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?

 

[Bandwidth]

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//

I take issue with this statement. Money or time is not an issue for ISPgeeks. If there is a need we will fill that need and there are plenty of satellite users to justify the small amount of effort required.

 

[Bandwidth]

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//

As if your provider is going to give you a speedtest and peformance diagnostics that would might make them look bad. Please don't insult the intelligence of the satellite internet userbase. It's real world results that matter and anything your provider offers you will no doubt be slanted in favor of the provider. You're correct in part tho. Your provider ON NET test results better be good or they really do have a problem

 

[Bandwidth]

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?

Anyone who wants to provide us test results or test id's (provided with each test) would be greatly appreciated. Just paste them here or feel free to send them directly to support.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

BTW if anyone wants to test their speed, we have a speedtest here on our servers.

Speedtest.net Mini Bandwidth Speed Test

Its actually been there for about 2 years.

 

[Bandwidth]

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//

Greg,

I'm one of the moderators at ISPgeeks and also one of three that configure and maintain the diagnostics at the site. I'll do my best to respond to each of your concerns. Let's first start with a simple disclaimer.

1. These tests were originally configured for traditional broadband users however aside from the confgured responses and ratings they have and will provide very consistent and reliable results regardless of the provider if you are looking for real world evaluation. Originally we hadn't given satellite users much of a look because they are essentially held hostage by their provider and circumstances. Nobody in their right mind would select satellite internet if they had choices. Because of bwporker's post we've decided to rethink this and next week will release 3 satellite specific tests which will address a couple of your concerns.

2. Your concern about the results inconsistency between tests from our perspective is expected. You can't mix the results and expect to formulate valid results as the TCP and VOIP tests are entirely different. Depending on how you scored on the TCP test it probably reported back that you were capable of supporting VOIP. The test was giving you the result purely on your bandwidth capability and nothing more. I'm 100% positive the Voip test failed you exactly as it should have. The bandwidth rating the VOIP test provided is based upon VOIP standards we set. If you want the exact codec information feel free to ask. Since you have provided ZERO test results it's impossible for us to check this for you.

3. Your overall speed test results we feel are valid and represent real world conditions and while you may disagree, the facts are that anyone trusting the results of a satellite provider's speed test is highly suspect. You made a statement that raises a red flag for me and I'm inclined to think you either currently work for a satellite internet provider or have close ties to them. Forgive me in advance if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I nailed this one.

4. Your concern about the traceroute is also highly suspect. For real world conditions your overall rating will be poor with most satellite providers. Why should there be any exceptions for that? To ease this concern a bit however we will be re-rating the satellite specific version of this test with a disclaimer of course so there is no confusion to the enduser. RTT will be taken into consideration and we'll grade the traceroute based on satellite specific performance metrics but the user will be informed these are not real world and for a comparison they should run both tests.

5. Compression is not a factor with our tests unlike most speedtest sites. Do a little more digging into the engine we use and you'll understand why.

In summary, thanks to this thread we're gonna take this one on immediately and make some minor changes that will address your "valid" concerns. The other concerns raised in our opinion are a non-issue and from our perspective would not benefit our users or our reputation for offering a unique and highly consistent service. As the tests roll out next week please look for the ones labled "-sat".

Thanks to bwporker for lighting a fire under everyone at ispgeeks. You've managed to wake us up on whats normally a dead weekend. I'll remain in this thread and anyone who wants to post their results with any questions will certainly get an answer immediately.

 

[grohgreg]

I've worked in telecommunications since 1971, and started specializing in two-way satellite communications two years later. Until just this moment, I had nearly given second thoughts to lending a pro bono hand to this issue. But Bandwidth - presumably speaking on behalf of ISPGeeks - just killed any chance of that. If you/he/they want my assistance in expanding an understanding of how satellite internet connections actually work, be prepared to offer an apology and a paycheck

//greg//

 

[tobifelinis]

Ok I am a long time Hughes user. I ran the test. The speed test is close to my Hughes based test maybe a hair faster. Does not matter as Hughes will not even look at test run on anything but their servers.

The other test really are not valid for my consumer grade account. They might work on Business or Enterprise accounts with static IP's. Us lowly consumers all have Nated Ip's that change several times a day.

All of the test except for the speed test seem to stop at the Hughes operations center in Gaithersburg or Las Vegas. Nothing actually goes past the operations center and up the satellite link and back down to my VSAT. Thus none of the results are valid. I could not get the streaming video test to run at all but I think the site may have gone down just as I tried to run it. I can't bring the site up anymore Sunday AM. Some of the test did identify that the test packets appeared to be firewalled.

I have no complaints about the test, they are just not valid for most Hughes accounts. I don't think they are valid for Wildblue either but I don't have Wildblue account to test with.

I am sorry BWPorker but you original post kinda resembled our friend BroadBandinaBox. Which caused all kinda red flags to go up.

 

[Bandwidth]

BTW if anyone wants to test their speed, we have a speedtest here on our servers.

Speedtest.net Mini Bandwidth Speed Test

Its actually been there for about 2 years.

Hi Scott,

And you have a decent pipe attached to that test. My test here to your server resulted in 28/20 which isn't too bad. We also offer the ookla based http tests for those who want the vanilla tests but these tests will not provide consistent results for those are attempting to troubleshoot issues with their provider. To get a simple and quick baseline sure...they are great. I'm sorry if this thread has directed attention away from your test, by no means do we have any intentions of doing so. Bwporker was kind enough to post his experience here and apparently it got some attention that we needed to address, no offense intended and thanks for the opportunity to respond.

 

[Bandwidth]

Ok I am a long time Hughes user. I ran the test. The speed test is close to my Hughes based test maybe a hair faster. Does not matter as Hughes will not even look at test run on anything but their servers.

The other test really are not valid for my consumer grade account. They might work on Business or Enterprise accounts with static IP's. Us lowly consumers all have Nated Ip's that change several times a day.

All of the test except for the speed test seem to stop at the Hughes operations center in Gaithersburg or Las Vegas. Nothing actually goes past the operations center and up the satellite link and back down to my VSAT. Thus none of the results are valid. I could not get the streaming video test to run at all but I think the site may have gone down just as I tried to run it. I can't bring the site up anymore Sunday AM. Some of the test did identify that the test packets appeared to be firewalled.

I have no complaints about the test, they are just not valid for most Hughes accounts. I don't think they are valid for Wildblue either but I don't have Wildblue account to test with.

Can you please provide a test #? Also, the streaming video test does run up against issues with a few firewalls. So don't worry about that too much. As for the site being down, it's up and running just fine. I suspect your provider may be having issues. I used to install and at one time owned both the one way and two way direcway systems. I truly feel for you. Please be sure to shut down any firewall you may have running while performing the tests. You may have blocked yourself from the site by accident.

 

[Bandwidth]

I've worked in telecommunications since 1971, and started specializing in two-way satellite communications two years later. Until just this moment, I had nearly given second thoughts to lending a pro bono hand to this issue. But Bandwidth - presumably speaking on behalf of ISPGeeks - just killed any chance of that. If you/he/they want my assistance in expanding an understanding of how satellite internet connections actually work, be prepared to offer an apology and a paycheck

//greg//

Greg,

I made it very clear (even apologized in advance) that no offense was intended. Beyond that no additional apologies will be tendered. With all due respect, nobody at ispgeeks gets a paycheck and you aren't about to start a new trend. I'll have to clear this through the owner but I suspect given your initial and subsequent posts your services wouldn't be requested anyway. I think we have a pretty good handle on this with our current resident technical experts. Your most generous offer however is appreciated.