On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Steven Bellovin wrote:
What they really need is something more or less like an accurate zip
code, I suspect. They want to find out what real "broadband" speeds are
in different parts of the country. Putting in a fake address renders
your data useless.
The FCC used to co
On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:43 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> http://www.broadband.gov/
I'm listening to all this and thinking through the questions the FCC might be
asking. I'm also trying to do a somewhat-controlled test, which I'll give you
the first several samples of. See attached.
I picked up y
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, John S. Quarterman wrote:
Anybody who wants to do it better, here's your chance:
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=cb712eb3ef384ebe25bfbf6b0a5dfa16
Hmm, although it lists a number of FAR clauses but it seems none of them
reference the new requirements for IPv6:
http:/
On 3/12/2010 13:22, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- t...@americafree.tv wrote: From: Marshall Eubanks
>>
>>
>> This might be useful to some. Article :
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312
>>
>> site :http://www.bro
--- s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
From: Steven Bellovin
On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> It requires giving your address.
> ---
>
> Nah, no real address needed. Just use 123 elm street abbeville alabama
> 36310. That's the first zi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:43:22AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> [ ... ]
> http://www.broadband.gov/
If you can't get there, check DNSSEC first Lame server or bad signature:
Mar 12 08:57:57 mx1 named[18363]: no valid KEY resolving
'www.bro
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, John S. Quarterman wrote:
Anybody who wants to do it better, here's your chance:
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=cb712eb3ef384ebe25bfbf6b0a5dfa16
Seems they'd be better off just gathering data from existing speedtest
networks. But speed isn't the only issue they shou
On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- t...@americafree.tv wrote:
> From: Marshall Eubanks
>
> This might be useful to some. Article :
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312
>
> site :http://www.broadband.gov/
>
> It requires giving your address.
> ---
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, char...@knownelement.com wrote:
Does it work with IPv6?
Not by default as it seems the content server is IPv4 enabled only. I
suppose the Ookla-based tool would work over IPv6 also if the content
server was setup for IPv6.
Speedtest.net's tool works over IPv6 if the co
--- t...@americafree.tv wrote:
From: Marshall Eubanks
This might be useful to some. Article :
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312
site :http://www.broadband.gov/
It requires giving your address.
---
Nah, no real address needed. J
There is definitely something very broken in the gov't version of the
speedtest.net application. It seems very BW constrained. I can get great
results to a variety of ookla sites via test points across the US, but the
government one is always horrible.
We host both a pingtest and speedtest.net sit
Anybody who wants to do it better, here's your chance:
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=cb712eb3ef384ebe25bfbf6b0a5dfa16
-jsq
> On 3/12/2010 11:26 AM, Scott Berkman wrote:
> So have other people noticed that the Ookla/Speedtest.net/Speakeasy
> Bandwidth test often comes up VERY short on upload bandwidth results for
> anything other than residential-grade asymmetrical services?
As we heard in Austin, residential (or at le
On 12/03/10 11:26 -0500, Scott Berkman wrote:
So have other people noticed that the Ookla/Speedtest.net/Speakeasy
Bandwidth test often comes up VERY short on upload bandwidth results for
anything other than residential-grade asymmetrical services?
We often get complaints from customers saying "I
Does it work with IPv6?
--Original Message--
From: Marshall Eubanks
To: nanog@nanog.org list
Subject: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
Sent: Mar 12, 2010 5:43 AM
This might be useful to some.
Article :
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312
site :
http://www.broadb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/12/2010 11:26 AM, Scott Berkman wrote:
> So have other people noticed that the Ookla/Speedtest.net/Speakeasy
> Bandwidth test often comes up VERY short on upload bandwidth results for
> anything other than residential-grade asymmetrical services?
Scott Berkman wrote:
> So have other people noticed that the Ookla/Speedtest.net/Speakeasy
> Bandwidth test often comes up VERY short on upload bandwidth results for
> anything other than residential-grade asymmetrical services?
The question to consider are: are JAVA based "speed" testers reliab
There are obviously some variables, buffering or something out there
since download speeds do not seem to be very consistent running the
tools several times. I tested three times each with the two engines.
>From SATX, TWC/RR:
Ookla
Download Speed 24408 2849422662 Kbps
Upload Speed
Original Message-
From: Robert Mathews (OSIA) [mailto:math...@hawaii.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:32 AM
To: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
Joe Greco wrote:
> Correction: it _requires_ Java. It _asks_ for your address.
Joe Greco wrote:
> Correction: it _requires_ Java. It _asks_ for your address. It seems
> like it'd work fine if you gave it your neighbor's address. :-)
>
> I noted that I got wildly varying numbers on a laptop and an iPhone (there
> is also an iPhone app) and the iPhone app doesn't ask for an add
I could imagine that the FCC sees it as a data source.
On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:34 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
>> I've gotten strange stuff each time I've tried their tests. I
>> particularly like the factor of 10 difference in upload speeds.
>
> The FCC is prob
On 3/12/2010 08:43, Joe Greco wrote:
> As such, the only real value I see the FCC tool offering is the potential
> for visibility into things such as DSL speed/distance limitations, but in
> order for that to be meaningful, you'd have to get a lot of people to run
> the test.
>
> Which brings us
Joe Greco wrote:
I've gotten strange stuff each time I've tried their tests. I
particularly like the factor of 10 difference in upload speeds.
... JG
Yeah...these test are algorithm based and rarely accurate! On our
100Mbps Internet connection (which I know handles 100Mbps) best I could
g
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
> > I've gotten strange stuff each time I've tried their tests. I
> > particularly like the factor of 10 difference in upload speeds.
>
> The FCC is probably doing this because US providers generally don't
> release actual bandwidth, speeds or latency numb
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
I've gotten strange stuff each time I've tried their tests. I
particularly like the factor of 10 difference in upload speeds.
The FCC is probably doing this because US providers generally don't
release actual bandwidth, speeds or latency numbers their con
> I noted that I got wildly varying numbers on a laptop and an iPhone (there
> is also an iPhone app) and the iPhone app doesn't ask for an address. Both
> on the same wifi and connection, and the numbers were off by a lot.
And I meant to include examples, but fingers committed the message
before
> This might be useful to some.
>
> Article :
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312
>
> site :
>
> http://www.broadband.gov/
>
> It requires giving your address.
Correction: it _requires_ Java. It _asks_ for your address. It seems
like it'd work fine if you gave it your
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> http://www.broadband.gov/
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.broadband.gov. 86400 IN A 4.21.126.148
www.broadband.gov. 86400 IN RRSIG A 7 3 86400 20100309192609 (
20091209192609 46640 broadband.gov.
[...] )
> http://www.broadband.gov/
i suspect the bandwidth tests are a bit latency sensitive
> It requires giving your address.
did not really like a tokyo postal code
randy
If you have fios please don't use this, if you have relatives with dial, make
them use it :)
- Jared
On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> This might be useful to some.
>
> Article :
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312
>
> site :
>
> http://www.broadban
30 matches
Mail list logo
