Please answer this download speed question

[james636]

Please work with me on understanding what it is that I'm asking. My question is, If I was able to download a file from a source at 100KiB/s using cable internet of 3.0Mbps, Would I also be able to download at that same speed of 100KiB/s, from the same exact source, given the same exact conditions, using DSL internet of 1.5Mbps since 100KiB/s don't exceed the download limits of either a 3.0Mbps or 1.5Mbps connection

[bazooka]

Yes

That is not even 1 megabit per second.

My downloads on dsl often hit 188 kilobytes per second.

You then multiply by 8 and that turns out to be 1.5 megabits per second.

[james636]

Thanks for that reply that eases my mind a little. BTW Who provides your DSL internet service?

[bazooka]

No problem

I have verizon dsl.

[makntraks]

Yes

That is not even 1 megabit per second.

My downloads on dsl often hit 188 kilobytes per second.

You then multiply by 8 and that turns out to be 1.5 megabits per second.

With all due respect baz, I believe it's 10 bytes.. sort of a "marker" for the beginning and end of the packet......

But then again, who am I and WTF do I know?????,
makntraks

p.s. The 10 is more correct than 8....
p.s.s Cable > dsl 8)

[ViRaL1]

p.s. The 10 is more correct than 8....
p.s.s Cable > dsl 8)

What's your download speed?

[bazooka]

Yes

That is not even 1 megabit per second.

My downloads on dsl often hit 188 kilobytes per second.

You then multiply by 8 and that turns out to be 1.5 megabits per second.

With all due respect baz, I believe it's 10 bytes.. sort of a "marker" for the beginning and end of the packet......

But then again, who am I and WTF do I know?????,
makntraks

p.s. The 10 is more correct than 8....
p.s.s Cable > dsl 8)

No big deal

I was walking about the number of bits in a byte though.

Now when you start discussing packets, then it takes on may forms, depending on who you talk to.

[studtrooper]

How confusing... why does everyone insist on talking in bits for connection speeds when we download in bytes? Stupid ISPs trying to artificially inflate their numbers...

[bazooka]

p.s.s Cable > dsl 8)

That is debateable, as I have had both and prefer dsl.

It is cheaper, not shared, and more dependable.

[tekkieman]

p.s.s Cable > dsl 8)

It is cheaper, not shared, and more dependable.

Yep. Had both and prefer the DSL. Of course, I'm comparing 3Mbs DSL to 1Mbs cable, but it is still cheaper.

[p_l]

Interesting. This talk of bits and bytes made me realize that the same distinction maybe also applies to wireless network transfer speeds. I've recently upgraded from an 802.11b to an 802.11g in the hopes that I could now stream DVD-compliant MPEG2 files, let's say at bitrates up to about 9Mbps, over the network, but they still seem to stutter. Do I divide by the wireless-G specification of 54 (megabits / megabytes ??) per second by 8, to get 6.75 M (B/b?)ps, which would still be too slow? To complicate matters, because of thick masonry and brick walls at my place, the best throughput I ususally get is about 24 M (B/b?) ps. Now I'm really confused!

[tekkieman]

Wireless network speeds are rated in bits, not bytes. Divide by 8.

[p_l]

But then, so aren't MPEG bitrates, too? Like I said, I'm confused. Shouldn't a wireless 802.11G protocol have enough throughput to stream DVD-compliant MPEG-2?

[Conquest10]

188 kb/s? I top off at 46 on dsl.

[tekkieman]

188 kb/s? I top off at 46 on dsl.

I average around 300 kb/s. Top would be around 384. Too bad not that many sites keep up. Well, some do...

[bazooka]

188 kb/s? I top off at 46 on dsl.

I average 188. I top out at about 250

[Skith]

Just out of curiosity, are you measuring your speeds via windows performance tab (task manager), going by downloading files, or some other tool? (Yes, I know there are many ways/tools sites etc. to do this, but I am intersted in what tools your divine wisdom lead you to.)

[bazooka]

Just out of curiosity, are you measuring your speeds via windows performance tab (task manager), going by downloading files, or some other tool? (Yes, I know there are many ways/tools sites etc. to do this, but I am intersted in what tools your divine wisdom lead you to.)

Who are you talking to?

I have a download manager that displays the speed.

[gmatov]

C10,

188 kb/s? I top off at 46 on dsl.

Are you going by the Dl Manager in Firefox or somesuch?

And are you sure of the lower case in the quote above? b is bits, B is Bytes.

Your average is slower than a good dialup connection, if it is kb/s.

When I dl with Comcast cable, a good speed is over 300KB, over 2.4 megabits per second, which is close to their advertised speed of 3 megabits per second.

Like some of you, I am tempted to go to DSL, as they are really charging too much for cable, in my case 45.95 with the 3 buck modem rental, but if it broke I'd have to buy my own new one if I had my own now. At a 100 or so, 33 months to break even, and if my own lasted less than that, have to buy again, another 100.

