Mariana Trench Noises

[Icey]

Well, it's not easy for me to comprehend Gary, although obviously YOU know what you're on about. I can't grasp why you can't split your screen into multiple windows, and why everything takes so long. I don't know how old your computer is, or how fast your broadband is, but from my feeble bit of knowledge, it'd appear that there's some problem with one or both?

My computer isn't what you'd call new, but neither is it too old atm. It runs on Windows 7, which's kind of ancient, but if I want to split windows and do one thing on one, another on another, etc., it's quick and easy to swap between them and I can see as many windows at once as I can fit onto my screen, so I can't quite picture what's going off at your end - or am I missing something here and talking about 2 totally different things? : (
I mean, I could have a whole row of tabs across the top of my computer screen, and click them open in a second, or, I can split my screen and look at, or work on, several at once, kind of thing.

[Kellemora]

Believe me Icey, my computers are FAST.
My CPU on this older computer is 4.0 gHz.
My Internet is 30 Mbps or faster, sometimes as high as 50 Mbps on download, and
between 5 Mbps and 10 Mbps on upload.

Unlike DSL, my Internet speed does not drop with each added computer.
Not sure what DSL speeds are these days, but I doubt they are much over 2 Mbps, if that, for one computer.

DSL is often advertised as 3 Mbps, and a few companies advertise up to 10 Mbps and one even claims 170 Mbps.
I've never met or talked to anyone who gets up to 3 Mbps on DSL, and if they plug in a second computer, it drops to half.

For me to attempt to use DSL, I would be better off going back to 56k dial-up, as it would be faster, hi hi...

As you know, I also run GNU/Linux on my machines.
Each time my wife's Windows computer gets too slow for her, I buy her a new one, and take her old one.
Replacing Windows with Linux nearly doubles the speed the computer runs, without changing any hardware.

[Icey]

See how innovative you are?

I've just checked my download and upload speeds, using a well-known and reliable source from Which? Download's 84.58mb/s
and upload's 6.72 mb/s. There're another 2 desktop computers and 2 laptaps running this evening - and guess what? I don't know whether that's good or bad - LOL!!!

[Kellemora]

Wow Icey - Are you sure that's right?

You must be on a Fiber Optic cable then, because that is better than excellent compared to cable, but not so good if it is Fiber Optics, which should be up around 750 Mbps or higher.

Perhaps Yogi can correct me, but I think the limit on Coaxial Cable, aka Cable Internet, is peaking at around 60 Mbps. And as far as I know, Power Boost for short downloads is not available if you are already at 50 Mbps cable.
Also, what server you select for your test makes a difference.
If I use a place like Speedtest.net and connect to a Comcast Server, I get much higher speed readings than I do connecting to non-Comcast servers. If I use Comcasts own Speedtest.net site, the readings are even higher still.

Where my brother lives, although he's using Cable, the Cable ties to Fiber Optics somewhere close to him, so he is getting speeds higher than he should without paying for Fiber Optic service. He loves to brag about the speed he's getting, which is similar to what you posted, in the 80s.

[Icey]

Hi Gary. Yes, I promise you those figures were taken from a Which? test, which I ran 3 times to make sure it was right. These tests're very reliable. We have the magazines as well, and they're brilliant for giving a truthful look at comparison sites and giving an honest opinion on what they've looked into - e.g., best value credit cards, best every-day grocery prices taken from the top main stores, best utility companies to use - and so on.

We DO have cable now. We couldn't get it at first, but when it became available, someone suggested it was better than what we'd BEEN using, and they were right. The thing is, it costs quite a bit more than the old company we used, but we've had no trouble with it, and we get unlimited use. I don't download music, games or anything much, but our eldest son does when he's at home, and I know the youngest has a few long-winded games which he likes to play now and again. Over all, I can't complain about the service we get. The downfall, as I say, is the cost, which, with VAT (value added tax) comes to about $74. 40 a month.

