oh boy that sounds bad. sorry for any confusion or concern. I just wanted to help but apparently this is a hot topic for some.
I found a better speed test for satellite internet
- Thread starter bwporker
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 124
- Views 35K
oh boy that sounds bad. sorry for any confusion or concern. I just wanted to help but apparently this is a hot topic for some.
No confusion, no concern, not even a hot topic; just a fact of life in the satellite internet world. There's only one problem here, and that's your shilling for an outfit that obviously has yet to scratch the surface of that world.
The instance referred to by tobifelinis started out pretty much the same way; some dude slinging around praise for an obscure satellite service provider. He eventually was revealed to be a guy that wholesaled hardware TO that provider, and was completely without a clue as to how the stuff he sold - actually worked.
//greg//
Greg,
Do you go around flaming everyone new on this board? With all due respect you do owe bwporker an apology. He made first contact with us just 48 hours ago because of your response to his post and by what I can see even asked you prior to doing so. As for ISPgeeks, our site is a not for profit that's been around since Nov 2006 with over 22 million served. The expenses are very slightly offset by the minimal advertising revenue and the rest comes directly out of the owners pocket and has since day one. Quite frankly we didn't need this kind of attention but since the issue was raised we felt we should respond.
We decided to address the issues you raised by making the changes you said wouldn't be made because it was "too expensive and time consuming", you do remember that right? If you have an issue with us then step up and say so in private but I don't think the admin of this site would appreciate you chasing off noobs.
I disagree. While I applaud you for taking steps to correct the deficiencies that greg has found, it is not his responsibility to troubleshoot your site for you. I too, have visited your site, and found inconsistencies in the tests you provide...including using the exact same tests on completely different websites.
And no, I won't troubleshoot your site for you either. I work for my ISP, and KNOW what my actual speeds are. Suffice it to say that I when I ran the tests presented on your site, they did not match up to what I was actually getting.
Hi,
This is my fault. I thought I was helping and some of you have totally like twisted this around. I never asked for help and if you read back there is no place where the moderator from that site has asked for any help. They only came over here to explain what I couldn't. That Greg guy has it in his head that he's been asked by someone to help them but if you read back they aren't interested. They are taking the time to make custom tests because I asked them to and I think because of all the uproar that I caused. Sorry again.
Oh Greg, no need to apologize or anything. I pitty you. To attack someone you don't even know says a lot about you. If you're looking for an attack back find another patsy because I don't play childish games and you won't bait me like you've apparently done to others here. No need to reply I have nothing else to say to you.
The Greg issue aside I appreciate the effort you've made. I never expected such efforts or the time you spent attempting to explain away the mess I created. Thank you and he won't be chasing me off. Ignore is all powerful
It's not your fault, but where I take issue is with posts like these.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/broadba...peed-test-satellite-internet.html#post1816369
http://www.satelliteguys.us/broadba...peed-test-satellite-internet.html#post1816407
When using speed test you've got to realize that there are various factors that can affect them NOT related to your actual connection speed, and no one test can test them all. There's a reason that there are various sites out there to test speed, using a variety of technologies, hardware, and software.
To truly diagnose any speed related issues, you need to be able to reproduce the results across a variety of sites using a variety of testing methods. Now when I tested my connection on their servers, I also tested it on 5 other sites (some using the same myspeed program, and others using flash based testing such as speedtest.net) My tests results on every site but theirs was consistently in the range I would expect it to be for my connection. On the 5 tests I ran at their site, only one of them was even close.
I understand but none of you have posted your results or provider and subscribed service level so why should I or anyone take your word for it? I'm willing to give them a chance. I caused this and the tests helped me once before and if you look back the only thing they asked was for you to produce your test results. Do you think its fair to say something sucks and then not back it up? They have already explained Gregs results based on his post and I'm willing to give then the benefit of the doubt. It's the least I can do since it was my post that caused this fiasco from the start. Instead of talking trash about me and that moderator is it to much to ask to back up your claims?
