CA3LE

Admin,
If you send me your email address to the email address I used to register at your site, or just email me, I will bcc copy you on selected email conversations, rather than quotes, with a Spectrum VP of Operations.

Regarding downgrading:
In 2021, amidst the pandemic, I was using a VPN and Tor to do my Dark Web research for my third and fourth books. Was also playing with a VM.

100 Mbps wasn’t cutting it, I was also wireless at this point so I had that degradation despite upgrading my router to Wi-Fi 6 and network cards to wireless 802.11 ac/ax.


 
So I upgraded to their 300Mbps service and saw no improvement. So I started testing and emailing results, writing and producing a song rhyming Spectrum with Rectum, and after several months of insisting that I was the problem, they (a VP) reduced my price. To me this was an admission of guilt.

Meanwhile they say they bumped my service to 400Mbps. I believe this is a marketing technique to justify steady price increases and ward away potential competition in the area.

Then in 2023 they sent me a notice that I have a free upgrade to 500Mbps, them not knowing about the whole letting sleeping dogs lie thing.


 
So I started testing again, only now with Cat6/7 wired Ethernet, and could only get that speed inside of 200 miles within their INTRAnet.
More like 90Mbps with FTP even then.


 
I suspected that they could not actually deliver a 1000Mbps service to my rural area, wanted to prove it, so I upgraded to that and again could only get that speed inside of 200 miles within their INTRAnet.


 
I don’t really need 1000, 500 would be fine if I could actually get it. There is no evidence that I can.

Yet because of this corporate monopoly, if I downgrade to 500 I will still pay the same $100 per month. So I am stuck in some Charter Marketing Catch-22 bullshit here.


 
Hence the pissed off nature of my correspondence, and my continuing persistent and relentless battle.

Thank you for our response and advice,
MFP

Thankyou CA3LE for that reply,
 
I appreciate the time you have given to this thread.
 
here is the latest response from the ISP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see below for answers to your queries highlighted in yellow:
 
Q:Are the two connections load balanced or do they aggregate into a single connection? 
 
A:This is one single Internet Service.
 
Q:Can I make a single 2000 Mbps connection to a capable host on the internet like I can with my current 1000 Mbps connection or will I be limited to the speed of one of the two connections?"
 
A: As this is one single Internet Service, yes you can.
Q:Could we discuss and data cap as I'm a household/office and I'm not reselling bandwidth or using excessive amount of data.
 
A: Sorry this isn’t possible as we do not have capped data plans, we only provide an Unlimited Data Internet Service.
 
Q:Could i get a charge that's in line with the $2,275 for 1Gb to say $4550 for a 2Gb and cap my data usage?
 
or $5050 for 2Gb with $500 going towards the upgrades. over 3yrs
 
 As above, we cannot offer a data capped plan. However please find some options below where ......has had some sharper pricing approved for you. The pricing is more inline with the figures you have quoted in the above question and if you are open to extending to a 60 month term the price per month is actually below those figures.
 
 
2Gbs
Internet
3 years                    
 $4,784
 
  2Gbs Internet
5yrs  
$3,912
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I'm very happy with this result, thankyou again for your insight, it helped me a lot.
I think I'll take the 5 yrs.

Living in a rural area is always a challenge when seeking bandwidth, fast pings, minimal packet loss. The return on investment is my happiness
 
guess.  Yes i agree, but its not really reading that way, could you tell me what to ask them regarding this matter. Is it simply " hey, is this going to be a single connection"
 
Do you mean between BULLCS and WEBUCS , yes i think so.  To  my knowledge the distance between the 2 points is no more than 20meters
 
I gave the quote to Bard(google AI) and asked to explain in detail each listed item 
 
The first step is to upgrade the radio hardware at Promiseland (PROMCS) and Bullyard SS (BULLCS). This will involve replacing the existing radio equipment with newer, more powerful models.
Next, a new aggregation switch will be installed at BULLCS. This switch will help to distribute the increased bandwidth from the upgraded radio equipment to the rest of your network. 
Finally, a single-fiber cable will be installed between BULLCS and WEBUCS. This cable will provide the physical connection for the increased bandwidth from the upgraded radio equipment. 
In addition to the hardware upgrades, there will also be some additional costs associated with the upgrade. These costs include:
Backhaul charges: These charges cover the cost of transporting the increased bandwidth from your location to the internet.
Internet charges: These charges cover the cost of your internet service.
Design and PM: These charges cover the cost of designing and planning the upgrade, as well as providing ongoing maintenance and support.
Utilise QCN network to NEXTDC: This charge covers the cost of using the QCN network to connect your internet service to NEXTDC.
Migrate the customer internet service from CITEC to NEXTDC: This charge covers the cost of migrating your internet service from CITEC to NEXTDC.
 
