  hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | hummm According to the map, four of the five fastest states are all in the Northeast United States.
------------------------------------------
I wonder if there is a reason for this.
--
Fossils, Not Gospels. | |
|
 |  ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | Re: hummm Where the FiOS vs Cablevision wars are at their biggest. | |
|
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: hummm Yup - also a reason for Verizon's success, and relative ease of deployment... high population density areas of the country.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | |
| Reviews:
 ·Choice Cable TV
 ·Coqui/PRTC
| Geography also comes into play. The Northeast states are close to several of the largest data centers and NAPs in the US. Alaska and Hawaii will inherently have more latency due to distance issues and this affects the overall time it takes to open web pages regardless of the bandwidth capacity they may have. The 2,000 miles or so of fiber cable from California to Hawaii represent about 20ms of additional round trip time per every single request done during the test. This additional latency cannot be eliminated. If the site in the test is located in New York, that's an additional 2,000 miles or more to travel.
I do not know the details of the test but such a test is more accurate if the sites loaded are close to home. | |
|
| | This is illogical... 104 kilobits a second? Whaaa? That doesn't make much sense; I can see 104 kiloBYTES a second, but kilobits? 104 kilobits is about what you would get with shotgun dial-up or cellular 1xRTT.
and Connecticut is only listed as 200 kilobits? once again, kilobytes would make more sense...but still.
There's very few companies that even offer 256k broadband anymore; most offer, at the very least, 512k, and most are ditching that for the "new low standard" of 768k.
I think PC Magazine has their heads up their own butt... | |
|
|  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
4 edits | Re: This is illogical... said by Fox McCloud:104 kilobits a second? Whaaa? That doesn't make much sense; I can see 104 kiloBYTES a second, but kilobits? 104 kilobits is about what you would get with shotgun dial-up or cellular 1xRTT. and Connecticut is only listed as 200 kilobits? once again, kilobytes would make more sense...but still. There's very few companies that even offer 256k broadband anymore; most offer, at the very least, 512k, and most are ditching that for the "new low standard" of 768k. I think PC Magazine has their heads up their own butt... It is measuring browser speeds; not link speeds. That involves: opening multiple Jpegs; connections to info, ads, pics from other sites that a web page links to to get its whole page, etc. It also depends on the browser settings(how many simultaneous streams to open, RWIN size, etc) and on the speed of the computer and what browser software is being used. In other words, it isn't measuring link speed. It is more a measurement of server/client capabilities than it is of maximum throughput.
You can go to this non-PCmag website that measures web browsing speeds and not file transfer speeds and get very similar results. »www.numion.com/YourSpeed3/Run.ph···urfSpeed
And here is what PCmag is measuring:
Sites PCmag used for testing
My test vs NJ as a whole state
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | Re: This is illogical... said by ThrowDemsOut:said by Fox McCloud:104 kilobits a second? Whaaa? That doesn't make much sense; I can see 104 kiloBYTES a second, but kilobits? 104 kilobits is about what you would get with shotgun dial-up or cellular 1xRTT. and Connecticut is only listed as 200 kilobits? once again, kilobytes would make more sense...but still. There's very few companies that even offer 256k broadband anymore; most offer, at the very least, 512k, and most are ditching that for the "new low standard" of 768k. I think PC Magazine has their heads up their own butt... It is measuring browser speeds; not link speeds. That involves: opening multiple Jpegs; connections to info, ads, pics from other sites that a web page links to to get its whole page, etc. It also depends on the browser settings(how many simultaneous streams to open, RWIN size, etc) and on the speed of the computer and what browser software is being used. In other words, it isn't measuring link speed. It is more a measurement of server/client capabilities than it is of maximum throughput. You can go to this non-PCmag website that measures web browsing speeds and not file transfer speeds and get very similar results. » www.numion.com/YourSpeed3/Run.ph···urfSpeed[att=1] And here is what PCmag is measuring: [att=2] [att=3] Oh, ok, thanks for informing me (I hate unintentionally spreading false info).
Anyway, the first time I did the test, I got 216k, the second time was 232k.
Your results obviously beat mine. | |
|
| | No broadband in paradise... Maybe they don't care about BB like their mainland counterparts and are enjoying their surrounding rather then spending hours in front of a pc.
