PDA

View Full Version : How fast is 1.5Mbs High speed internet?


Pugpuppydude
Jul 7, 2009, 10:59 AM
Hey everyone, I currently have quest high speed internet here in Utah. I have the 1.5Mbps speed. Using torrents ect.. my maximum download speed is always right under 160 Kbps. I thought that 1.5Mbs internet meant i would be getting 1.5Mbps download speeds! Am I wrong? Thanks!

pdjudd
Jul 7, 2009, 11:05 AM
Hey everyone, I currently have quest high speed internet here in Utah. I have the 1.5Mbps speed. Using torrents ect.. my maximum download speed is always right under 160 Kbps. I thought that 1.5Mbs internet meant i would be getting 1.5Mbps download speeds! Am I wrong? Thanks!
Bit torrent speeds will not use your full bandwidth and are based on several factors like how the files are seeded amongst other factors.

Muncher
Jul 7, 2009, 11:06 AM
No... the max speed you will get depending on the type of connection is about half that. Standard speeds are quite a bit lower. The number they give you is a theoretical limit.

rowsdower
Jul 7, 2009, 11:21 AM
Using torrents ect.. my maximum download speed is always right under 160 Kbps.

That is probably actually 160 kilobytes/sec, not 160 kilobits/sec. 160*8=1280 kilobits/sec=1.28 Mbps, which is not too far from 1.5 Mbps. You will never see 1.5 Mbps transfer speeds for a number of reasons.

Hellhammer
Jul 7, 2009, 11:25 AM
I have 2Mb/s internet speed and my max download speed is 230Kb/s. You will never get 1.5Mb/s because of many reasons

GimmeSlack12
Jul 7, 2009, 11:27 AM
1.5 Mb/s is really not that fast as a maximum (to answer your question). My torrents sometimes see 2 Mb/s download speeds although I really do not know what my internet package maximum is. Though I am not paying for anything special.

Hellhammer
Jul 7, 2009, 11:30 AM
1.5 Mb/s is really not that fast as a maximum (to answer your question). My torrents sometimes see 2 Mb/s download speeds although I really do not know what my internet package maximum is. Though I am not paying for anything special.

I think you have 20Mb/s or 25Mb/s. Real download speed is about one tenth of the "real" speed.

For everyone: Run SpeedTest (http://www.speedtest.net/) to test your internet's real speed. I'm paying for 2Mb and got 1.9Mb/s

sushi
Jul 7, 2009, 11:35 AM
With ADSL, you seldom get the connection speed that is advertised.

Speed tests are fun, but IMHO are very inaccurate.

Suggest DL'ing a large file, such as Mac OS 9.2 update (82MB) or larger and then time how long it takes to determine your actual DL speed.

yg17
Jul 7, 2009, 11:41 AM
That is probably actually 160 kilobytes/sec, not 160 kilobits/sec. 160*8=1280 kilobits/sec=1.28 Mbps, which is not too far from 1.5 Mbps. You will never see 1.5 Mbps transfer speeds for a number of reasons.


^^^ The only correct answer in this thread.

The fact he's seeing 160 KB/s has nothing to do with the fact that BitTorrent is slower or theoretical limits or anything. He's seeing 160 KB/s because browsers and BitTorrent clients show speeds in bytes per second and ISPs advertise speeds in bits per second. And as he just pointed out, his speeds translate to 1.28 Mbps which is close enough

sushi
Jul 7, 2009, 05:46 PM
And as he just pointed out, his speeds translate to 1.28 Mbps which is close enough
While this may be true in his case, most of the time, ADSL actual speed is much lower than advertised speed.

Pugpuppydude
Jul 7, 2009, 07:47 PM
Thanks everyone for your great help. I was unaware of the difference in kbits and kbytes. I assumed they were the same thing. It all makes sense now. Thanks!

OutThere
Jul 7, 2009, 08:51 PM
While this may be true in his case, most of the time, ADSL actual speed is much lower than advertised speed.

Many factors involved there...line quality, distance from the phone company switching station. DSL does however have the advantage that whatever bandwidth you are in fact getting is all yours, as opposed to cable which is often a single high speed connecting (ie 10mbit) shared through a neighborhood, making your connection more variable.

sushi
Jul 7, 2009, 11:53 PM
Many factors involved there...line quality, distance from the phone company switching station.
True.

DSL does however have the advantage that whatever bandwidth you are in fact getting is all yours,
Yep.

Not sure about other areas, but in Japan, VDSL is becoming popular for aparment dwellers. They run fiber connections to the apartment building. I believe there must be 10 units for NTT to do this, but not sure. Anyhow, the individuals who join share that fiber connection via ADSL within the apartment building.

