speed test

[T]

Hi All,

Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.

http://speedof.me/

And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
as I do on speedtest.net

-T

[Big_Al[_4_]]

T wrote on 3/7/2015 2:33 AM:
> Hi All,
>
> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
> Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>
> http://speedof.me/
>
> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
> as I do on speedtest.net
>
> -T
>
For me it's totally inaccurate.

[Paul]

T wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
> Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>
> http://speedof.me/
>
> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
> as I do on speedtest.net
>
> -T

I prefer real web sites for testing.

Maybe I could time how long it takes for the Windows
Defender update to download. That would be coming
from a Microsoft CDN.

For uploads, I could time the uploading of a file to
virustotal.com . That should be using a CDN as well,
as the site is owned by Google. For that test case,
use an older browser that doesn't support local hashing.
Or you can try generating a "random file", using
a copy of "dd". As this "myrandomfile.bin" will always
need to be uploaded.

dd.exe if=/dev/random of=myrandomfile.bin bs=1024 count=1024

That would make a 1 megabyte file with random contents.
Salt the parameters to taste.

The problem with speedtest sites, is some ISPs fart around
with the URL. For example some ISPs "cap or degrade" the
user experience, mess up your Netflix. Then, as soon
as they see "speedtest.net" in the URL, it's "full speed
ahead", and your test case passes with flying colors. And
yet... your Netflix performance is bad. You get
15Mbit/sec to speedtest.net, and 2Mbit/sec to netflix.
I want speed testing cases, that "look like" ordinary usage,
so the ISP isn't playing tricks.

So if you want a "hood ornament" for your computer,
be my guest and use speedtest.net.

Paul

[T]

On 03/06/2015 11:46 PM, Big_Al wrote:
> T wrote on 3/7/2015 2:33 AM:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>> Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>>
>> http://speedof.me/
>>
>> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>> as I do on speedtest.net
>>
>> -T
>>
> For me it's totally inaccurate.
>

They always are!

[T]

On 03/06/2015 11:59 PM, Paul wrote:
> T wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>> Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>>
>> http://speedof.me/
>>
>> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>> as I do on speedtest.net
>>
>> -T
>
> I prefer real web sites for testing.
>
> Maybe I could time how long it takes for the Windows
> Defender update to download. That would be coming
> from a Microsoft CDN.
>
> For uploads, I could time the uploading of a file to
> virustotal.com . That should be using a CDN as well,
> as the site is owned by Google. For that test case,
> use an older browser that doesn't support local hashing.
> Or you can try generating a "random file", using
> a copy of "dd". As this "myrandomfile.bin" will always
> need to be uploaded.
>
> dd.exe if=/dev/random of=myrandomfile.bin bs=1024 count=1024
>
> That would make a 1 megabyte file with random contents.
> Salt the parameters to taste.
>
> The problem with speedtest sites, is some ISPs fart around
> with the URL. For example some ISPs "cap or degrade" the
> user experience, mess up your Netflix. Then, as soon
> as they see "speedtest.net" in the URL, it's "full speed
> ahead", and your test case passes with flying colors. And
> yet... your Netflix performance is bad. You get
> 15Mbit/sec to speedtest.net, and 2Mbit/sec to netflix.
> I want speed testing cases, that "look like" ordinary usage,
> so the ISP isn't playing tricks.
>
> So if you want a "hood ornament" for your computer,
> be my guest and use speedtest.net.
>
> Paul


Still pretty nice not to have to fart around with Flash or Java.

[Stephen Wolstenholme[_6_]]

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:

>Hi All,
>
> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>
>http://speedof.me/
>
> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>as I do on speedtest.net
>
>-T

For me it gives very similar download results to other tests but more
quickly. Uploads are different to other tests and take a long time.
But then I'm only on W7 and so HTML5 support may be missing at my end!

Steve

--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com

[Paul]

Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>> Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>>
>> http://speedof.me/
>>
>> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>> as I do on speedtest.net
>>
>> -T
>
> For me it gives very similar download results to other tests but more
> quickly. Uploads are different to other tests and take a long time.
> But then I'm only on W7 and so HTML5 support may be missing at my end!
>
> Steve
>

For your amusement, you can check your browser support
for HTML5, here.

https://www.youtube.com/html5

If you click the blue "Request..." button, below the
detection results, it sets a cookie for future
youtube viewing. And if you regularly clear
cookies, the preference returns to default
(Flash).

Paul

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:

>Hi All,
>
> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>
>http://speedof.me/
>
> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>as I do on speedtest.net

Results are pretty close to what I get from speedtest.net and the BT
test site, and are consistent with what I'd expect from the sync
speeds indicated by my router. Another useful site to bookmark.

Rod.

[Dino]

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>> Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>>
>> http://speedof.me/
>>
>> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>> as I do on speedtest.net
>
> Results are pretty close to what I get from speedtest.net and the BT
> test site, and are consistent with what I'd expect from the sync
> speeds indicated by my router. Another useful site to bookmark.
>
> Rod.

I get similar results as the flash sites maybe a little faster.

[lew]

On 2015-03-07, Stephen Wolstenholme > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>>Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>>
>>http://speedof.me/
>>
>> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>>as I do on speedtest.net
>>
>>-T
>
> For me it gives very similar download results to other tests but more
> quickly. Uploads are different to other tests and take a long time.
> But then I'm only on W7 and so HTML5 support may be missing at my end!
>
> Steve
>

Same here. LucasArts used to have an FTP site for downloading
demos; a good one to use for checking speed was an 84 MB demo file.

Amazing that lucasarts had equipment that kept up with 15 mbps &
I think 25 Mbps but not sure about that....