 
additional details about the specific items listed in the quote:
Radio Hardware upgrade: This includes replacing the existing radio equipment at PROMCS and BULLCS with newer, more powerful models. The new radio equipment will be able to support the increased bandwidth of a 2Gbps connection.
New Agg switch should be installed ad BULLCS (YT separation): This refers to the installation of a new aggregation switch at BULLCS. The new switch will help to distribute the increased bandwidth from the upgraded radio equipment to the rest of your network.
Allocate 1 x single fibre cable between BULLCS and WEBUCS: This refers to the installation of a single-fiber cable between BULLCS and WEBUCS. The cable will provide the physical connection for the increased bandwidth from the upgraded radio equipment.
Backhaul Component: This refers to the cost of transporting the increased bandwidth from your location to the internet.
Internet charges: These charges cover the cost of your internet service.
Design and PM: These charges cover the cost of designing and planning the upgrade, as well as providing ongoing maintenance and support.
Utilise QCN network to NEXTDC: This charge covers the cost of using the QCN network to connect your internet service to NEXTDC.
Migrate the customer internet service from CITEC to NEXTDC: This charge covers the cost of migrating your internet service from CITEC to NEXTDC.
 
FYI from Bard also....
 
Utilize QCN network to NEXTDC:
The QCN network is a high-speed fiber optic network that connects various data centers and other telecommunications facilities in Australia. NEXTDC is a data center company that operates a number of data centers across Australia.
When you upgrade your internet service to 2Gbps, you will need to connect your internet service to a data center that can support that level of bandwidth. The QCN network is a good option for this because it is a high-speed network that can support large amounts of bandwidth.
The cost of using the QCN network to connect your internet service to NEXTDC will vary depending on the specific location of your internet service and the data center that you choose.
Migrate the customer internet service from CITEC to NEXTDC:
When you upgrade your internet service to 2Gbps, you will need to migrate your internet service from CITEC to NEXTDC. CITEC is a telecommunications company that provides internet service to businesses and consumers in Australia. NEXTDC is a data center company that operates a number of data centers across Australia.
The cost of migrating your internet service from CITEC to NEXTDC will vary depending on the specific services that you are using and the data center that you choose.
Here are some of the benefits of migrating your internet service from CITEC to NEXTDC:
Increased bandwidth: NEXTDC offers a wider range of bandwidth options than CITEC. This means that you can choose a bandwidth option that meets your specific needs. Better performance: NEXTDC's data centers are located in more strategic locations than CITEC's data centers. This means that you will likely experience better performance when using your internet service. More reliable service: NEXTDC has a better track record of reliability than CITEC. This means that you are less likely to experience outages or disruptions when using your internet service.  
I searched 2Gb microware  services and I couldn't find a ISP offering 2Gb.
The max speed on offer was 1Gb @ $2000 a month. (I'm charged  $2275 )
so I'm thinking ok, $4500 a month for 2GB is reasonable, but they want to charge me $8357 per month.
If i subtract $4500 from $8357 it leaves $3857 x 36 months(contract) is $153,643.
Is there $153,643 worth of upgrades in this quote, that is my issue, and is it a single connection.
I hope this makes more sense.
I appreciate your time responding.

@CA3LE
 
 reuse existing radio service and add an additional 1Gbps radio service.
 internet service upgrade from 1G to 2Gb including customer radio link upgrade.
 
Hi CA3LE,
I wanted to show you a quote I received to upgrade my service from 1Gb to 2Gb.
From my understanding they are adding a separate 1Gb service to run beside my existing 1Gb service and mesh them together.(???)
 
I will list the work they say is involved in this upgrade , i was hoping you could explain more about the proposed upgrade
and the nature of the connection once complete.
 
Radio Hardware upgrade.
 
Promiseland (PROMCS) and Bullyard SS (BULLCS) - Quotes are ready from
 
New Agg switch should be installed ad BULLCS (YT separation)
 
Allocate 1 x single fibre cable between BULLCS and WEBUCS:
 
1- Splicing is required at P2033059
 
2- Patching at BUNDCS
 
3- Allocate 1 x Single core fibre to BUDECS
 
4- Patching is required at BUDECS
 
5- Allocate 1 x Single core fibre between BUDECS and WEBUCS
 
6- Patching is required at WEBUCS.
 
