That is strange even the better dsl speeds now a days should at least get 50 or better. AT least that is what iwas told. I am on cable through comcast x finity and that they have just pushed the giga bit speeds in my neighborhood and
I really like it.spectrum with cable offers 200 that is what hey have been advertising lately, an then there is a 400 in the sspectrum offering up which cost you about $90 or so and that will get you at least half of gigabit speed better then what you
have.inquire about that and se if that will help you out . I think that all these dsl copper wires are being phased out for fiber and 5g LTE connections going forward .
That is dsl, and absolutely horrific speed.
Look into signing up for 4g/lte home internet if available in your area. It will likely be faster.
I would not mide to have such line speeds. I Have only a 6MBS line speed and download Is 600KBS and upload is 200KBS
Wow Google Fiber? I wana hear more about that. Email me off list please Jarry. I wana see about getting it. Thanks.
I disagree, WiFi wireless is going to up and down with the signal and using a Ethernet with a cat5 cable or better will give you a steady signal rather wirless signal, my wife streaming Romania box she get 45 channel and have the Ethernet
cable she does not lose no signal and I do not have to put in a password for her box, she was losing picture with wirless, but now I have Google Fiber with 1GB up and down, I did a speed test on my Eero mess syster and I have 600 to 900 up and down for the
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:24 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
If you are using the internet then it doesn’t really matter if you use wired or wireless.
I'm sorry, but as an unqualified statement that's very simply incorrect.
There are many situations (one of which was already described, the presence of a multi-WiFi network rich operating environment) that has the potential to have significant impacts on WiFi performance on heavy traffic channels (and older hardware isn't trying
to seek out empty channels). Ethernet never has this issue.
The above being said, I absolutely agree that trying to describe throughput is somewhat an exercise in futility. I always use the example of either a series of pipes and hoses delivering water, where the fastest flow you will get in the whole collection is
determined by the narrowest constriction in that series, or of a bucket brigade where you have individuals who are significantly slower "somewhere in the middle, somewhere" and this is what limits the ultimate number of buckets you get, and at what speed,
on the end where the water gets thrown.
I'm constantly trying to explain to my partner that the reason that Zoom, for instance, is slow and flaky is almost never going to be the result of something on his machine, which has way more than enough firepower to handle it all at once. It's because, somewhere
out there in cyberspace, there's a hitch in the gitty-up of the data coming to and going from his computer to the meeting hub and/or participants. The same is true when the browsing experience in general slows down. And there are times where the end you're
trying to reach from wherever you are happens to be down entirely. All of these things happen, both singly, and sometimes in combination.
Brian - Windows
10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 20H2, Build 19042
If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the f**king window and find out which is
~ Jonathan Foster