Wonder if lucasarts changed their site name because of too many
people checking their speed constantly....

[T]

On 03/07/2015 09:33 AM, Dino wrote:
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>>> Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>>>
>>> http://speedof.me/
>>>
>>> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>>> as I do on speedtest.net
>>
>> Results are pretty close to what I get from speedtest.net and the BT
>> test site, and are consistent with what I'd expect from the sync
>> speeds indicated by my router. Another useful site to bookmark.
>>
>> Rod.
>
> I get similar results as the flash sites maybe a little faster.

I get "a little better" with speedof, but I am tickled
that I don't have to screw around with Flash, which I
am loath to use anymore for security reasons

[G. Morgan[_7_]]

Paul wrote:

>The problem with speedtest sites, is some ISPs fart around
>with the URL. For example some ISPs "cap or degrade" the
>user experience, mess up your Netflix. Then, as soon
>as they see "speedtest.net" in the URL, it's "full speed
>ahead", and your test case passes with flying colors. And
>yet... your Netflix performance is bad. You get
>15Mbit/sec to speedtest.net, and 2Mbit/sec to netflix.
>I want speed testing cases, that "look like" ordinary usage,
>so the ISP isn't playing tricks.

That's what the Net Neutrality issue is about. The SCOTUS ruled there is not
to be a "fast lane" for some sites over others. IOW, its not legal for your
ISP (in the US) to throttle your speed based on content, protocol, or domains.

[G. Morgan[_7_]]

T wrote:

>Still pretty nice not to have to fart around with Flash or Java.


Except it gives different results! I personally don't trust it. Speedtest.net
gives equal results that my ISP's own speed tester gives.

[G. Morgan[_7_]]

Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>For me it gives very similar download results to other tests but more
>quickly. Uploads are different to other tests and take a long time.
>But then I'm only on W7 and so HTML5 support may be missing at my end!

HTML5 is in your browser, not OS. Any modern browser supports it.

[lew]

On 2015-03-12, G Morgan > wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>>The problem with speedtest sites, is some ISPs fart around
>>with the URL. For example some ISPs "cap or degrade" the
>>user experience, mess up your Netflix. Then, as soon
>>as they see "speedtest.net" in the URL, it's "full speed
>>ahead", and your test case passes with flying colors. And
>>yet... your Netflix performance is bad. You get
>>15Mbit/sec to speedtest.net, and 2Mbit/sec to netflix.
>>I want speed testing cases, that "look like" ordinary usage,
>>so the ISP isn't playing tricks.
>
> That's what the Net Neutrality issue is about. The SCOTUS ruled there is not
> to be a "fast lane" for some sites over others. IOW, its not legal for your
> ISP (in the US) to throttle your speed based on content, protocol, or domains.
>
>

If SCOTUS says "no fast lane", then the torrent sites should also be
given the same speed results as from Netflix; or even the lowly users
should have the same speed applied for their home servers as Netflix
WITHOUT extra payment over what they paid now.

The prices for every user must be the same no matter whether it
is for commercial purposes for a truly "net neutral" concept; if not,
then it is still different pricing. "Net neutrality" is a fake
term to get to sucker people in believing that it applies to everyone.

[Char Jackson]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:20:50 +0000 (UTC), lew
> wrote:

>On 2015-03-12, G Morgan > wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>>The problem with speedtest sites, is some ISPs fart around
>>>with the URL. For example some ISPs "cap or degrade" the
>>>user experience, mess up your Netflix. Then, as soon
>>>as they see "speedtest.net" in the URL, it's "full speed
>>>ahead", and your test case passes with flying colors. And
>>>yet... your Netflix performance is bad. You get
>>>15Mbit/sec to speedtest.net, and 2Mbit/sec to netflix.
>>>I want speed testing cases, that "look like" ordinary usage,
>>>so the ISP isn't playing tricks.
>>
>> That's what the Net Neutrality issue is about. The SCOTUS ruled there is not
>> to be a "fast lane" for some sites over others. IOW, its not legal for your
>> ISP (in the US) to throttle your speed based on content, protocol, or domains.

I don't think the SCOTUS has weighed in on this topic. So far, the FCC has
acted unilaterally. Hopefully, their ruling will hold up.

>If SCOTUS says "no fast lane", then the torrent sites should also be
>given the same speed results as from Netflix; or even the lowly users
>should have the same speed applied for their home servers as Netflix
>WITHOUT extra payment over what they paid now.
>
>The prices for every user must be the same no matter whether it
>is for commercial purposes for a truly "net neutral" concept; if not,
>then it is still different pricing. "Net neutrality" is a fake
>term to get to sucker people in believing that it applies to everyone.

You have a different concept of net neutrality.

[T]

On 03/12/2015 08:15 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
> T wrote:
>
>> Still pretty nice not to have to fart around with Flash or Java.
>
>
> Except it gives different results! I personally don't trust it. Speedtest.net
> gives equal results that my ISP's own speed tester gives.
>
>
>

True. I even get different results from the same test
site on repeated tests

[lew]

On 2015-03-12, Stormin' Norman > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:58:50 -0500, Char Jackson > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You have a different concept of net neutrality.
>
> That was my reaction.

It's the English language & the "liberals" who invent or reassign
words to mean something to fit what they want instead of the
original meaning. e.g. big news was that a "quad" climbed up
El Capitan. Think about it; that person was carried up the mountain
& didn't do the actual climbing. Another bit of news was that some
people "climbed" up the mountain "without any aid" (even tho the news
item had them wear a safety cable during the climb & they had rest
stops using an undercover awning).

e.g. "mentally challenged"; with this one I think we all are to some
degree. "physically challenged", same as above since even superman
had a problem. Even Gore's claim of inventing the internet to rename
something that already exists.

