CA3LE

Hey Sean, sorry about that. Consent management is supposed to be ignored in the program on the mirrors. I just pushed the update to correct that can you please confirm it's fixed. And by the way, I wanted to welcome you as a Moderator! Welcome!

Thank you! Yes, 'My Host Avg' is your ISP's average. The star rating is something that's followed TMN through the years, since the beginning. There is logic behind it but it doesn't take your TiP readings into account (the graph that shows how the data flowed during the speed test). Although it wouldn't be very hard to implement a few changes to have it take the variation of the individual test into account. Star Rating calculation history First started by only calculating based on your speed. Years later TMN started logging to a database. The stars were then calculated based on the Index (a recent average for all TMN users). Then when TMN started logging host results it started taking those into consideration. So now it's based on averages of yourself, the index and your host... ...but definitely, if the connection is deviating by X%, it would be helpful if the star rating was effected as a result. --- on my list now. -D

If you go to https://testmy.net/mysettings you can now change middle variance to standard deviation. Note that it's calculating using TiP points from 10% to 90% ... start and finish points are not in this calculation (my calc in the post above was including all points).

First, I will be changing variance to standard deviation in the future. Let's use this result of your as an example. TestMy.net Test ID : 5zlOE7tGc Ideally this flat lines and doesn't deviate from start to finish. Sometimes though, if the result is much lower than your line speed this flat line can be an indication of a bottleneck. Most of the time a flat line with 0% variance is a good thing. One of my recent results as an example. TestMy.net Test ID : fUJ4g~VHj Here's the actual calculation from the program. round(($maximumThruput - $minimumThruput)/(($maximumThruput + $minimumThruput)/2)*100) So your example above would be round((0.32 - 8.32)/((8.32 + 0.32)/2)*100) = -185% The difference from the min and max divided by the average of the min and max... then calculated into percent. The higher the number the more it indicates that the connection was heavily fluctuating during the test. Using standard deviation from your example above you'd get 2.4 Mbps [https://testmy.net/working/deviation/standard-deviation.php?arr=3.28,2.91,1.79,1.84,3.04,4.93,1.43,0.32,0.34,1.31,1.91,3.34,1.89,1.73,3.9,7.28,8.32,8.18] -- Again, ideally this number would be 0 Mbps. My result above's standard deviation is 42 Mbps... higher number but not relative to the result. [https://testmy.net/working/deviation/standard-deviation.php?arr=155.34,345.77,338.49,338.49,340.88,347.01,334.96,331.51,338.49,338.49,345.77,349.53,348.26,342.09,348.26,347.01,339.68,343.31,344.53] So the standard deviation then needs to then be turned into a percentage of your average. $standardDeviation / $middleAverage Your example: 2.4/2.93 = .82 ... or 82% My example: 42/342.24 = .12 ... or 12% Using standard deviation I think will be much easier for everyone to understand. To understand the current formula myself I had to go into the program... my users don't have that luxury. Long story short: Variance shows what I wanted to show but makes it overly complicated. I'll work on that for you.... actually -- I kinda just did, just need to work that all into the program.

I think Net Neutrality is a good thing. By definition... net neu·tral·i·ty noun the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. The fact that it's now repealed worries me. It leaves providers open to making you pay for extra services that are just a part of our internet. They could allow you to only access certain websites and services unless you pay for premium packages. e.g. One day your netflix may just stop working... unless you pay for the streaming media package. Why do you think they wanted to repeal it so bad? Money. If the gate keepers (ISPs) have the ability to dice it into channels and charge you more... they will. The Internet I know and love is a single channel. They will dampen the evolution. Sure, if they start to slice and dice our internet up I believe it will continue to evolve by circumventing the big ISPs. People will demand it. But then guess who holds the keys then, the municipalities and ultimately the government. ...maybe that's been the real plan all along. ? If you want a good laugh watch this one. Making fun of Ajit Pai , FCC Chairman. Warning, ADULT language and humor!

I still need to investigate further. For users who experience this issue in the future I've added the option to enable the upload test failsafe manually. This uses the old upload test with the new version. It detects when this has possibly happened and gives the user the option.

I didn't have ublock origin installed. Once ublock origin is installed I can now see the problem... so I should be able to fix it now. I've confirmed what the contributor to the mint forums pointed out, it does work in the old version. You can select and use that version with ublock enabled. I need to look into the program and see what's different or what is triggering ublock. ublock's own logger may help too. Then either write a fix to the new code or add a rule to have it use the old upload test version in your situation, automatically. I'll update this thread with what I find.

Post up your system info. type "system information" in the search under the Mint menu. Then take a screenshot for me please. https://www.wikihow.com/Take-a-Screenshot-in-Linux

Is that Mint install fresh? In my test I had a freshly installed Mint 19.2 and freshly installed Waterfox 56.2.14. Maybe there's something else installed or configured on both of your systems preventing form data from posting correctly. If this were coming from an internet protection program of some kind I'd expect to see the same results in all browsers. But you said... In the past has it worked correctly?

Scared me for a second, I saw this email notification and thought I accidentally ordered one of those just now. I just saw "router" "order" "Amazon" and thought I accidentally clicked buy it now or something, Haha. You did that quick! Which one did you order? Let us know how it works out after it arrives!

