Uncle Sam wants YOU to test your broadband connection!

[Nibiru2012]

From: Ars Technica

By Nate Anderson | Last updated a day ago

The US government needs 10,000 volunteers to hook a free, specialized router up to their broadband connections.

The FCC announced yesterday that 80 percent of Americans don't know the advertised speed of their own broadband connection—and that says nothing about the actual speed, which is often 40 or 50 percent slower. Broadband quality relies on more than sheer speed, but the public knows almost nothing about important, but more esoteric measurements like connection uptime, packet loss, latency, jitter, and DNS query time.

Neither does the FCC.

Taken together, neither the public nor the FCC have much hard evidence to go on when it comes to judging US broadband. How fast are actual speeds? No one knows. How available is it? No one knows. Why hasn't the FCC made any attempt to collect even a modicum of useful broadband data for the last decade? No one knows.

The agency put together a National Broadband Plan earlier this year, despite the fact that it still has no comprehensive map of broadband speeds and geographic availability, nor does it know basic connection information such as whether ISP speed promises bear any relation to reality.

The mapping issue is slowly (and expensively) being dealt with, and the FCC has now turned its attention to collecting statistically valid data on actual broadband connections. It has contracted with measurement firm SamKnows, which has done similar work in the UK, to put 10,000 specialized routers into homes across the country.

Once in place on the network, these devices will measure ISP performance. "We'll be deploying our rather lovely SamKnows 'White boxes' [which are actually black], an asset to any home, filled with some clever technology to volunteers all around the country," says SamKnows.

"Once connected to your home network the unit will perform a series of tests at regular intervals during the day, every day of the year, with little to no involvement from you, simple! The results of these tests are then fed up to our reporting engine and combined with the results of others on the same ISP to form a national view of how that ISP is performing. We're even working towards future deployments that will allow us to drill down to regional and/or product performance."

The boxes will run speed tests at regular intervals, but will also perform tests on:

• Single and multithreaded HTTP download speed
• Single and multithreaded HTTP based upload speed
• Consumption of the connection—the amount of data sent and received
• Availability of the connection—when it is unavailable
• Jitter
• Latency
• Packet loss
• DNS query resolution time
• DNS query failure rate
• Web page loading time
• Web page loading failure rate

To qualify for one of the routers, volunteers need to meet a few conditions. They need a wireline broadband connection, for instance. It needs to be stable. They should not be heavy downloaders (over 30GB/month). They should not be on tiny, data-capped plans (the units can transfer up to 2GB/month in test data).

Volunteers get the satisfaction of helping the government collect absurdly detailed broadband metrics that could form the basis of future ISP disclosure rules and help affect government broadband policy. But they will also get access to all of the data from their own connection through a customized Web dashboard; if you've ever wanted to see a graph of your connection's latency or jitter, this is a simple way to do so.

SOURCE


Okay, y'all; whose gonna be first in line? Aw, c'mon just one volunteer?

 

[clifford_cooley]

In other words they don't want participants that need helping the most. You must have a stable line with high bandwidth. Doesn't look like they need much help improving their speeds. However I do understand the concept behind strengthening the backbone behind all the servers. But in all reality this is not helping the guy at the bottom with all the troubles.

 

[catilley1092]

Well, that suxs, I have a wireless modem. I was into the signup process, and saw that you must have a "stable" or "solid" connection. I would like to have a "solid" connection, but in my bedroom where my computer desk is, the only cable connection is where the entertainment center is, my modem sits on top of that. I suppose that I could get a long enough ethernet cable to plug my laptop into. Does that count as a "stable" connection. I'd like to sign up, but want to meet the requirements. The landlord won't allow no more cables, there's already 7 throughout the apartment, only 2 are in use. But only one is in my bedroom. I'd rather the modem was placed on top of the computer desk, then I'd have a stable connection for my desktop, and wireless for my laptop. I guess that if the cable is cheap enough, I could measure and hook it up anyway, but would a 25 foot cable be too long?

 

[Nibiru2012]

You can use an ethernet cable and 25' is not too long at all.

