Ethernet against the elements

[Kursah]

Agreed with everyone above @Bill_Bright , that's not how it works with ISP bandwidth guarantees nor what can be demanded, at least in my experience. Please read on.

In my area for example, if you're within 80% of your advertised bandwidth, then the ISP's state that's within acceptable tolerances. There will be no free work or support provided and if you truly demand they fix it, you'll pay outta pocket. I've also been told that from other ISPs around the nation when working with clients. It actually males sense to me IMO a d probably cuts way down on field tech costs and on site scheduling.

You can demand the ISP find an issue, but they can and will decline to fix it for free nor do more than reboot/reprovision your modem if its above that 80% threshold. Again that's in the areas I've lived and supported clients.

That all being said, I'm lucky at home, my Charter Spectrum 100/10 cable tests 120/13 most nights.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

My ADSL provider advertises "up to 6 Mbps," you will either get 6 Mbps, 3 Mbps, 1 Mbps, or 256 kbps. The amount of money you pay is the same for all four. What speed your line is set to depends on the SNR.

I had another ISP that sold me "up to 10 Mbps" and QoSs users to 5 Mbps after using more than 5 Mbps for more than two minutes. I even complained to the FCC about that one and they didn't care.

In USA, you have no rights in regards to internet performance. It really only comes down to "do you have service?" If yes, the telcomm is upholding their end of the contract.

 

[Aquinus]

You can demand the ISP find an issue, but they can and will decline to fix it for free nor do more than reboot/reprovision your modem if its above that 80% threshold. Again that's in the areas I've lived and supported clients.

When I lived in northern NH, the acceptable limit was 50% of what the plan calls for. That was with Time Warner and that was also their self imposed threshold. I paid for 15, got 2 and for 9 months I got free internet until they fixed it, granted we had to call them to get our free month... every month.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Networking equipment is always marketed that way.

As Ford says, that's not really how it works.

It IS how it works. Please read again what I said. I am not talking about the network "equipment". My comments had nothing to do with the equipment. It was all about the service contract.

And please note I said to check the contract to see what it says and I specifically said to look for that "up to" clause. That clearly indicates I have a clue how it work. So please, cut me some slack here.

And there is no industry standard for what is considered acceptable tolerances. Just because one ISP in your state says they can rip you off of 20% of your contracted bandwidth, that does not mean other ISPs in other states can. And yes, each state can set their own rules and regulations here. Whether you can get your AG to enforce them or not is another issue.

And obviously, there are many factors beyond the ISP's control that must be considered too. If the computer in question has an antique 10Mbps NIC, or is using an 802.11b wifi adapter, it would be lucky to get 10Mbps speeds. This is why I also specifically said to test, "with all other connected devices powered off" because that too can make a difference.

My contract, for example, clearly says "up to" 50 Mbps download and 5Mbps upload so I am aware that "up to" is commonly used. But if I was only getting 40Mbps (80% of 50) between my location and my ISP's PoP (point of presence) - and that PoP distinction is important here - I sure would be on the phone complaining - especially if I was representing one of my business clients.





I obviously have nothing to complain about. My PoP is 10 miles away. That test is to a sever 1000 miles away. So I'm happy.

 

[Frick]

It IS how it works. Please read again what I said. I am not talking about the network "equipment". My comments had nothing to do with the equipment. It was all about the service contract.

And please note I said to check the contract to see what it says and I specifically said to look for that "up to" clause. That clearly indicates I have a clue how it work. So please, cut me some slack here.

And there is no industry standard for what is considered acceptable tolerances. Just because one ISP in your state says they can rip you off of 20% of your contracted bandwidth, that does not mean other ISPs in other states can. And yes, each state can set their own rules and regulations here. Whether you can get your AG to enforce them or not is another issue.

And obviously, there are many factors beyond the ISP's control that must be considered too. If the computer in question has an antique 10Mbps NIC, or is using an 802.11b wifi adapter, it would be lucky to get 10Mbps speeds. This is why I also specifically said to test, "with all other connected devices powered off" because that too can make a difference.

