I just noticed something 10 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

452 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,039 Posts

5 Threads

#1 7 years ago

So a while back I made a thread ranting about my slow internet speed. Then now recently I took a look at the pamphlet with the schemes suggested by my ISP.

And for the one that I have subscribed to it says 256 Kb/s instead of KB/s. So technically wouldn't this mean that I should be receiving maximum 32 KB/s speed? But usually I get around 60 KB/s maximum download speed.

So does this mean that my ISP is actually doing me more of a service rather than a disservice for what I am paying them?:p




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#2 7 years ago

Internet speeds are traditionally given in bits per second. But 256kbps is an odd level... most DSL today has a minimum speed of 768kpbs.

Anyway, the answer is that yes, if you were limited to 256kbps downloads, then you shouldn't see speeds in excess of 32KBps (and in reality, it should be noticeably lower). But if you are in fact paying for 256kbps and getting something closer to 512kbps, then I would guess that you're paying for a guaranteed minimum download speed, and that your ISP is allowing you more bandwidth if it's available.

I have no idea how the regulatory system operates where you are, however, or if there are any kind of industry norms. What kind of service do you have?

Either way, yeah... you seem to be coming out ahead.




D3matt

I take what n0e says way too seriously

87 XP

20th November 2007

0 Uploads

2,553 Posts

1 Threads

#3 7 years ago

You pay money for 256k? :eek:




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

452 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,039 Posts

5 Threads

#4 7 years ago

*Le gasp* Shocking, isn't it!? Someone in a third world country posting on Gamefront forums!

But just in case you guys haven't read my location and don't know of the possibilities in such a location; Yes I am currently in a third world country and going to be here for an indefinite period of time and yes 256 Kbps is still very much common and a used and PAID for service. 512 Kbps is slightly less common but these 2 are the only schemes my ISP has allowed for home plans with unlimited downloading with no additional charges for downloads. Although I do happen to be in a relatively rural area (small township and all roughly 200 Km apart from both of the nearby cities).

C38368;5584983I have no idea how the regulatory system operates where you are, however, or if there are any kind of industry norms. What kind of service do you have?

Could you put it in terms that sounds less like a research paper? I'm not sure I could give you an answer without doing some research which I probably don't have the time for nowadays. This question was mostly casual even if requiring a bit of insight.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#5 7 years ago
random_soldier1337;5586020Could you put it in terms that sounds less like a research paper? I'm not sure I could give you an answer without doing some research which I probably don't have the time for nowadays. This question was mostly casual even if requiring a bit of insight.

Sure. What I meant was simply that I don't know what kind of regulation an ISP in India faces, insofar as what they may, or may be required, to do. More on point, however, is that I don't know what "normal" is for ISP operation in India. I do know that penetration (that is, the number of users) is fairly low by most standards, but that India has a reputation for being "all-or-nothing" where technology is concerned (that is to say, when it's there, it's very good even if often unavailable to most people). This leads me to wonder if perhaps you're paying for 256k and your ISP is giving you better speeds simply because they have excess capacity, and will cut back on that if and when more users sign up. I asked what kind of service you had because different technologies are more adaptable to this. And also because 256k is a sort of odd speed for most common connections: too fast for traditional telephony and artificially slow for DSL.




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

452 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,039 Posts

5 Threads

#6 7 years ago

I don't really know, lol. But you're post seems fairly reasonable so I am going to go with that is what it probably is.




*Daedalus

A Phoenix from the ashes

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

3,091 Posts

0 Threads

#7 7 years ago

What do you get from Speedtest.net?

I should also point out that most companies - at least here will use Kb/Mb and KB/MB interchangeably. At the moment, for example, I'm paying for 20MB broadband. (Which of course is 20Mb.)




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

452 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,039 Posts

5 Threads

#8 7 years ago

Speedtest.net shows my ping to be 62 ms, dl speed is 0.44 mbps, ul speed is 0.35 mbps.

If calculations are correct, that seems about right because I usually do experience download speeds of around 50-60 KB/s. Upload speed is probably more or less correct as well.




D3matt

I take what n0e says way too seriously

87 XP

20th November 2007

0 Uploads

2,553 Posts

1 Threads

#9 7 years ago

*Daedalus;5586802What do you get from Speedtest.net?

I should also point out that most companies - at least here will use Kb/Mb and KB/MB interchangeably. At the moment, for example, I'm paying for 20MB broadband. (Which of course is 20Mb.)

Lawsuit anybody?




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#10 7 years ago
D3matt;5587240Lawsuit anybody?

Because that won't be shot down by a 12(b)(6) motion in an instant...




  • 1
  • 2