the hosting centre across the street and got 17.4/1.7, even though I don't have any other traffic going at the moment), but for a well-seeded torrent it's usually not a problem reaching 2MB/s. I just hit 2100KB/s for linuxmint-9-gnome-cd-amd64.iso at the 450meg mark (establishing multiple connections, TCP slow-start, et cetera). A bit amazing, since linux ISOs have always been so poorly seeded when I've tried that multipart HTTP leeching has been (way) faster.

[Carol Haynes]

So it really isn't 20mbit - I get around 900Kb/s download speeds with a 6.7mbit connection.

If you want to test your speed try www.speedtest.net

[superboyac]

My connection is overpriced for what it provides.  Unfortunately, it's the best available in my area.  I'm so jealous of FIOS users (like my sister) or any other fiber service.  I don't know what my rated specs are, but that doesn't really matter.  All that matters is what I actually have seen, and what I pay:
$45 a month
DL Max speed I've been able to see consistently = 700 KB/s
UL Max speed I've seen = 60 KB/s

Also, what's up with bits?  Isn't it more convenient to use "bytes" in conversation?  I don't know about you guys, but everytime someone says bits, I have to divide by 8 in my head before I have a feel for what it really means.  I don't know why everyone does that.  All our files on our computers are shown in bytes.  This whole bits thing is weird.  if you ask me, the only reason the companies advertise in bits is because the number is bigger, so it's more impressive.  My two cents as usual.

[f0dder]

So it really isn't 20mbit - I get around 900Kb/s download speeds with a 6.7mbit connection.

Keep the TCP/IP overhead in mind. I got 2100KB/s, or 2.150.400 bytes/sec. How fast is 20Mbps - 20.000.000bit/sec or 20.971.520bit/sec? . Going with the wiki definition, the raw data rate is at 86% of the theoretical speed. Also, an ADSL line has more overhead than just TCP - my connection is through PPPoA.

I guess it could be worth doing the download test again and see what bandwidth the modem reports, that should hopefully be the raw traffic.

If you want to test your speed try www.speedtest.net

Already did so, as I mentioned in the preivous post

[rgdot]

Canada's infrastructure is poor for a developed country. Right now my DSL is around 2.5/0.4.

Problem goes from lack of infrastructure spending by the likes of Bell (phone) and Rogers (cable) right down to DSLAMs and even neighborhood wiring.

[NigelH]

Must admit, I really can't complain these days (up could be somewhat better)
http://www.speedtest.net/result/943242820.png
32.7 Mb/s down : 3.62 Mb/s up

Reliability in my area is excellent as well - has been for a long time.
This is Cox Communications "Preferred"
Speeds up to 20 Mbps with PowerBoost®, great for music and photos.

[ljbirns]

I have Cox also-  I'm just twice as far away as NigelH.  I have no complaint about Cox

http://www.speedtest.net/result/943289091.png

[mrainey]

My Charter service has been pretty reliable.


[attach]

[Renegade]

I should have done a speed test... Good idea!



It's good at the moment. But, just really unreliable. Everyday I hit times when it's excruciatingly slow.

[cranioscopical]

You guys think you have it tough?

[attach]

[mouser]

comcast in Illinois:

[4wd]

512kbps/128kbps - I'm stuck with ADSL1 because Australia's infrastructure is sorely lacking, (Telstra ADSL2+ equipment is installed in the local exchange but any ISP who uses it charges an arm, leg, first born, yearly wages * 10 and your soul).  And because almost all ADSL1 equipment is Telstras it means that almost all ISPs charge a comparative fortune for it compared to if they have their own ADSL2+ equipment installed.

But it is full speed all the time - no slowdowns/disconnections, (apart from occasional ISP upstream problems - eg. backbone down, etc), and true unlimited data quota unlike almost all other ISPs which throttle bandwidth.

So satisfaction is high going by Renegades requirements but "value for money" isn't compared to what it would cost in, say, the USA.

[Shades]

[attach]

[biox]

The upload speed is way behind times but otherwise it's nice and stable

[superboyac]

(see attachment in previous post)
This is the connection you get here in Paraguay for about 100 USD/month.

Oh Shnikey!  OK, Shades wins...I won't complain anymore.  That's a raw deal, man.

By the way, my parents have Cox...Cox is awesome.  From what I've seen, Cox has the fastest "normal" ISP service I've seen.  FIOS is faster, but it has fiber coming to the house.

[superboyac]

Anyone with At&T's U-verse?  Thoughts?

[myarmor]

I have a 12/2.5Mb cable and according to speedtests it delivers 12.3/2.7Mb (they have a bit of focus on actually delivering what you purchase,
hence they give it some extra uumph).

When downloading I tend to see about 1,65MB/s using Mass Downloader (not really sure about actual normal use upload).

[nudone]

i challenge Shades for worst connection (my upload is slower):



i pay for a faster line but the local exchange can't provide it to my location. i once had them change it so i got twice the download speed - but with dropped connections about every minute, i.e. useless.

p.s.
and i now do a lot of web work, having to check websites and ftp stuff up and down all day - it's fantastic the amount of time i waste, waiting for things to complete.

edit:
can't complain, cranioscopical's got the worst deal. oh dear.

[Deozaan]

i challenge Shades for worst connection (my upload is slower):

You seem to have missed Cranioscopical's:

You guys think you have it tough?
and all for just $100/month  

Same price as Shades', worse speeds than yours. (And look at that ping!)