Another method, similar to ADSL, but rather LAN connections in each apartment. Bandwidth is higher, but you are all on the same network in this case which can have it's issues.

Personally prefer the VDSL concept.

as opposed to cable which is often a single high speed connecting (ie 10mbit) shared through a neighborhood, making your connection more variable.
Cable definitely has it's sharing issues. A friend of mine lived in a neighborhood where there were many teenagers. You could tell when school was out, dinner time, and bedtime due to the bandwidth changes.

Plus with a cable connection, you are sharing the connection if you will such that the starting person in the loop can see the others traffic.

I much prefer ADSL or FTTH as they are dedicated connections to your home.

I was unaware of the difference in kbits and kbytes. I assumed they were the same thing.
Just as a point of clarification, usually, they are written like this:

Megabits per second --> Mbps

Megabytes per second --> MBps

Kilobits per second --> Kbps

Kilobytes per second --> KBps

jav6454
Jul 8, 2009, 12:47 AM
Hey everyone, I currently have quest high speed internet here in Utah. I have the 1.5Mbps speed. Using torrents ect.. my maximum download speed is always right under 160 Kbps. I thought that 1.5Mbs internet meant i would be getting 1.5Mbps download speeds! Am I wrong? Thanks!

1.5 Megabits =/= 1.5 MegaBytes

1 byte = 8 bits...

So 1.5Mb/s is actually 187KB/s. So you have what you pay for.

SactoGuy18
Jul 8, 2009, 06:35 AM
Here's what I'm getting with my EarthLink ADSL service hosted by AT&T:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/512751551.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Based what what I'm seeing downloading full radio shows from the ESPN Radio Insider web page, I'm getting about 156 kilobytes per second maximum download speeds.

Fiveos22
Jul 9, 2009, 09:04 AM
Cable definitely has it's sharing issues. A friend of mine lived in a neighborhood where there were many teenagers. You could tell when school was out, dinner time, and bedtime due to the bandwidth changes.

Plus with a cable connection, you are sharing the connection if you will such that the starting person in the loop can see the others traffic.

I much prefer ADSL or FTTH as they are dedicated connections to your home.


This is just what I was looking for, thanks. Living in Chicago we have been forced to use Comcast for any sort of broadband (its like a ******* monopoly down here), and after several complaints that their service doesn't even meet their own spec they "upgraded" us to 6MB service.

In my experience it runs about 768K 24 hours a day... for $70/month... which was hard to predict too becuase Comcast is evasive about what "regular" pricing is and whether there are cheaper options. I'm switching to DSL today.

yg17
Jul 9, 2009, 09:36 AM
True.


Yep.

Not sure about other areas, but in Japan, VDSL is becoming popular for aparment dwellers. They run fiber connections to the apartment building. I believe there must be 10 units for NTT to do this, but not sure. Anyhow, the individuals who join share that fiber connection via ADSL within the apartment building.

Another method, similar to ADSL, but rather LAN connections in each apartment. Bandwidth is higher, but you are all on the same network in this case which can have it's issues.

Personally prefer the VDSL concept.

That's what AT&T does for their U-Verse service. They run fiber to a node (called the VRAD) and then it's copper VDSL from the VRAD to the house. I have it at home and it works great, I get 12 mbps internet (which I realize is like dial up compared to speeds in Japan) and TV service.

coupdetat
Jul 10, 2009, 12:09 AM
LOL. People who don't know what they're talking about should probably not post tech advice. Megabits=/=megabytes.

johnboyofsj
Jul 27, 2010, 11:40 AM
I have the aliant high speed internet and it is supposto be 1.5 mbs I think and I only get 160k and somtimes higher but like nothing above 200k I think that it might be the router maybe or the way the internet settings are layed out about sharing the bandwith because I have alot of PC in my house that use the internet but when their all off I still get the stupid low bandwith my friend just down the road gets easily 1mbs downloads and on the same stuff :mad::mad: and he has rogers but I have to ask his father what type of internet they pay for because im not guna pay for fibop to get that kind of download speads:eek::confused:

Dagless
Jul 27, 2010, 12:18 PM
We just got 40mbps today and some services top at lower speeds. My webhosts (I never knew this) limit download speeds to 2mbps, BT speeds are limited by other people so they vary. Steam maxed out at 1.5mbps for some reason.

yg17
Jul 27, 2010, 02:42 PM
I have the aliant high speed internet and it is supposto be 1.5 mbs I think and I only get 160k and somtimes higher but like nothing above 200k I think that it might be the router maybe or the way the internet settings are layed out about sharing the bandwith because I have alot of PC in my house that use the internet but when their all off I still get the stupid low bandwith my friend just down the road gets easily 1mbs downloads and on the same stuff :mad::mad: and he has rogers but I have to ask his father what type of internet they pay for because im not guna pay for fibop to get that kind of download speads:eek::confused:

If you had took the time to read the thread, you would see and understand the difference between bits and bytes and why your speeds of 160k are likely 100% completely normal.

