I found a better speed test for satellite internet

[bwporker]

My normal home I have Bright House for cable and internet but at our home in Colorado it's dish and wildblue only. Recently I had some problems with Wildblue and found a site which IMHO gives far better results and a lot of information I could provide to Wildblue about the problem.

(the results below are from my Florida home...not wildblue, I'll get those posted next time I go west)

Here's an example of the TCP Speed Test results:


Speed test statistics
---------------------
Download speed: 7490848 bps
Upload speed: 1592776 bps
Download quality of service: 95 %
Upload quality of service: 89 %
Download test type: socket
Upload test type: socket
Maximum TCP delay: 56 ms
Average download pause: 3 ms
Minimum round trip time to server: 58 ms
Average round trip time to server: 61 ms
Estimated download bandwidth: 36800000bps
Route concurrency: 4.9126616
Download TCP forced idle: 77 %
Maximum route speed: 9039304bps

With graphical analysis :
MyConnection Detail Analysis

Again this is from home. I will post the results from Colorado while on WildBlue next month. What I like the most is unlike most image download speedtests this test takes into consideration the type of connection and once you learn how to interpret the results exactly where the problem is especially if use the router trace feature on top of everything.

Try it yourself at
ISPgeeks.com - Broadband Speed Test, Voip Diagnostics, Internet Bandwidth Forums


and tell me what you think. Once there click on Diagnostic Tools and the rest is obvious. I have only one real gripe and thats the java interface.

[grohgreg]

Those numbers suggest that you're testing through a cable modem path. Don't count on that test server to be as impressive when fed by a satellite connection. The compression algorithms used over satellite paths confuse the hell outa many test server programs. So don't get your hopes up/

//greg//

[bwporker]

Those numbers suggest that you're testing through a cable modem path. Don't count on that test server to be as impressive when fed by a satellite connection. The compression algorithms used over satellite paths confuse the hell outa many test server programs. So don't get your hopes up/

//greg//

No I hear ya thats why I stated that above. I've already used it at the house in Colorado with great success. I finally got around to sharing it today. Wanted you to at least see what it can do. I would love to see other ppls results and then I'll go back to the mtn home and compare. The results aren't nearly as impressive with wildblue but it helps sort out satellite overhead and other issues, even wildblue was surprised because I emailed them to em and said fix it...wasn't happy that day.

Post away that way we have something to compare to.

[grohgreg]

Thanks for editing the link into your original post, gave me a chance to test drive it. IT's a well constructed site, lots of bells and whistles. But as I suspected, the upload results are inconsistent and unreliable. So further to what I stated above, their test servers are "tuned" for terrestrial systems. That they position satellite as a 400k service (on their speed sweep) further demonstrates their lack of understanding of how our connections work.

I ran each test several times, and the results consistently disagreed with each other, particularly on the upload side. One says I've got a great VoIP path, another says VoIP is unsupportable. One consistently shows my upload as 250k, another as a consistent 143k. In actuality, I am usually (verifiably) around 190k, so they're both wrong. Apparently they're not equipped to deal with the latency either, as their test suggests mine is 3x actual. Further evidence that they're not truly "tuned in" to how satellite works is the trace route. Even though the TRACERT sometimes returned correct delay for the satellite hop, it was rated by ISPGeeks as poor - ostensibly because it was so much longer than the "expected". In other cases, the satellite segment of the route was completely bogus. That's because ISPGeeks gets lost in the satellite provider NAT servers.

Our satellite compression algorithms and radical RTT difference (as opposed to terrestrial) and NAT process confuse ISPGeeks test servers. You might slip such results past the naive script readers at satellite support call centers. But they'll never be accepted as valid by more advanced/engineering levels of support. Sorry.

//greg//

[bwporker]

Thanks for editing the link into your original post, gave me a chance to test drive it. IT's a well constructed site, lots of bells and whistles. But as I suspected, the upload results are inconsistent and unreliable. So further to what I stated above, their test servers are "tuned" for terrestrial systems. That they position satellite as a 400k service (on their speed sweep) further demonstrates their lack of understanding of how our connections work.

