Prev: I bet this has actually happened somewhere
Next: City wide coverage?
From: Peter Pan on 29 Apr 2010 22:30
"Joel" <Joel(a)NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:rqtjt5ds68q9apt52iougd45eknq2faj8t(a)4ax.com...

>> nope...
>>
>> however, you can cheat... most cable companies have voip... if you have
>> both
>> internet AND voip, voip (digital voice) has priority over anything else
>> on
>> the cable (like tv or internet), i plug my wap/router into the voip voice
>> modem instead of the internet modem and it runs at a higher priority
>
> Are you talking about the special router which supports multiple modems.
> If so I have read about this typoe of router several years ago, but I
> don't
> think I would benefit much from it. I am talking about paying extra $$$
> for
> this specific router, phone bill for extra 5.6Kb/s etc.. And it's
> probably
> benefit for file transfering ?
>



no, didn't want to confuse things, pretty much all wap/routers have an
ethernet/cat5 in port, used to have cox in vegas, adelphia in idaho, sat
internet in the rv, and now comcast in baltimore, all had ethernet/cat5 out
ports..at any rate, here i have a cable modem for internet, and a voip modem
for digital voice... all have ethernet ports on the modem, just plug the
wap/router into the modem i was using (here i have both, a digital cable
internet modem AND a digital voice modem, so i can plug into either)...
return sequence after a major crash (nasty storms) was voice first, then tv,
and finally internet... happened to plug my wap/router into the digital
voice modem, was faster and happened to work before the internet cable
modem..... "forgot" to unplug it from the faster modem and into the slower
modem a few months ago, so don't think they check which you are using, if
you happen to have both...

From: Peter Pan on 30 Apr 2010 22:47
"Joel" <Joel(a)NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:hutlt5pc24c41iea012hp3atpa81199ocd(a)4ax.com...
> Joel <Joel(a)NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
>> Updating
>>
>> First, and again I would like to thanks some folks here provided me with
>> possitive information helping me to upgrade my router which had problem
>> connecting more than one wireless computer for so many years. And last
>> time
>> I checked, I was able to connect *both* Wii (it has wireless capable) and
>> wireless network at same time, other than that I haven't done any more
>> testing. So, I am happy with the result, and I would be happier in
>> summer
>> break when more kids can access to internet at same time (instead of
>> disconnecting one to allow other to have internet)
>>
>> And as I mentioned about getting the newer SB6120 DOSCIS 3.0 top replace
>> the older SB5120 DOSCIS 2.0, and promise to post the result here hoping
>> to
>> share some info with others who may need some info (especially from one
>> with
>> no experience like me).
>>
>> - In the past few days, I have done like 30-40 tests
>> (http://speedtest.net)
>> not because I care about the speed, but I want to see the diffewrence to
>> report here.
>>
>> And the average TOP SPEED is around 23-25 Mb/s. As I have mentioned that
>> sometime in the evenning the speed can drop to around 6-10 Mb/s but that
>> is
>> when more people using the same line at same time. And I try to get the
>> TOP
>> speed that the modem can squeeze here.
>>
>> - I just have the SB6120 installed, activated (or setup) from COX by
>> giving
>> the tech the "Customer S/N" and "MAC S/N" then followed the instruction.
>> It
>> took around 7-10 minutes to get the modem activated.
>>
>> Right now it's 12:00 PM and I just did around dozen test and the average
>> TOP SPEED is around 33-35 MB/s (I got several 23-29Mb/s). The uploading
>> speed remain the same at around 2.3 - 2.5 Mb/s
>>
>> So, I am pretty sure that this DOSCIS 3.0 modem does gain few extra juice
>> from the current service/plan that I can't get from the old DOSCIS 2.0
>> modem. And I may do few more test at different hours like evening and
>> late
>> at night , then will give the result here.
>>
>> And this is just the other way to say THANK YOU for those who have helped
>> me here.
>
> It's probably the FINAL report. And now I am a little confused or I
> believe the speed may vary depending on the location where you live, and
> of
> course it will depend on the PLAN and the CAP as well etc..
>
> - OK, I have finally realize that SpeedTest.Net has option to select
> specific STATE instead of whatever default or auto state SpeedTest.net
> selects. I selected the near by city of the state where I live and I am
> only getting around 16Mb/s
>
>
> - This morning, I tried different sites with different speed tests from
> many
> different states and countries. And I got the wildest speeds and they
> gave
> different "kbps" "KB/s", "Kbps", "MB/s" and the sad thing that they don't
> say "bytes" or "bits" and the speed were from 6 to 25 and 6xxx to 25xx.
>
> To me it's a WASTE to set up a web page but lacking of some important
> information "bits or bytes".
>
> - I tested few other sites with option to select different FIXED Cities
> and
> States (still don't have my state). and I got different speed. from this
> Speed Test Site http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/
>
>
> - LOWEST speed I got was around 17Mbps (NY)
> - LOWER speed I got was 20Mbps (CA)
> - MID Speed I got was around 30-33Mbps (WA, GA)
> - HIGHER Speed I got was around 44-46Mbps (TX, DC)
> - HIGHEST Speed was around 76Mbps (IL the only one)
>
> So, base on different results above, we may see what the newer modem is
> capable of. But then it will depend on the PLAN, location where the ISP
> may
> have different setup (or CAP).
>
> So, by looking at many different results I may say that these test can
> only give some general idea of what SPEED the modem can handle, and the
> MAX
> speed the connection (my connection) is capable of. IOW, my plan may not
> offer 76Mbps *but* because COX at my local hasn't set the CAP to this
> specific plan (cuz not many people have DOSCIS 3 so they don't need to do
> it
> right away?), and it's possible that I may be able to get more than 76Mbps
> (if I connect to faster site).
>
> Right now I don't know if there is any program to test the real speed of
> what my plan is. And I may have to use the same old method I used around
> a
> decade ago by
>
> 1. Running a program measuring the OUT/IN DATA. I don't know about the
> current version of ZoneAlarm, but I know the older v1.x or v2.x displayed
> the IN/OUT DATA, and few others like MU and similar.
>
> 2. Then running couple File Transferring Management and whatever tool I
> can
> find, then start downloading data from all sources I can find like from
> FTP,
> HTTM, Peer-2-Peer, Usenet, File Hostings, or trying to download dozens of
> data from many difference sources, then pay closer attention to the
> Incoming
> and Outgoing speed/data
>
> Is it the only way?