Or out buying and smoking ice instead. | |
|
|  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: No broadband in paradise... said by ninjatutle:Maybe they don't care about BB like their mainland counterparts and are enjoying their surrounding rather then spending hours in front of a pc. Since Hawaii and Alaska probably does not have as fast a connection to "The Mainland"/"Lower 48" as the other states, their speeds will be lower than the other states due to the connections themselves (since I assume that all the target Web Sites are not located on Hawaii or Alaska). This is the same as saying that the speeds in Japan is lower than in the US by connecting to US Sites from Japan. | |
|
| |  KonaguyLive From Kailua-Kona, HawaiiPremium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: No broadband in paradise... Since Hawaii and Alaska probably does not have as fast a connection to "The Mainland"/"Lower 48" as the other states, their speeds will be lower than the other states due to the connections themselves (since I assume that all the target Web Sites are not located on Hawaii or Alaska). This is the same as saying that the speeds in Japan is lower than in the US by connecting to US Sites from Japan.
It is very puzzling why Hawaii was rated so low. I do know this though.There was a bandwidth crunch here in Hawaii about 7 years ago. But new bandwidth that came online alleviated the crunch.
»starbulletin.com/2000/10/19/news/story4.html | |
|
|  MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | said by ninjatutle:Maybe they don't care about BB like their mainland counterparts and are enjoying their surrounding rather then spending hours in front of a pc. Or out buying and smoking ice instead. I'd have to agree with you there. I think they could probably care less. I know that if I were living in either state I would be backpacking throughout all of my free-time, instead of rotting my life away in front of a PC. | |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Another Reason Not to Read PC Magazine A quote for Ohio.
--------------------------------------------
Get FiOS if you can (of course), at 383 Kbps
--------------------------------------------
Not sure what the Verizon Fiber Optic is that was referred to in the test, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no FIOS in Ohio yet. | |
|
|  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Another Reason Not to Read PC Magazine said by Nuts:A quote for Ohio. -------------------------------------------- Get FiOS if you can (of course), at 383 Kbps -------------------------------------------- Not sure what the Verizon Fiber Optic is that was referred to in the test, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no FIOS in Ohio yet. Verizon is in Ohio, and every place the old GTE was. | |
|
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | My state in the POOR range no shock. | |
|
|  Lark3poPremium
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL
·Knology
| Re: My state in the POOR range Ditto  | |
|
| | Too many holes I see so many problems with their testing that it looks like swiss cheese.
Just to start did they ever hear of website throttling? I use it on my web server along with a connection limit which brings up the second hole.
What does the app do if it encounters a connection limit error? Does it keep trying to reconnect to the site till it makes it and than counts the whole time it took from getting a connection limit error to the time it finishes collecting the page data? Grant it if they are the most popular sites this may not be the case.
I could go on and on with this one but it is not worthy of any merit other than someone figured they had a better way to collect connection speeds.
Even one of their testers posted a comment on their article. They brought up issues with the test and it was actually a repost from the forum for the test and apparently it didn't get answered in the forum along with article discussion. | |
|
| |
| ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
1 edit | said by raptor1418:I see so many problems with their testing that it looks like swiss cheese. Just to start did they ever hear of website throttling? I use it on my web server along with a connection limit which brings up the second hole. See this for what they are measuring:
»Re: This is illogical...
They are measuring browsing speeds and NOT connection speeds.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | Re: Too many holes Yes but the article here and on PCmag's site is touting it as internet speed which would not just be browser speed.
PCMag title: State of The Union: Internet Speeds Across The United States
If they really want to use that as the title they need to include large file download speeds into the equation. They also stated that their R&D helped pick out what they called "outliers" from the data to accommodate for anomalies. I see a problem with that right there as they left data in where the ISP is "Don't Know" or Other.
I would consider that in accurate data to use at that point. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by raptor1418:I see so many problems with their testing that it looks like swiss cheese. Just to start did they ever hear of website throttling? I use it on my web server along with a connection limit which brings up the second hole. Unless you throttle by ISP then the numbers would be consistent from ISP to ISP.
If the test hit the same sites, and ISP A was consistently faster than ISP B, then it would seem to be result of the ISP, not throttling. | |
|
| | ugh That test is so wrong on a lot of levels. In NY Fios and Optimum Online should be on top not comcast.
That test cant be right. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: ugh said by majortom1029:That test is so wrong on a lot of levels. And what would you change to make it right on all levels?
The test accessed web sites through various ISP's. If ISP A was slower than ISP B, then there was a reason. Remember that you can have high connect speeds to your house, yet the ISP be limited on the lines that it uses to connect to the internet. Jamming too many people into too small a circuit will cause delays.
The task of the test was not measure link speed to your house, but ISP performance. The includes router performance, routing performance, ISP link speeds, and your speed to your house. All factors that affect the speed of connecting to the internet. | |
|
| | AK cable = stone age Here in CT, 10/1 Mbit cable has been in my area since 01.