[Kellemora]

I just ran a test on my old computer using Speedtest.net, and I got 21.79 download, 6.06 upload, on a 30Mbps connection, to a local server.
Selected a server in St. Louis and got 25.41 download, 6.00 upload.
Tried the tests again on my fastest computer to see if it makes much of a difference.
Got 27.53 download, 6.40 upload to the local server, and to St. Louis 29.73 download, 6.58 upload.
Speedtest.net's gauge goes into the red at 50 Mbps which is supposed to be the limit for Cable.

But you got me thinking about something with your much higher speeds.
Back when we had 56k dial-up, and I was working with a lot of graphics, I got a second telephone line so I could use a twin modem setup. This almost, but not quite doubled my download and upload speeds. So even though I was on 56k dial-up, the downloads were divided between the two modems, so I was getting like 85k speeds. Great for back then!

So now you've got me wondering if there are split cable modems to get higher speeds. Not that I need it really, just curious.

[Icey]

Hi Gary. I really don't know enough about the technicalities to answer you there, and I think we have a combined router and modem. The little gadget's tucked away and multiple things connect to it. None of those old-fashioned ugly boxes which had receivers/aerials or whatever sticking out of them - LOOOOL! Goodness knows what they were!! Ours's tucked away in a cupboard, and looks something like this:
http://www.computer-repair-stokeontrent ... perhub.jpg

Oops - sorry. I forgot I couldn't post an actual pic for you here, just the link, but it's a very slim little thing that wouldn't get in the way even if it wasn't housed out of sight.

[Kellemora]

I have a DOCSIS3 modem, two of them in fact, one brand new in the box as a standby.

I did check into the performance ratings for all the cable companies, even though we only have one here where I live.
Dig this, Comcast is the fastest of them all, and NONE go over 100 Mbps, except Comcast Boost.

I have another friend who is on Cable claiming her tests show her at 350 Mbps. On a cable company who is rated as one of the slower cable companies.

I sent an e-mail to a tech friend to see if he can clarify the discrepancy for me.

Now everyone knows Mbps means Bits per Second. Which would give you a higher reading than MBps, which is Bytes per second. You can multiply MBps by 8 to get Mbps, or divide Mbps by 8 to get MBps.
But the normal way of advertising and rating cable speeds is Mbps, which gives a higher number.

Comcast now sells 105 Mbps, but if you get 85 Mbps out of it, you are a lucky one.
I'm paying for 30 Mbps and getting 28 to 32 Mbps most of the time.

Don't know how someone can get 350 Mbps on a system who is advertised at only 90 Mbps for top tier, but they are paying for 50 Mbps. Oh, and they are on a WiFi modem which is limited to 100 Mbps.
So, a 50 Mbps connection on a max 100 Mbps WiFi is claiming to be getting 350 Mbps downloads.
Hmmmmm.....

[Icey]

Good evening Gary.

I don't know anything about Comcast, as it doesn't operate over here, but I can truthfully say that I just copied the results of my tests for you. To be perfectly frank, it means little to me, but will do to you. I know that there's no waiting for pages to load, and my eldest son, who's very computer savvy and does quite a lot of down and uploading, is perfectly happy with our arrangement. To me, the old system was fine (and much cheaper!) but my son said it was pathetic, so when the contract came to an end, he pestered his father to have it changed. With having various machines up and running for different needs, it's necessary for us to have a good speed.

[Kellemora]

Although I just had a tech guy tell me 100 Mbps was the limit for cable, I've learned it is not due to some tricks in use. With those tricks, up to 500 Mbps is possible on cable. Something about Virtual Servers, which immediately went over my head, hi hi...

Sounds to me like a way for the cable companies to charge more money is all, by selling throttled usage. I checked and Comcast must have over 20 different tiers of Internet service now. I'm on the 30 Mbps, but often get over that. By connecting to a virtual server, I could get speeds up to 350 Mbps I think, which is not logical to me.
It's like saying, if your car can only go 100 mph, by using these tires it will now do 300 mph ON THE SPEEDOMETER, the car is still only going 100 mph.

