1GB Internet Very Inconsistent

[newtekie1]

Most residential area's still use 4 channel upload docsis3 and can't offer more then that. As for business side getting more that would be fiber to the door.

And most home users have no need for higher upload speeds.

 

[R-T-B]

And most home users have no need for higher upload speeds.

Yep, but it should be pointed out most home users have no need for gigabit either...

 

[Space Lynx]

I had fiber optic 1 gig and i got the full 950+ down all the time, but comcast is cable not fiber so its shared.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Find another ISP

 

[Durvelle27]

Only other ISP is AT&T and they only offer 75Mbps in my area

So far I can’t consistently get above 400Mbps even over Wired

And my ping has always been that high

 

[Space Lynx]

Only other ISP is AT&T and they only offer 75Mbps in my area

So far I can’t consistently get above 400Mbps even over Wired

And my ping has always been that high

can you lower the plan to 500 down and save some money that way? maybe you will still get around 300, thats still pretty good. im at my parents right now and i onyl get 50 down, and i manage. its a bit annoying tho lol

 

[Durvelle27]

can you lower the plan to 500 down and save some money that way? maybe you will still get around 300, thats still pretty good. im at my parents right now and i onyl get 50 down, and i manage. its a bit annoying tho lol

I’m paying less now than what I was when I had the 300Mbps plan

 

[newtekie1]

I had fiber optic 1 gig and i got the full 950+ down all the time, but comcast is cable not fiber so its shared.

That's a long held myth that just isn't really true.

Only other ISP is AT&T and they only offer 75Mbps in my area

So far I can’t consistently get above 400Mbps even over Wired

And my ping has always been that high

Like I told you before, the problem is not your internet it is the speedtest you're using. Speedtest.net is not a reliable speedtest for extremely fast internet connections. Fast.com gives more reliable results when you have a connection over 500Gbps, but even then it needs some tweaking, and it too struggles sometimes. You have to wait for the first test to finish, then go in an tweak the settings to have a minimum of 15 connections and a max of 30. Increasing the minimum test duration helps too.

But you have to realize that these speedtests are shared, multiple people are using the servers at the same time. They aren't built to test 1Gbps connection, heck most probably only have a 1Gbps connection. This is why you are getting inconsistent results. Even most webservers only have a 1Gbps connection, so again you're not going to be able to max your connection out downloading from one site either, because you're sharing that website's 1Gbps connection with everyone else downloading.

 

[Space Lynx]

I used speedtest and it worked just fine with my 1 gig down fiber, got consistent 950+, the guy who installed it said he couldn't believe it. ^^

 

[newtekie1]

Probably not a good idea to post those since they have your public IP listed.

Fast.com is more accurate for testing 1Gbps connections that speedtest.net for sure.

 

[Durvelle27]

Probably not a good idea to post those since they have your public IP listed.

Fast.com is more accurate for testing 1Gbps connections that speedtest.net for sure.

With fast I’m seeing 1g over Wifi pretty consistent

 

[neatfeatguy]

And most home users have no need for higher upload speeds.

I would love higher upload speeds instead of the paltry 6Mbps that I get now through comcast.

I got a few family members that connect to my Plex server to stream movies and with such a limited upload speed, I have to restrict them to 720p only (3Mbps). I wish I could get around 20Mbps upload, that way if they're streaming I won't feel the pinch if I might be gaming online. But, there's no way in hell I'm going to be dishing out an extra $20 a month for just a 5Mbps bump (Extreme Pro package) or an extra $40 for 30-35 upload speed (Gigabit plan) to Comcast.

 

[newtekie1]

I would love higher upload speeds instead of the paltry 6Mbps that I get now through comcast.

I got a few family members that connect to my Plex server to stream movies and with such a limited upload speed, I have to restrict them to 720p only (3Mbps). I wish I could get around 20Mbps upload, that way if they're streaming I won't feel the pinch if I might be gaming online. But, there's no way in hell I'm going to be dishing out an extra $20 a month for just a 5Mbps bump (Extreme Pro package) or an extra $40 for 30-35 upload speed (Gigabit plan) to Comcast.

This is exactly why Comcast doesn't have give high upload speeds to residential accounts. They don't want people running servers out of their homes.

 

[TheLostSwede]

This is very dependant on location, not just distance. Where I live I've never had anything outside the town ever measure below ~30ms. My parents have about ~50ms to anything. Nothing wrong anywhere, just the way it is with router hopping.

And here I thought the internet infrastructure in Sweden was top notch...
I have pretty high ping locally, as I see others with 1-5ms...
I get 49ms to an entirely different country...

