Slashdot Mirror
The Fastest ISPs In the US
adeelarshad82 writes "PCMag recently put Internet browsing speeds to the test to see which ISP was the fastest. The results were based on a quarter million tests run between May 1, 2009, and April 30, 2010, by more than 6,000 users. The tests were carried out using SurfSpeed, which takes into account the complete, real-world download time of a web page to a browser. According to the results, Verizon's FiOS took the top spot as the nation's fastest ISP, with a SurfSpeed score of 1.23 Mbps. Interestingly though, of all the regions where Verizon's FiOS is available, its dominance is only seen in the northeast and the west, whereas cable service from Cox and Comcast won out in the southern region. Moreover, cable through Cox and Optimum Online beat AT&T's fiber optic service in the nationwide results, with SurfSpeeds of 1.14Mbps, 1.12Mbps, and 1.06Mbps respectively. The worst results mostly consisted of DSL providers, bottoming out at 544 Kbps from Frontier and going up to 882Kbps by Earthlink. Other interesting facts noted in the test were that broadband penetration was highest in Rhode Island and lowest in Mississippi, while the average Internet bill was highest in Delaware and lowest in Arkansas."
Is there any metric for which Mississippi is not the worst state?
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
From the article: "Keep in mind, when it comes to the speeds reported in this story, SurfSpeed takes into account the complete, real-world download time of a Web page to a browser. We're not saying your own ISP's claims of double-digit megabit-per-second (Mbps) throughputs or more are false. But those are marketing numbers, based on direct downloads from their own servers, using some abstract math like the number of users divided by the theoretical line speed. The numbers in the SurfSpeed tests compare everything you get in the download of a Web page, not just a single, contiguous file, so the numbers are smaller than the data-rate numbers quoted by your ISP. They provide an example of the real-world throughput you're experiencing when you browse and with speeds comparable to what others customers of the same ISP would get."
But we wouldn't expect you to read the article.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
VERY good question. QWest in Portland, Oregon is currently advertising 40 Mbps. There is, however, very fine print saying "Connection speeds are based on sync rates."
Of course, QWest knows that most people won't understand that. QWest is saying that the advertised speeds are only the speed that the customer's modem synchronizes with QWest's equipment. The actual speed that QWest supplies data over the internet can be anything QWest likes, with those fixed synchronization speeds.
The same ads call the service "Fiber Optic Fast Internet". The fine print says, "Fiber optics exists only from the neighborhood terminal to the internet." That means NOT to your house or business.
The quotes are transcribed from an ad I have on my desk.
Despite using bandwidth units (Mbps), their "SurfSpeed" "benchmark" actually depends heavily on latency, as it tries to simulate a web browser fetching resources sequentially from a site as it discovers them.
Found this report analyzing the article and the benchmark: http://blog.ookla.com/2010/06/23/the-fastest-isps-not-quite/
> Thank you for saying this. I constantly tell people here that their speed
> doesn't mean crap if their latency, or real speed, is bad.
You are also oversimplifying. Both speed and latency (which is not "real speed") matter. Which matters most depends on the specific situation. When I'm downloading a Linux distribution I want throughput. I rarely care much about latency, but for gamers it's critical.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It's not about downloading -- it's about browsing. The question is not about "how many bits can one shove through this pipe," but instead "what is a quantitative measurement of the actual speed one can expect when going clicky-clicky on links on web sites."
So instead of maximum aggregate speed (which is easy to determine with speedtest.net and the like) this "Surfspeed" figure includes latencies for things like DNS. Round-trip times. Route lookups. Geographic caching (Akamai). The time it takes for the geolocation service to figure out where you are. Hops to the host(s) in question. Congestion of those hops. How long it takes for the fucking ad servers to wake up and start spitting out ads.
Should any of that matter? Of course not. But over here in the really real world, things aren't perfect, and it all makes a difference.
Get it? It's not at all intended to be an idealized measurement of maximum throughput.
To use a car analogy: Given a selection of different vehicles of different performance characteristics, how long does it get a bushel full of DVD-R from point New Jersey to San Francisco, including refueling, maintenance, personal needs (more comfortable cars == less stopping), road conditions, weather, traffic, and dodging kids on bikes?
It's easy to come up with an idealized route and ETA. But it it's much harder to include some real data.
And all of that theory is meaningless compared to actually measuring how long it takes a given vehicle to do that job, which is what this Surfspeed measurement tool proclaims to do.
Kid-proof tablet..