So I was shocked on my 2004 AK visit when my relatives had... 64/64kbit (not bite) cable. It was so lethargic that I avoided using it. Plus it had a 5 gig cap which defeats the whole purpose. GCI is utterly pathetic.
Now they have 3/256 which is still lame. And GCI digital cable takes FOREVER to change channels. They are about 7-8 years behind my state.
The satellite net up there is pretty zippy though. 1/256 isn't bad for what it is. | |
|
|  OwlbetIgnite the IcePremium,MVM
join:2002-09-24
Palmer, AK | Re: AK cable = stone age said by uid1173726:Here in CT, 10/1 Mbit cable has been in my area since 01. So I was shocked on my 2004 AK visit when my relatives had... 64/64kbit (not bite) cable. It was so lethargic that I avoided using it. Plus it had a 5 gig cap which defeats the whole purpose. GCI is utterly pathetic. Now they have 3/256 which is still lame. And GCI digital cable takes FOREVER to change channels. They are about 7-8 years behind my state. The satellite net up there is pretty zippy though. 1/256 isn't bad for what it is. You said it better than I ever could and I live here. I probably pay three times what everyone else pays for DSL internet at 768 up/down. My ISP tells me I don't know what I'm talking about when the latency to my first hop goes from 10 ms (which has been 10 ms for years) to over 50 ms when I get provisioned to a new port that permits digital television. I know the reason for the huge jump, but getting my ISP to admit that is like pulling teeth. My ISP is damn lucky I'm not a gamer. I'd be screaming bloody murder. Because my ISP is the only game in town (ok, I could go to GCI, but they suck just as bad), I'm pretty much tethered to my ISP.
On the flip side, their digital television product is nice. 8/1 up/down with all channels for $124.95 a month not including equipment. If I was to dump GCI and go with MTA for my television viewing needs, I win. I save 25 dollars a month and basically get my local telephone service for free. But that latency to the first hop has to come down before I EVER go to their DTV offering. And the only way it's going to come down is for my ISP to upgrade to current technology. | |
|
|  koolman2Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | For what it's worth, the 64/64 (with a 1 GB cap, by the way) is free with any cable TV package. You can go from 1-4 Mbps on normal cable modem, or 3-10 Mbps on a bundle. I'm currently on 7/384.
--
There's no place like ::1. | |
|
Reviews:
·ProLog
 ·DIRECTV
·Comcast
| Buried as Inacurate If I could, I would vote this down.
Those are pathetic speeds. I regularly test in the 17000 - 20000 kbps range. I also see others test on this site with various providers well above 300 some kbps. Hell I've seen 3000 KBps download from a webserver before.
Their test results do not seem realistic to me. | |
|
| ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Buried as Inacurate said by cypherstream:If I could, I would vote this down. Those are pathetic speeds. I regularly test in the 17000 - 20000 kbps range. I also see others test on this site with various providers well above 300 some kbps. Hell I've seen 3000 KBps download from a webserver before. Their test results do not seem realistic to me. See this for an explanation:
»Re: This is illogical...
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
Reviews:
·Great Works Inte..
| Very strange/bad methodology If I'm trying to find out how fast an ISP is, why would I want a speed test that introduces unwanted variables like browser and computer speed, plus various distance/backbone/server issues unrelated to my connection?
I could see this test being useful for specific website owners who want to see how fast their website loads from computers all over the country, but it seems to be a very poor gauge at measuring an individual's bandwidth or the general speed of an ISP. | |
|
| | | Re: Very strange/bad methodology I don't really trust this information considering they say this about WV:
In the 18th fastest state, fiber optic connections are the most popular way online, averaging nearly 300 Kbps. Surprising, eh?
Outside of universities and a couple of very small subscriber bases, fiber is virtually non existent in WV, as an end user solution. | |
|
IPV5
join:2005-08-19
Bryn Mawr, PA | The Interactive Map I found the Interactive Map particularly useful, especially the ability to click on a state and sort the Speed results into alphabetic order. Unfortunately you are not able to sort the provider list names numerically, perhaps next release?
»www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2141885,00.asp | |
|
| | | Be sure you understand what this tests 1) It tests latecy between your PC and the given sites, if you are not close to them you cannot do well on this test.
2) It tests your DNS lookup speed, the latency to the DNS servers you use will affect this test. I use to 'speed up' users internet by finding closer DNS servers, for the web, the effect is real.
3)It tests the graphics speed of your browser on your PC, different browser, newer video driver, faster CPU all change results.