Gee you guys have some whack upload speeds any reason comcrap aren't offering 1000/500Mbps

Greed?

That's a long held myth that just isn't really true.

Like I told you before, the problem is not your internet it is the speedtest you're using. Speedtest.net is not a reliable speedtest for extremely fast internet connections. Fast.com gives more reliable results when you have a connection over 500Gbps, but even then it needs some tweaking, and it too struggles sometimes. You have to wait for the first test to finish, then go in an tweak the settings to have a minimum of 15 connections and a max of 30. Increasing the minimum test duration helps too.

But you have to realize that these speedtests are shared, multiple people are using the servers at the same time. They aren't built to test 1Gbps connection, heck most probably only have a 1Gbps connection. This is why you are getting inconsistent results. Even most webservers only have a 1Gbps connection, so again you're not going to be able to max your connection out downloading from one site either, because you're sharing that website's 1Gbps connection with everyone else downloading.

What is a long held myth? Cable is shared, it's a fact, it's how cable networks are designed. If the pipe from the first junction isn't fat enough, you're going to suffer at one point or another.
Then again, xDSL is also kind of shared, especially things like VDSLx.

Fast.com gives me slower speed test, every, singel, time. It depends on where you live. Netflix doesn't have that many servers. I rarely get over 100Mbps using Fast.com. Please try to stick to facts, instead of flawed assumptions.

You are correct in that the speed tests are all shared and this is why I suggested in my initial post that he tries "off peak".

 

[Frick]

And here I thought the internet infrastructure in Sweden was top notch...
I have pretty high ping locally, as I see others with 1-5ms...
I get 49ms to an entirely different country...

It is top notch. The only time latency realistically matters is if it goes >100 or so. A stable 40ms has exactly zero impact ... even with competitive twitch shooting.

EDIT: As far as I've seen. Jitter is death, but a stable latency is ok even if it's on the "high" side.

 

[Bill_Bright]

And most home users have no need for higher upload speeds.

Right. And if they try, they likely are going to get some unwanted attention from the ISP who may suspect you are running some sort of business which would like require a business account.

Speedtest.net is not a reliable speedtest for extremely fast internet connections

Pretty sure they have upgraded their service by now. I "only" get about 180Mbps here with Cox Cable (with both Speedtest.net and fast.com) but in checking when at other's homes who have fiber, I have found Speedtest.net is now pretty accurate even with very fact connections.

What is a long held myth? Cable is shared, it's a fact, it's how cable networks are designed. If the pipe from the first junction isn't fat enough, you're going to suffer at one point or another.

But its not shared in the same way DSL is shared. I'm on cable and, for example, if my neighbor who is also on cable, hogs the bandwidth, that is not going to affect my connection like it would if we were both on the same DSL leg.

If you want to get down to it, all internet connections are shared, even fiber. They all got back to the same POP (point of presence) - the physical location where the ISP connects you to the Internet backbone. That point is shared by all the customers in that service area. If that "pipe" is small, it may affect all the users in that service area - or at least those who have not paid extra to get a higher priority!

 

[TheLostSwede]

But its not shared in the same way DSL is shared. I'm on cable and, for example, if my neighbor who is also on cable, hogs the bandwidth, that is not going to affect my connection like it would if we were both on the same DSL leg.

If you want to get down to it, all internet connections are shared, even fiber. They all got back to the same POP (point of presence) - the physical location where the ISP connects you to the Internet backbone. That point is shared by all the customers in that service area. If that "pipe" is small, it may affect all the users in that service area - or at least those who have not paid extra to get a higher priority!

That depends entirely on the infrastructure used. Original ADSL and ADSL2/2+ didn't have any issues of shared bandwidth in the same sense that VDSL has, as those technologies went to the local telephone exchange and there was usually quite a fat pipe from there onward. With VDSL/VDSL2/2+ you often only run that to a local cabinet, so it theory, fewer people are sharing the same bandwidth, but often the bandwidth from the cabinet on the street to wherever that gets bundled up, often isn't enough for everyone connected to the cabinet to get full speed.

Cable on the other hand, you're most likely going to run into a junction in the same building, or at least in the same neighbourhood, but it all depends on how fat the pipe is from there onward. If you have a good ISP, it shouldn't be a huge issue, but if they cheap out, well, then you're in the same boat as above. I can't say I'm having any issues with shared bandwidth, as I get 200Mbps during any time of the day, obviously locally.

