ztmike
Premium
join:2001-08-02 | reply to icp1
Re: Cool!
So they added 4 mbps...not ground breaking at ALL. and the upload is pretty much the same..
At&t you fail! |
|
bogey
@ameritech.net | Pretty much the same? You mean they increased it by 50% (or 150% of previous max..pota-to/potah-to) and that's still not good enough? |
|
factchecker
@cox.net | After all the overhead, you go from being able to upload at around 880-900kbps to around 1200-1250kbps... Not that big of a difference. |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
edit:
January 23rd, @01:33PM
| reply to ztmike
it is groundbreaking since its a dedicated connection and shouldn't fluctuate much at all. my 15 mbps time warner on the 15 mbps tier fluctuated from 2mbps to 18.5 mbps before i got rid of them. with uverse i get a steady 6.5 to 6.7 mbps internet everytime on a 6mpbs tier. What will be nicer is when you can have 2 hd streams and more sd streams.
Oh and my rg is connecting at around 60mbps
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
After all the overhead, you go from being able to upload at around 880-900kbps to around 1200-1250kbps... Not that big of a difference.
Not that big of a difference? Seems big to me. For example, I have AT&T DSL Elite at 768k rated, and I peak at about 560Kbits actual data speed. That's 70Kbytes/sec. So a 20 megabyte upload takes 285 seconds or 4 3/4 minutes. If I could double my upload speed to 1.5M rated, presumably I'd halve my upload time to about 2 1/2 minutes. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| reply to factchecker
So if speed is 1Mb/s and the increase in speed is to 1.5Mb/s then the ratio of 50% increase will filter on through to the new speed.
Or in other words the increase speed suffers the same overhead increase and the changes in actual speed change directly proportional. They boost the set speed by 50% and the actual speed will be boosted by 50%. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net | In theory, yes, those numbers work out. However, once one works out the effects of overhead, the change in effective throughput is hardly significant. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas  :Not that big of a difference? Seems big to me. Objectively speaking, based entirely on the numbers, not all that big.
Subjectively speaking, based on user perceptions, it might be big. |
|
veloslave
Geek For God
Premium
join:2003-07-11
Pleasant Hill, CA | Based on you have 25 to start with... and then big brother tells you how much of and when/where you can use it.........
Same old pachell
--
Mom was right.... I NEED fiber! |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | reply to factchecker
So in theory 1200kb/s is no more than 800kb/s. So why bother ever increasing speed?
Wanna rethink that? |
|
nobody2000455
@att.com
| reply to jgkolt
yeah your max user rate is at 60000 but your actually recieving or allowed 25216 as a whole now. years from now you'll recieve the whole 60000 or can i say 55000 depending on how far away from the vrad you are (we hope). the closer the better. it looks like your close if your recieving 60000. your four streams only uses about 15000mb (i think)  and the rest is saved for internet. which you can now max out at around 10000.  can i say wireless n reciever (i sure home so). :P it will help out with there crazy install times. |
|