Why should I provide my results, service provide, and service plan? It is not my goal to improve their site or their tests. After all, they have their own technical staff to do that.
But if they really need my specific information to post an accurate test, then how accurate is their test? Shouldn't their tests work accurately regardless of what information I provide?
Sorry but that made no sense. What I see here are people who jumped the gun first calling me some type of plant then going on the attack against them without a shred of evidence brought forward to back the attack. They came here because I asked them to explain. They clearly posted that they didn't come here expecting anything from anyone but they did ask Greg to produce the results he claimed to have. Hell they never considered modifications until my post and this mess. We, meaning you and I, have no idea what they are capable of doing. But instead of trash talking I'm giving them a chance to make the mods and see how it all works out. They don't want anything from you or me and they don't deserve this bs. If it were me running that site I would tell you guys that have engaged in the attack to go to h^ll and create your own stuff if you think you're that good. I'm tired and done discussing this. I'll wait for the mods and try myself. I'll be heading to the mtns in a week or so and will test plenty then and unlike you I will be posting my results. Thanks for the lively discussion.
I find it interesting Scott, that this is same test as one of those under scrutiny in this topic. But I assume you just rent the right to use somebody else's product. Not surprisingly, the mini-test demonstrates the identical issue with upload speed results. Specifically, results are demonstrably inflated when simultaneously compared to the bitstream at point of origin. For example; I might be sending a measured 170k, the test site reports back 250k. The mini-server is seeing a proprietary bitstream on the satellite side of the modem - which is compressed and FEC encoded and already suffering from at least 500ms of lag. On the other hand, I can simultaneously sample the raw bitstream on the WAN - between the modem and the PC. And as you know, the raw bitstream is the one that defines true operating speed. Inroute overhead isn't added until processed by the subscriber modem. Outroute analysis is similar, but usually employs far less FEC - so needs a separate speed test algorithm of its own.BTW if anyone wants to test their speed, we have a speedtest here on our servers.
Speedtest.net Mini Bandwidth Speed Test
Its actually been there for about 2 years.
Besides, the upload test file is grossly undersized. The (minimum) half second lag alone makes a simple throughput over time calculation wildly inappropriate. But that's the easy part. The real stumbling block is how to accurately factor in the various and proprietary transmission methods. You likely already understand burst transmission. But for those that don't, the gateway server must be given sufficient time to set a throttle appropriate to the rate plan specific to that bitstream. As such, the initial transmission will be a burst that is considerably in excess of that permitted by the rate plan. It however is passed through to the test server. But in this case, the upload test file itself is so small - and the lag is so great - that the test is over before the properly throttled bitstream gets properly factored into the test results. It's long been accepted that 300k is the smallest file size recommended for typical consumer grade satellite inroute testing. But the real cherry on top is that both TX and RX data rate and coding are adaptive. At least that's true for my provider. Specifically, it's possible (for my modem) to shift data and/or FEC rates in mid-test; a factor that simply can NOT be taken into consideration by a 3rd party test server.
That said, the fact that each satellite provider employs a proprietary transmission method - works against the speed test provider. It's just not practical to tailor individual speed tests on a provider basis. The guy that thinks he's going to come up with a universally accurate speed test for ALL satellite connections - is tilting at windmills. Which is yet another reason to stick with diagnostic tools specific to the satellite provider.
Anyway. I also find it interesting that bwporker (which I assume stands for Bandwidth Hog) and Bandwidth are both Floridians. Given the similarity of their screen names and coincidental proximity, I'm curious if they also post from the same IP address. Have a good time in Denver by the way !!
//greg//
Last edited:
Greg,
Denver is for wooses. Nothing but yuppified liberals in Denver. I prefer Colorado in it's natural state, untouched and I'm not telling you where because to be honest you have that annoying stalker trait and it's none of your business.
Folks that actually read before they respond would have noticed that my last post was to Scott (the owner of this website). This is not now, nor has it ever been - all about you !!