Obviously the internet as a whole is shared, but when it comes to end user experience it really matters how "nice" your ISP is. Do they throttle certain services? Do they want you to pay extra for lower ping? (Yes, that's apparently a thing in the US now) Do they have enough bandwidth for your area? Etc.
And of course, as you said, their routing agreements and where their pipe connects to the other pipes...
It seems like a lot of US ISPs in particular like to cheap out on things, oh and Australia... The two worst countries I've been to with regards to internet connectivity. Oh and Germany.
I mean, Vietnam and India beats all of those countries by a mile, which say something...

 

[Bill_Bright]

That depends entirely on the infrastructure used.

Not really. Regardless the version of DSL, a crowded DSL neighborhood is more prone to sharing issues than a crowded cable neighborhood. That's just the nature of the technology.

That said, I agree 100% with you and your comment about how nice the ISP is matters. In either case (DSL or cable), we can only hope they "over" subscribe the entire neighborhood with way more bandwidth than the entire neighborhood will ever need.

 

[EarthDog]

I thought it was cable, not dsl, that slows because of sharing..

Cable internet is a type of connection that transmits data through a cable television network through a coaxial cable. While cable is generally faster than DSL, its primary disadvantage is that you’re sharing bandwidth with neighbors who are using the same cable line. So during peak times where a lot of people are online, your speeds are going to slow down considerably. But on the upside, cable internet speeds are not affected by how far you are from your ISP or Internet Service Provider.

 

[Bill_Bright]

It really depends on your specific neighborhood and your specific provider and your agreement with that provider whether cable or DSL will serve you better. In some neighborhoods, cable is better. In others, DSL may be better.

 

[newtekie1]

What is a long held myth? Cable is shared, it's a fact, it's how cable networks are designed. If the pipe from the first junction isn't fat enough, you're going to suffer at one point or another.
Then again, xDSL is also kind of shared, especially things like VDSLx.

It is a myth now because back when cable internet was still relatively new, the channels couldn't handle enough bandwidth. So a block of say 10 homes would be allocated 40Mbps(DOCSIS1/2 maximum), and each home would sign up for say 10Mbps service. They'd share that 40Mbps, and if everyone one was on, they wouldn't all get 10Mbps, because there was only 40Mbps total. But when DOCSIS3.0 came around, the amount of bandwidth available skyrocketed. Cable can now provide 1.2Gbps, and the plans were usually 150Mbps or lower of dedicated bandwidth off that 1.2Gbps. The cable companies in the US now can provision the available bandwidth to give dedicated bandwidth that isn't shared like it was in the past. And they started switching to DOCSIS3.0 10 years ago. Now the 1Gbps connections are provided by DOCSIS3.1, which gives 10Gbps connections to the neighborhood box.

I thought it was cable, not dsl, that slows because of sharing..

Yes, the tables have turned. DSL can't keep up with available bandwidth to the nodes anymore, and this shift happened when the Cable companies started rolling out DOCSIS3.0. So now the DSL companies are over-selling their node bandwidth. That's why AT&T(for example) is moving over to FTTN and FTTH and basically completely stopped investing in DSL infrastructure.

 

[TheLostSwede]

VDSL2/2+ can keep up, since it's a "last mile" only solution. That's why there are a lot of ugly cabinets taking up a lot space on the pavement these days, since the connection point has to be close to your home. Then it's fibre for the back haul.
In fact, it tends to be faster than Cable, as it offers much faster upload speeds. The local ex. government owned telco here offers 1000/600Mbps here for US$77 a month.
That's quite a steep price for internet here though, I pay something like US$25 for 200/30Mbps from my cable company. The best they offer is 500/50, but it's also US$77 a month...

But yeah, DOCSIS 3.x has made Cable quite decent, all things considered, as long as the provider doesn't play dirty games.

 

[EarthDog]

Gotcha. That article was a mere 2 years old i quoted. I thought docsis3 was out longer than that...

 

[newtekie1]

Gotcha. That article was a mere 2 years old i quoted. I thought docsis3 was out longer than that...

It has been out a lot longer than that. Like I said, Comcast started rolling DOCSIS3.0 out 10 years ago or more. DOCSIS3.0 was ratified back in 2006. Hell, Comcast started rolling out DOCSIS3.1 back in 2016.

But I'm sure you can still find articles written very recently that still put out the myth that Cable is shared like it is fact and it hasn't been that way for almost a decade. People started saying it, it stuck, and everyone still think it's true like nothing has changed from 20 years ago.

 

[Durvelle27]

Now something that’s crazy if I connect directly to the modem I can consistently hit 900+Mbps but through my router is varies wildly