My video issues took a logout/login (no restart though.. :), so all is well now.
I have to agree with Gustin, the test they used was terribly flawed. As they stated, location compared to the ISP's equipment matters (for DSL), or how many people are sharing your connection at the same time (cable). The best the test did, and the show itself is to highlight a problem where the companies are over-marketing their services for that almighty dollar. The Bell spokesperson was a typical talking head with her head in the clouds listening to the marketing management, and not the customers. Here was a person telling them point blank that their independent tests (flawed as they were) consistently showed Bell's services to be lacking. The response of "the majority of our customers are getting the service they expect" basically translates to "I don't care bout your damned tests, we're still raking in the cash". (that's my own paraphrasing of course.. :). For most of us on this list, we can make use of that maximum download speed. The general public though typically just uses the Internet and don't question things. I see the problem as ocean sized swimming pools being sold, when only a very small percentage of the users can actually use something that size. The majority of the customers don't need it and should save their money with something smaller and more adequate to their needs. hehe.. I'm willing to bet that Bell technician no longer works for Bell. The guy who let slip on public television that the so called package soled at 7 Mbps was actually rate limited to 5 Mbps.... But we all know that the big ISPs do this - sell big, but provision for average. For me, I have a decent connection. I can get the large downloads (like the Ubuntu ISO used in the test) quick enough for my needs (sometimes in less than 5 minutes). That's all I ask for in my connection. But I also know how to use tracert to find where the delays are.. :) Shawn Gustin Johnson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I just tested with the CBC's recommended test site, and it was wildly > inaccurate. It measured only 5.2 Mbit to a test server here in Calgary. > I am now getting ~9.3Mbit from a server in the US. So be aware that > the "speed test" sites are not all that accurate either. > > Gustin Johnson wrote: >> I wrote a simple script to test single downloads (a single http >> connection). The file is hosted on Shaw's servers but they do not seem >> to rate limit it on other services (I can get the full 10Mbit on my >> leased server in the US). I use this to get a quick idea of how my >> current connection is performing with a common task. >> >> Having a script like this is also handy when tuning a traffic shaper >> (were you waiting for that Shawn?). >> >> You can see some significant improvements with programs like lftp (use >> the pget command) that open multiple connections at the same time. This >> is IMO not usually a good idea as it can have adverse affects on the >> servers hosting the file(s). >> >> I was very disappointed by the testing methods used in the show. Racing >> a single sample from each provider who were from different parts of the >> city is not going to yield useful results. I can tell you that Shaw is >> very different in Douglasdale, Downtown, and in the NE (places that I go >> to on a regular basis served by Shaw). >> >> They also did not mention that source of the downloaded material may be >> the limitation. You can only get it as fast as it can be sent. >> >> >> Mitchell Brown wrote: >>> Okay, I guess I was wrong about the Firefox optimization thing. >>> >>> All they did was race downloading the Ubuntu ISO, and then randomly >>> selected 3 people to test their connections. >>> >>> The tests were fairly rudimentary - downloading via HTTP through >>> internet explorer. Bell customers only got 10% of their advertised speed >>> on the download. I'm sure though, they could all get very close to >>> maximum with a bit more refined method of downloading. Wget, BitTorrent, >>> or some other form of download manager that packs a punch. >>> >>> Oh well. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> clug-talk mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca >>> Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) >>> **Please remove these lines when replying >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> clug-talk mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca >>> Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) >>> **Please remove these lines when replying > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHRUVqwRXgH3rKGfMRApRTAJ9a+uifLcRO1hePghdBgIqXMR8/sQCfdUMd > at/bwF6BK27yg0lJCmoVaMs= > =6PLK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