 
Backhaul Component, Internet charges ,Design and PM, Utilise QCN network to NEXTDC B1 ,Migrate the customer internet service from CITEC to NEXTDC
 
Question, if this is correct, will the new 1Gb only come into play when my existing 1Gb is at capacity?
 
Will it be 2 independent lines with one supporting the other when needed or will it be 2 lines meshed together acting as one
Any feedback is much appreciated
 
This work to be covered by me ,the offer is a 3 year contract at $8375 per month 
This includes unlimited data, for a 2Gb Business grade connection , which comes to $300,852
FYI , I've just finished paying them just over $200,000 for the hardware and setup costs for my 1Gb service
Surely this new upgrade wouldn't warrant those prices?  
The tower(separate cost) and hardware are mine,  I've not inquired about a different ISP being able to accommodate me , but I will.
 
Here are some prices for a 2Gb connection is the city
 
TPG
Business Fibre 2000: $1,499 per month
Business Fibre 2000 with Static IP: $1,799 per month
iiNet
Business Ultrafast Fibre 2000: $1,499 per month
Business Ultrafast Fibre 2000 with Static IP: $1,799 per month
Aussie Broadband
Business Fibre 2000: $1,499 per month
Business Fibre 2000 with Static IP: $1,799 per month
Telstra
Business Fibre 2000: $1,699 per month
Business Fibre 2000 with Static IP: $1,999 per month
Optus
Business Fibre 2000: $1,599 per month
Business Fibre 2000 with Static IP: $1,899 per month
 
I'm hoping you can shine some light on the situation.
 

What speed do you pay for?
 
The max you usually get is around 32 Mbps.  That rating is comparing you against other users on AT&T, if you subscribe to a slower than average package you can safely ignore this.
 
The new version doesn't have a star rating.  If I add it, I'll make sure give an explanation of how it's calculated and improve the logic.  Maybe have it weigh your own average in there or give you a way to input your subscribed speed.

1996 is when it all started by the way.  Wish I still owned the old domain name, swapped it out in 2001 and then let the old one expire on accident. 
 
Guys, I've been building this 27 years!  It's still only 2% of the vision, which continues to evolve over time.
 
Hopefully the new version gets in front of even more eyes and with the new visuals more people understand what we're trying to show them here.

Hi Aqueum,
 
Yeah, maybe I should put the forum more prominently in the menu.  Used to be front and center.
 
The new version is web based.  I never want to require you to install anything, ever.  I don't think it's necessary.  Especially now, with the advancement of browser technologies, opening native APIs to the web.  Web applications can now access the GPU directly, I mean come on. 
 
All I know, I have no problem working within the web's framework.  The capabilities today blow me away.  With the right software and internet connection you actually won't need any native applications in the future.
 
Been developing heavily on it, performs really well on every device I've tested on.
 
I'm getting close.  It's powerful and I think it's pretty amazing what it can do.  All with just a simple, light web application. 
 
With over a dozen options you'll be able to control and tinker with the way the test operates, altering the flow and rendering.  I made the options for myself in testing, I was going to stick with what worked best.  But I feel it's better to just let you control it all.  With default recommended settings you can revert quick and easy but still have control to experiment however you'd like.  There are some pretty powerful option combinations that can really kick your browser into overdrive.
 
Since you voted on this topic, you'll be invited by email when I'm ready for you to try it.
 
For now, my release version (2018) still does the job.  Many of the tricks the new version uses were discovered in developing the current version.
 
If you have the bandwidth, you should be able to show it with TestMy.net.  TMN has the bandwidth and dozens of servers that do only one job.  You just might have to coax it out by altering how the test pulls the data, by using multithread.
 
First, I recommend testing under your new username.  Run a few combined tests, then click the "multithread" toggle at the top of the screen (e.g. says 'Multithread off' in my screenshot).  Run a few more tests, you may see improved results using this method because it combines multiple downloads and multiple servers together (the new version does this for both upload and download tests).  Then go to mirrors (quickly select at the top of the screen by clicking "Testing [locale name]" e.g. CA3LE Testing Colorado Springs, CO)
 

 
Repeat testing on a couple of mirrors to compare how you perform to different locations.
 