The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
vendor.

It is just nit-picking here; the same nits also happens on the
newsgroups when someone wants to take another's statements
literally; happens quite often, I see & includes "top posting" as
incorrect way of posting or even a person's spelling.

Instead of "net" neutral, I think it should be "money makers"
neutrality or something like that.

[T]

On 03/12/2015 06:59 PM, lew wrote:
> On 2015-03-12, Stormin' Norman > wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:58:50 -0500, Char Jackson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You have a different concept of net neutrality.
>>
>> That was my reaction.
>
> It's the English language & the "liberals" who invent or reassign
> words to mean something to fit what they want instead of the
> original meaning. e.g. big news was that a "quad" climbed up
> El Capitan. Think about it; that person was carried up the mountain
> & didn't do the actual climbing. Another bit of news was that some
> people "climbed" up the mountain "without any aid" (even tho the news
> item had them wear a safety cable during the climb & they had rest
> stops using an undercover awning).
>
> e.g. "mentally challenged"; with this one I think we all are to some
> degree. "physically challenged", same as above since even superman
> had a problem. Even Gore's claim of inventing the internet to rename
> something that already exists.
>
> The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
> speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
> that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
> every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
> vendor.
>
> It is just nit-picking here; the same nits also happens on the
> newsgroups when someone wants to take another's statements
> literally; happens quite often, I see & includes "top posting" as
> incorrect way of posting or even a person's spelling.
>
> Instead of "net" neutral, I think it should be "money makers"
> neutrality or something like that.
>

Hi Lew,

My big complaint was that it was done outside the constitution.
I can't wait to see the look on the Libs faces when the
other side gets in and issues an executive order outlawing abortion.
Maybe even one to balance the budget! They will have wished they
stayed within the law.

-T

-T

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:59:00 +0000 (UTC), lew
> wrote:

>The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
>speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
>that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
>every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
>vendor.

You don't really have to guess at these things. There's a lot of information
available, if you're interested.

[PAS]

"Stormin' Norman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:35:53 -0700, T > wrote:
>
>>On 03/12/2015 06:59 PM, lew wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-12, Stormin' Norman > wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:58:50 -0500, Char Jackson
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a different concept of net neutrality.
>>>>
>>>> That was my reaction.
>>>
>>> It's the English language & the "liberals" who invent or reassign
>>> words to mean something to fit what they want instead of the
>>> original meaning. e.g. big news was that a "quad" climbed up
>>> El Capitan. Think about it; that person was carried up the mountain
>>> & didn't do the actual climbing. Another bit of news was that some
>>> people "climbed" up the mountain "without any aid" (even tho the
>>> news
>>> item had them wear a safety cable during the climb & they had rest
>>> stops using an undercover awning).
>>>
>>> e.g. "mentally challenged"; with this one I think we all are to some
>>> degree. "physically challenged", same as above since even superman
>>> had a problem. Even Gore's claim of inventing the internet to
>>> rename
>>> something that already exists.
>>>
>>> The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
>>> speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
>>> that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
>>> every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
>>> vendor.
>>>
>>> It is just nit-picking here; the same nits also happens on the
>>> newsgroups when someone wants to take another's statements
>>> literally; happens quite often, I see & includes "top posting" as
>>> incorrect way of posting or even a person's spelling.
>>>
>>> Instead of "net" neutral, I think it should be "money makers"
>>> neutrality or something like that.
>>>
>>
>>Hi Lew,
>>
>>My big complaint was that it was done outside the constitution.
>>I can't wait to see the look on the Libs faces when the
>>other side gets in and issues an executive order outlawing abortion.
>>Maybe even one to balance the budget! They will have wished they
>>stayed within the law.
>>
>
> Not that I am in favor of most FCC or government regs in general, I am
> curious
> why you think it was done "outside the constitution"?

I'm not the one you asked, but I'll chime in on this. I'll bet that
there are a lot of laws that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if they
were ever challenged. The problem is that they are not challenged.
When the government bailouts of GM and Chrysler were made, the
"government" became a stockholder in a company. I don't believe there
is any Constitutional provision that allows the federal government to do
this. But they did and no challenge was brought before the Supreme
Court to rule on.

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control. That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

[PAS]