4) The capacity of you connection, what most of you think of as 'speed', but isn't. (a 747 is not faster than a 737, it just moves more people, a 8 meg cable connection is not faster than a 4 meg cable connection, it just move more data) | |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Their data sucks... This is from the information on my state...
More people connect via fiber optic in the Big Easy than any other connection, with good reason: At nearly 300 Kbps, it’s certainly the fastest way online in the state. AOL’s and Time Warner’s cable service weren’t even close. Hate to tell PC Mag this, but Verizon doesn't offer fibre optic service here... We're stuck with sucky ILECS who offer subpar products, like ATT and U-Verse (if they even offer that in Bellsouth's territory, we aren't holding our breaths).
The only provider in the state that even offers fibre optic connectivity is an ILEC called EATEL and they serve one parish.
As for the city of New Orleans having most of it's internet coming via fibre... Not even close. It is either DOCSIS, Wireless or DSL.
PC Mag, congratulations, you have just relegated yourselves to media outlets with crap fact checking...
--
Prove it... | |
|
| | | Re: Their data sucks... similar comments for West Virginia | |
|
| | server locale Perhaps it is because a majority of the physical servers for the websites they choose as test subjects are in the NE? | |
|
| | Inaccurate? Maybe a little. Ok, so I downloaded the app... ran it. I got 29KB/s. Ran it again. I got 70KB/s.
Hello, DNS resolution cache.
One thing I found interesting it the long amount of time it claims my connection takes to open Google. 6K in 2.3 seconds? What? According to this, it takes 5 times longer for me to load Google than Yahoo(.467 seconds). I can tell you this is not true by a.) clearing my browser cache b.) going to both sites. If anything, it's the opposite. Google is near-instant, while yahoo takes a little while to load all the images... Looking closer as this app runs, it loads the 6K of Google in .13 seconds -- stops and sits there for 2 seconds, then adds that to google's time without ever downloading anything else. I give this test a D- for trying. | |
|
robertflPremium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | All about the money Look at where you can get FIOS.. in rich upper class neighbourhoods up there. That is one of the heaviest taxed states in the union. Why the rest of us won't see this has to do with money. This is a huge investment and it will leave the rest of us with what we have now.
Now, does Verizon have plans to roll out FIOS nationwide (in Verizon areas) we don't know.
Hell, I would like to see them buy out Embarq.. what a horrible DSL company.
-Rob | |
|
 Subaru1-3-2-4Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT | Wow CT made the list.. I swore it was going to be about the friken taxes we have on everything.. | |
|
 IceDoggPremium
join:2005-08-01
Batesville, AR | Louisiana beating Texas? Wow, I never would have guessed Louisiana was beating Texas. That's shocking to me. | |
|
| | | Re: Louisiana beating Texas? I'm in Alexandria and am very happy with my Suddenlink connection. I get consistent 6Mb/768Kbps. Shocking, huh. Sometimes, I even get 7MB... | |
|
| | IceDoggPremium
join:2005-08-01
Batesville, AR | Re: Louisiana beating Texas? That you are getting good service, no. I get pretty good service with Suddenlink here as well. Most of the time. I just never would have guessed that Texas (some say the 2nd tech capital in the US) was so far behind Louisiana. BTW, I don't mean anything against Louisiana. More of a knock on Texas, if you think about it. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Louisiana beating Texas? I work in Houston (Deer Park) quiet often and have found that internet access there is pretty weak. I have friends, in new sub-divisions fed with FTTH, that have slower service that I. They all are amazed when I tell them the service we are offered here. | |
|
 WeSRT4
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL | Flawed data There is no way that Lousyana has some of the best speeds in the country. This study is completely inaccurate. Furthermore, Verizon sold all of its landline business in Alabama, but they are listed as a provider in the state. | |
|
| | From the same article... 'Gigabit. Just say it and the word drips off the tongue like honey. Gig-a-bit. A hundred times faster than megabit. A thousand times faster than kilobit.'
Huh? Somebody lose some zeros?
--
Wherever you go, there you are. | |
|
| | | Re: From the same article... Well that kind of destroys the whole article, doesn't it? | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | said by GlennAllen:'Gigabit. Just say it and the word drips off the tongue like honey. Gig-a-bit. A hundred times faster than megabit. A thousand times faster than kilobit.' Huh? Somebody lose some zeros? Yep after he says that well nothing after that matters whether he might be right or not. I understand people make mistakes, but a writer for a computer magazine better know, and the editor that is suppoed to proofread an atricle before it prints, beter know that Giga is 1000 times more than Mega and 1 million times more than Kilo | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