I pull only 400-500 Mbps using TestMy.net's Linear (single thread, transferring a single file) method, 700-900+ when I multithread.  Other's like @xs1 regularly pull over 800-900 Mbps here using Linear.  He used to only be able to do that with multithread... then one day, POOF!  It magically bumped up.  TestMy.net's servers and software were the same, pretty sure his computer and network were the same... then, poof, it just worked better.  A variable had to change somewhere.
 
TestMy.net Test ID : xwB2N5GI9.Onniz66P7
 
My opinion since the beginning, the single thread Linear result is the one you want score high on.  Comparing the two gives you deeper insight.

Me too, hated that.  Had AOL for a few months back in the dial-up days. 
 
Funny side story, related to TMN: A 15 year-old friend of mine was the master admin at a local dial-up ISP, he basically built and ran the whole thing for them and had been doing it for years before I met him.  Gave me a lifetime free account, he moved on from there like a year later.  But I ended up having dial-up until they stopped doing it like 10 years later.    Helped me continue to real-world test dial-up here, for freeeee.  
 
The Sound of dial-up Internet.mp3  
 
Came in handy on the road too.  And they were always super fast!  Always connecting at the max 56K!  Ahhh, simpler times.  Remember you'd have a 56K modem and AOL (USWest did this to me too.) would connect at 28.8K or 33.6K, "what the hell good is this modem if nobody let's me connect at 56K!?" -- 28.8K to 56K was a big deal, but AOL was big time overcrowded.
 
Check out the 8 different types of dial-up sounds, some you may not have heard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial-up_Internet_access
 
I think it was a 9600 baud modem that I used to connect to my first BBS.  9.6 Kbps or 1.2 kB/s.  Now, the worst I ever see on my phone is 0.08 Mbps or 80 Kbps, 8X faster at it's slowest and that feels painful!  Slower than that and it's not connecting reliably at all.  At one time 80 Kbps was fast, it's all relative.
 
One day we'll say the same about Gigabit.  Kids will be like, "Great-Grandpa, what came before Exabyte internet?  Mommy says you used to have Jibby-Byte internet!"
 
"One point twenty-one JIGGA-WATTS!"
1.21 gigawatts？! - Dr. Brown & Marty - Back to the future.mp3  

Cool on the FREE dial-up.
Even more that it always gave you 56K.
I was sometimes able to connect at 56K but most of the time less.
 
I never used any dial-up modem that was not 56K.
A good friend of mine was into the bulitin boards.
He had a modem that he layed the old style telephone headset into.
I believe it was 9600 baud but may have been even slower.
 
I got started with the Internet which was later.
 
I listened to 4 of the different dial up sounds on the wiki.
I will give the rest a listen to later.

I wouldn't worry too much about it in that case, FIOS/Frontier told me the same thing about their routers... I eliminated their equipment all together and bought an Asus RT-AX82U.. never looked back.  As long as the update/config files are accepted normally & speeds are decent, Im currently running 2 PC's wired, and 23 devices wireless. I dont worry about the ISP's "recommendations". lol  Depending on your areas provisioning & congestion speeds will vary. Even on my 1g/1g fiber, there are times of day where ill see as low as 400/600.  
 
edit for image:
 
 

Glad we could help 😎

I figured it out and got it fixed!! I found a program from Intel that checked my network connection and drivers and used it to update my driver. I'm getting download speeds from around 3.6 Mb up to 5.0 Mb.

I wouldn't ignore those results.
 
TestMy.net performs its upload test different.  Where other speed tests upload many streams TMN uses normal form submission.  Much like when you upload normal files to any website like youtube, gmail, facebook, etc.  Currently on TestMy.net there is no multithread upload test, when you enable multithread it's only for the download.
 
I've been developing a new version, which multithreads, graphs the result live and tests latency under load.  If you'd like to be the first to test it visit the following thread.
 
 
Vote or reply on that topic and you'll be invited when it's released.
 
Comparing the current upload test to the new multithread test will be important for my users to understand their connections.  Personally in regards to upload I score nearly identical on both tests.  But in many cases when there's an issue you can see the multithread way out perform single thread.  This is because although single threads are slowed down, when they're combined you may get full speed.  But knowing just the aggregate alone doesn't really help, especially if you're trying to understand how much data your connection can reliably stream.  And especially if you're troubleshooting.
 
You're in TX pretty much on top of the servers in Dallas, there are currently 18 test servers in Dallas.  That's the best selection for you but I'd still test against the other United States locales.  It's a good practice to compare against other routes to show that the issue you're displaying isn't localized to one route.  https://testmy.net/mirror
 
If your connection was 20 Mbps for real, TestMy.net will tell you it's 20 Mbps.  I personally don't feel like it's 20 Mbps unless it can save me time and upload a single file at 20 Mbps or stream video at 2.5 MB/s.
 
