Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Is Testing Its Own Internet Speed Test In Search Results (thenextweb.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the all-in-one-solution dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Everyone appears to have a speed test of their own nowadays. Netflix launched fast.com more than a month ago; SourceForge released their new HTML5 speed test soon after. Google appears to want a piece of the action as they are trying out a way for people to check their internet speed by simply typing "check internet speed" into search. The tests are performed by Google's Measurement Lab tools, and were first spotted by Pete Meyers, who posted a screenshot of the feature and discovered a Google Support webpage detailing how it works. The feature has not been widely released yet, but it's possible we'll see it made more widely available soon.

43 comments

  1. First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    internet is fast enough for me!

    1. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This appears to be similar to the one built in to bing http://www.bing.com/search?q=speed+test&go=Submit

  2. Regional Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Must be a regional thing. Not working in Spain.

    1. Re:Regional Thing by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      Must be a regional thing. Not working in Spain.

      Nor in my backwards country Kerry forgot about.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Regional Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor in US of Hillary

  3. Mandatory by kaz65 · · Score: 0

    A mandatory watchtower in the net neutrality war.

    1. Re:Mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Net Neutrality is the kryptonite of libertarians.

    2. Re:Mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You could always install your own speedtest server and test your own speed, but of course you wouldn't be able to convince trendy idiots of the validity of your results unless you own a name brand speedtest app, and bragging to trendy idiots about your speed is the only real reason to do a speedtest, now isn't it?

    3. Re:Mandatory by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Well, if you don't like Net Neutrality, you're free to set up your own Internet.

    4. Re: Mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not very useful. transparent proxy checker would be more useful as dns proxy tests.

      for example many thai isps do a http transparent proxy. very easy to spot with tcp ping.

      also they do dns transparent hijack/proxy but that they do only on a list if dns addresses.

  4. Countdown until legal action... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Countdown until legal action from the speed testing sites that they're stealing traffic and users from. They already had this problem with maps and shopping, they just never learn.

  5. SF's test is very unreliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Mostly because SF's servers are too slow to keep up. I don't know what my internet speed ‘should’ be, as I got the cheapest plan I could and didn't ask questions, but other speed tests, as well as my experience downloading stuff, indicate that my connection is much faster than SF's test claims.

    1. Re:SF's test is very unreliable by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      It's not just because of the Sourceforge servers being unreliable, it also depends on what browser you use. With the latest Palemoon, I had 180ms latency according to SF's test, and 50Mbit/s download 60Mbit/s upload, while with Vivaldi I had 108ms latency and 79Mbit/s download, 120Mbit/s upload. With Opera, I got 120ms latency, 85Mbit/s download and 25Mbit/s upload. So, it's totally worthless as a test.

      Oh, I should add: Moving my cursor during the latency test added to the latency jitter...

    2. Re:SF's test is very unreliable by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when the variability is so high against the same IP, just by switching browsers, and the test performed before the morning surge starts in the US, shows that it's highly flawed. And as I mentioned, moving my cursor around caused latency jitter.

    3. Re:SF's test is very unreliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can download files from SF at my 100Mb rate, but their speed test shows I only get about 15Mb/s. Completely broken. This Google test is not much better. I get my full upload to them, but my download is only 20Mb/s. Exactly 20Mb, every time. WTF? When I look at my bandwidth incoming, 20Mb/s flat. Something is rate-limiting to exactly 20Mb from them.

    4. Re:SF's test is very unreliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's speedtest is claiming high pings, but they list the test server, so I decided to run a ping against it during the test. My ICMP pings show no congestion even though the browser test claims high latency(60ms) and jitter(50ms).

      Packets: sent=69, rcvd=69, error=0, lost=0 (0.0% loss) in 34.012675 sec RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 11.448 / 12.205 / 15.650 / 0.585

    5. Re:SF's test is very unreliable by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Netflix is saying 55Mbps, while Sourceforge is claiming 37Mbps down, 87Mbps up (at this time of the evening, it isn't unusual to have to share some of the download bandwidth with my neighbours, but in my experience what Netflix is claiming should be about the right ballpark for downloads compared with other tests). Since I'm in a developing country, Google isn't supporting my location yet.

  6. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vive le Linux libre!

  7. I doubt legal action. by tlambert · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I doubt legal action.

    Mostly it's major ISPs that offer speed testing, e.g. Comcast.

    The trick is that they offer the test from a customer node within their network, to a test server node also within their network, which avoids crossing one or more peering points.

    That actually only gives you "last mile" speeds, which don't represent real world expected performance.

    A lawsuit would make this information very "in your face" for the general public, and stir up the whole NetFlix/peering controversy again, and that has to be the absolutely last thing a broadband provider wants to see happen.

    1. Re:I doubt legal action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see it as a play to make sure all those ISPs give google a node on their network, so it will continue to be a device to ISP network test. Google can throw the speed test into Android and pretty much guarantee that they have nodes in all ISPs and make it mighty hard for a competitor (search, ads or youtube) to enter the market.

    2. Re:I doubt legal action. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

      I see it as a play to make sure all those ISPs give google a node on their network, so it will continue to be a device to ISP network test. Google can throw the speed test into Android and pretty much guarantee that they have nodes in all ISPs and make it mighty hard for a competitor (search, ads or youtube) to enter the market.

