FCC Asks You To Test Your Broadband Speeds 454
AnotherUsername writes "The Federal Communications Commission is asking the nation's broadband and smartphone users to use its broadband testing tools to help the feds and consumers know what speeds are actually available, not just promised by the nation's telecoms. At http://www.broadband.gov/, users enter their address and test their broadband download speed, upload speed, latency, and jitter using one of two tests (users can choose to test with the other after one test is complete). The FCC is requiring the street address, as it 'may use this data to analyze broadband quality and availability on a geographic basis' (they promise not to release location data except in the aggregate). The agency is also asking those who live in a broadband 'dead zone' to fill out a report online, call, fax, email, or even send a letter. The announcement comes just six days before the FCC presents the first ever national broadband plan to Congress. Java is necessary to run the test." Lauren Weinstein points out some of the limitations in the FCC's testing methodology.
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
...I would like to help them out by providing the necessary data, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it...tinfoil hat and all that. Anyone planning on doing this? Why or why not?
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
I am, or I would. I need to wait for FreeBSD to update the java available in ports, though. It's too much of a pain to get it from Sun.
Why? Well I'd like to see telco's held to their promised speeds as much as possible. If you are going to advertise one speed but only deliver a lower one, that's false advertising (or something).
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Well I'd like to see telco's held to their promised speeds as much as possible. If you are going to advertise one speed but only deliver a lower one, that's false advertising (or something).
This is why I ran their test and submitted the results.
If you go by my ISP's advertising you'll see they're offering 10 Mbps in my area. What you won't see is that regardless of which plan you sign up for, you're lucky if you can actually get 3 Mbps.
So, by running their test, they've got something more accurate than what the ISPs will tell them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I, on the other hand, am paying for a 6/1 business cable plan (Comcast), and according to this broadband test, I am getting anywhere between 15-20 meg down and a consistent 2.5 meg up, with 20 ms ping +/- 1ms. Makes sense to me since I have seen downloads hit 1.6 MB/sec before. I know some people get the shit end of the stick with cable but I seem to have lucked out here. I earned it after so many years spent at my old place, out in the country with nothing but dialup.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am paying for 16/9 and getting 4/4. After repeatedly complaining, having them troubleshoot their hardware, et. Al, they have PROMISED to check the "neighborhood node", replace the immediate (in my neighbors back yard) node, as well as the routing servers, and given me $20/month credit for 6 months. Of course they haven't replace or repaired any of the nodes (the one in my neighbors yard looks like someone took a baseball bat to it), but I have received the credit. So I'm all for letting the FCC enforce
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>> I'm all for letting the FCC enforce quoted speeds for ISPs.
What do you need the FCC for? You can enforce the speeds yourself using existing mechanisms. Simply drag Comcast into court for "breach of contract". You might even be able to get a class-action suit for your local neighborhood where Cmcast was licensed.
Unfortunately you'd probably lose. Why? The contract you signed, if it looks like my contract, says "upto" a certain speed. Not a guarantee. Which means Comcast has done nothing w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is EXACTLY why the FCC is doing this in the first place. They're going to compare the advertised "up to" speed and see how often you can actually get that.
The problem with this test is that it only measures the speed for about 20 seconds. I have comcast which means "power boost" kicks in for about the first 30 seconds of your download, then you get normal speed, and then my speed seems to fucking tank on torrents after about
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that would make for a nice little database addition to what they already have.
Sorry, not interested. I'd rather them have to make at least 'some' effort in their dragnet searches....
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
As often as cable modems break and cable networks switch IP addresses (unless you pay extra for the static IP) I pretty much fail to see how they'll build any reliable database from the cable side of things, as far as IP addresses are concerned (which are not reliable identifiers anyways.)
I'm on my 10th IP address in two days and my THIRD cable modem in two months, just to give you an indication.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We'll be at your door momentarily to collect you.
