Poll: What’s your internet download speed?

[prototype]

Verizon FIOS Plan with 75/75 Mbs Internet. Have an old MI424WR Rev E Router that dribbles out a couple a photons a second (Verizon does not bill for the router, just the STB we have). I was seeing these "cheap, obsolete" routers on ebay at almost give away prices.

Can never quite get to even 20/20 at best on wireless with older PCs or brand newpc's, tablets, cell phones, even using only one device at a time.... (I imagine the encryption slows things down a bit). Roku 3 wireless works fine..have no idea how much speed that needs.

I connected my old laptop to router with ethernet cable I got low 80's both ways so Verizion is delivering as promised.

I've been bugging my partner (the account is in her name) to call verizon and redo things (they raised the package price $25 a few months ago when the two year contract expired).

I'm looking into getting a better wireless router unit that I can bridge over to from the POS router.

Also currently in major "nag mode" with my partner (the account is in her name) to call verizon and negotiate a better deal or dump Verizon and go with the alternative (Xfinity in my location). Or she can cancel (saying move out) and I call and start new service. We are renting, so I'm never sure how long we will be here (6 more months or 2 more years).

 

[MOSAT]

Currently averaging 400 - 600 Mbps as tested with various speed sites.

 

[btdt22]

Shame on me! I selected 250-500 mbps on your poll based on my providers input, but the speed test results showed I am actually getting around 150 mbps. I'm not sure I could tell the difference between 150 versus 250 mbps but never the less I lied on your poll.......shame on me.

 

[braumeister]

At least 230 down and 30 up, via Spectrum cable (aka Time Warner) for $80/month. I get at least 120/20 over wifi on my phone anywhere within the house. After struggling with rotten DSL for many years, this is wonderful.

 

[Pilot2013]

Just checked and mine was 57mbps. I looked online and Charter finally has faster speed available my area. I signed up and they are coming Monday to change to a 300mbps download plan.

We are on DIRECTNow and have occasional buffering. Hopefully this will alleviate that.

 

[ERD50]

I’m sure the ranges I’ve chosen fit some better than others, and some services are below and above the top and bottom, I tried.

Yes, lumping everything 10Mbps and below together is strange. I get ~ 5-6Mbps download speeds (fixed wireless), and as other's have reported, that's fine for streaming one, and often two videos at once, and a vOIP call - no/little buffering. Huge difference between that and dial-up, or many DSL connections - all of which are under 10 Mbps, but may be closer to 1.5 Mbps or less. And there are lots of different technologies use below 10 Mbps.

The difference to the end user trying to stream video with 1 Mbps versus 10 Mbps would be very, very significant. The difference between the ranges of 61-100 mbps and 101-250 mbps (unless you actually meant 'milli-bits per second? ) are probably not even noticeable in most cases.

Has anyone ever thought to do a 'pre-poll' post, to get feedback on the selections before they post the poll? Since the poster is looking for info, seems they are often in the dark about what selections are meaningful as well (not being critical here, that would just be part of the learning process). And once the poll is up and people start answering, it's too late to change it. And then we get a lot of grumbling (like me ) about the selections (though I do mean it to be constructive grumbling).

A whopping 3.58 mbps. I have a very basic internet connection from Comcast. OTA otherwise .

Surprised, but I actually can watch movies. without buffering, streaming with my Amazon FireTV device .

I think I just snatched the prize from easysurfer. My connection tested at 1.27Mbps download and 2.76Mbps upload. Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu stream flawlessly here, though the picture quality isn't the best. That's OK, because it's all about the narrative anyway

With those numbers, you got me beat by about twice as slow .

Yes, you might be kicked down to a lower res stream at those speeds, but still decent quality in most cases. You may notice some pixelation in scenes with a lot of action, that's where the compression has to kick in aggressively. That's why the differences at below 10 Mbps are important.

I'm on spectrum/time warner. They are very clever in their marketing and tout "up to 50mbps downstream". ...

I've probably posted this in the 'pet peeves' thread, but the only thing the wording of the statement "up to 50mbps downstream" really means is that they are telling you to never expect it to be faster than 50Mbps (and it's Mega-bits folks! Capital M. Millions, not thousandths, lower-case m = milli, 10^-3, thousandths!). And 1 Mbps fits the universe of "up to 50Mmbps downstream". So if you ever get 51 Mbps, call and complain!

Part of the reason I'm asking, XFinity just "upgraded" our speed like all customers*, and so far performance has been noticeably worse. When I speed test** I am indeed getting the new nominal speed, but sites take longer to load, and there is definitely more buffering and low-res when we stream now. ...

**I'm am a little leery of online speed tests, I assume the ISP recognizes speed tests and performs accordingly just for the test?

As others have said, test you ping times and dropped packets (goggle for instructions for your OS). Speed isn't the only factor, in many cases it's a very, very minor one compared to ping and packet loss. Once again, this is a 'weakest link in the chain' scenario.

