http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18461746 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:14:04 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:14:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18482410 taltom : I just moved from the other side of the Bay, where Comcast had some great download (over 10 Mbps whenever I tested it), but the upload was always below 700 kbps.

I just moved to another state and live "out in the boonies", as well (suburbs od Dallas). The cable provider has a lousy track record and unimpressive speeds, and dsl doesn't cover me. So I decided to try out a wireless provider with a money-back guarantee. My downloads are over 6 Mbps and, more importantly, my downloads are over 1 Mpbs (I've seen as high as 1.3 Mbps thus far). Service is $50 per month.

Any chance you have a wireless ISP that serves your area?

The owner of my ISP tells me Motorola has some new equipment that handles 20M/20M... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18482410 Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:13:20 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18471452 jimbo48 : Believe me, I'd jump on 50 a month for 8/876. I'm paying 42.00 a month for 3.0/384 that is there "sometimes" I need 6/768 because I work form home and running a VPN and VOIP and heavy down load as well as the VOIP the poor DSL line is not up to the task. There's no incentive for any of the ISP's to offer anything higher at the same price that they are getting now for the poor performing offers in my area. No one is going to invest in the Infrastructure because they're already raking in the money using old 50 year+ copper or 15 year old Cable wires(which Comcast gleefully raised rates multiple times because they have a monopoly) contract. ATT/SBC advertises fantastic bundles as hooks but can't/won't deliver because it would mean stringing new wire and building/investing in more/newer COs.
You're probably thinking where does this person, out in the sticks somewhere- nope- 30 miles from the heart of silicon valley with 1-2 million dollar homes all around. when the Broadband people have you over a barrel, you have to pay to play (or work) by what bones they they throw you!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18471452 Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:41:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18466615 grandpinaple : Not true 50 down will work fine with as little as 1.5 up. The overhead is only 3%.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18466615 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:03:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18466087 filizaragoza : The UL7DL Ratio of the
15/2 is the best off the offerings.

I had 1/512 and my provider switch me to 2/256

And i can tell you 1Mb/512kb is way better
than 2/256

If you can't communicate fast enough to keep the download coming, its worthless the extra speed,

If you use WebCAM/CCTV/P2P you will never see the 50mb

as the 15/2 at 7.5 has a better ratio and you should see
13.9??? download average in P2P

while the 50/5 you should see about 25-30MB speed average

the only time you would see speeds close to the stated is when you are downloading a SP2 from MS, or direct transfers from big servers, not P2P.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18466087 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:24:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18464772 haplo2112 : 50/5 is probably what I would pick however the Upload to that download is WAY out of line.

This is what people JUST DON'T GET. asym connections are bad, but some of that badness can be delt with if the up to down ratio is handled correctly. For a 50 down the Up needs to be around 25 to 30...at 5 up the 50 down will never actually work and will operate more like 15-20. The TCP/IP and UDP/IP protocols throw around alot of data. TCP more than UDP, but in either case a download actually uploads (in the sense of talking back to the server you are downloading from) quite a bit.

This is one of the reasons why you can actually see better performance from a symmetric connection that is lower speed. With the better matched up/down speeds the conversation flows better.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18464772 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 09:07:35 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18462345 johndoe303 : Yep, I'm right there with you. I'm more interested in upload but I'll take the increased speed all day. I had a 6/756 account with Adel which netted me 7/880 thanks to generous caps. Now with Comcast I see 8/710.. When it comes to the things I use the net for I'd rather the 7/880 from Adel.. There's word we'll see 16/1 or 16/2 come this summer but I don't see why as there's no competitors offering such speeds.

I'd like FiOS and FiOS Tv but it's not gonna happen here anytime soon.
--
TCHRacing.com - Florida's Ford & Mustang Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18462345 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:52:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18462197 MRCUR : I would take the 50/5 for $50 a month since I already pay $52 a month for 8/768 from Comcast. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18462197 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:24:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461746 en102 : I would like to see what constitutes an average user though.

I'm a steady user (work over the Internet) , and I run on a sub 3Mbps/512kbps connection.

What it comes down to is what services do you use on the Internet ?

High bandwidth services ?
- Web cam
- Bit torrent / Kazaa, etc.
- Streaming videos
- Downloading ISOs (Fedora Core 6 is over 3GB)
- Server hosting
- Online gaming
- X11 / VNC
- IPTV

More 'traditional' uses that don't require a ton of bandwidth
- Google search
- Streaming news (i.e. »cbc.ca/national)
- Remote desktop
- Email
- VPN
- Vonage/Skype

I guess the question should also relate to the cost of service.

I.e. I would gladly accept 10/1 for $30/month, and 20/2 for $40/month.
If the tiered ratings were...

1.5/384 $19.99
6/1 $29.99
15/2 $39.99
50/5 %49.99

Which would you pick, and why ? Assuming all SLA's are equal ( DHCP, email, etc., and no BS caps).
I'd most likely pick 6/1, as I don't need to shell out an extra $120/year for 15/2 or better. If I wasn't working from home, I'd stick with 1.5/384.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461746 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:58:30 EDT