DSL Speed

[migoblu]

I have DSL service through my local phone company with 320/120 download/upload speed. I recently ran a speed test at several web sites and got a speed of 266 download and 108 upload. Is the 320/120 the max speed I can get and is it normal to have a speed of 266/108 with the 320/120 service?

[rave]

it actually varies on some sites and how busy they are. even though THEY say dsl does not depend on how many people in your neighbourhood are surfing(since you dont share a line) the conjeste area is the server itself.i dont know where u are so im not sure of also what isp you are using.
my favourite speedtest is www.bandwidthplace.com/speedtest
www.dslreports can help you get some info on your connection.

correct me if im wrong anyone

[rave]

sorry...its www.dslreports.com

[migoblu]

Thanks rave, I originally was set up for 120/80 and had the phone company change me to 320/120, but I never had the speed checked out with the 120/80 service. I was thinking that maybe the phone company had not really changed me over to the 320/120 service. But the 266/108 is still faster than the 56k dial up I had. Thanks again.

[Redo40]

It's not unusual to get only 80-90% of the advertised speed, but check out rave's link to dslreports click on OUR TOOLS and do the tweak test. Follow their recommendations on fine tuning your machine to get the best you can out of it.

[SARGE]

I get varying (often drastic) results from different sites. I use the below for accuracy:

http://www.speakeasy.net/main.php?page=sup_pops

[glc]

Those speeds sound about right if your DSL is PPPoE. My advertised 768/160 is really about 640/135.

[SARGE]

"2003-04-22 07:02:55 EST: 1300 / 136
Your download speed : 1300367 bps, or 1300 kbps.
A 158.7 KB/sec transfer rate.
Your upload speed : 136054 bps, or 136 kbps.
Seems like broadband .. above the 1mbit barrier!"

I'm getting close to the 1500 advertised, but not exactly. It varies.

[Redo40]

Wish I could get that Sarge! Mine is 512/256 and I average 434/212, but I'm not complaining, still better than dialup.

[migoblu]

Redo40, is there another site that does tweak tests. I tried the one at dslreports, but it keeps failing to download, or says server is busy, or says time out. Thanks for all the help everyone. It sure helps to have so many knowledgeable people out there.

[reboot]

http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/
http://computingcentral.msn.com/internet/speedtest.asp
http://homepage.eircom.net/~leslie/testpage.htm
98 more on this page: http://home.cfl.rr.com/eaa/Bandwidth.htm

For those who keep insisting that DSL is as fast as cable, I bring you the following:
http://members.shaw.ca/reboot/temp/speedtest.jpg

[glc]

I still say that DSL *can* be as fast as or faster than cable - it all depends on the service and the speed caps. It looks like Comcast is essentially taking over the US cable business - and they are going to be going to a tiered service. Around here, they only offer a 1500/128 capped service at this time. 1500/256 DSL is available here from SBC, but not through the remote terminals, they are capped at 768/128.

You just can't generalize like that, Jim.

[migoblu]

I want to thank all those who have provided me with tips and info about getting my DSL modem and the DSL speed strightened out. I am new to broadband and I feel this is the best place to find help and info. I can't wait to come across another question so I can talk... I mean type with you. DSL sure beats the heck out of the dial up I had. I would dial up in the morning, get dressed, eat breakfast, and I might be on the Home page. Then I would find somethig else to do if I went to another web page. Again thanks to all and have a nice day.

[reboot]

I'm not the one generalizing, but I do get your point.
Everyone I know of that has DSL here, is getting nowhere near the advertised speeds, and not even remotely close to the <i>average</i> cable speeds.
They rave about how good it is (it's down at least once a week), they rave about how fast it is (it's capped at 512 in most cases, and users are averaging 300).
Not one of them can stream live video.
Having a cap of 1500 (is that standard in the US?), it would be interesting to see just what users are really getting.
How does price compare?
How does uptime compare?
How does support compare?

[mbossman2]

the issue with DSL is that the phone companies skimp (oversubscribe) on their backhaul aggregation lines ("10 pounds into a 5 pound bag syndrome"). this causes the congestion. Couple that with dynamic bandwidth throttling and your overall network performance goes up (from the telco's point of view) but the individual users performance goes down (but generally they don't know or care as the boost they see is soooo much faster than their dial up connection).

While cable as a transport mechanism, the cable companies generally don't have that issue as they work around it by rolling everything back to a central site and cache the hell out of their traffic (telco's with DSL have a harder time, 1 cache device per CO gets expensive, whereas 1 BIG cache device at central site for cable provider has the economy of scale working for them). As their aggregation lines(fiber) have a higher capacity and a wider install base than a telco's copper lines cable companies don't have the same bottleneck issues (which, as an aside, is why the multiple users on a segment issue has yet to raise its ugly head on the cable side, but will as cable begins to put more and more bandwidth demands on their network, like voice traffic).

DSL has advantages but then again so does cable. it really boils down to your needs, expectations, costs, service and availability in your area (unfortunately, both are legal monopolies and as such have probably the worst customer service cultures possible).

I, fortunately, have access to both in my area (which makes the costs slightly less...go competition!!!), and decided on cable access (good thing I did, my wife now works for the cable company, bad enuf that I have to explain the dish on my house, but DSL?).

[glc]

I've seen essentially similar speeds on the 1500 DSL and 1500 cable here - and the DSL is actually more consistent and has better uptime. Cable here is painful in "rush hour". Cost is comparable.

I can stream live video fine on my 768 which is running at 640.

My support is outstanding (Earthlink) but Comcast's support leaves something to be desired, you need to go second level to get a tech that speaks English understandably and cares about your problem. I know more than Comcast's first level techs, but Earthlink's first level techs have taught me a few things.

[SARGE]

Originally posted by glc
... Cable here is painful in "rush hour". Cost is comparable.



You got one little wire going down the alley with everyone using it. Kinda like rush hour on the freeway - everyone crawls. With DSL you have your own 2 little wires that only you use. Actually the DSL only requires one of the 2. I recently lost my dial tone but DSL still worked. Squirrels chewed the aerial wire and nibbled one of the wires. (dial tone requires both). Same if one has a "short" on the line - DSL sees it as 1 wire and still works.

[DragonBreath]

Another plug for cable, Have never noticed a slow down even during "Rush Hour" but then again Optimum Online is a great isp
http://www.junnhorde.com/~dragonbreath/cable.JPG

[glc]

Optimum Online is the exception - they have fantastic bandwidth.

[reboot]

I'll say! That's most excellent, even for cable.

[old dog]

I have cable, dsl is not available in my area. my download speeds range from less than 200kb to my best of 2953kb. no ryme , no reason, no particular time of day. $40 per month. Still beats dialup on the worst of days.
old dog

[WJWheels]

I'm on Earthlink/Sprint DSL and I just tested at 1439/353. It's supposed to be upped to 3000/3000 shortly however. I can't recall my service ever being down in over 2 years.

Oh.. I'm in SW Florida