Wireless counts as a stable connection too. You can buy ethernet cable for not too much at all. It's what they use to wire homes with from a central point then room to room.

Ethernet cabling will give you the best connection since it is hard wired to the router.
You can elevate your wireless router, say about 5-6' above the floor, that helps quite a bit.

 

[Kalario]

I smell Big Brother...maybe I am paranoid?

 

[catilley1092]

You can use an ethernet cable and 25' is not too long at all.

Wireless counts as a stable connection too. You can buy ethernet cable for not too much at all. It's what they use to wire homes with from a central point then room to room.

Ethernet cabling will give you the best connection since it is hard wired to the router.
You can elevate your wireless router, say about 5-6' above the floor, that helps quite a bit.

I'll find a cable, at either Lowes, Home Depot or Radio Shack. Are they expensive? I know they cost more than phone cable does, but how much more? Better yet, I could get an adapter to extend my cable, then plug the router into that. If the router was on the top of my computer desk, I have an ethernet cable that will easily reach. The reason that I added to my post here, is that I have a large amount of cablevision cable, I just need a couple of adapters to join them together with.

 

[yodap]

Awww poop. I just bought a router this week.

 

[Core]

Under 30 gigs? Hah.

 

[TrainableMan]

Kal, just cuz you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

I do know they commissioned a study to see where/if the infrastructure needs upgrading so this sounds legit but limiting it to ppl that download less than 30GB? Seems to me they are excluding me and most of the people that are actually doing the complaining. We want streaming videos, etc.

 

[Kalario]

cguru: aaahhhh... they're trying to get me!!!

 

[catilley1092]

By placing this "cap" on the deal, they are actually limiting the details of their "study", or whatever. I can see it now, they're going to place these devices on a lot of "grandma's desktops", which doesn't see much action normally. I found enough cable to run it underneath the bed and under the computer desk, all the way to the top, where it is now. But I download twice that amount, at a minimum. Folding involves a lot of downloading, too.

This is just a wasted project in the making, and most likely, you'll see no good come out of it. In fact, you'll most likely see bad, because there's going to be all these "disclosures", of which the cost will be passed on down the line. Another page added to AT&T's bill.

Speaking of AT&T, I recently got an offer from them, they'll provide unlimited phone, TV and internet (7 MBPS, what I'm paying for) for $99/month+taxes with a 2 year price lock (I'll have to do a contract). But they do have a 30 day satisfaction guarantee, along with $200 cash back. However, they claim that their speed will be more steady than cable is. The only thing the price doesn't cover is a wireless modem. I'll buy my own, I don't want anymore "G" routers, the "N" ones are faster, more secure, and holds their speed well. I already have three "N" adapters, two I have now, the other is coming from Newegg next week. I remember my neighbor's former "N" connection, (with Earthlink internet) she allowed me to use it, I had only a two bar signal, sometimes one, and it smoked the connection less than 10 feet from my computer. The speed was steady, too. For that price (and promise) I'll have to give it a shot.

Cat

 

[TrainableMan]

I went to the website and posted my dissatisfation with their testing model. I think every American should send a note on their feelings as well!

https://www.testmyisp.com/ "contact us"

My msg...
"This is a joke! Limiting the test to users downloading under 30GB per month defeats the entire purpose. Those of us that want/need better broadband, want it because we stream videos and download files. Also, this excludes anyone who cannot even get broadband service in their area - how are you going to represent them?
Typical government study, stacking the deck beforehand. "

 

[Core]

I modified Trainable's message and sent mine in as well. Says I can expect to hear back from them "soon". I cannot wait for that automated reply message, I am sure it will be most illuminating.

 

[Kalario]

Don't mess up with UNCLE SAM. Pretty soon we will be wondering whu Core hasn't posted here in a while...

 

[Core]

Don't mess up with UNCLE SAM. Pretty soon we will be wondering whu Core hasn't posted here in a while...

Oh, what could possibly happ

 

[Nibiru2012]

If you like Obamacare, you'll love the Obamanet!