My contract, for example, clearly says "up to" 50 Mbps download and 5Mbps upload so I am aware that "up to" is commonly used. But if I was only getting 40Mbps (80% of 50) between my location and my ISP's PoP (point of presence) - and that PoP distinction is important here - I sure would be on the phone complaining - especially if I was representing one of my business clients.





I obviously have nothing to complain about. My PoP is 10 miles away. That test is to a sever 1000 miles away. So I'm happy.

"Up to" especially applies to ISPs.

 

[Bill_Bright]

"Up to" especially applies to ISPs.

Yeah, it sure is often used, but not just by ISPs. I just got a promotional ad in the mail for a local store that says to scratch some spot for, "Huge discounts up to 50% off". But when scratched, it was just 10%.

 

[Toothless]

So the test was done with a few things running as stated in my last post. Typically I can get 75/9.8-9.9 in speedtests which is a lot better than before and with other ISPs in the area. Honestly the project was to get more out of what I was paying and total cost is like, $18 since I had to get picture holders to hold the cable up high and out of the way.

 

[jboydgolfer]

In my area for example, if you're within 80% of your advertised bandwidth, then the ISP's state that's within acceptable tolerances.

your 100% correct....my "speed guarantee" is a bit lower though
Charter (in my area) will guarantee no more than 75% of advertised bandwidth. That's not an opinion, or an idea that I have formulated out of thin air, it's an absolute fact which as of the last I spoke with them about a month and a half ago ,was still accurate. I've had issues with Internet bandwidth on multiple occasions over the past 10 or 15 years. My current speed package is 100/5, as far as charter is concerned as long as I get no less than 75 Mb per second, or the same fraction in up speed, they are providing the service within the terms of their contract. I'm not saying i like it ,but it's true

I have to admit though, I've been lucky over the past few years because my bandwidth actually exceeds what my modem is provision for

 

[eidairaman1]

you could use something like this to shield the cables, & pretty cheap too. ive done it in the past. They are usually PVC, and come with corners, and straight runs. You can also get tube type shielding as well.

I just use T25 u-shaped Staples about 2 ft apart...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

"Up to" especially applies to ISPs.

Gigabit NICs are "up to 1000 Mbps."

Like I said, consistent across all network equipment. Hammer any network device with enough packets and the network throughput is going to decline. Doesn't matter if it is a LAN, WAN, PAN, UAN, etc., there's only so much bandwidth, so much switching capacity, and so much routing capacity. If enough devices on the network decide to all stream something at once, the limitations become apparent.

So the test was done with a few things running as stated in my last post. Typically I can get 75/9.8-9.9 in speedtests which is a lot better than before and with other ISPs in the area. Honestly the project was to get more out of what I was paying and total cost is like, $18 since I had to get picture holders to hold the cable up high and out of the way.

I did say WLAN sucks, didn't I?


Keep in mind that speedtests are easy to fool by ISPs. They often give QoS priority to speed testing websites and set up network rules so that speed tests have a large enough window to finish and display advertised speed. A better test is a large sustained file transfer (e.g. downloading GTAV through Steam). If ISPs throttle traffic or your entire connection, it will become apparent by the time the download finishes. As I mentioned before, I caught my previous ISP doing this red handed. I complained, he tried to blame my equipment. I told him it's not my equipment (no QoS rules set). Then he asked if I wanted to discontinue service. I declined and filed a complaint with the FCC. FCC didn't care. ISP didn't care. I was stuck with it until I could change ISPs again. The ISP I'm on now doesn't throttle at all; however, they also block all incoming packets. I ended up having to buy a static IP just so the ISP could forward incoming packets to my IP.

TL;DR: you wouldn't believe what ISPs can get away with in regards to rural customers. I'm paying >$50/mo for 6 Mbps connection. The best I can get is 15 Mbps and that will run north of $80/mo.

 

[Toothless]

Gigabit NICs are "up to 1000 Mbps."

Like I said, consistent across all network equipment. Hammer any network device with enough packets and the network throughput is going to decline. Doesn't matter if it is a LAN, WAN, PAN, UAN, etc., there's only so much bandwidth, so much switching capacity, and so much routing capacity. If enough devices on the network decide to all stream something at once, the limitations become apparent.