"Stormin' Norman" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Stormin' Norman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:35:53 -0700, T > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 03/12/2015 06:59 PM, lew wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-03-12, Stormin' Norman > wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:58:50 -0500, Char Jackson
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have a different concept of net neutrality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was my reaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the English language & the "liberals" who invent or reassign
>>>>> words to mean something to fit what they want instead of the
>>>>> original meaning. e.g. big news was that a "quad" climbed up
>>>>> El Capitan. Think about it; that person was carried up the
>>>>> mountain
>>>>> & didn't do the actual climbing. Another bit of news was that
>>>>> some
>>>>> people "climbed" up the mountain "without any aid" (even tho the
>>>>> news
>>>>> item had them wear a safety cable during the climb & they had rest
>>>>> stops using an undercover awning).
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g. "mentally challenged"; with this one I think we all are to
>>>>> some
>>>>> degree. "physically challenged", same as above since even
>>>>> superman
>>>>> had a problem. Even Gore's claim of inventing the internet to
>>>>> rename
>>>>> something that already exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
>>>>> speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
>>>>> that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
>>>>> every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
>>>>> vendor.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just nit-picking here; the same nits also happens on the
>>>>> newsgroups when someone wants to take another's statements
>>>>> literally; happens quite often, I see & includes "top posting" as
>>>>> incorrect way of posting or even a person's spelling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of "net" neutral, I think it should be "money makers"
>>>>> neutrality or something like that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hi Lew,
>>>>
>>>>My big complaint was that it was done outside the constitution.
>>>>I can't wait to see the look on the Libs faces when the
>>>>other side gets in and issues an executive order outlawing abortion.
>>>>Maybe even one to balance the budget! They will have wished they
>>>>stayed within the law.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not that I am in favor of most FCC or government regs in general, I
>>> am
>>> curious
>>> why you think it was done "outside the constitution"?
>>
>>I'm not the one you asked, but I'll chime in on this. I'll bet that
>>there are a lot of laws that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if
>>they
>>were ever challenged. The problem is that they are not challenged.
>>When the government bailouts of GM and Chrysler were made, the
>>"government" became a stockholder in a company. I don't believe there
>>is any Constitutional provision that allows the federal government to
>>do
>>this. But they did and no challenge was brought before the Supreme
>>Court to rule on.
>>
>>With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
>>regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
>>government control. That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
>>grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
>>turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
>>because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
>>authority they think they have to regulate the internet.
>
>
> Actually, in the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications
> Act of
> 1996, Congress granted the FCC the authority to regulate electronic
> communications (paraphrased) in the USA.
>
> I don't see how this is unconstitutional unless one argues that what
> are being
> called regulations are tantamount to actually being laws and that all
> Federal
> laws must be voted upon by Congress and that Congress does not have
> the
> authority to appoint a proxy with regard to making regulations.
>
> There has been more than one SCOTUS ruling upholding the authority of
> Congressionally created bureaucracies to formulate and enforce
> regulations. Most
> notably the EPA has created numerous law-like regulations and shoved
> them down
> the throats of all Americans and their authority to do so has been
> upheld by
> Scotus on several occasions.

Sometimes I think we have more to fear from how regulators rule over our
lives moreso than the Congress and President do.

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS" > wrote:

>With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
>regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
>government control.

I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from the big
network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were hinting
at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while the
network providers are clearly looking out for themselves. Unfortunately,
that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its accuracy, but
hopefully you get my point.

The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result, their
first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we really
want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or which
websites will have snappy response times and which will have high latency
and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take that
control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution in a
position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would lead to a
confusing mess of conflicting rules.

>That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
>grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
>turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
>because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
>authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.

[PAS]

"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS" >
> wrote:
>
>>With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
>>regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
>>government control.
>
> I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
> the big
> network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
> hinting
> at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
> the
> network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
> Unfortunately,
> that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its accuracy,
> but
> hopefully you get my point.
>
> The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
> their
> first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
> really
> want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
> which
> websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
> latency
> and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take that
> control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
> in a
> position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
> lead to a
> confusing mess of conflicting rules.
>
>>That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
>>grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
>>turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
>>because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
>>authority they think they have to regulate the internet.
>
> That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.
>

Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.
The FCC chairman refused to disclose what was in the regulatory document
they were approving prior to their approving the new regulations. That
tells me there is something he doesn't want us to know. IT remind me of
"we have to pass it to see what's in it". Look where that one got us.

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS" > wrote:

>"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
>>>regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
>>>government control.
>>
>> I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
>> the big
>> network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
>> hinting
>> at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
>> the
>> network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
>> Unfortunately,
>> that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its accuracy,
>> but
>> hopefully you get my point.
>>
>> The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
>> their
>> first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
>> really
>> want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
>> which
>> websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
>> latency
>> and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take that
>> control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
>> in a
>> position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
>> lead to a
>> confusing mess of conflicting rules.
>>
>>>That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
>>>grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
>>>turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
>>>because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
>>>authority they think they have to regulate the internet.
>>
>> That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.
>>
>
>Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
>government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
>improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.

From everything that I've read, and completely discounting the
misinformation from the far right, they (the FCC) mostly want to keep the
status quo. That is, they (say they) want to keep the Internet open and
available to everyone, and not allow the big providers to dictate which
companies and services will work well and which won't. Under an open system,
the ones that work well will flourish and the ones that don't work well will
have to adapt or close. It's the free market system that the far right
claims they want, but we see that they don't really want it.

>The FCC chairman refused to disclose what was in the regulatory document
>they were approving prior to their approving the new regulations. That
>tells me there is something he doesn't want us to know. IT remind me of
>"we have to pass it to see what's in it". Look where that one got us.

I think I know what you're referring to, and it got us a heck of a lot
farther than we were before. It's not perfect and it should continue to be
made more perfect, but it's oh so much better than not having it.

[PAS]

"Stormin' Norman" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
>>>>regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
>>>>government control.
>>>
>>> I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
>>> the big
>>> network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
>>> hinting
>>> at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
>>> the
>>> network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
>>> Unfortunately,
>>> that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its
>>> accuracy,
>>> but
>>> hopefully you get my point.
>>>
>>> The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
>>> their
>>> first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
>>> really
>>> want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
>>> which
>>> websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
>>> latency
>>> and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take
>>> that
>>> control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
>>> in a
>>> position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
>>> lead to a
>>> confusing mess of conflicting rules.
>>>
>>>>That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
>>>>grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case
>>>>that
>>>>turning such power over to unelected regulators is not
>>>>Constitutional
>>>>because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
>>>>authority they think they have to regulate the internet.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.
>>>
>>
>>Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
>>government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
>>improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.
>>The FCC chairman refused to disclose what was in the regulatory
>>document
>>they were approving prior to their approving the new regulations.
>>That
>>tells me there is something he doesn't want us to know. IT remind me
>>of
>>"we have to pass it to see what's in it". Look where that one got us.
>
> I completely agree with your sentiments RE the Federal government.
> The FCC did
> release the regulations a few days ago, a Google search will produce
> the
> document if you are interested.
>
> What did Reagan say?
>
> "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from
> the
> government and I'm here to help."