My results can be confirmed easily.  Get your stopwatch app ready, go upload a large file (100 MB+) to Google Drive (or anywhere).  Start the time when you click to initiate the upload and click stop as soon as it's finished.  Formula is size in MB / Time.  e.g. w/ 100 MB file taking 50 seconds  100 / 50 = 2 MB/s -- to convert to Mbps just *8, so 16 Mbps.
 
It can also be that your connection, once it's moving, gets up to 20 Mbps.  But it may have a large delay in the beginning (for instance).  Other speed tests don't count this, they're most often just trying to achieve the best (highest) result.  TestMy.net counts EVERYTHING.  If it wastes my test's time then it will waste your time in the real world.
 
I see you're still testing on a regular basis, so you must feel that what TMN is telling you is important.  TestMy.net doesn't always show my users what they want to see, it's programmed to show them what they need to see.  At least, that's my goal.
 
Sorry I was slow to respond on your topic.  A lot of irons on the fire and I wanted to take the time to properly respond.

"Speedcheck.org" uses Ookla in the background and whatever server/connection they are using is trash. "wifiman.com" seems to have a legit backbone. (granted I have quite a few file sharing(s) going at the moment)   As far as Testmy.net goes, with a 20mbit upload your test should be fine.. Connections over a couple hundred mbit struggle here, on this current revision. @CA3LE will be releasing a new revision of the current Testmy.net testing methodology soon to handle excessive upload speeds, as well as some new tweaks. 
 
You have to remember, there are alot of factors when it comes to internet speeds. Location, route, congestion, etc. Have you tried changing your server & testing on others? https://testmy.net/mirror  
 
Also, this may be worth checking out if you hadn't already;  
 
 
 
 
Another good one to check out is here:  https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exactly!  This is what most ISP's do. I've been saying this forever.    I noticed this with P2P, (some) FTP and even trying to send a friend a large file via IM. I can actually prove it in DC++ hubs. Transferring file to another PC on my OWN network will be limited to a fraction of my "Gigabit" connection, unless the receiving PC has multiple upload slots, which will than have almost symmetrical speeds from the host pc (x) the amount of connections. Just about all residential ISP's shape network bandwidth and its infuriating.  
 
This is also done on cell phone data as well. Hence why they will "give you the option" or examples of their different "plan tiers". I have T-Mobile for example; If I do a speed test I can pull lets say 100/80 , but if I try and play a YouTube video @ 2160p all of a sudden I have buffering @ 332kbs.... Makes no sense right? Now if I drop the resolution to 1080p , it'll almost instantly download the video @ 18mbs. lol  I believe they take the known ports or name servers from certain applications and limit them intentionally, whereas speed tests are just raw data.  idk. I just work here.
 
 
 

Thank you for sharing this information. It is very helpful to understand the challenges of measuring upload speeds and the limitations of current speed test tools. It is also encouraging to know your working on a new version of TestMy.net that will address these challenges. I am looking forward to testing the new version and seeing how it performs.
 

lol this test was taken @ midnight. During the day it can get pretty bad around here, sometimes dipping as low as 400/600. >.< Also, other than speed tests, i haven't really found a way to saturate my upload speeds. Frontier (as well as many ISP's) shapes bandwidth depending on the program. P2P/FTP programs ( & ports) will be recognized & throttled to the amount of speed per connection. For example, if a user with a decent connection tries to download a file from me, it will peak at lets say 21Mbs; (hypothetical speed) but if the same user has 6 upload slots to me, they will than have 6x 21MBs. Its very difficult to utilize much of my maximum potential.  basically a single vs multithread scenario. 
 

You're all set, I'll contact you when the program starts.  Very soon.

Hello Cable, thank you very much for your prompt response  I also appreciate that you have increased the maximum limit. I will make another attempt to break it later, as I usually need a few attempts to achieve the highest download speed. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta test, and please let me know what steps I need to take to join.

Hello,
 
Today, I performed a multi-thread speed test on Speedtest and received a notification. I have a 10,000 Mbps download and upload connection, and I am curious if there is a way to verify this speed. One thing I would greatly appreciate is the possibility to increase the manual test size for a more accurate assessment.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the creators and contributors of this website, as it has been incredibly helpful for me. The dedication and expertise of everyone involved have made it an excellent resource for users like myself who need to test their internet speeds.
In conclusion, I would like to extend my warmest thanks and greetings from the capital of Switzerland.
 