When the agents knock on your door, don't try to run. It won't do you any good. Do feel free to resist though. It gives us an excuse to use violence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't need some new sneaky plan to get your data, they already have it.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Check the fine print. It's written in 1px tall letters, but not necessarily every available to you.
The advertised rate is the maximum data rate that would be possible with your account.
They may have the pipe between your house and their first pop at the advertised speeds, but that won't necessarily be available through their network. They cannot assert the reliability of any 3rd part web sites, nor connectivity on any network beyond their own.
Additionally, they probably don't (read: never) have enough capacity on their network to take 100% of advertised rate for all users simultaneously. Providers always oversell their bandwidth. They have since the dialup days. "Ok, we have 1,000 56k modems. Therefore we should have 56Mb/s available. Great, we'll run it over this T1, and blame line noise on their end for any slower speeds."
Bandwidth calculations for sales are very dependent on the fact that some of the customers will never use their service. Some will only use it intermittently. Those who use too much capacity will be throttled or cancelled.
When cable modems were first coming out, RoadRunner was using the same provider as my work. I could download stuff from work to home at 10Mb/s. That lasted for a few months, and then I suddenly found it capped at 3Mb/s. Ok, still, I'm happy, this was years ago and my other choice was a 56k modem. Then I found it capped at 1.5Mb/s. I was starting to get annoyed, so I called to complain. "My connection is getting slower and slower." They told me it couldn't have possibly been 10Mb/s, they never provisioned anything like that. Hmm. They also said the advertised rate of 3Mb/s is only a maximum. If other people in the area are using service at the same time as me, I should expect slower times. No one ever sees their maximum advertised throughput. If I'd like, I could upgrade to "Business" service for 10x as much, which has a higher advertised rate, but still does not have a guarantee for throughput. It's in the fine print, in the addendum that I wasn't provided a copy of. In the cellar. Behind the locked door marked "Beware the Leopard". In the disused lavatory. In the bottom drawer of a locked file cabinet. Clearly it was my fault for not understanding the terms of the contract, therefore I need to shut up and pay my bill like a happy little customer.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole "up to" thing seems like a barely legal joke to me.
If I ran a dairy delivery, and I offered my customers "packages" of either "up to 2 pints of milk, up to 3 pints, or up to 4 pints", and then proceeded to deliver them 1 pint, 1 1/4 pints, or 1 1/2 pints, do you know what would happen? I'd be bitch slapped by the Trade Descriptions Act quicker than you can say "but did you read the fine print?". You're not allowed to offer something that you have no intention of delivering, and that's that.
It seems like the ISPs are in one of those strange legal loop-holes that so regularly plague the technology industries. It seems that the second someone introduces something "on a computer", the regulators completely lose their minds...
Why the need of an addy? (Score:3)
Can't they trace the IP instead?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why the need of an addy? (Score:5, Informative)
They want to determine coverage. You cannot derive street-level coverage of broadband from IP addresses easily. As it stands, one of the problems with broadband is that you do not get universally consistent coverage, for example, at home, the 3/768 DSL offering of one of the CLEC's failed testing and they provisioned it for 1.5/512 instead. Had we been half a mile closer to the CO, 3/768 likely would have worked. There will be someone else a little further out who can only get it as 768/384.
The real problem will be for the FCC to get enough people to run this to get a meaningful map. I doubt that they'll get enough for it to really matter.
Re:Why the need of an addy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The very fact that they are asking means they don't have it already, or are not confident with the freshness of the data they have.
Re:Why the need of an addy? (Score:5, Insightful)
seeing as they don't ask for name or SSN or any other way of identifying you, it doesn't help whether they already have it or not. They need some way of tying results to location. If they asked for your name and phone number they could run it through the database they already have to determine your address as it is publicly known. but I think asking for that info would be worse. So they do the easiest thing and ask for address. Then they have a really easy job of tying results to location and the information you provided on its own is pretty harmless.
