dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1218
share rss forum feed


mbernste
Boosted
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-30
Piscataway, NJ

[OOL] Ars Technica: Verizon FiOS, Cablevision top FCC speed tes

There's an interesting article from Ars Tehcnica on how Cablevision has not only improved their speeds from 2011, but apparently, according to the FCC, exceeded advertised speeds by 120%.



majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1

Re: [OOL] Ars Technica: Verizon FiOS, Cablevision top FCC speed

Thats what happens when you update the speed but only advertise the previous one. This is why I hate how the fcc is measuring speeds.

Now what gets cablevision better publicity. What their speeds are or how much of the tested speeds people are getting.

Yes I am in the samknows trial BUt I am seriously thinking of dropping out. They have not updated the router and I like to have a 5ghz 2.4 ghz router. I do not want the added elec bill of making the samknows router a bridge.

Plus the samknows router has some weird bugs and needs to be reset all the time. It tends to slowdown my connection at weird times even when its not testing my speeds.


A non

@optonline.net
reply to mbernste
The reason CV exceeds their advertised speed is because they set the modem's cap at 147% of the advertised. The theory is that some people will get well above advertised speed and balance out the people who are far below advertised. This makes the average look good, but does little to help the people who are well below advertised.

I'm more annoyed at my upload, which is at only 77% of the modem's cap. Cablevision should be able to do better.


A non

@optonline.net
reply to mbernste
said by mbernste:

according to the FCC, exceeded advertised speeds by 120%.

They exceeded the advertised speed by 20%, not 120%.


mbernste
Boosted
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-30
Piscataway, NJ
The percentage listed is the percentage faster than advertised speeds, so their advertised speed, according to the FCC is 120% higher than what they advertise.


A non

@optonline.net
said by mbernste:

The percentage listed is the percentage faster than advertised speeds, so their advertised speed, according to the FCC is 120% higher than what they advertise.

Then that's wrong. That would mean the typical standard OOL user was getting 33 Mbps on their 15 Mbps connection. So either the FCC wrote it wrong, or you read it wrong, but it's wrong.

Since it says, "Actual download speed as a percentage of advertised speed," which says nothing about "faster," I would say you read it wrong.

120% of advertised speed is 20% faster than advertised speed. Do you understand now?


Tradewind
Ultra 101
Premium
join:2005-11-08
Marlboro, NJ
120% of 15 is 18.


A non

@optonline.net
But 15 PLUS (as in "faster") 120% is 33.

Look at it this way: 100% faster than 15 is 30. Right? So 120% faster than 15 is 33.

cabletecht

join:2012-06-08
said by A non :

But 15 PLUS (as in "faster") 120% is 33.

Look at it this way: 100% faster than 15 is 30. Right? So 120% faster than 15 is 33.

huh?

CV subs on avg get 120% of the speed they pay for...not 120% faster.


A non

@optonline.net
said by cabletecht:

CV subs on avg get 120% of the speed they pay for...not 120% faster.

Right. mbernste has it wrong. mbernste said, "exceeded advertised speeds by 120%" and "120% higher than what they advertise". That's wrong.

This is fifth grade math, people!


RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
Farmingville, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
reply to majortom1029
said by majortom1029:

Yes I am in the samknows trial BUt I am seriously thinking of dropping out. They have not updated the router and I like to have a 5ghz 2.4 ghz router. I do not want the added elec bill of making the samknows router a bridge.

You're kidding about the electric, right? The TP-Link SK router uses about 9 watts when its running. Use it as a bridge..

I do agree with you however about some weird bugs -- the one that bothers me most is the fact that even when in bridge mode, the router monitors the LAN ports for traffic -- if it exceeds a certain threshold, it does not run the tests -- the problem is, instead of checking LAN-WAN traffic, it checks LAN-LAN internal traffic as well. Its nice to have an extra 4 LAN ports next to my primary router, but I have to make sure they are low bandwidth devices plugged into its LAN ports -- otherwise it never runs the tests. If I use their suggested configuration of taking the existing LAN devices off of my primary router's LAN ports and plugging them into the TP-Link's LAN ports, leaving just the TP-Link plugged into my primary router's LAN ports, no tests get run. This is primarily because I do have a single PC on my LAN that is doing constant recording from two IP cameras.

As far as the 120% of advertised speed goes -- I have no problem with that. They overprovisioned the devices.. Im paying for 50 down and expect 50 down -- but I get 60, consistently -- which is 120% of the advertised 50 - no complaints from that!

In the end -- CV took a beating in the last round of tests, and they took corrective measures across the board to improve -- and they did. As a customer, you should be thankful the FCC implemented this program -- nobody wants to look bad in a report issued by the FCC putting you in last place and saying you only delivered 54% of your advertised speed, especially when FIOS was showing 120%.

Rick

TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:3
reply to A non
said by A non :

This makes the average look good, but does little to help the people who are well below advertised.


When the average speed is 1.2X 15 = 18 mbps and the max is 20 mbps it means very few people are getting low speeds, since not everyone getting good speeds will get 20mbps all the time, some will get between 15-20mbps.

Verizon also sets it max higher and to get higher than advertised you have to set the max higher than advertised.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore.

majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1
reply to RickNY
said by RickNY:

said by majortom1029:

Yes I am in the samknows trial BUt I am seriously thinking of dropping out. They have not updated the router and I like to have a 5ghz 2.4 ghz router. I do not want the added elec bill of making the samknows router a bridge.

You're kidding about the electric, right? The TP-Link SK router uses about 9 watts when its running. Use it as a bridge..

I do agree with you however about some weird bugs -- the one that bothers me most is the fact that even when in bridge mode, the router monitors the LAN ports for traffic -- if it exceeds a certain threshold, it does not run the tests -- the problem is, instead of checking LAN-WAN traffic, it checks LAN-LAN internal traffic as well. Its nice to have an extra 4 LAN ports next to my primary router, but I have to make sure they are low bandwidth devices plugged into its LAN ports -- otherwise it never runs the tests. If I use their suggested configuration of taking the existing LAN devices off of my primary router's LAN ports and plugging them into the TP-Link's LAN ports, leaving just the TP-Link plugged into my primary router's LAN ports, no tests get run. This is primarily because I do have a single PC on my LAN that is doing constant recording from two IP cameras.

As far as the 120% of advertised speed goes -- I have no problem with that. They overprovisioned the devices.. Im paying for 50 down and expect 50 down -- but I get 60, consistently -- which is 120% of the advertised 50 - no complaints from that!

In the end -- CV took a beating in the last round of tests, and they took corrective measures across the board to improve -- and they did. As a customer, you should be thankful the FCC implemented this program -- nobody wants to look bad in a report issued by the FCC putting you in last place and saying you only delivered 54% of your advertised speed, especially when FIOS was showing 120%.

Rick

I have the netgear router and they keep telling me the netgear router is the only one they are giving out. They refuse to give me the tp-link one.


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
Do you think that tp-link is going to be better than netgear?
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
Farmingville, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
said by MxxCon:

Do you think that tp-link is going to be better than netgear?

Well, I can say the TP-Link is locked down as opposed to the Netgear.. The TPLink is configured to run only in bridge mode - where the Netgear can be changed, and you have access to the UI.