I did say WLAN sucks, didn't I?


Keep in mind that speedtests are easy to fool by ISPs. They often give QoS priority to speed testing websites and set up network rules so that speed tests have a large enough window to finish and display advertised speed. A better test is a large sustained file transfer (e.g. downloading GTAV through Steam). If ISPs throttle traffic or your entire connection, it will become apparent by the time the download finishes. As I mentioned before, I caught my previous ISP doing this red handed. I complained, he tried to blame my equipment. I told him it's not my equipment (no QoS rules set). Then he asked if I wanted to discontinue service. I declined and filed a complaint with the FCC. FCC didn't care. ISP didn't care. I was stuck with it until I could change ISPs again. The ISP I'm on now doesn't throttle at all; however, they also block all incoming packets. I ended up having to buy a static IP just so the ISP could forward incoming packets to my IP.

TL;DR: you wouldn't believe what ISPs can get away with in regards to rural customers. I'm paying >$50/mo for 6 Mbps connection. The best I can get is 15 Mbps and that will run north of $80/mo.

Steam downloads at about 65-75 so I think it's not bad.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Gigabit NICs are "up to 1000 Mbps."

Sorry, but no. You are talking about IEEE 802.3 Ethernet hardware standards. Not what a "service" provides. If you can show us in the IEEE 802.3ab standard (.3ab is the specific standard for Gigabit Ethernet over copper UTP) where hardware makers can deviate and make such disclaimers, I would be very interested in seeing that. I just looked and could find no such exceptions. The standard just says Gigabit Ethernet supports data transfer rates of 1Gigabit (1000 megabits) per second over CAT-5 cable. The only "up to" mentioned refers to the cable length which is "up to" 100 meters. (See Gigabit Ethernet)

A device cannot claim to be compliant with the IEEE 802.3 Gigabit Ethernet standards if it cannot support 1000Mbps. Does that mean it must obtain 1Gbps speeds in every real world application? Of course not! There are too many variables beyond the makers or adapter's control - starting with the cable connector and cable.

Sorry, but I just looked at NICs from Netgear, D-Link and Linksys, two switches, and one router. And just like this D-Link, none said "up to" in their Ethernet specs.

Of course there may be some exceptions, but those would be exceptions to the rule, not the rule. So I am not saying some shady Ethernet hardware makers won't try to weasel out of their requirement to meet the standards they claim to support. But I will say I cannot find any Gigabit NIC that claims "up to" in their published technical specs as you suggest (wifi is another story, however).

But this thread is not about hardware meeting industry standards.

TL;DR: you wouldn't believe what ISPs can get away with in regards to rural customers.

Rural support in many areas is abysmal but not sure it is fair to blame the ISPs. It costs a lot of money to bring cable or DSL access out to those rural/remote locations where customers may be 100s of yards or even miles apart. The ISPs either have to charge those customers more, or force (or be forced by more government regulations) to have the rest of us in urban and suburban areas subsidize those who live out in the boonies.

And FTR, while my plan is for 50Mbps, I sure would not say the $72 per month I have to pay is chump change - especially since the cable company has had to come out just once in 30 years to replace the drop after a storm in 2009 took out a tree that took out the cable. I am just saying you should not feel discriminated against. The ISPs are ripping off every one.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

NICs auto-negotiate rate (IEEE 802.3). They'll drop performance (Annex 28B) if the line conditions or switching equipment warrants it.

 

[Bill_Bright]

NICs auto-negotiate rate (IEEE 802.3). They'll drop performance (Annex 28B) if the line conditions or switching equipment warrants it.

No disputing that. But now you are talking about line conditions and "other end" equipment. I already mentioned above variables beyond the devices control, "starting with the cable connector and cable". Those are different scenarios from your initial claims. Gibabit NICs still must support 1Gbps if they claim to be 802.3 compliant.

But again, this thread is not about the hardware. Let's move on.

 

[sneekypeet]

OP has requested closure, so....