Come on, this is a chance for you to help the Government slam the telco's. Which many slashdotters have been asking for for ages. Do it.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see a geographical breakdown of response rates ...superimposed with political and psychological epidemiology data. Sort of a map of the Paranoid States of America.
Of course you'd probably have to control for rates of technical literacy or something, so it'd end up worthless.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
So your goal to make sure they don't get any stimulus money for broadband by making it appear they do?
Anyways, it's hard to imagine they won't be discarding outliers, and (regardless of intentions) your dishonest result will be an outlier.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>So your goal to make sure they don't get any stimulus money for broadband by making it appear they do?
Our national debt is nearly $130,000 per American home* and projected by Obama's budget to increase +$10,000 more each year. We. Need. To Stop. Spending. Otherwise we'll have ~$200,000/home by the end of this decade, and all go bankrupt. As Cosby might say, "C'mon people! This isn't hard to figure out."
The solution to broadband is ridiculously easy -
- Congress should mandate with a simple
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution to broadband is ridiculously easy -
- Congress should mandate with a simple law that the telephone company must provide DSL to any customer requests it (within six months). The twisted-pair lines are already there, except for the need to add a neighborhood DSLAM. If Verizon/ATT/whoever balk about expense, simply point to the billions they received circa 1996 and say "use that". Actually the expense should be quite low to upgrade existing phone lines to DSL lines.
So you're proposing that instead of the taxpayer paying for it via taxes, the customers will pay for it via price increases handed down by the providers to cover the extra costs?
So it's OK for everyone to pay for it as long as it's not called taxes? Brilliant.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 butchersong for being "insightful"
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>instead of the taxpayer paying for it via taxes, the customers will pay for it
That's right. At least as a customer, you can cancel the bill if you feel it's too high, or downgrade to a cheaper service. For example I downgraded from $60 to $15 when comcast raised their rates.
- As a customer you have power to cancel or moderate your spending.
- As a taxpayer you have zero power.
- I prefer the former to the latter, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
customers will pay for it via price increases handed down by the providers to cover the extra costs.
The extra costs will be added to everyone's bill to cover your government mandated DSL program, not just the people who get it.
Your 'customer action' approach would be that everyone downgrade their service when the providers increase their charges to cover a government mandated rollout?
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
So you're proposing that instead of the taxpayer paying for it via taxes, the customers will pay for it via price increases handed down by the providers to cover the extra costs?
So it's OK for everyone to pay for it as long as it's not called taxes? Brilliant.
As much as you aimed that comment sarcastically, you are right on the money. Think of it as paying for something you actually use and is meaningful to you. Rather then paying for a service that you didn't use, but instead someone got to use.
Or to put it another way. Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can sit in your parents basement getting high scores on Call of Duty since you have virtually no lag time thanks to my taxes?
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can go to the library and read books thanks to my taxes? I only buy books - I have no need for a library.
Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can drive on improved roads thanks to my taxes? I work from home and have a big car - I have no need for pothole-free roads.
Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can send your child to a school funded by my taxes? I have no children, and if I did they would go to a private school.
Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can be assured of eating safe food, thanks to the FDA's use of my taxes? I have my own farm - I have no need for food regulation.
Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can get medicare thanks to my taxes?
Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can be safe thanks to the military funded by my taxes?
Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can drink soda made from HFCS, subsidized by my taxes?
Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can have onion routing, thanks to DARPA funded by my taxes?
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the Libertarian party.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should I work for 60 hours a week busting my rear so that you can sit in your parents basement getting high scores on Call of Duty since you have virtually no lag time thanks to my taxes?
Well, um...I'm still getting lag time, so apparently you're not working hard enough...
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to broadband is ridiculously easy -
- Congress should mandate with a simple law that the telephone company must provide DSL to any customer requests it (within six months). The twisted-pair lines are already there, except for the need to add a neighborhood DSLAM. If Verizon/ATT/whoever balk about expense, simply point to the billions they received circa 1996 and say "use that". Actually the expense should be quite low to upgrade existing phone lines to DSL lines.