I remember very well him making that statement and no truer statement
did he ever make.

[PAS]

"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
>>>>regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
>>>>government control.
>>>
>>> I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
>>> the big
>>> network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
>>> hinting
>>> at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
>>> the
>>> network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
>>> Unfortunately,
>>> that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its
>>> accuracy,
>>> but
>>> hopefully you get my point.
>>>
>>> The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
>>> their
>>> first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
>>> really
>>> want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
>>> which
>>> websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
>>> latency
>>> and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take
>>> that
>>> control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
>>> in a
>>> position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
>>> lead to a
>>> confusing mess of conflicting rules.
>>>
>>>>That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
>>>>grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case
>>>>that
>>>>turning such power over to unelected regulators is not
>>>>Constitutional
>>>>because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
>>>>authority they think they have to regulate the internet.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.
>>>
>>
>>Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
>>government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
>>improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.
>
> From everything that I've read, and completely discounting the
> misinformation from the far right, they (the FCC) mostly want to keep
> the
> status quo. That is, they (say they) want to keep the Internet open
> and
> available to everyone, and not allow the big providers to dictate
> which
> companies and services will work well and which won't. Under an open
> system,
> the ones that work well will flourish and the ones that don't work
> well will
> have to adapt or close. It's the free market system that the far right
> claims they want, but we see that they don't really want it.

It's no longer a free market system when the government regulates the
internet like a utility. The growth of the internet has been quite
remarkable, IMO, over time. It would be a difficult taks to convince me
that once the government gets involved, growth will be even better than
it was before. They stifle growth and the result will be increased
costs.

>>The FCC chairman refused to disclose what was in the regulatory
>>document
>>they were approving prior to their approving the new regulations.
>>That
>>tells me there is something he doesn't want us to know. IT remind me
>>of
>>"we have to pass it to see what's in it". Look where that one got us.
>
> I think I know what you're referring to, and it got us a heck of a lot
> farther than we were before. It's not perfect and it should continue
> to be
> made more perfect, but it's oh so much better than not having it.

I disagree. We've seen costs rise and many lose their coverage because
of the new law. Many that managed to keep their coverage have higher
deductibles and worse coverage. Someone had the bright idea that
because 15 million people had no health insurance that the rules for
everyone else who had it had to be changed. It is far from perfect and
will never be made more perfect. Some of the new regulations have hit
close to home for me - two of my doctors are hanging it up, the
regulations drove them to retire. And many forewarned about that
consequence.

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:55:39 -0400, "PAS" > wrote:

>"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
>>>>>regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
>>>>>government control.
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
>>>> the big
>>>> network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
>>>> hinting
>>>> at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
>>>> the
>>>> network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
>>>> Unfortunately,
>>>> that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its
>>>> accuracy,
>>>> but
>>>> hopefully you get my point.
>>>>
>>>> The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
>>>> their
>>>> first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
>>>> really
>>>> want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
>>>> which
>>>> websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
>>>> latency
>>>> and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take
>>>> that
>>>> control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
>>>> in a
>>>> position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
>>>> lead to a
>>>> confusing mess of conflicting rules.
>>>>
>>>>>That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
>>>>>grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case
>>>>>that
>>>>>turning such power over to unelected regulators is not
>>>>>Constitutional
>>>>>because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
>>>>>authority they think they have to regulate the internet.
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
>>>government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
>>>improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.
>>
>> From everything that I've read, and completely discounting the
>> misinformation from the far right, they (the FCC) mostly want to keep
>> the
>> status quo. That is, they (say they) want to keep the Internet open
>> and
>> available to everyone, and not allow the big providers to dictate
>> which
>> companies and services will work well and which won't. Under an open
>> system,
>> the ones that work well will flourish and the ones that don't work
>> well will
>> have to adapt or close. It's the free market system that the far right
>> claims they want, but we see that they don't really want it.
>
>It's no longer a free market system when the government regulates the
>internet like a utility.

No one has said anything about regulating the Internet like a utility. Like
I said, current information indicates that the FCC ruling maintains the
status quo, i.e., the open Internet, not an Internet where Comcast and
Verizon get to dictate what works and what doesn't. I see that as a very
good thing.

> The growth of the internet has been quite
>remarkable, IMO, over time. It would be a difficult taks to convince me
>that once the government gets involved, growth will be even better than
>it was before. They stifle growth and the result will be increased
>costs.

There was never a stated goal of making it better than it was before.
Instead, the goal was to prevent it from getting worse than it was before,
which the big providers were talking about doing. You probably don't realize
it, but unless you stood to make personal gain by controlling the Internet,
what the FCC did is probably good for you.