I ran each test several times, and the results consistently disagreed with each other, particularly on the upload side. One says I've got a great VoIP path, another says VoIP is unsupportable. One consistently shows my upload as 250k, another as a consistent 143k. In actuality, I am usually (verifiably) around 190k, so they're both wrong. Apparently they're not equipped to deal with the latency either, as their test suggests mine is 3x actual. Further evidence that they're not truly "tuned in" to how satellite works is the trace route. Even though the TRACERT sometimes returned correct delay for the satellite hop, it was rated by ISPGeeks as poor - ostensibly because it was so much longer than the "expected". In other cases, the satellite segment of the route was completely bogus. That's because ISPGeeks gets lost in the satellite provider NAT servers.

Our satellite compression algorithms and radical RTT difference (as opposed to terrestrial) and NAT process confuse ISPGeeks test servers. You might slip such results past the naive script readers at satellite support call centers. But they'll never be accepted as valid by more advanced/engineering levels of support. Sorry.

//greg//

Do you mind if I send this post to them? I haven't registered yet but everything I've read on that site hints they would probably want to know and try to fix it. Especialy since they have satellite listed in the site description

[grohgreg]

I didn't register either, I saw no value in the site for my own use. But by all means, feel free to pass on what i wrote. But again, be prepared to be disappointed. Compared to the number of folks that subscribe to terrestrial broadband, we satellite users represent only a very small piece of the pie. As such, sites like ISPGeeks - as whiz bang as they appear - have no incentive to do the research, perform the work, or spend the money it takes to accommodate such a comparatively small community like us.

//greg//

[bwporker]

I didn't register either, I saw no value in the site for my own use. But by all means, feel free to pass on what i wrote. But again, be prepared to be disappointed. Compared to the number of folks that subscribe to terrestrial broadband, we satellite users represent only a very small piece of the pie. As such, sites like ISPGeeks - as whiz bang as they appear - have no incentive to do the research, perform the work, or spend the money it takes to accommodate such a comparatively small community like us.

//greg//

Alright I'm sending it now. Let's see what response I get. I'll post it here, never hurts to try.

[bwporker]

I didn't register either, I saw no value in the site for my own use. But by all means, feel free to pass on what i wrote. But again, be prepared to be disappointed. Compared to the number of folks that subscribe to terrestrial broadband, we satellite users represent only a very small piece of the pie. As such, sites like ISPGeeks - as whiz bang as they appear - have no incentive to do the research, perform the work, or spend the money it takes to accommodate such a comparatively small community like us.

//greg//

They want to know which test result reported the faulty voip results and also what you are using to back your statement "verifiably" on your original reponse. They also said they are willing to work anyone who can provide them with accurate latency and rtt data to modify the test and seperate it out from the others just for satellite folks. They also need your test results data from both tests more than one time would be appreciated. They said either to contact them directly or post it here whatever works.

[grohgreg]

Sorry, I'm no longer in the business of teaching that kinda stuff. For what they're asking, they'd have to hire me. In the mean time, I'm satisfied to use the diagnostic tools made available by my own provider. Those are the only results they'll accept anyway - so there's no point in throwing 3rd party "diagnostics" at them .

//greg//

[bwporker]

Sorry, I'm no longer in the business of teaching that kinda stuff. For what they're asking, they'd have to hire me. In the mean time, I'm satisfied to use the diagnostic tools made available by my own provider. Those are the only results they'll accept anyway - so there's no point in throwing 3rd party "diagnostics" at them .

//greg//

I don't think they want you to teach anything, just to clarify your original post. What test gave you the results and where along with pasting your test results here or sending them directly to them and to answer the question what test are you currently using? Better yet why not just tell them yourself. You can email them like I did at support@ispgeeks.com. It didn't sound like they wanted anything from you but to make the test more compatible with your requirements. I'm not sending them your post above, I don't think that will go over very well. But if they are willing to help satellite people why not try?