So you're proposing that instead of the taxpayer paying for it via taxes, the customers will pay for it via price increases handed down by the providers to cover the extra costs?
So it's OK for everyone to pay for it as long as it's not called taxes? Brilliant.
Did you even read what he said? We ALREADY paid for it with our taxes in the 90s, instead of building out broadband THEY STOLE THE MONEY.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Relax the "zomg deficit spending is teh baaaad" meme until we're out of the recession/under 10% unemployment, mkay?
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Under Obama's existing and projected budget, the debt increased by about $25 trillion during 2009, $15 trillion in 2010, and $10 trillion for the years 2011, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Look up Obama's budget - it's there in plain balck and white.
Yes--due largely to the unfunded liabilities that the Bush administration incurred before Obama even took office. See also: Medicare part D, estate tax repeal, Bush's tax cuts for the top 1%. Their full cost is playing out *now*.
And you're assigning a numerical value per household, which is at best tangential to the issue of the debt/GDP ratio. See here [nytimes.com] and the plots here [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that cutting taxes on the rich didn't help, but the only REAL solution is to raise taxes on the people who currently aren't paying any, cut spending (entitlements), and stop the pork barrel spending.
Because the lowest 20% have *so* much leftover income to contribute to taxes. And "pork barrel spending" comprises less than 1% of the Federal budget. Most goes to entitlements and defense--and entitlement spending, namely Medicare, is growing because our health costs are twice as much per-capita as nations with universal healthcare.
Of course Obama's Health Care reform isn't really about Health Care, it is about creating another bankrupt entitlement, and passing the debt off to our children.
Except for the part where it reduces the deficit in the next decade per the CBO, and reduces the deficit still *more* for the decade after. And so on.
PEOPLE do you not realize that you're selling your children into slavery? And it isn't just the USA that is facing this problem, it is happening all across the world.
Think about this for a s
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation. - Walter Williams
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So I'll reset my dsl modem afterward and get a new IP address. They'll still have to use their NSA computers for tracking me ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
So you deliberate made an area trying to get federal support because it doesn't have available broadband look like it has broadband? That's not very nice...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The agency is also asking those who live in a broadband 'dead zone' to fill out a report online, call, fax, email, or even send a letter.
Re: (Score:2)
give'em approximate address? (like... corner house on your block).
In my case, it's the apartment building without apartment number.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point? The Feds already know where I live...I did want my tax return. So now they know "how fast" my connection is.
Re: (Score:2)
I told them I live in one of the US Minor islands.. which is semi true. I live in the UK. They may or may not fall for my address: 12345, City: 12345, Zipcode: 12345..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Meh, it worked. I doubt the US government is going to chase me down and imprison me for it. Well, I hope not. Hang on, there's someone at the do-
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention you probably already have a driver's license, and that requires a current address. Does anyone seriously believe the government doesn't know where they live?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, you'll need to stop all other network activity during the test to get an accurate result. Second, don't get kB and kb confused... 1kB=8kb.
Happy testing.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
I like your thinking. This is the government asking for this after all, you can't even trust the government with your social security number! Giving them your address is just asking for trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
do you think they will install malware on your PC?
i've lived in the US for almost 30 years and came from east of the iron curtain. you tin foil people make me laugh.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Windows firewall (Score:3, Funny)
Windows firewall pops up a warning in the middle of the test, which will likely mess up the results since it will cause a delay. Not sure I like unblocking an application that the government is sponsoring either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The activities of any network speed tester should attract the attention of a competent firewall, since they will necessarily involve doing some uploading and downloading. If this makes you nervous, just don't execute the code(or, if you have the java chops, examine it first and make sure that the filler data used for the upload portion of the test is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You (and others) seemed to have taken my words a bit out of context. I ran the program, then reblocked the ports. I'm not paranoid about the 'gubmint being out to get me', but I think anyone with any sense of history knows that it is always best to be a bit leery when it comes to governments, which are typically run by people who enjoy power. This is the same government who approved the DCMA, software patents, and the Patriot Act. My sense of "liberty" is obviously not the same as most elected politicia
Re:Windows firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure I like unblocking an application that the government is sponsoring either.