I'm looking into the reasons it may be programmed to send you back to the homepage. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is that it will do that if the post data required to make a calculation is missing. Did you change any settings away from their default settings within Waterfox? edit: confirmed, the only time you can ever be sent from the results page directly to the homepage is if the post data is missing. Maybe something in your Waterfox install is blocking the form data from being submitted properly.

I'd be ordering up a new router, if it doesn't help... return it. Here's the one @Photoplane1 is using. https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-AC1200-Smart-WiFi-Router/dp/B07N1L5HX1/ For $7 more I might also look at https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-AC1750-Smart-WiFi-Router/dp/B079JD7F7G/ Personally, I like netgear ... a Nighthawk AC1750 will only set you back $78 ... there's a $10 off that right now. https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-R6700-Nighthawk-Gigabit-Ethernet/dp/B00R2AZLD2/ That's a great router. None of those are affiliate links or anything, just trying to help.

Captured with MacOS built in screen recording. Ran the same test using a virtual machine... I wish I had this upload at home. Sorry about the 800x600... didn't feel like doing drivers. For some reason they weren't being detected properly. ? This is actually even faster... if I multithread with more data. I'm still developing this. I've seen the same test result up to 980 Mbps on that connection, double confirmed by the network interface readings.

I'll spin up a VM of Mint and get back to you.

I'm not sure why. I just tested with Waterfox 56.2.14 (64-bit) and everything ran as expected.

Check out this post. Excede will be out of business unless they serve their users. EVERYONE will jump ship as soon as something better is available.

Very nice! Glad to hear your problem is resolved. I don't see any test results under your username, are your test results more consistent now? SpaceX is getting me excited for the future for rural internet. Their low orbit (only 550 km [340 mi]) satellites will bring gigabit speeds with latency of only 25 ms. That blows my mind. Looking like 2020 or 2021 this will be a reality. I think this has potential to be the greatest advancement for world internet. -- Starlink constellation -- Starlink's Website Here's a good read on ars technica, published yesterday -- SpaceX says it will deploy satellite broadband across US faster than expected

What!?! That's BS. Does your modem have Ethernet out? Is the modem a combo modem/router. If you have Ethernet out you can plug that into any router. I then run your own network off of that... either ignore the other wifi network or there may be a way to disable it in the settings. Let me know your model number.

A better router may help you with range and internal network speed but your wifi right now probably isn't the bottleneck... it's the connection. To see if you might benefit from a faster router connect your modem directly to your best computer. Then run TestMy.net. Connect it back up to wifi and test the same computer again. You'll probably need to unplug the power from modem each time when you switch back and fourth, they usually need to boot up and get the MAC address of the device it's connected to. If you do that test and find your speed is much faster wired... then you might want to think about getting a newer router. If the speeds are about the same... you can probably hold off unless you're having other issues with wifi. I personally use Netgear. A used Nighthawk R7000 for ~$70 would blow away whatever they gave you. I also would never use a router or modem from my ISP and prefer to have them as two separate units. Better for future upgradability, cheaper if something fails too. I need to upgrade routers far more often than modems so having them separate is better. Also better for interference. When I've tested even the supposed best ISP routers... they always under perform vs retail counterparts. When it comes to wifi, testing right on top of the router isn't optimal. You want to be a little away from it. Maybe like 10 ft. Here's an article about wireless best practices -- may help you get the most out of what you're working with. - wireless feng shui

reposting that video btw... it got clipped on accident when I exported. [done]

Looking at your results over the last week. lazloslozar's Speed Test Results It's insane that you've been dealing with this for so long. When you test to Colorado you have the same type of dips in regularity but they aren't as pronounced as when you're testing to Dallas or San Fransisco. Try testing against Toronto, CA -- New York would be another good one for you too -- curious what you get to those locales. I would love to see a resolution for you in the end and maybe even get you some free service and credits from your ISP for what you've had to deal with. We first need to be certain that they're at fault. When you're testing, are you directly connected to one computer or are you on a wifi router... or is it wired to a router? Please let us know the model numbers of your modem and router.

Sorry I've taken so long to respond. Try doing a multithread speed test. I'd be interested to see your results.

I found a post in topic on TalkTalk's forum that may help. https://community.talktalk.co.uk/t5/Broadband/Talk-talk-broadband-not-working-red-light-on-router/m-p/2298724#M728183

I like this best... No, it's full alphanumeric which makes it more random. @ramasaig does this help make it more clear?

Maybe I need to word that differently... I thought that when I wrote it too but I'm trying to condense information to fit on all devices in this same decision. By random, I mean randomly generated. The information is nothing... literally nothing at all. Not drawn from anything. I'm instructing your browser to generate random charters client-side which are then pushed to the server. The information didn't exist before, it doesn't exist after... and even during the transfer it doesn't mean anything. It's just random. Nothing off of your computer or device is, was or will ever be transferred between you and TMN unless you explicitly know about its transfer. PERIOD. always and forever. Do you think, "Uploading __ MB of randomly generated information" is better than "Uploading __ MB of random information"? Or do you have another suggestion for wording? Maybe after more details on your suggestion we'll put it to a vote.