*LTD*
Jul 29, 2010, 09:12 AM
Not fast at all, actually. By today's standards it's fairly slow.

For example, See here:

http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=HiSpeedBrowse_1_2&HiSpeedBrowse_1_2_actionOverride=/portlets/consumer/internet/browse/hiSpeedCableBrowse/compare&HiSpeedBrowse_1_2productID=WAVE&_pageLabel=INTER_HISPEED

millar876
Jul 29, 2010, 10:40 AM
It's 3x faster than what I get. 512kbps. And I can sometimes pull 63KBps on downloads so your numbers seem about right to me

MonkSouljah
Sep 1, 2011, 12:15 AM
http://speedtest.net/result/1460248947.png

iBookG4user
Sep 1, 2011, 12:17 AM
Image (http://speedtest.net/result/1460248947.png)

Congrats on raising an old thread from the grave to brag about your internet connection.

KnightWRX
Sep 1, 2011, 05:41 AM
DSL does however have the advantage that whatever bandwidth you are in fact getting is all yours, as opposed to cable which is often a single high speed connecting (ie 10mbit) shared through a neighborhood

First off, Cable has way more bandwidth than that. With DOCSIS 3.0, you can aggregate 6 mhz channels to form a downstream pool, up to I think 8 and using the maximum modulation (256 QAM), you can reach over 300 mbits/second of bandwidth for a single downstream port which covers a neighborhood usually. Using Cisco equipment, you will have 6 upstream ports per downstream ports ( they use narrower than 6 mhz channels, around 1.5 mhz I think and can't use more than 64 QAM for modulation because then the CPE would require more advanced hardware that isn't cost feasible at this point).

Second off, the DSL "advantage" you list is laughable, a marketing gimmick. Sure your "last mile" bandwidth is all yours and dedicated, but what do you think happens once you reach the DSLAM ? From there on out, it's all as shared as the bandwidth on a cable connection, and heck, there's more people on a single DSLAM than there is in a neighborhood sharing that 300 mbits/s aggregated channel.

Both are as shared as one another, to think any has an advantage in congestion management is wrong. If the ISP has its stuff properly setup, neither solution will ever see congestion on the last mile or within the ISP's backbone.

Yes, I did work for an ISP quite some time ago.


Congrats on raising an old thread from the grave to brag about your internet connection.

Should've read to the end, I didn't notice. Oh well, better late than never at dispelling fiction from fact.

yg17
Sep 1, 2011, 08:22 AM
First off, Cable has way more bandwidth than that. With DOCSIS 3.0, you can aggregate 6 mhz channels to form a downstream pool, up to I think 8 and using the maximum modulation (256 QAM), you can reach over 300 mbits/second of bandwidth for a single downstream port which covers a neighborhood usually. Using Cisco equipment, you will have 6 upstream ports per downstream ports ( they use narrower than 6 mhz channels, around 1.5 mhz I think and can't use more than 64 QAM for modulation because then the CPE would require more advanced hardware that isn't cost feasible at this point).

Second off, the DSL "advantage" you list is laughable, a marketing gimmick. Sure your "last mile" bandwidth is all yours and dedicated, but what do you think happens once you reach the DSLAM ? From there on out, it's all as shared as the bandwidth on a cable connection, and heck, there's more people on a single DSLAM than there is in a neighborhood sharing that 300 mbits/s aggregated channel.

Both are as shared as one another, to think any has an advantage in congestion management is wrong. If the ISP has its stuff properly setup, neither solution will ever see congestion on the last mile or within the ISP's backbone.

Yes, I did work for an ISP quite some time ago.

Exactly, at some point your bandwidth is shared, it's not like you have your own dedicated connection to the interwebs.

I had cable before I switched to U-verse, and although my cable ISP was absolute crap, the speeds were consistent when the service wasn't out.

Wireless is the only connection medium that can actually be affected by more people using it, just because the amount of bandwidth over the air is a tiny fraction of the available bandwidth on fiber or copper. If your wired connection to the internet sees a noticeable slowdown as more people start using it, your ISP sucks. It has nothing to do with cable vs DSL.