[jtaylor991]

Quote:

google fiber is going to be interesting - I really do hope it is as good as it sounds.  Is google actually running all their own fiber, or are they using local loops from other providers?  I did see some early test results that really weren't all that impressive.  http://gigaom.com/2012/07/31/google-fiber-in-the-real-world-heres-whats-good-and-what-needs-work/
 
The guy in that article is clearly fairly clueless about networking technology, but the speedtest was interesting.  I hope they can do better for you than 180 down/45 up with a 39ms ping!

Well, Speedtest.net (or any except Google's for that matter?) isn't yet optimized to handle gigabit speeds, and the limits of the Wi-Fi, and the limited upload speed of the website you're visiting all come into play, and maybe he didn't think much about the latter one.  If it goes Website's Server>DNS Servers>Your Computer (I don't actually know the exact route but I'm pointing out the middleman) then even with a gigabit connection things are going to be a bit slower than expected because the Wesbite's Server>DNS Server could be slower than the DNS Server>Your computer, so when I get it I'm judging the improvement over my normal 12mbps Uverse connection, I'm not going to whine about how long a song takes to download etc.
 
Basically, you shouldn't expect virtually instantaneous responses and load times but it still should be a hell of a lot faster than whatever else you were using before. Like if my HD YouTube hiccups on a video that isn't getting high traffic (estimated with the amount of views and how recent it was etc) then I might raise an eyebrow. I've watched a 720p video with no buffering and gone to another 480p video and it takes 15min to buffer (the 480 not being any longer than the 720) before though so you know, anything could happen. That 480 video was a recently uploaded (within minutes ago) video and I moved down from 720 to help load times but was unsuccessful, that's what I mean by traffic. Over 300 people trying to watch it at once before Google has the chance to copy it to other servers to serve multiple streams at the same time seems to slow things down.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Well, Speedtest.net (or any except Google's for that matter?) isn't yet optimized to handle gigabit speeds, and the limits of the Wi-Fi, and the limited upload speed of the website you're visiting all come into play, and maybe he didn't think much about the latter one.  If it goes Website's Server>DNS Servers>Your Computer (I don't actually know the exact route but I'm pointing out the middleman) then even with a gigabit connection things are going to be a bit slower than expected because the Wesbite's Server>DNS Server could be slower than the DNS Server>Your computer, so when I get it I'm judging the improvement over my normal 12mbps Uverse connection, I'm not going to whine about how long a song takes to download etc.
 
Basically, you shouldn't expect virtually instantaneous responses and load times but it still should be a hell of a lot faster than whatever else you were using before. Like if my HD YouTube hiccups on a video that isn't getting high traffic (estimated with the amount of views and how recent it was etc) then I might raise an eyebrow. I've watched a 720p video with no buffering and gone to another 480p video and it takes 15min to buffer (the 480 not being any longer than the 720) before though so you know, anything could happen. That 480 video was a recently uploaded (within minutes ago) video and I moved down from 720 to help load times but was unsuccessful, that's what I mean by traffic. Over 300 people trying to watch it at once before Google has the chance to copy it to other servers to serve multiple streams at the same time seems to slow things down.

 
No argument!  As I said, that article was pretty weak - and I am anxious to see more real world numbers.  There is no doubt that even 150-200 Mbps to the home for that price would be unprecedented - I would just hate to see them screw-up a great step forward by over-hyping the real world numbers.  And you can absolutely *bet* that the telecom & cable companies will put on a full-court media press to attack them.

 

[JK1]

Quote:

I pay around $16/month (paying for 6Mb/s, but they don't give a discount!). If I was living outside the USA I'd probably get quadruple that speed for the same price.
I previously got 15Mb/sec with cable, but I switched to DSL to save money. Even with cable most websites would not let me download over 650kb/sec so what's the point?
 
When HD movies get more popular I will upgrade. I can stream HD just fine through Amazon Instant Video.
What's stinks is how slow Wireless routers are when you have them in a basement and your TV is upstairs.
 
BTW my first modem was 2400bps. I was stuck with dialup until I moved to a bigger city many years later.
I wonder if there exists any area in the USA where highspeed internet is not available? Probably remote areas of Montana and Alaska?

Remote areas have high speed  via satellite, however it is expensive!

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Remote areas have high speed  via satellite, however it is expensive!

 
Satellite also has high latency - don't try to game over satellite!

 

[jtaylor991]

Quote:

 
No argument!  As I said, that article was pretty weak - and I am anxious to see more real world numbers.  There is no doubt that even 150-200 Mbps to the home for that price would be unprecedented - I would just hate to see them screw-up a great step forward by over-hyping the real world numbers.  And you can absolutely *bet* that the telecom & cable companies will put on a full-court media press to attack them.

I'm not really sure what they could do to attack the internet part. Maybe target Google's (supposed) privacy issues and you have to use their hardware, or that it isn't as advertised (which is still a crock and that'd only pull in the extremely ignorant I'd hope). I bet the first thing to get at will be lack of selection on the TV service, which I personally don't care about as long as I get some local news. The rest can be found online. Heck I can even livestream my local news on their website but it looks like crap. My father likes his Bloomberg reports and stuff though so we'll see.

 

[slaw slaw]

I guess I win for slowest?  It's just temporary, thankfully.
 
Edit: what happened there 

 

[tomm1]

My Speed test Results are ....
Upload Speed is  0.064 Mbps   Download Speed = 0.077 Mbps

I got these speed test results from the website  http://www.scanmyspeed.com.
I used to test my internet speed using this site . You can try this site for
the best accurate results.
 

 

[cokeyed]

 
Pfft... Pathetic interernet

 

[XxDobermanxX]

 
XxDobermanxX FTW? 

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

I'm not really sure what they could do to attack the internet part. Maybe target Google's (supposed) privacy issues and you have to use their hardware, or that it isn't as advertised (which is still a crock and that'd only pull in the extremely ignorant I'd hope). I bet the first thing to get at will be lack of selection on the TV service, which I personally don't care about as long as I get some local news. The rest can be found online. Heck I can even livestream my local news on their website but it looks like crap. My father likes his Bloomberg reports and stuff though so we'll see.

 
The TV aspect is much less interesting to me.  I'm perfectly happy with DirecTV (although I wish it was cheaper).  I'm currently using cable only for internet, not for TV, so if I could replace just my internet for better speed at a good price, I would do it and keep the DirecTV - and I think a lot of people would be willing to do the same thing.  If they eventually get the TV side on par with DirecTV, then fine - I'll cancel the DirecTV and hook-up the google TV connection.
 
But - that won't actually happen in my town for a looooong time.  I still can't get Fios or U-Verse...

 

[FlyingInABlueDream]

22.6/20.5
 
Getting that with Verizon's cheapest internet package. More than enough for what I need.

 

[Valicious]

16mb/s
but it's Comcast.....right now even pictures are taking 10+ seconds to load.

 

[ilikedonkeys39]

im 3gb download and 1gb upload.....haha i wish 

 

[midoo1990]

.

 

[immtbiker]

Back from the dead. 2012