Just downloaded a 1.45 GB file in five minutes...

The house gets 117 Mb per second (300+ Mbps is available). My LAN port
is connected to an extender that is connected via Wi-Fi (5 GHz band) to
our router. I'm using the extender like a huge USB adapter/antenna. Got
the matching router and extender dirt cheap from eBay.

I know there is faster, feel free to boast, but this is outrageous in my
experience. Downloading a 1.45 GB file in five minutes. I don't get the
full 117 Mbps, but it occasionally goes over 70. I use a radar sensitive
channel (not sure what that's about, but it's fast) on the 5 GHz band.

John Doe wrote:
The house gets 117 Mb per second (300+ Mbps is available). My LAN port
is connected to an extender that is connected via Wi-Fi (5 GHz band) to
our router. I'm using the extender like a huge USB adapter/antenna. Got
the matching router and extender dirt cheap from eBay.

I know there is faster, feel free to boast, but this is outrageous in my
experience. Downloading a 1.45 GB file in five minutes. I don't get the
full 117 Mbps, but it occasionally goes over 70. I use a radar sensitive
channel (not sure what that's about, but it's fast) on the 5 GHz band.

The feature has value. But there are other
important aspects.

"Cap"

My ISP has a definite cap (per month Gigabyte count).

But, if you download in the wee hours, it doesn't
count towards your cap. One user (in a public forum)
admitted to downloading 1TB of material in a month,
using that option. (While the cap on the plan isn't
nearly that large.) So while our transfer speeds
are slower, we have a rather generous "Cap" arrangement.
It's "unlimited" in the wee hours.

I've never come close to hitting the cap, whether
counted or not.

As for people with faster rates than yours, any
Google Kansas user could give you a run for your
money.

And as a joke or promotional stunt, an ISP owner
in a foreign country, ran a 10GbE link to his
moms place. So if the Google Kansas users don't
beat you, "mom" would :-) When "mom" needs a
cooking recipe, it arrives "fast". You have to
wonder though, whether any server on the
Internet, could keep up with that kind of
node. I know some machines at CERN could, but
they're probably not directly connected to the
regular Internet.

And there are higher rates than that available.
Think of the disk drives you'd need to keep up.

https://gcn.com/articles/2013/04/26/...rea=TC_BigData

Paul

On Mon, 23 May 2016 10:07:27 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
wrote:

The house gets 117 Mb per second (300+ Mbps is available). My LAN port
is connected to an extender that is connected via Wi-Fi (5 GHz band) to
our router. I'm using the extender like a huge USB adapter/antenna. Got
the matching router and extender dirt cheap from eBay.

I know there is faster, feel free to boast, but this is outrageous in my
experience. Downloading a 1.45 GB file in five minutes. I don't get the
full 117 Mbps, but it occasionally goes over 70. I use a radar sensitive
channel (not sure what that's about, but it's fast) on the 5 GHz band.

Seems I might get about half that a 750M file in 5min. For $35
monthly on a special one-year promotion, who cares what's better;...
if someone's paying $200 monthly ISP and wipes their ass with money
instead of Dollar General toilet paper, as I'm inclined, it's no sweat
off my back.

I may go back to prior speeds at the end of the year promotion, slower
by a factor of x10;- I'm not sure yet. #1: Those high speeds don't
always apply, even for file transfers, except in idealized
data-transfer conditions. #2: Like everything about PCs, it's
relative to your perceived efficiency and how contingent is a
resultant optimization phase for utilizing efficiency;- IOW, do I need
to see 2500Kbs transfers, or, at what lessor point does outrageous
become personally relative...ASDL, x10, maybe x20 faster than 56K
dial-up? #3: Is there really so much on the Internet -- past the hype
of selling a lease to tiered data ranges to US customers -- priced for
on-average twice over what a fair cross-section of Europeans nations
pay for similar rates -- essential for me to also subscribe to that
sense of immediacy?

Still some, I suppose, might boast to realize industrial standards for
WWW4/HTML5 mandatory advertising, establishing transparency between
affiliate partnerships, such as Microsoft and the NSA, vaguely for a
sort of transitional period to "easing the quease" in squatting over a
nationalized pile of grand surveillance schemes.

On 2016-05-23, Flasherly wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2016 10:07:27 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
wrote:

The house gets 117 Mb per second (300+ Mbps is available). My LAN port
is connected to an extender that is connected via Wi-Fi (5 GHz band) to
our router. I'm using the extender like a huge USB adapter/antenna. Got
the matching router and extender dirt cheap from eBay.

I know there is faster, feel free to boast, but this is outrageous in my
experience. Downloading a 1.45 GB file in five minutes. I don't get the
full 117 Mbps, but it occasionally goes over 70. I use a radar sensitive
channel (not sure what that's about, but it's fast) on the 5 GHz band.

Seems I might get about half that a 750M file in 5min. For $35
monthly on a special one-year promotion, who cares what's better;...
if someone's paying $200 monthly ISP and wipes their ass with money
instead of Dollar General toilet paper, as I'm inclined, it's no sweat
off my back.