This stuff is way over my head, that's for sure!

[Icey]

You're nowhere near as bad as me, Gary. I'm an embarrassment to my generation, but I really don't care. I'm glad that I'm not a slave to new gadgets, and I'll always have someone, somewhere to help me if I need it. Yogi's been exceptionally patient with me, and been very helpful. He'll never know how much I appreciated his input, because had I waited and asked someone at this end, I'd have been a laughing stock. I imagine Yogi's either done a LOL a few times, or shook his head in exasperation - but I can't see him, and he can't see my red face, so all's well! : )

[Kellemora]

I tried connecting to a virtual server site to see if I got the high speeds others are getting.
It didn't work for me because Comcast throttles your account at the tier you are paying to get.
I did learn that Virtual Servers can boost internet download speeds up to around 500 Mbps, although 300 Mbps is closer to reality.

[Icey]

And worse! Look what I found about Comcast .......

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/18 ... f-the-year

[Kellemora]

Hi Icey - Yes I knew about this, and up to only a few months ago, I did not have a WiFi modem at all.
Besides, I use MY OWN MODEM, not the one provided by Comcast.
I did buy a WiFi modem for when the frau needed to load her Kindle, but it was only used as a separate device, more like router than a modem, and had it's own static IP address.

What kills me is the RANGE they show their WiFi modems have. I have NEVER found a modem yet that can reach the 150 feet from my house to my garage office. Yet from my office I can pick up at least six WiFi modems in my vicinity. Strange.

After lightning hit my CAT5 LAN cable, I tried WiFi once again, buying a repeater and installing it in the attic so there was a clear shot to my office. Still, not enough signal to do me any good. So I replaced the CAT5 cable with CAT6 and got my hardwired system back up and running again. The CAT6 did have an advantage over the CAT5 as my local LAN speed increased considerably, but this didn't help the Internet speed one iota though.

[Icey]

Hello Gary.

Well I don't understand about the various CAT cables, and I've no idea why you can't get higher speeds than you're already using. Maybe it requires a call to your ISP to find out what's what?

Slightly different, but when we go to our place in the Yorkshire Dales, you can't use a mobile phone until you get about 5 miles outside of the area - maybe more. The Dale's surrounded by mountains, so you can't receive anything properly. It's annoying isn't it?

[Kellemora]

In a nutshell Icey. RF energy travels on the skin of a wire, not through the wire like electric current. Wires and cables take this in consideration when they are designed for a specific purpose. I would never try to run a VHF antenna using RG8 coax, I would jump up to Belden 9913 or similar, which is designed for higher frequencies of operation. Also the type insulation used between the braid and center conductor plays a huge role in the quality of the coax.

Simply stated, CAT6 LAN cable can handle a faster throughput than CAT5.

As far as Comcast goes, you can pay for higher speed connections. They are one of the few that charge extra for more speed.

[Icey]

The only thing I understand there, is that Comcast sounds like every other ISP. The more you pay for, supposedly the more speed you get, but it annoys me how these firms advertise their introductory offers, and if you agree to one, you're tied to the contract for at least a year. Then a few weeks later, you see them advertising the same thing, cheaper.

[Kellemora]

The cell phone companies here do the same thing. Give you one year cheap, but get back double the second year of the contract. However, you can shop around for cell phone providers, not so with monopolized cable companies. You can only get cable from the one the city allowed to operate in your area.
One of my wife's cousins lives further north than us, and her Cable Internet Only account only costs her 29.95 per month, on month to month, no contract, and she gets over 50 Mbps most of the time. While ours is 78.00 per month for Cable Internet Only, and locked in at 30 Mbps unless we pay more.
I figure since we are locked in to only One Choice, it does me no good to look at what the others charge, except for filing complaints with city hall about their price gouging, which of course does no good, because all these extra charges are kickbacks to the poly-TICK-ians.

[Icey]

Sadly, you're right!