Run a packet sniffer, and if you find anything particularly damning, there will be plenty of media outlets that will want to buy the story from you.
Honestly, between Comcast and the government, I know which of the two I'd trust.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In contrast to the government I have no personal reason to distrust Comcast, never having had any dealings with them (and not crediting Slashdot rants about how evil they are). However, trust is not necessary. Both are often quite predictable and in this case the chance that the FCC is hiding something nefarious in this test is so small as to provoke laughter at those who are worried about it.
Besides, any trojan would be aimed at Windows anyway.
They need to give us better motivation (Score:4, Funny)
Test server slashdotted already? (Score:5, Informative)
It offered me the opportunity to rerun the test using Ookla as the host. That returned 25 megabit/sec down and 15 megabit/sec up -- which is what my connection is supposed to do.
They apparently need to implement some sort of queue, so that they don't saturate their own connection with too many simultaneous tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
if I were them (Score:5, Insightful)
I would selectively throttle http://www.broadband.gov/ to 110% of the nominal bandwidth being paid for :)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone at Comcast seems to already be on this. My connection goes to shit when I use BT, including latency and packet loss, but magically my numbers on that particular test stay nearly ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
This was my first thought, too... Wondering how long it would take every ISP in the country to put this testing traffic to the top of their QoS & traffic shaping priorities.
Yet another thing to do (Score:2)
Classic failures (Score:2, Informative)
An iPhone (yes there's an iPhone app) test and a laptop test on the same wifi reported wildly different numbers.
Selecting a server 800 miles away rather than the one in the same city yielded much improved numbers (by whole number multiples).
Speedtest.net already has an extensive database, and appears to be part of the backend of this. It's too bad the FCC couldn't have just handed them a small pile of cash to summarize the existing data, which would probably have been better at rapidly producing results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This "test" is typical of government programs. Expensive, doesn't work right, and ends-up not fulfilling its promises.
Remember EZpass in 2000? When I signed-up the government told me it would save time and money. Instead of $1 for a toll, I paid 90 cents, which saved a lot of cash over a month's time. Then in 2005 they eliminated the savings, but I kept the EZpass for convenience. And now in 2010 they want me to PAY $20 more each year than the cash drivers. I'm getting rid of my EZpass. It's typical
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget about instances where a toll in instituted to pay for the road. Once the road is paid for, the toll is continued because the budget now depends on it. I know it happened in New Orleans, but I'm pretty sure that isn't the only place where that has happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you imagine the outcry among speedtest users if speedtest gave information to the gov't for this? It would damage their reputation, and it would damage the FCC's reputation as well for collecting data through a back-channel rather than through request. This isn't even weighing in speedtest's privacy policy and the fact that ISPs have already optimised their burst performance around benchmarks like speedtest.
One of the more accurate tests I've run (Score:5, Interesting)
I've tried the numerous broadband speed testers out there. Depending on where they are and who they are I have received results as low as 1/5th my actual bandwidth to twice as much. Sometimes I wondered if they were really trying at all. I generally judge my downstream on an average of what I get when I do an aptitude update ; aptitude upgrade as it seems to be inline with my actual advertised speeds. As far as downstream, I use my machine via SSH daily and the speeds I get through that. Pretty consistent.
This test was pretty much dead on accurate. I was 9993/975 (I have 10/1). The test was painless, easy, and the only thing I didn't particularly care for was the fact that they wanted your exact address. Wouldn't a simple portion of your address work well enough (e.g. 1xx Main St 90210) instead of the entire thing? Even if they were looking to aggregate the information by Zip+4 that should be enough, right? Who needs it any lower than that?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Half an address should be enough for anyone!