[PAS]

"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:55:39 -0400, "PAS" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
>>>>>>regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
>>>>>>government control.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away
>>>>> from
>>>>> the big
>>>>> network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they
>>>>> were
>>>>> hinting
>>>>> at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone,
>>>>> while
>>>>> the
>>>>> network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
>>>>> Unfortunately,
>>>>> that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its
>>>>> accuracy,
>>>>> but
>>>>> hopefully you get my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
>>>>> their
>>>>> first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do
>>>>> we
>>>>> really
>>>>> want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
>>>>> which
>>>>> websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
>>>>> latency
>>>>> and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take
>>>>> that
>>>>> control, and the Federal government is probably the only
>>>>> institution
>>>>> in a
>>>>> position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
>>>>> lead to a
>>>>> confusing mess of conflicting rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>>That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
>>>>>>grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>turning such power over to unelected regulators is not
>>>>>>Constitutional
>>>>>>because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
>>>>>>authority they think they have to regulate the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
>>>>government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
>>>>improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into
>>>>this.
>>>
>>> From everything that I've read, and completely discounting the
>>> misinformation from the far right, they (the FCC) mostly want to
>>> keep
>>> the
>>> status quo. That is, they (say they) want to keep the Internet open
>>> and
>>> available to everyone, and not allow the big providers to dictate
>>> which
>>> companies and services will work well and which won't. Under an open
>>> system,
>>> the ones that work well will flourish and the ones that don't work
>>> well will
>>> have to adapt or close. It's the free market system that the far
>>> right
>>> claims they want, but we see that they don't really want it.
>>
>>It's no longer a free market system when the government regulates the
>>internet like a utility.
>
> No one has said anything about regulating the Internet like a utility.
> Like
> I said, current information indicates that the FCC ruling maintains
> the
> status quo, i.e., the open Internet, not an Internet where Comcast and
> Verizon get to dictate what works and what doesn't. I see that as a
> very
> good thing.
>
>> The growth of the internet has been quite
>>remarkable, IMO, over time. It would be a difficult taks to convince
>>me
>>that once the government gets involved, growth will be even better
>>than
>>it was before. They stifle growth and the result will be increased
>>costs.
>
> There was never a stated goal of making it better than it was before.
> Instead, the goal was to prevent it from getting worse than it was
> before,
> which the big providers were talking about doing. You probably don't
> realize
> it, but unless you stood to make personal gain by controlling the
> Internet,
> what the FCC did is probably good for you.

When we begin to be taxed on it, when the service begins to decline, and
when the rates go up, you may think differently.

[Char Jackson]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:39:50 -0400, "PAS" > wrote:

>When we begin to be taxed on it, when the service begins to decline, and
>when the rates go up, you may think differently.

I totally agree. Since the FCC ruling is supposed to prevent those things, I
hope we're in good shape for now. Who knows, the next administration could
reverse everything and we'd be right back where we were.

[G. Morgan[_7_]]

lew wrote:

>On 2015-03-12, G Morgan > wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>>The problem with speedtest sites, is some ISPs fart around
>>>with the URL. For example some ISPs "cap or degrade" the
>>>user experience, mess up your Netflix. Then, as soon
>>>as they see "speedtest.net" in the URL, it's "full speed
>>>ahead", and your test case passes with flying colors. And
>>>yet... your Netflix performance is bad. You get
>>>15Mbit/sec to speedtest.net, and 2Mbit/sec to netflix.
>>>I want speed testing cases, that "look like" ordinary usage,
>>>so the ISP isn't playing tricks.
>>
>> That's what the Net Neutrality issue is about. The SCOTUS ruled there is not
>> to be a "fast lane" for some sites over others. IOW, its not legal for your
>> ISP (in the US) to throttle your speed based on content, protocol, or domains.
>>
>>
>
>If SCOTUS says "no fast lane", then the torrent sites should also be
>given the same speed results as from Netflix; or even the lowly users
>should have the same speed applied for their home servers as Netflix
>WITHOUT extra payment over what they paid now.
>
>The prices for every user must be the same no matter whether it
>is for commercial purposes for a truly "net neutral" concept; if not,
>then it is still different pricing. "Net neutrality" is a fake
>term to get to sucker people in believing that it applies to everyone.


You still get what you pay for. If you buy 10 MiB down service, all protocols
will get equal treatment up to that service level. Peer to peer is going to be
slower than a direct connection to a dedicated server by its very nature.

[G. Morgan[_7_]]

T wrote:

>My big complaint was that it was done outside the constitution.
>I can't wait to see the look on the Libs faces when the
>other side gets in and issues an executive order outlawing abortion.
>Maybe even one to balance the budget! They will have wished they
>stayed within the law.

I have read the Constitution and it does not mention the Internet or abortion!

[PAS]

Nor does it mention "Separation of Church and State" but that's another
discussion. What some view as being done "outside of the Constitution"
is how regulatory agencies are virtually making laws.

"G. Morgan" > wrote in message
...
T wrote:

>My big complaint was that it was done outside the constitution.
>I can't wait to see the look on the Libs faces when the
>other side gets in and issues an executive order outlawing abortion.
>Maybe even one to balance the budget! They will have wished they
>stayed within the law.

I have read the Constitution and it does not mention the Internet or
abortion!

[PAS]

"Char Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:39:50 -0400, "PAS" >
> wrote:
>
>>When we begin to be taxed on it, when the service begins to decline,
>>and
>>when the rates go up, you may think differently.
>
> I totally agree. Since the FCC ruling is supposed to prevent those
> things, I
> hope we're in good shape for now. Who knows, the next administration
> could
> reverse everything and we'd be right back where we were.

We shall see but I have little faith in government doing much to protect
the interest of we common folks. BTW, it's a pleasure to have a
discussion with someone who disagrees without a flame war erupting.
This is usenet, aren't we supposed to be insulting each other by now?

[Carl Kaufmann]

On 2015-03-16 13:49, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:31:50 -0500, Char Jackson > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:39:50 -0400, "PAS" > wrote:
>>
>>> When we begin to be taxed on it, when the service begins to decline, and
>>> when the rates go up, you may think differently.
>>
>> I totally agree. Since the FCC ruling is supposed to prevent those things, I
>> hope we're in good shape for now. Who knows, the next administration could
>> reverse everything and we'd be right back where we were.
>
> Yes.... the government will protect us....... ;-)
>

As opposed to all those giant corporations always looking out for the
little guy.