//greg//
//greg//
Now I really don't want to give you any personal information. Not only are you a forum stalker but apparently you are bi-polar as well. From the start you've been attacking me and your previous posts verify it. I don't know and I don't care why you are behaving this way but I have no intentions of leaving this site because "YOU" don't like me. I made a post that I thought would help people and instead you have managed to dominate the thread with your personal attacks....go away kiddie and let people who really want to learn and make things better communicate with each other without fear of reprisal from the almighty Greg.
Well I ain't busy and just for the heck of it I just ran three speed test on IP geeks and Hughes.
I never had much for speed test and still don't. My plan says I get 1000 down 128up.
So Ip Geeks:
1070/105
1016/105
1083/117
Hughes server
1016/151
1008/160
990/140
Don't think it proves anything.
I think the VOIP test might be valid can't really tell but it might be a good place to send the Hughes folks who don't understand why VOIP don't work on Hughes. Dazzel em with charts.
I never had much for speed test and still don't. My plan says I get 1000 down 128up.
So Ip Geeks:
1070/105
1016/105
1083/117
Hughes server
1016/151
1008/160
990/140
Don't think it proves anything.
I think the VOIP test might be valid can't really tell but it might be a good place to send the Hughes folks who don't understand why VOIP don't work on Hughes. Dazzel em with charts.
Interesting take - but it's still all about you, isn't it?
Let me tell you how things work in the real world amigo. You popped in here as a freshman poster - almost certainly without any research at all - and started promoting a website that I'm still not sure you understand to this day. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and provided personal observations to the contrary. No brag, just fact.
But somehow you became offended because your beneficent (but uninformed) gesture wasn't appreciated. If you go back over the sequence of events here, it's pretty clear who's the actual name-caller. And the fact that "Bandwidth" feels it's ME who owes you an apology, still makes me think you're posting under two member names.
Who asked you for personal information anyway? The bigger question is - who cares? And since you're the freshman here, how on earth could I be the stalker? You came into MY house !!!
You've got some serious personal issues there mate, and this is NOT the place to air them.
//greg//
Last edited:
Good example Tobi. It simply reinforces what I posted earlier about these terrestrial speed test sites not typically coping with the NAT server concept
//greg//
Everything you've stated above is correct. Let's answer most of the concerns you've raised and see if you're happy with the answers. The speedtest mini applet that Scott uses for his general test can be obtained from the Ookla website and is intended for webmasters. There is no charge and it must be installed on a decent server and broadband pipe (meaning no bandwidth limitations or issues). Scott's server peformed well in several tests that I performed and I told him so. We also offer the applet on several servers throughout the country but we discourage use of them for diagnostic purposes. They are intended to give you instant feedback on your approximate bandwidth capability at that moment.
The speedtest mini applet was not intended to benchmark satellite or hybrid broadband connections and honestly shouldn't be relied upon too much. For many broadband users, especially those using any form of acceleration technology the tests would also not be appropriate.
With regards to our site, unfortunately bwporker posted the wrong test, results and link to information. Because the test is labled as SPEED people assume this is what the test does. This is a common mistake and we've tried to educate users since making the tests available to the public. Similar limited versions of the tests on other sites also are being misused. The webmasters at each of those sites are no doubt confused about the purpose of that test. Admittedly I think we could have done a better job of explaining the difference and proper use and we'll work on that in the coming days.
The proper test in our case is the ISP Capacity Test located under Diagnostic Tools > ISP Capacity Test. As it's offered TODAY this test is not optimized for satellite however this is about to change much in part due to this thread. Until then we're confident the test will provide consistent results that certainly can be relied upon. Your concern about rate, overhead, burst and test duration are all addressed in this test. Burst and cache detection are inluded and noted on the results where applicable.
Hopefully we can put this behind us and move forward. We encourage anyone to provide feedback and will always respond to comments regarding any of the tests. Thanks again for the opportunity to clear this up.
This is not YOUR house, this is Scott's house. Either leave the guy alone or I will take the issue up with Scott myself admin to admin if bwporker doesn't. Got it Greg? or do I need to spell it out for you? Now enough of the flaming!
