 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Not Real Data ISPs will simply adjust connections to this testing site to make things look peachy keen.
There is plenty that the FCC can do to help consumers without resorting to wacky BS that wont' help anyone. The main one being cracking down on unfees that are not made known to the user until the first bill is received.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
| How do you test what people can get vs. what people are willing to pay for? I have access to 100/100 fiber but I choose to go with a 20/20 plan. The "speed tests" will assume I only have 20/20 available. |
|
| the speed delivered, versus the speed tier you're paying for... |
|
 GaffEvery Villain Is Lemons
join:1999-09-05
North TX, US | reply to pnh102
ISPs will not know who has the boxes and who doesn't.
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»thegaffadin.blogspot.com |
|
GaffEvery Villain Is Lemons
join:1999-09-05
North TX, US | reply to Karl Bode
I hope the practice of delivering lower speeds than advertised with regards to DSL and PPPoE will be pushed into the limelight as part of this.
I pay AT&T for 6Mbit DSL but never receive over 5.1Mbit due to the overhead. Other DSL providers, such as Verizon, sync their lines higher so that their customers actually receive the advertised speeds, but not AT&T.
I feel that this is somewhat of a bait-and-switch, although I am otherwise very happy with my AT&T DSL (though I'd like some faster speeds here, please).
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»thegaffadin.blogspot.com |
|
| And cable promises 20Mbps but only delivers 10Mbps or less, due to an oversubscribed node.
--
Consumer Rights is more than just a suggestion. |
|
| reply to Gaff
Agreed. I see no reason why an ISP would know who has boxes. In fact, that would be kind of the whole point... |
|
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | reply to Gaff
said by Gaff:I pay AT&T for 6Mbit DSL but never receive over 5.1Mbit due to the (PPPoE) overhead. PPPoE doesn't have that much overhead. I run a WISP and for your 6Mb connection, PPPoE overhead might drop that to 5.9, but not a whole meg. I account for the overhead so it would actually perform at the promised speed, too bad other providers don't do this, but their main slowdowns are the fault of PPPoE anyway. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Gaff
said by Gaff:I pay AT&T for 6Mbit DSL but never receive over 5.1Mbit due to the overhead. I suspect it's more an issue of sync speed (read: line quality) than "overhead". Here's what my 6M/512k line looks like:
blue-gw#show dsl interface atm0 | section Speed|Fast
Interleave Fast Interleave Fast
Speed (kbps): 7616 0 512 0 |
|
|
|
GaffEvery Villain Is Lemons
join:1999-09-05
North TX, US
1 edit | As I said, AT&T only sync their lines to their normal values, and the ATM/PPPoE overhead removes ~13% of this.
»speedtest.silverstar.com/An%20Ex···head.htm
On an AT&T "Elite" 6Mbit DSL line you will never see faster than 5.1Mbit due to this.
Imagine going to buy a 12 pack of sodas and finding you only actually received 10.5. Or you went to buy a hamburger and found 13% of it missing. I don't think you'd be very happy about it, and I am not ok with AT&T reducing the throughput of my line 13% when it is within their power to fix it (by using higher sync speeds).
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»thegaffadin.blogspot.com |
|
 IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:ISPs will simply adjust connections to this testing site to make things look peachy keen. There is plenty that the FCC can do to help consumers without resorting to wacky BS that wont' help anyone. The main one being cracking down on unfees that are not made known to the user until the first bill is received. Hasn't happened in the UK. No way for ISPs to know which customers have the boxes installed and would need them to install DPI kit or implement QoS to prioritise.
It would be noted in the results if ISPs were playing games  |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Gaff
said by Gaff:ISPs will not know who has the boxes and who doesn't. And again, what is to stop ISPs from simply giving the highest priority to the FCC's testing site, regardless of who has a box or not?
Anyone who has even the most basic understanding of networking knows that it is trivially easy to give the highest traffic priority to a certain target network.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Ignite
said by Ignite:Hasn't happened in the UK. No way for ISPs to know which customers have the boxes installed and would need them to install DPI kit or implement QoS to prioritise. It would be noted in the results if ISPs were playing games And how would they know? If the ISP knows what the IP addresses of the testing servers are, all they have to do is prioritize all the traffic going to them. All of which is very easily done.
I don't know how they do this in the UK, but the FCC here already has plenty of enforcement and investigative powers at its disposal to help ensure that customers are cheated less by ISPs. If the FCC really wanted to improve the average US resident's broadband experience, it would use the tools already at its disposal to do so.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
1 edit | reply to Gaff
The ISP doesn't need to know who has the boxes, but for accuracy the FCC does needs to know the speed test destination. With that in mind, an ISP can get a copy of the application, profile the communication behaviour, then construct and apply priority filters to skew the results in favor of the ISP. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to Karl Bode
This will be a waste of tax payer dollars. There will be no accuracy! Some people may unknowingly have their home network crippled by a 10 mbit half duplex link. I moved away from Linksys five years ago because their equipment's internet port was only 10 mbit half duplex and their tech support insisted their VPN Firewall could process packets at 100 mbits. There is a potential for seriously skewed results with this FCC scheme, many will report slower than advertised download speed. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
| reply to Gaff
Problem with your soda and burger analogy is that AT&T offers you 'UP TO' 6Mbps. If the soda box said 'UP TO' 12 sodas were inside, it'd be a different issue.
What we have is a difference in allowable marketing practices. ISPs aren't required to guarantee speeds, while Coca Cola is required to guarantee that their boxes have exactly x amount of cans.
--
»/im/82288374/5591.png |
|
IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:And how would they know? If the ISP knows what the IP addresses of the testing servers are, all they have to do is prioritize all the traffic going to them. All of which is very easily done. I don't know how they do this in the UK, but the FCC here already has plenty of enforcement and investigative powers at its disposal to help ensure that customers are cheated less by ISPs. If the FCC really wanted to improve the average US resident's broadband experience, it would use the tools already at its disposal to do so. They would know because if they change test servers and results suddenly drop like a brick then go back up it's a hint. The test servers can be changed through the test units logging into the servers and downloading new server lists, or even through using DNS and periodically changing the records.
There are plenty of enforcement powers in the UK, but without the baseline data of how the ISPs are actually performing it's rather hard to have something to enforce on, don't you think? |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:Anyone who has even the most basic understanding of networking knows that it is trivially easy to give the highest traffic priority to a certain target network. two things.
(a) anyone familiar with networking is also aware that it is more than just your isp determining speeds. if an isp prioritizes by destination network, then that is great - until you leave your isp network to a backbone carrier.
(b) additionally, you're assuming that all gear can perform an ingress policy inspection/marking without having a significant effect on packet throughput or route processor cpu cycles. many carrier class hardware based switches cannot perform packet marking that fast because the architecture was chosen for hardware based input/output, not ability for wirespeed throughput *while* marking. all carrier class gear is *not* created equal.
of course, i assume you think *everyone* should know that 
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
 tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA | reply to battleop
Maybe more of people who can never get the speeds that you have available, people who have Qwest where they can choices of 1.5Mbps or 256Kbps DSL. |
|
| I could have bitched and moaned about for years but I choose to move closer to work and where I had a choice of faster speeds. |
|