[XS11E]

Stormin' Norman > wrote:

> I can avoid corporations who are bad actors. The government is
> omnipresent and impossible to avoid especially when they decide to
> jam something down my throat. So, to answer your question; Yes, as
> opposed to corporations.
>
> I own a corporation and my clients can do business with me or not,
> it is up to them. They cannot say the same thing about the
> government.

+1

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[Black Baptist]

Site makes me feel like I'm getting ripped off :)
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:

>Hi All,
>
> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>
>http://speedof.me/
>
> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>as I do on speedtest.net
>
>-T

[Idaho Homo Joe]

"Black Baptist" > wrote in message
...
> Site makes me feel like I'm getting ripped off :)
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>>Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>>
>>http://speedof.me/
>>
>> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>>as I do on speedtest.net
>>
>>-T

Let me spread your buttcheeks
and **** yo' black ass!

[Mark Lloyd[_2_]]

On 11/27/2016 05:50 PM, Black Baptist wrote:
> Site makes me feel like I'm getting ripped off :)
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:

http://testmy.net/ has uses no Java or Flash, and doesn't complain about
ad blockers. Graphics aren't as fancy, which I consider an advantage.

--
28 days until the winter celebration (Sunday December 25, 2016 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." [Robert Heinlein,
"Notebooks of Lazarus Long"]

[Big Al[_5_]]

On 11/27/2016 07:57 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 11/27/2016 05:50 PM, Black Baptist wrote:
>> Site makes me feel like I'm getting ripped off :)
>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:
>
> http://testmy.net/ has uses no Java or Flash, and doesn't complain about
> ad blockers. Graphics aren't as fancy, which I consider an advantage.
>
testmy.net gives me horrible results. Under estimates all the other
sites (speakeasy etc) by 10MB upload speed. Download seems to be pretty
close.

[Mark Lloyd[_2_]]

On 11/27/2016 07:39 PM, Big Al wrote:
> On 11/27/2016 07:57 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On 11/27/2016 05:50 PM, Black Baptist wrote:
>>> Site makes me feel like I'm getting ripped off :)
>>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:
>>
>> http://testmy.net/ has uses no Java or Flash, and doesn't complain about
>> ad blockers. Graphics aren't as fancy, which I consider an advantage.
>>
> testmy.net gives me horrible results. Under estimates all the other
> sites (speakeasy etc) by 10MB upload speed. Download seems to be pretty
> close.
>

Maybe the other sites overestimate the speed. Anyway, it slightly
exceeds the speeds I'm supposed to be getting.

--
27 days until the winter celebration (Sunday December 25, 2016 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The language and concepts contained herein are guaranteed not to cause
eternal torment in the place where the guy with the horns and pointed
stick conducts his business." [Frank Zappa]

[Big Al[_5_]]

On 11/28/2016 12:34 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 11/27/2016 07:39 PM, Big Al wrote:
>> On 11/27/2016 07:57 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2016 05:50 PM, Black Baptist wrote:
>>>> Site makes me feel like I'm getting ripped off :)
>>>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:
>>>
>>> http://testmy.net/ has uses no Java or Flash, and doesn't complain about
>>> ad blockers. Graphics aren't as fancy, which I consider an advantage.
>>>
>> testmy.net gives me horrible results. Under estimates all the other
>> sites (speakeasy etc) by 10MB upload speed. Download seems to be pretty
>> close.
>>
>
> Maybe the other sites overestimate the speed. Anyway, it slightly
> exceeds the speeds I'm supposed to be getting.
>
I'm supposed to have 20/10 and speedtest says 26/17 witch is nice.
I just moved a month ago and my last place had 75/75 and I got 82/89 on
speedtest. So either Verizon is giving me a few % extra or speedtest
is. Either way, speedtest always gave me ball park figures, as does
VZ's test.

Testmy.net is like 26/8. Kinda lopsided. Of course I'm running this on
a linux system in Chrome and I have no idea how those two items factor
in if they even do.

But it's interesting info all the same. Thanks for the new test link.

By the way, speedof.me gave me 28/12. I guess you just pick one and
stick with it as your base of reference.

[Mark Lloyd[_2_]]

On 11/28/2016 12:43 PM, Big Al wrote:

[snip]

> I'm supposed to have 20/10 and speedtest says 26/17 witch is nice.
> I just moved a month ago and my last place had 75/75 and I got 82/89 on
> speedtest. So either Verizon is giving me a few % extra or speedtest
> is. Either way, speedtest always gave me ball park figures, as does
> VZ's test.
>
> Testmy.net is like 26/8. Kinda lopsided. Of course I'm running this on
> a linux system in Chrome and I have no idea how those two items factor
> in if they even do.
>
> But it's interesting info all the same. Thanks for the new test link.
>
> By the way, speedof.me gave me 28/12. I guess you just pick one and
> stick with it as your base of reference.
>

I'm supposed to have 50/5. Here's the current test results:

speedtest.net: 50.98/5.49 (this site requires Flash)
dslreports.com: 50.9/5.09
speedof.me: 54.81/4.47
testmy.net: 52.2/5.2

In this case, it was speedof.me that was lopsided.