My Results (Score:2)
Comcast in Hanover County, VA 23059:
down: 20347 kbps
up: 3144 kbps
latency: 20 ms
jitter: 1 ms
Tested with Ookla - running firefox.
Browser sensitive! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Users are randomly assigned the Ookla or M-Lab application.
Note: the M-Lab application currently does not work with Safari, Chrome, and Opera web browsers.
Really? So the 3 most standards compliant browsers arent supported?
Re: (Score:2)
Worked fine in Chrome for me *shrug*.
Re: (Score:2)
And illogical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The M-lab version also didn't work for me (Firefox, but on Kubuntu). Ookla seems to work (25 M down, 2.5 M up, 50 ms latency sounds about right). Go figure.
Will anything come of this? (Score:2)
Rural electrification (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Give this man a cookie. In 1994 the REA was abolished and replaced with the Rural Utilities Service. They are most definately trying to justify their existence by trying to be involved in Federal broadband initiatives.
Geolocation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be trivial to weed out as your IP will be completely wrong. Also, under the assumption that most visitors will provide correct information, they can simply exclude unrealistic samples.
surprised at the speed (Score:2)
Admittedly, it's 6:30 in the morning, when most of the apartment complex in San Diego (UTC area, 92122) is still asleep. Nonetheless, for basic high speed from Time Warner Cable, I'm quite surprised by the speed. I've always been happy with the speed they provide, but I didn't realize that it would burst so high. Of course, other than broadband.gov no one is pushing data down my connection at those speeds anyways.
Download speed: 29836 kbps
Upload speed: 964 kbps
Latency: 17 ms
Jitter 2 ms
The FCC, A Captured Regulatory Agency (Score:2, Flamebait)
This is a waste of time, and simply another one in the current Democratic FCC's array of disappointments. This kind of voluntary speed test information gathering is worthless, since there's no way to vet the contributors' address claims. It's really just for show, just like the rest of the FCC's attempts to regulate.
The problem right now is the FCC's policies, and from what I've heard its upcoming National Broadband Plan, are wimpy, non-confrontational, and will do nothing to change the status quo in th
Excellent! (Score:2)
Nobody? Hmmm... That's odd.
Great job! (Score:3, Informative)
This site doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence in the government's plan for national broadband. First the site has difficulty loading, it took a few minutes before I got in. So I try the test and Firefox locks up. Eventually I get an unresponsive script warning.
Tail Wagging Dog (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then there is the problem of Italian influence, and the known fact that Italo-islamic spies have placed cable splitters in all the main telecom hubs of the U.S. and Mexico
This is SERIOUS SHIT, if it is true !!
Can anyone confirm the above claim, please ??
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Then there is the problem of Italian influence, and the known fact that Italo-islamic spies have placed cable splitters in all the main telecom hubs of the U.S. and Mexico
This is SERIOUS SHIT, if it is true !!
Can anyone confirm the above claim, please ??
Minus the profanity, this pretty much typifies one of every three emails I get from my grandmother.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, those Net Admins at Comcast will be looking at this and figuring out where the test is connecting to, and then modifying their configurations so that their filtering/slowdown settings do not interfere with a users ability to get FULL speed just to the testing site.
Now, to figure out how to use broadband.gov as a proxy..
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, those Net Admins at Comcast will be looking at this and figuring out where the test is connecting to, and then modifying their configurations so that their filtering/slowdown settings do not interfere with a users ability to get FULL speed just to the testing site.
Now, to figure out how to use broadband.gov as a proxy..
Well all you have to do is to hack into the website and install your own proxy software. Then shortly after that you will find that all your broadband speed issues have disappeared - along with a few other things of course.
Re: (Score:2)
No - I think they just don't know the difference. "Oh, it's a program? It must be Java." I didn't see Java even get loaded when I ran it. Just Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
I ran Little Snitch [obdev.at] while running the broadband speed test, and it did not appear to be sending private data as you claim. Do you have any proof?