I don't think the ISPs are playing games with the speed tests (but I guess they could - that was kind of part of the net neutrality issue, no? - but let's not go there.) But you can verify it by downloading a largish file from somewhere. You may be limited by their delivery bandwidth, but there are lots of sites that can provide a fast download. Just time it and the file size if you don't trust any built in measurements. That's where the rubber meets the road. A big file download may not be as affected by slow ping times as a web site though. Again, "it depends".

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Just checked and mine was 57mbps. I looked online and Charter finally has faster speed available my area. I signed up and they are coming Monday to change to a 300mbps download plan.

We are on DIRECTNow and have occasional buffering. Hopefully this will alleviate that.

Unlikely, unless by coincidence.

What is the data rate of the streams you are trying to watch?... Wait a minute, from the source:

https://help.directvnow.com/hc/en-u...t-speed-recommendations-for-optimal-streaming

Below are the Internet download speed recommendations per stream for watching DIRECTV NOW:

• 150 Kbps - 2.5 Mbps - Minimum broadband connection speed for Mobile devices
• 2.5 - 7.5 Mbps - Recommended for HD quality

We recommend a minimum of 12 Mbps for broadband connections to the home.

But then again... if you are getting 57 milli-bits per second...

No, 57 Mbps is several times above what DirectTV says you need. The buffering is probably due to something else (wi-fi connection?).

-ERD50

 

[mpeirce]

I don't think the ISPs are playing games with the speed tests

One thing I've noticed is that I actually get higher speeds briefly. The speed test blips up, then settles down to the actual speed. I don't think this is buffering (could be something else I can't think of). But this behavior makes sense in that for most uses a quick burst of speed is what you want - to load a web page or similar activity for example. For long requests (movies, big files) they throttle back to the "real" speed. This is what I'd do if I wanted to provide good service and still not have to overbuilt all the infrastructure.

Note: for upstream, there is a buffering problem (lookup "buffer bloat"). And that shows a similar initial higher speed, then it evens out to the actual.

 

[mpeirce]

No, 57 Mbps is several times above what DirectTV says you need. The buffering is probably due to something else (wi-fi connection?).

My DF has DirectTV Now and was having problems with it. He has fast internet - well over 50Mbps. It would work for a while, then freeze up.

I was at his house recently and various things pointed to his WiFi not providing consistent bandwidth to his Apple TV. He has an older WiFi router and there were a few walls between it and his Apple TV.

I noticed that he had an unused cable sitting next to his TV. His cable modem was in his office, so I moved it into his family room using the live cable there and was then able to connect his Apple TV to his cable modem using ethernet. Now his DirectTV Now is rock solid.

So it pays to make sure each link in the internet chain is working well for reliable streaming.

 

[ERD50]

One thing I've noticed is that I actually get higher speeds briefly. The speed test blips up, then settles down to the actual speed. I don't think this is buffering (could be something else I can't think of). But this behavior makes sense in that for most uses a quick burst of speed is what you want - to load a web page or similar activity for example. For long requests (movies, big files) they throttle back to the "real" speed. This is what I'd do if I wanted to provide good service and still not have to overbuilt all the infrastructure. ...

This was a very noticeable and consistent behavior on my fixed wireless ISP connection for years. I'd download a file, get 4-6 Mbps for maybe 3 seconds (watching my computer's network activity monitor), then it would drop down to 1-2 Mbps.

Like you say, that's fine for most of what we do - load a web page, a few seconds of the higher speed gets you there. But it was a bit of a pain downloading large files for computer installs/updates.

Over the years, I had a few problems with ping times and lost packets, and they were able to track it down to problems on their end. Each time, I think they also loosened up their throttling rules for me, just as a little more leeway against future problems, or as a 'comp' for past problems. And a few years back, the throttling seems to be completely gone. Most of their business is corporate accounts now, and I think residential is a small enough % that opening me up just was no problem for them. I'm still paying the same $29.99/month as I did when I first got it ~ 2004.

-ERD50

 

[CoolRich59]

Hmmm... what are you people doing over the internet that requires over a 100 mbps?

That's vastly more than required for browsing, emailing and even 4K streaming. Perhaps if you have a troop of Boy Scouts living at your house all using their devices at once, I could see it. Otherwise it seems like overkill.

(I guess gamers use that much. I wouldn't know about that).

That's what I was wondering. I have Comcast (good product but awful customer service) and my speed is 70 mbps. I could get a higher performance tier but can't imagine what I might need it for and so don't see the point in paying for it.

 

[misanman]

On Comcast
Latency - 11ms
Download - 115Mbps
Upload - 12Mbps

 

[audreyh1]

Um how do I answer if it’s 10mbps?

 

[ERD50]

Um how do I answer if it’s 10mbps?

Very patiently!

At 10 milli-bits per second, you wrote 36 bytes x 8 bits/byte (and probably a start/stop bit?), so that's

(36⋅8)/.01 = 28,800 seconds = 480 minutes = 8 hours! Carrier pigeons may be faster!