 

[catilley1092]

Yeah, everything will really be screwed up, should the government plays with our internet service. They already have their hands (and our tax dollars) into everything imaginable. From the insurance and auto maker bailouts, now healthcare (15 to 20% of our economy). This money will never be repaid in our lifetime, what they should and best do, is get in the Volt factories and make sure that a quality product is produced, because if it (the Volt) fails, all of that cash is gone forever that was lent to them. Leave our internet service alone.

 

[TrainableMan]

Well I think the idea driving this test is a good one; basically they are evaluating complaints that DSL service quality is not fair for all, that pricing and bandwidth range from excellent to non-existant.

For anyone not familiar with past american history, specifically in regards to telephone, the government mandated that AT&T must provide service to essentially everyone at the same rates which meant running relatively expensive wiring to the people in the "boonies" would have to be recovered over time; they had to provide it and they could not charge them extra for it but the government said it will be worth it to you over time. Then the government decides AT&T is too powerful and it isn't fair to the smaller companies, they don't want every company running their own lines, so instead AT&T is forced to lease their lines/services to these smaller companies at greatly reduced rates and the small company with very little effort can turn around and sell it to customers for a profit. And still too powerful the government breaks up AT&T into all the little baby bells.

Well now the government is trying to say they have to run DSL to everyone everywhere and knowing how the government has screwed them over in the past, the phone companies aren't really thrilled with their odds in this new plan. The more subscribers and the higher the bandwidth they are required to provide, especially the further they are away, means more hubs and wiring. Streaming video is hard on their infrastructure so they often limit speeds at peek times etc.

Add to this the cable companies, they don't really want people using DSL to stream TV, movies because HEY, we sell that for a lot more than the cost of DSL, so the cable companies are fighting hard to stop the government push as well.

So the phone companies want to limit the test areas, basically exclude the boonies and the cable companies don't want them testing at all because they don't want bandwidth improved to where it becomes another threat to ground they are already loosing to DISH & DirectTV. So the more pressure these groups can put on the testing the less it will effect their bottom line.

My point is, this government push IS a good thing as it is supposed to make better broadband available to even more people; but the reality IS that it will only be effective if the testing is not limited and controlled to the point it becomes useless. If they succeed in burying the government push then we the American people will be the worse for it.

 

[Nibiru2012]

TM -

My point is, this government push IS a good thing as it is supposed to make better broadband available to even more people; but the reality IS that it will only be effective if the testing is not limited and controlled to the point it becomes useless. If they succeed in burying the government push then we the American people will be the worse for it.

Well said, I just hope the current administration lets the FCC do it's job. The past few years has seen the FCC knuckle to the pressure of the "cable giants" and ATT, but that was with the old leadership then.

The next few years will be very interesting for sure.

 

[catilley1092]

I remember the AT&T deal very well, that was around 30 years ago that they were broken up. Our service then became Bell South. Well, when Cingular was really starting to climb the charts (around 2003-04), Bell South owned 40% of them. The writing was on the wall as to what was going to happen, and it didn't take long, either. AT&T is back together again, but this time with competition (Verizon & Time Warner). The lack of competition played in the forced breakup, but many do have a choice now, so they probably won't be busted up again. If anything causes their breakup now, it's their billing. Thirteen pages of mostly taxes & fees. At one time, I had unlimited local & long distance with them, for $59/monthly. Add the other twelve pages in, I was paying $81/monthly. $22 of junk fees was in the bill.

I'm about to take them up on the plan that I mentioned a day or two ago, unlimited phone, TV & internet (7mbps) for $99/month. The actual bill will be $126/monthly, which is what I'm paying with cable, the outages are regular, the speed is never steady. TV is their best service, and what their foundation was built upon. The best thing about cable is that it gives serious competition to AT&T here. If I were still working, I'd have been back with AT&T long ago. In this area, it was only recently that cable phone & internet was offered to all businesses. Many reverted back after their contract ended. I've never had AT&T's internet, but a local businessman (who also happens to be my landlord) told me that Time Warner's business class internet service sucks and that he has switched back to AT&T, and knows a few more that are following suit. If businesses are leaving, despite the lower cost, in these bad times, something's wrong.