--
27 days until the winter celebration (Sunday December 25, 2016 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The language and concepts contained herein are guaranteed not to cause
eternal torment in the place where the guy with the horns and pointed
stick conducts his business." [Frank Zappa]

[mike[_10_]]

On 11/28/2016 4:07 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 12:43 PM, Big Al wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I'm supposed to have 20/10 and speedtest says 26/17 witch is nice.
>> I just moved a month ago and my last place had 75/75 and I got 82/89 on
>> speedtest. So either Verizon is giving me a few % extra or speedtest
>> is. Either way, speedtest always gave me ball park figures, as does
>> VZ's test.
>>
>> Testmy.net is like 26/8. Kinda lopsided. Of course I'm running this on
>> a linux system in Chrome and I have no idea how those two items factor
>> in if they even do.
>>
>> But it's interesting info all the same. Thanks for the new test link.
>>
>> By the way, speedof.me gave me 28/12. I guess you just pick one and
>> stick with it as your base of reference.
>>
>
> I'm supposed to have 50/5. Here's the current test results:
>
> speedtest.net: 50.98/5.49 (this site requires Flash)
> dslreports.com: 50.9/5.09
> speedof.me: 54.81/4.47
> testmy.net: 52.2/5.2
>
> In this case, it was speedof.me that was lopsided.
>
Some speedtests graph the speed vs time.
What's the shape of your graph?
Mine always levels off at the advertised speed, but takes
several seconds to reach that speed.
When you load a webpage, it starts a cascade of additional webpages
and advertisements and scripts and and and.
If each of them starts out at the slow start of the speedtest
graph, your average speed for loading a page can be WAY lower than
your maximum speed. Makes the net slow.
I've never heard any explanation of why that is or what to do about it.

[Big Al[_5_]]

On 11/28/2016 09:05 PM, mike wrote:
> Some speedtests graph the speed vs time.
> What's the shape of your graph?
> Mine always levels off at the advertised speed, but takes
> several seconds to reach that speed.
> When you load a webpage, it starts a cascade of additional webpages
> and advertisements and scripts and and and.
> If each of them starts out at the slow start of the speedtest
> graph, your average speed for loading a page can be WAY lower than
> your maximum speed. Makes the net slow.
> I've never heard any explanation of why that is or what to do about it.

And then there is the factor of the speed of the dns servers. For all
those 'and and and and' pages, there are oh so many dns requests.

[Paul[_32_]]

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 12:43 PM, Big Al wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I'm supposed to have 20/10 and speedtest says 26/17 witch is nice.
>> I just moved a month ago and my last place had 75/75 and I got 82/89 on
>> speedtest. So either Verizon is giving me a few % extra or speedtest
>> is. Either way, speedtest always gave me ball park figures, as does
>> VZ's test.
>>
>> Testmy.net is like 26/8. Kinda lopsided. Of course I'm running this on
>> a linux system in Chrome and I have no idea how those two items factor
>> in if they even do.
>>
>> But it's interesting info all the same. Thanks for the new test link.
>>
>> By the way, speedof.me gave me 28/12. I guess you just pick one and
>> stick with it as your base of reference.
>>
>
> I'm supposed to have 50/5. Here's the current test results:
>
> speedtest.net: 50.98/5.49 (this site requires Flash)
> dslreports.com: 50.9/5.09
> speedof.me: 54.81/4.47
> testmy.net: 52.2/5.2
>
> In this case, it was speedof.me that was lopsided.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedtest.net

"The service measures the bandwidth (speed) and latency
of a visitor's Internet connection against one of
4,759 geographically dispersed servers (as of August 2016)
located around the world."

By co-locating a test server in an ISP office, it allows
very few hops to "color" the test results. The ISP "wins"
too, by having "impressive results" to delude the unsuspecting.
(Not that I'm complaining.) It's fine to use these services for
verifying your datafill has been done properly at the ISP
and that the paid-for service is enabled. But the results
should not be shown to other people to entice them to
sign up.

Because as others have mentioned, the "real" Internet,
the thin bits, the lousy DNS architecture, all conspire to
make your new Internet setup just as slow as the old one.
Only your sustained downloads seem smoking fast (for those
servers that actually support running at your link rate).

Paul

[Mark Lloyd[_2_]]

On 11/29/2016 04:30 AM, Paul wrote:

[snip]

> Because as others have mentioned, the "real" Internet,
> the thin bits, the lousy DNS architecture, all conspire to
> make your new Internet setup just as slow as the old one.
> Only your sustained downloads seem smoking fast (for those
> servers that actually support running at your link rate).
>
> Paul

As I have said before, it would be best to measure your speed during
actual use rather than use a speedtest site.

And in many cases (such as loading complicated web pages), LATENCY is
more important than speed.

--
26 days until the winter celebration (Sunday December 25, 2016 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I went to a planet where the dominant lifeform had no bilateral
symmetry, and all I got was this stupid F-Shirt."

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:54:04 -0600, Mark Lloyd > wrote:

>On 11/29/2016 04:30 AM, Paul wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Because as others have mentioned, the "real" Internet,
>> the thin bits, the lousy DNS architecture, all conspire to
>> make your new Internet setup just as slow as the old one.
>> Only your sustained downloads seem smoking fast (for those
>> servers that actually support running at your link rate).
>>
>As I have said before, it would be best to measure your speed during
>actual use rather than use a speedtest site.
>
>And in many cases (such as loading complicated web pages), LATENCY is
>more important than speed.

I totally agree with Mark on both points. If you want to know how your
LAN or WAN is working, observe it during actual use, not for the few
seconds that a test site uses. I use a tool called Bandwidth Monitor 3.4
build 757, but there are plenty of others.

[Black Baptist]

it's speed test isn't accurate
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 19:50:35 -0400, Black Baptist
> wrote:

>Site makes me feel like I'm getting ripped off :)
>On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:55 -0800, T > wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>> Came across a fun Internet Speed test that does not require
>>Java or Flash. It uses HTML5 instead.
>>
>>http://speedof.me/
>>
>> And not that there is not any, but I am not seeing any junkware
>>as I do on speedtest.net
>>
>>-T