But thanks for nit-picking even more than I did (in case someone didn't get it, the poll goes from less than 10 mbps to 11, so technically, no way to choose 10 up to 10.x)

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

On Comcast
Latency - 11ms
Download - 115Mbps
Upload - 12Mbps

Though my download speed is ~ 5 Mbps (yours is 25x faster), my ping times (latency) are similar 12-13 mSec.

I pay for 100 through the local cable company. When I first got it I measured about 116 on my laptop over 5Ghz wifi.

My son, a gamer, has a wired connection to the modem+router. Most important for him is ping latency consistency so when he leads a head shot he can lead it the right amount consistently and have high kill rate percentages. Ping to the local speed test server is 25ms. In-game ping to the game server is 52ms and quite stable. ....

Wow, 100 Mbps, but 25 mSec pings? Seems like a lot of latency for a gamer. I doubt the speed is doing much for him, but lower latency would probably help. But I can see where consistency would be important.

-ERD50

 

[BOBOT]

4 mbps max (DSL)

CENTURYLINK SUCKS!!!!!

 

[MichaelB]

We have Comcast, their service has increased greatly in speed over the past 2 years. Availability is still an issue. While we currently have no need for this capacity, I have no doubt that in one or two years we will be using most of it.
.
.

 

[davismills]

Thanks for posting this as it reminded me to contact Cox about my speed. This morning I was at 50 down and 5 up.

I contacted Cox and they offered me a teaser rate for 12 months which lowered my bill by $5.00 per month and upped the speed to 150 down and 10 up.

After 12 months I go up $5.00 per month from my current rate.

I've got my goggles on now to protect from the wind burn.

 

[Pilot2013]

No, 57 Mbps is several times above what DirectTV says you need. The buffering is probably due to something else (wi-fi connection?).

-ERD50

Well, I am hardwired to the WiFI Router in the Den, and it does buffer at times, more frequently at night, so not sure why that would be. Maybe it will be a waste of money, I don't know. Guess i can always change back if so.

I'll have to read up online to see if others have this buffering issue, and if there is another possible fix to try and implement.

 

[ERD50]

4 mbps max (DSL)

CENTURYLINK SUCKS!!!!!

That's not bad speed for DSL. The tech can't do much more. -ERD50

 

[SecondCor521]

Though my download speed is ~ 5 Mbps (yours is 25x faster), my ping times (latency) are similar 12-13 mSec.





Wow, 100 Mbps, but 25 mSec pings? Seems like a lot of latency for a gamer. I doubt the speed is doing much for him, but lower latency would probably help. But I can see where consistency would be important.

-ERD50

Aaah, whoops, I was being sloppy again. I do pay for 100Mbps and remembered the in-game ping to the game server (probably in California) as 52ms, but the 25ms ping was from a speed test I ran on Ookla from my laptop, which was over WiFi. His wired connection probably gets a much better ping but I can't remember offhand what it was...12ms maybe?

You're right in that lower latency would help, but unless we move to California, they move the server to Idaho, or we get Google Fiber, we're not going to get much lower. Also, consistency is as or even more important, as he can practice and get used to whatever latency there is.

Curiously, I just ran another speed test from my laptop and got a 9ms ping and got 97 down and less than 1 up. Go figure.

Mostly I don't care if my user experience is satisfactory and they bill me correctly. Which is where I am now.

 

[Nightcap]

Hmmm... what are you people doing over the internet that requires over a 100 mbps?

That's vastly more than required for browsing, emailing and even 4K streaming. Perhaps if you have a troop of Boy Scouts living at your house all using their devices at once, I could see it. Otherwise it seems like overkill.

(I guess gamers use that much. I wouldn't know about that).

Porn?

Seriously, we don't pay for Cable TV services, we stream everything. The price difference between the lower speed (on which we had frequent streaming issues) and the top speed available is less than $20 per month.

 

[USGrant1962]

One thing I've noticed is that I actually get higher speeds briefly. The speed test blips up, then settles down to the actual speed.

That was actually an advertised feature on Comcast in the past. I don't recall what they called it, but for the first X Mb of a download it would be much faster than your advertised speed. In my mind it was a good feature - small downloads that don't overload the local bandwidth are very fast, bigger downloads that stress the system more are limited to the speed you paid for.

I don't see that they still feature this, but your ISP may.

 

[gauss]

Part of the reason I'm asking, XFinity just "upgraded" our speed like all customers*, and so far performance has been noticeably worse. When I speed test** I am indeed getting the new nominal speed, but sites take longer to load, and there is definitely more buffering and low-res when we stream now. We've even had 2-3 complete outages for up to 12 hours since the "upgrade," but our CSR tells us the outages are infrastructure, unrelated to the upgrade. It's only been a month or so, we'll wait and see, but so far not so good.

Yes, I've rebooted our modem and router several times.

*If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

**I'm am a little leery of online speed tests, I assume the ISP recognizes speed tests and performs accordingly just for the test?

Hopefully an unrelated coincidence that the FCC approved the changes/repeal of the "Net Neutrality" regs recently.

I am not sure offhand if the changes took effect immediately or not.

 

[mickeyd]

I do not know, however I do know that it is whatever Spectrum says it is, and that's good enough for this retiree.