Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How fast is your internet connection?

My job got me a wireless connection for home use since I do a lot from here backing up huge amounts of data. I've been as high as 3.1Mbps.
 
I tried broadband reports but for some reason it won't work with the upload tests. I just get "Undefined kb/s" for the upload and depending on what link I go to, I test anywhere between 1600 to 3100 download but generally stay in the 2700 range. I have Bellsouth DSL 3 Mbps/384 connection here.
 
Makosuke said:
Cox claims up to 3Mbit downstream on my connection, and best case that's about what I get--I think I've just bumped 400KB/s on large downloads from fast servers. (That CNet test showed 2.2Mbit, which at least isn't wildly innacurate.)

Upstream is only 256Kbit (32KB/s), and that's generally about what I get when I upload.

It seems like 3Mbit down/256Kbit up is sort of the US standard in most places these days; I've been looking at SBC DSL, and they claim 3Mbit/384Kbit for the same price as Cox's service. Rather on the slow side versus what you can get in Japan and Korea, but it's good enough for most uses.

Incidentally, Cox on their website claims some relatively strict restrictions on upstream and downstream bandwidth for their plans--in the vicinity of 30GB down/8-12GB up (per month) depending on how much you pay. That's why I was looking at SBC, which claims they put no caps on speeds in either direction, and have slightly higher upload cap for the same price.

I haven't been hassled by Cox for exceeding their caps so far (I don't think they're in force where I live, and it wasn't part of the agreement I signed up under), but I'm wondering if others have experience with these two ISPs (the only two high speed options in my area), and how draconian they are about speed and bandwidth caps in practice...
Click to expand...
We have that same plan. I usually get 200+KBps, but late at night it can go a bit higher. I even saw 1.1MB/s once, in IE! :eek: Upload is usually 28-29KB/s. And I wouldn't worry about their caps, I'm sure I go over them on a weekly basis :D
 
using the netscape link, it says i'm drawing 11439.0kbit

is that fast enough? my internet always seems to be going sooo slow, it takes like one whole second to load apple.com. it i have to actually WAIT a few seconds to download an mp3 off itunes! what's up with that????

(university oc-48 fiber pipe with gigabit ethernet connectivity kicks ass)
 
the cnet test clocked me at 43.5 kbps. i would say that is a bit wrong for cox broadband in connecticut is considered to be one of the better high speed ISPs from what i have been told.
 
dubbz said:
My little history of internet connections:

1. 2400bps
2. 28,800bps
3. 14,400bps
5. 33,600bps
4. 9600bps (ouch)
5. 33,600bps
6. 720/128kbps
7. 1024/256kbps
8. 56kbps
9. 2048/256kbps
Click to expand...

Sounds like a regular roller-coaster ride alright. My history is somewhat more linear than yours. I never had a 9600 modem because they were just too incredibly expensive. When Rockwell came out with the 14.4K chipset, it pretty much rendered 9600 redundant. I think it pretty much blew Hayes out of the water, too.

Jumped a little up and down in the beginning since I couldn't afford my own modem, so when my own 28.8kbps modem broke (- hated that thing, so incredibly unstable. trashed it with an axe when it finally died. heh.) I had to borrow from friends :)
Click to expand...

An axe, eh? Don't beat around the bush now, dubbz, tell us how you really felt! :p

Had to use my Mac's built-in modem for about a week or so since something went wrong when they upgraded the DSL from 1 to 2mbit. Actually, I didn't use the net a whole lot that week. Using a 56kbps connection is rather painful when you're used to DSL... actually, it was strangly refreshing to not have so easy access to the net.
Click to expand...

I, for one, cannot imagine EVER going back to dial-up. I'd just as soon give up having Internet access. But, to each his own.

Mike
 
I only joined the wonderful world of the intarweb a few years back...

56k (dial-up, duh!)
512k (blueyonder cable)
1mb (blueyonder cable)
2mb (blueyonder cable)
3mb (blueyonder cable)

Even when at friends on 512k ADSL downloading seems very slow, I could never use dial-up again!
 
2004-05-31 18:43:20 EST: 2673 / 306
Your download speed : 2737366 bps, or 2673 kbps.
A 334.1 KB/sec transfer rate.
Your upload speed : 313807 bps, or 306 kbps.


I love broadband. :D
 
My connection is 128/128. We have a monopoly here (an evil company called Telecom who is in alliance with Microsoft), and the Government is perfectly happy for it to stay that way :mad:

Telstra announced that they would offer a 2 Mb/s residential service, but that's not going to happen anymore, again thanks to the Govt.

However, we have been promised 256 "soon", and 512 by March 2005.

Edit: I discovered today that by switching from Telstra to Ihug, I can double the speed of my connection for only 5c more than what I'm paying now :)
 
I can't find anything that will test my two lines with any accuracy. One is a 10Mb and the other is a 200Mb and they all tell me that I'm anywhere between 2Mb and 5Mb.
 
tomf87 said:
I can't find anything that will test my two lines with any accuracy. One is a 10Mb and the other is a 200Mb and they all tell me that I'm anywhere between 2Mb and 5Mb.
Click to expand...
All of you have quite a range of connection speeds, especially you, tomf87. I'm not surprised about those of you who have faster connections than me, but I am surprised at just how many have slower broadband than I do (most of you seem to have DSL - I've got cable modem service).
 
I've just switched to a Bulldog Prime Time package. I get 512/256 during the day (i.e. when I'm at work) and 2000/512 or so in the evening and at weekends. I can get downloads for fast servers (Apple for example) at around 240KBytes/s which is not bad. All for the low price of £29.99. Even better is that work will pay for my broadband (as long as it's within a certain price which this is).
 
Hehee
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.jpg
    Picture 1.jpg
    49.3 KB · Views: 128
applemacdude said:
Hehee
Click to expand...
Whoa, is that ever fast... I don't get average speeds that are that fast, but I can get connections like that from good servers (most notably Apple and Netscape). Consider yourself lucky...luckier than I am.
 
I've got you all beat!

I came home from work one day, and I found my connection to be a little different than usual...

Please read carefully. I have 56k dialup...usualy connect at 24,000 kbps.

But when absolutely nothing internet related would work, I took a look at my connection...

2.4 kbps...lol yes, that is right...10,000 times slower than an already poor dialup connection lol
 

Attachments

  • connection.jpg
    connection.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 122
Josh said:
I came home from work one day, and I found my connection to be a little different than usual...

Please read carefully. I have 56k dialup...usualy connect at 24,000 kbps.

But when absolutely nothing internet related would work, I took a look at my connection...

2.4 kbps...lol yes, that is right...10,000 times slower than an already poor dialup connection lol
Click to expand...
I remember back when I had dial-up internet access...I had all kinds of strange issues - everything from the modem dialing when nobody wanted to connect to the Internet to getting horribly slow connections like the 2.4 Kbps one you described. Once in a while, my old 56k modem connected at 66700 bps...no idea why (it's not supposed to be able to do that).
 
My DSL service plan is stated as 1.5Mbps/256Kbps. I usually score between 1200 and 1600 Kbps down and about 160+ Kbps up, so I'm getting what I pay for.

Do you remember when you made the switch from dial-up to broadband? Ahhh...heaven! I remember the good feeling I had when I finally dumped AOL and got broadband. :cool: :cool: :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back