Cheers,

George

[bazooka]

My speed is 188kB/s which is 1.5 Mb per second.

[james636]

tekkieman Wrote:

Yep. Had both and prefer the DSL. Of course, I'm comparing 3Mbs DSL to 1Mbs cable, but it is still cheaper.

Now thats not fair at all 3Mbps if faster than 1Mbps all over the world. You just can't make a helpful comparison given the information that you provided

Now if you meant that a 3Mbps dsl connection was cheaper or about the same price as a 1MMbps connection, then I see where you are coming from Earthlink offers a 3Mbps dsl and cable connection for $39.95

To tell you the truth, according to my research, there really is no difference between the two as far as performance goes. It really all boils down to personal prefernce and situation. For example. If you live in a large populated and there is a large volume usage of both dsl and cable, the dsl would be better for your situation given that dsl isn't on a shared link. But in my situation, there isn't a high volume of cable and dsl usage, so the fact that cable is on a shared link doesn't affect me. Also, my phone provider doesn't qualify me for a 3Mbps connection, but my cable provider does and at pretty much the same price as the 1.5Mbps dsl connection that my phone provider offers. So my situation says that cable would be best. But that still doesn't mean that I think cable internet is better than dsl. Its just that my situation dictates cable over dsl

[james636]

double post, sorry

[tekkieman]

You're right in your recap assesment. It is really personal preference (unless you're in a heavily populated area, then sharing cable would affect performance).

I believe my comparison is valid, as I was basing it on the fact that my 3Mbs DSL cost less than my 1Mbs cable. My DSL is $39.95/mo. My cable was $44.95/mo. + $5.00 to add a second email address + $10.00/mo. modem rental. I bought my own cable modem to reduce the $10.00/mo. charge, then they turned around and raised the rates $5.00/mo. WTF?!?! My DSL rate is locked in for a year, and no equipment charges.

[james636]

Then like I said, your situation dictates thst dsl would be the best option for you. Who in the is your cable provider? Man, thats a total ripp off

[tekkieman]

It was Cox Cable.

[thecoalman]

Interesting. This talk of bits and bytes made me realize that the same distinction maybe also applies to wireless network transfer speeds. I've recently upgraded from an 802.11b to an 802.11g in the hopes that I could now stream DVD-compliant MPEG2 files, let's say at bitrates up to about 9Mbps, over the network, but they still seem to stutter. Do I divide by the wireless-G specification of 54 (megabits / megabytes ??) per second by 8, to get 6.75 M (B/b?)ps, which would still be too slow? To complicate matters, because of thick masonry and brick walls at my place, the best throughput I ususally get is about 24 M (B/b?) ps. Now I'm really confused!

b=bit
B=bytes

24 mbps = 24,000 kbps

[gmatov]

"188 kb/s? I top off at 46 on dsl." Re: C10

"Conquest10 wrote:
188 kb/s? I top off at 46 on dsl." Bazooka quote


"I average 188. I top out at about 250" Re: Bazooka answer.

Megabits or kilobits? The above is confusing. You either have a good connection speed or you are suckin' hind tit.

Sounds like you are to far away from the CO to have a decent connection, but you still have bragging rights to DSL, slow or no.

Again, I might be lucky to live in a coal mining patch, with old farts with little interest in the internet, but my cable is always at high speed, ie, 2.5, 3 or more megabits per second. An FTP server, and the rates go way up.

Try DL'ing mandrake Linux on a dialup, I think it is 6 CD ISOs, 4 gigs.

Cheers,

George

[thecoalman]

"188 kb/s? I top off at 46 on dsl." Re: C10

"Conquest10 wrote:
188 kb/s? I top off at 46 on dsl." Bazooka quote


"I average 188. I top out at about 250" Re: Bazooka answer.

Megabits or kilobits? The above is confusing. You either have a good connection speed or you are suckin' hind tit.

Sounds like you are to far away from the CO to have a decent connection, but you still have bragging rights to DSL, slow or no.

Again, I might be lucky to live in a coal mining patch, with old farts with little interest in the internet, but my cable is always at high speed, ie, 2.5, 3 or more megabits per second. An FTP server, and the rates go way up.

Try DL'ing mandrake Linux on a dialup, I think it is 6 CD ISOs, 4 gigs.

Cheers,

George

I think most are referring to Kilobytes not kilobits, some have mistakenly used a k instead of K.

[Conquest10]

Alright, now you people are getting all confusing. K instead of k? Or k instead of K? Anyway 46 kb/s (or Kb/s) = 368 kilobits per second on dsl.

[thecoalman]

ooops I meant they are mixing up the b's....

188 kb/s? I top off at 46 on dsl.

46 kbps is slower than a 56 modem