      I think your idea is fundamentally flawed.

      A single speed test node on an ISP network would have exactly the same effect as the ISP's current configuration of having a speed test node on their own network.

      Further, a single Google node or even a full two racks aren't enough to provide local to the ISP's network all of the Google services, let alone all the Google services used by all the ISP's customers. A "unit of Google" is far too large to fit anywhere short of a full datacenter.

      Finally, Google actually runs its own Internet, including transatlantic and other undersea fiber lines. The only place it touches the actual Internet is at peering locations, in order to externalize the services it provides to consumers.

      So there really is no benefit to Google for the architecture you are suggesting they are trying to emplace.

  8. What we really need is a speed watchdog. by berchca · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doing a quick test of speed is fine, but what about ongoing records, automatically recorded? It's a very common story for actual internet speeds not to match advertised speeds (be that truth or exaggeration). While a single speed test might reveal underperformance, charting performance over time would be far more revealing.

    1. Re:What we really need is a speed watchdog. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knock yourself out and chart away; no one is stopping you.

    2. Re:What we really need is a speed watchdog. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      $work is doing just this in the UK (we also work closely with the UK communications regulator, Ofcom).

      https://www.actual-experience.com/actualhome/

      We don't just focus on speed, we calculate a quality score based on a number of parameters.

    3. Re:What we really need is a speed watchdog. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you did that in the US you would get hit with a DMCA takedown, accused of child pr0n and lose all your LA privileges.

  9. France by Spaham · · Score: 0

    Not available in France right now :(

  10. Hey maybe ComCast will speed up Google too then by Andrio · · Score: 2

    So the other day, my internet was very slow, I did a speed test on speedtest.net, and it reported about 25Mpbs, which is exactly what my internet is supposed to be.

    But it didn't seem right, because every site was painfully slow. So I went to speedof.me and did a speed test, and I was getting like 1.5Mbps, which was definitely more accurate.

    The other day I overheard a Comcast commercial where they mentioned that they're number 1 on speedtest.net. So, I came to the very obvious conclusion that Comcast deliberately makes sure to un-throttle your internet when doing a speedtest on speedtest.net (and who knows where else).

    --
    The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    1. Re:Hey maybe ComCast will speed up Google too then by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1

      You know, this is a business opportunity for Speedtest.net. They should start selling VPN

    2. Re:Hey maybe ComCast will speed up Google too then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If speedtest.net connected you to the closest server, that happens to be near/on Comcast infrastructure, that would explain it.

      Pick a test server host further away, and see what happens.

  11. Co opting the search by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    So they make the search term you would naturally type in to find their competitors be the cue to run their own service. Nice job if you can get it.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  12. Bing did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bing had this for a while now.

  13. Bing has it for years already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the second thing google copied this!! week alone from bing

  14. Why? by spudnic · · Score: 1

    I can understand ISPs wanting to have their own speed test available for their customers within their network, but what benefit does making this available offer for other companies?

    What is the ROI for SourceForge having its own speed test?

    --
    load "linux",8,1
  15. Testing Their Servers by darkain · · Score: 1

    I see this more as a way to test their servers more so than our own connections... well, at least when testing from Gigabit FTTH

    CenturyLink: 535 / 727mbps (the fastest I've ever gotten from my ISP's test server. Usually in the 200mbps range)
    Comcast: 470 / 819mbps
    Speedtest.net Sprint Seattle: 657 / 751mbps
    SourceForge: 282 / 133mbps (usual speeds when testing)
    Netflix Fast.com: 44mbps (the fastest I've ever gotten, I usually get around 10mbps from them)
    MeasurementLab.net: 71 / 67mbps
    SpeakEasy.net: 500 / 896 mbps
    AT&T: 325 / 889 mbps
    Google: I cant get their speedtest to show up

    The question becomes... how saturated are the speed test servers themselves? And then how saturated are the links in each direction between the client and servers? Since download is generally significantly faster than upload with cable/dsl, the reverse is easily seen with fiber. The links are only saturated in one direction from the speed test servers, so pushing content to them has that extra headroom to really push the speed limits.

    Also as a side note for those curious, on the tests that report latency, they're all in ~4ms range. The lowest I've ever seen is 2ms with this connection.

    1. Re:Testing Their Servers by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      If you want a good test of your bandwidth use dslreports.com/speedtest. It connects to a variety of servers and locations instead of straight from your home to your ISP like what often happens on speedtest.net.

      --
      The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
    2. Re:Testing Their Servers by darkain · · Score: 1

      I'm getting similar results with that site: 367 / 906 mbps. So once again, downstream from the remote servers is being over-saturated, whereas upstream to the servers is mostly idle. (note: multiple tests ran, all within similar ranges)

  16. Their test is biased since it doesn't work on slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    connections. I live in Seattle so the fastest connection I can get at home is ISDN. I tried "START TEST" about twenty times on:

    https://www.measurementlab.net/tools/ndt/

    And, it didn't work a single time.

  17. Internet Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YouTube movie about a new way to faster Internet search https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaai9XHZEl4