you can drive yourself nuts worrying about all the minutia, but ask yourself
is my wireless (54) wired (100) faster than anything your isp provides?

how about a usb interface to an external hard disk (480) and now you want to
putz with gigabit ethernet (1000).....

whether your isp provides 10-20-30-40 thats a smaller number than you have
locally, so why worry at all until it gets to 54? (lowest local number for
wireless or even 100 wired)

From: alexd on 1 May 2010 03:49
On 01/05/10 03:47, Peter Pan wrote:

> whether your isp provides 10-20-30-40 thats a smaller number than you
> have locally, so why worry at all until it gets to 54? (lowest local
> number for wireless or even 100 wired)

Two points.

a) You may well not connect at 54Mbps to your AP, especially if you're
not in the same room. The AP is going to drop it's speed to the lowest
common denominator, so if you've got another user on your AP who's got
poorer signal strength than you, you're not going to get 54Mbps even if
you're sat on top of it [at which point you'd be using a cable anyway].

b) Even if you do manage to connect at a rate of 54Mbps, that's just the
rate of link layer; your actual IP throughput will be closer to half of
that. Even the overheads on DSL are only ~13%, and AFAICT the data rate
cable companies sell is the actual IP throughput.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx)
08:40:18 up 3 days, 8:19, 2 users, load average: 1.02, 0.59, 0.32
It is better to have been wasted and then sober
than to never have been wasted at all
From: alexd on 1 May 2010 14:29
On 01/05/10 14:04, Joel wrote:

> Could you please shine some light into the darkest brain of mine about
> this one. <snip>

I'm sure there's a question in there, but I'm damned if I can work out
what it actually is.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx)
19:27:12 up 3 days, 19:07, 2 users, load average: 0.23, 0.31, 0.23
It is better to have been wasted and then sober
than to never have been wasted at all
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: I bet this has actually happened somewhere
Next: City wide coverage?