 

Hi Forsi, welcome to the forum!
 
First, I want to direct you to my beta sign up, simple interact with that topic by voting and you'll be notified when the new beta is released.
 
 
I would love for you to test my new tools when they're released soon.
 
Under the current version you may get a higher result by using multithread.  I see now that you tried that option, maybe also try selecting different mirrors, maybe your route to the NY datacenter has an issue.
 
It's very hard to get 1000 Mbps on my linear test because of how the information loads into the page.  You have to really have a lot of things align to achieve those speed using my default test.
 
Here's an example of one of our members @sst3ph3nss recently pulling >900 Mbps using the linear test.  Running over 1000 tests in 4 days.  Pretty consistent. 
 

?t=u&d=04-08-2023+%2F+04-13-2023&l=1000&q=sst3ph3nss's Speed Test Results
 
It's possible, just very difficult.
 
 
The new version actually plays on that observation you've made.    You'll see.
 
I think you'll like it.  I especially want people with connections like yours putting it through its paces.  I'd be interested to see your Starlink results as well.
 
Other speed tests don't stream the data in the same way as TestMy.net.  Fact, no other speed test does.  I'm not sure yet if the new version will be multithread or linear by default.  I really like the number multithread gives me but the default linear method I've used pretty much since the beginning seems to be able to passively detect more issues.  Time and testing will tell if the new version's multithread is somehow just as special.
 
So give the people what they want to see... a big number -- or give the people what they probably NEED to see -- the result that helps them figure out their issue the best.
 
Side note, if things all line up right, under certain circumstance the linear result can outperform the multithread.  A huge disparity between their results can indicate a number of issues.
 
So the new test continues to do both.  But in an entirely new way, an entirely new algorithm.

When testing 1gbps up/down fiber connection over wired ethernet via the automatic test on both a laptop and desktop I see bandwidth much lower than I'd typically see when using my own remote server or other speed test utilities. After clicking the 'test again' button 3-4 times the download test seems to cap out at around 600mbps, and the upload test seems capped at around 400mbps. I don't think I've ever seen the expected results on the first run. It seems as though this is skewing test history to show an average of much less bandwidth than I have been able to confirm having through other testing methods

https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=d6c40a41-56e8-4770-ba94-756ae659094d

Why do you need to test a connection that has that much bandwidth you ask? Well I guess I don't NEED to very often, but there seems to be an issue with the test servers and how the bandwidth is allocated on the initial test, so I figured asking about it wouldn't hurt. On subsequent back-to-back tests there seems to be a 'ramp up', at least on the download test, that then gives more accurate and expected results.

Thank you for all the kind words.  I'm flattered.
 
@xs1 You're definitely one of my OG members.   #522!  You've been a big part of pushing me to make things better and I appreciate every bit of it.
 
Isn't that funny, I still use a similar shade of orange.
 
And look at that crappy RG-59 cable connector, yuck!  lol.  Back when I used the test to do my job better installing people's cable.  A few months later I lost all of that code and had to rewrite everything.  Had that happen a few times early on because storage was lame back then, also switched from perl to php around 2004 which required a total rewrite.
 
I think the new version is my 4th rewrite but I'm not sure.  One thing is certain, it is my best.  And I can't wait to share it with you.
 
- D
 
As I've said before, I don't build this site... I just try to put it "on paper".  You are truly the ones building it with your feedback.

1996 is when it all started by the way.  Wish I still owned the old domain name, swapped it out in 2001 and then let the old one expire on accident. 
 
Guys, I've been building this 27 years!  It's still only 2% of the vision, which continues to evolve over time.
 
Hopefully the new version gets in front of even more eyes and with the new visuals more people understand what we're trying to show them here.

Duuuuuuude!  Nice.  
 
I'd really like to get you testing on my new version.  You're just the kind of extreme case I'm looking for! 
 
Please visit the following topic and vote on it, the members who interact with that topic are invited to beta test.
Somehow @xs1's screenshot automatically became the thumbnail for that topic.  "And I mean NEW!" -- and then it shows a screenshot from 2001.  -- oh well, I like it like that now.  Everything happens for a reason.
 
I'll explain all the details about the difference between the current release version and new version in the documentation.  I imagine you'll get symmetrical results with the new method but we'll have to test and see.