I may go back to prior speeds at the end of the year promotion, slower
by a factor of x10;- I'm not sure yet. #1: Those high speeds don't
always apply, even for file transfers, except in idealized
data-transfer conditions. #2: Like everything about PCs, it's
relative to your perceived efficiency and how contingent is a
resultant optimization phase for utilizing efficiency;- IOW, do I need
to see 2500Kbs transfers, or, at what lessor point does outrageous
become personally relative...ASDL, x10, maybe x20 faster than 56K
dial-up? #3: Is there really so much on the Internet -- past the hype
of selling a lease to tiered data ranges to US customers -- priced for
on-average twice over what a fair cross-section of Europeans nations
pay for similar rates -- essential for me to also subscribe to that
sense of immediacy?

Still some, I suppose, might boast to realize industrial standards for
WWW4/HTML5 mandatory advertising, establishing transparency between
affiliate partnerships, such as Microsoft and the NSA, vaguely for a
sort of transitional period to "easing the quease" in squatting over a
nationalized pile of grand surveillance schemes.

AND he didn't try to download from a "pay to get hi speed" website.
e.g. the download speed is 50 kbps for an unsubscribed user no matter
what the file size is. Higher speed is at $20/month for that site &
some others..

On Mon, 23 May 2016 15:18:35 -0000 (UTC), lew
wrote:

AND he didn't try to download from a "pay to get hi speed" website.
e.g. the download speed is 50 kbps for an unsubscribed user no matter
what the file size is. Higher speed is at $20/month for that site &
some others..

Nope, didn't occur to enter my mind some people pay for a subscription
to those speeds on specialized sites, as you say, places like Netflix.
(Along with the media clashes when they surface between control and
dominance for apportioning out higher speeds, in case all else isn't
equal to neutral ISP dispensation practices.)

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 1:11:07 PM UTC+3, John Doe wrote:
The house gets 117 Mb per second (300+ Mbps is available). My LAN port

In Greece, I used to get 0.33 Mbps, about 1000 times slower, as late as 2008. They did something involving fiber optic (I saw the trench machine) and now I get a "blazing" 2.5 Mbps. In the Philippines I pay for 3 Mbps (foolishly, I should have known) but rarely get better than 1.5 Mbps, plus the entire town's network (it's not Manila, but Manila is not much better) goes offline for a few hours and sometimes one day, once in a while.

Enjoy your First World internet.

RL

RayLopez99 wrote:

John Doe wrote:

The house gets 117 Mb per second (300+ Mbps is available) [via Time
Warner Cable].

In Greece, I used to get 0.33 Mbps, about 1000 times slower, as late
as 2008. They did something involving fiber optic (I saw the trench
machine) and now I get a "blazing" 2.5 Mbps.

Up until a few weeks ago, it was 5 Mbps here with AT&T DSL. AT&T
allegedly has 1 Gbps fiber optic in the city but not here.

On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:46:15 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99
wrote:

(it's not Manila, but Manila is not much better) goes offline for a few hours and sometimes one day, once in a while.

Worked w/ someone from São Paulo, highest city supposedly in the world
(surely there's got to be higher in Tibet). She told me they did the
same thing regularly every day, scheduled turning off the juice;- also
recall in Britain television broadcasts that started up for a few
hours and only for the evenings;- then, again, I've been the Middle
East, where television simply didn't exist. (Personally, I don't care
to watch syndicated network programming, either.)

John Doe wrote:
RayLopez99 wrote:

John Doe wrote:

The house gets 117 Mb per second (300+ Mbps is available) [via Time
Warner Cable].
In Greece, I used to get 0.33 Mbps, about 1000 times slower, as late
as 2008. They did something involving fiber optic (I saw the trench
machine) and now I get a "blazing" 2.5 Mbps.

Up until a few weeks ago, it was 5 Mbps here with AT&T DSL. AT&T
allegedly has 1 Gbps fiber optic in the city but not here.

It's hard to support gigabit fiber properly. You want
consistent transfer rates, which means using really
big routers somewhere in the city to handle it.

You just couldn't "wallpaper" an entire major city with it.
It's going to be niche installs for a while yet.

Take what the Cable Company here did, on their launch.
They promised faster than DSL rates. Then, they connected
5000 customers to one piece of networking equipment. At 8PM
in the evening, the customers were getting a megabit
per second. At the mall, there was a booth promoting
the service. And rather than "curious shoppers" standing
around it, there were 20 people griping at the customer
service rep inside the booth, complaining about the service.
The booth had its own "angry mob" surrounding the booth on
all sides :-) And those people were only too willing to share
their "grief" with passers-by (me) walking next to the booth.
At some point, the Cable Company left the booth there, but
pulled the Customer Service rep. Then no one could be
seen standing around the booth.

They eventually fixed it. They got a clue. But it did
take years before their network core was properly scaled
to even begin to handle the load. And that's not even near
GbE speeds.

Paul

On 23/05/2016 6:07 PM, John Doe wrote:

I know there is faster, feel free to boast, but this is outrageous in my
experience. Downloading a 1.45 GB file in five minutes. I don't get the
full 117 Mbps, but it occasionally goes over 70. I use a radar sensitive
channel (not sure what that's about, but it's fast) on the 5 GHz band.


Might get better speed with a wired connection?

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa