jrtcjrjr

It might be worth your time to research OOKLA and how they measure throughput. OOKLA (Speedtest uses the OOKLA FLASH based speed test) drops out of the calculation the top and bottom 10% - claiming they represent outliers. Then they drop another 20% off the bottom - assuming those values represent ramp-up. That leaves the 30% to 90% group for the measurement. I find the testmy.net large file size test to provide the most representative evaluation of my service provider. I see the ramp-up, then the surge (that my provider utilizes) and then the leveling off at my paid for throughput rate. 
Aside from all that it seems bad form to begin a conversation by calling people liars. OOKLA is showing the speed during what they perceive as the optimum 60% of the throughput speed. I suspect you are comparing apples and oranges.

From the Speedtest.net site:
Download Speed Your computer downloads small binary files from the web server to the client, and we measure that download to estimate the connection speed. Based off this result, we choose how much data to download for the real test. Our goal is to pick the right amount of data that you can download in 10 seconds, ensuring we get enough for an accurate result, but not take too long. We prevent caches from throwing off results by appending random strings to each download. Once we start downloading, we use up to four HTTP threads to saturate your connection and get an accurate measurement. Throughput samples are received at up to 30 times per second. These samples are then aggregated into 20 slices (each being 5% of the samples). The fastest 10% and slowest 30% of the slices are then discarded. The remaining slices are averaged together to determine the final result. Why do we discard certain results? We want to ensure we're giving you the most accurate assessment of your connection's maximum sustained throughput. Here's how we do that:
Outlying 10%: Since we're measuring data transported over HTTP (via Flash), speed can be affected by a few things, such as potential protocol overhead; buffering due to the many layers between our application and the raw data transfer; or throughput bursting due primarily to CPU usage. To account for these variables, we initially drop the top 10% and bottom 10% of our slices as outliers. Test Ramp-Up Period: We keep the default test length short to improve user experience, but in doing so, the ramp-up period can take up a significant portion of the beginning of the test. In consideration of that, we also drop another 20% of the bottom result slices. -----
Speedtest is being much more direct in explaining how the results are calculated - as compared to only a few months ago. Good for them.
 
My observations from comparing Speedtest.net and testmy.net are first, the results cannot be rationally compared. Testmy.net results are calculated using the complete test while speedtest.net results are form a 60% slice of the total test. 
 
I also see a difference in how Speedtest is (seemingly) implemented by various ISPs. Speedtest.net tests are observed to take from 3 to 8 seconds depending on which ISP hosted test I use. As has been already noted, there is typically a surge in speed during the first few seconds of download. A Speedtest result that is obtained after only a few seconds provides me with a result which averages 150% of the throughput I pay for. That speed in not sustained, however. Any test, testmy.net or Speedtest.net that takes 7 seconds or more shows the result of speed settling back to or below my paid for throughput. 
 
My opinion is that various uses of the Internet impact how we view speed. Using testmy.net I can see the chart illustrating the ramp-up of connection - the subsequent speed burst - the typically sustained throughput - and finally, the tailing off as the download is completed. The early burst in speed is certainly appreciated when simply browsing or checking email. The snappiness provides a warm and fuzzy feeling. When I am streaming video for an extended period then the sustained throughput at the speed I pay for is important.
 
It is no wonder that most ISPs use Speedtest.net as their official throughput test. It usually makes them look good. 

It would be a good idea to connect your PS4 via Ethernet and check the throughput. In my home I can see throughput degradation ranging from 10% - 50% depending on where I make the connection. Sitting next to my cable modem/router I can achieve 90% - 100% of throughput (compared to a wired connection). A wall, a floor, and/or other wireless devices such as telephones can cause serious degradation of the signal - and throughput. You might also want to use a wired connection to baseline test your PC and/or laptop so as to eliminate any PS4 issue.
Using the process of elimination it becomes easier to identify where the problem lies. If you eliminate potential problems on your side of the ISPs modem it is always easier to receive support as opposed to excuses.  
Speedtest.net uses the OOKLA flash-based Internet speed test. OOKLA has a unique way of measuring speed. First, they drop the bottom 10% and top 10% of throughput measurement as they perceive those to be outliers. Then they drop another 20% of the bottom as they consider it represents a ramp-up. Effectively, they are reporting back on 60% of the time the test is run. Also, the Flash-based tests are relatively short duration. When I run a large file test here (testmy.net) I see a ramp up, a surge will above the speed I pay for, and then a fairly consistent throughout at the expected throughput, followed of course by a ramp-down. Running a small-file test (akin to the size test Speedtest.net utilizes) I can get exaggerated throughput results - much like I can see from Speedtest.net. 
If a Internet user is consistently uploading/downloading short bursts then the Speedtest.net would seem correct or accurate. On the other hand if you are streaming video it is more accurate to look for the throughput that is sustained - as you might see when doing a large file test on testmy.net.

You have my thanks. Using testmy.net I have been able to isolate recurring problems with my Internet connection. This was something I could not accomplish using the more common FLASH based Internet speed test tools that are so commonly used. 
 
I imagine there may be other small issues but the big problem of inconsistency was identified as a cable splice adding a couple feet of coax cable on the end of the line drop to my house. As I had reported, the splice was left exposed to the environment and when weather conditions were poor (wind and rain), my connections suffered with a 15 - 40% degradation. I applied a temporary weather proofing over the spliced area and today, with wind a rain, I have been able to maintain a consistent D/L speed.
 
Again, thank you. This is a good and useful tool.

I like to run both the auto-size tests and the large file size tests. Sure the auto-size tests provide a quicker result but there is something to learn from the large file test. My 50/5 plan is typically exceeded by 10-15% increase above expected levels when running the auto-sized tests. That gives me a 'feel-good' while the large file tests show my IP surges throughput for a short duration of 5-7 seconds and then settles into... my plan rate of 50/5. If the household is simply doing a bunch of browsing the surge response gives everyone a sense of great performance - better than expected. If there are two or more HD video streams the consistent 50 Mbps download is more than sufficient. Until late afternoon and into the evening, that is. Lots of (WoW) customers in the neighborhood likely the cause for the drop in performance. 
I also find it useful to run tests when connected via ethernet as well as wireless. With wireless my throughput drops 10-20% even when I am only few feet from the router. Tracking down interference sources has proven difficult but I have not given up. 

It might be worth your time to research OOKLA and how they measure throughput. OOKLA (Speedtest uses the OOKLA FLASH based speed test) drops out of the calculation the top and bottom 10% - claiming they represent outliers. Then they drop another 20% off the bottom - assuming those values represent ramp-up. That leaves the 30% to 90% group for the measurement. I find the testmy.net large file size test to provide the most representative evaluation of my service provider. I see the ramp-up, then the surge (that my provider utilizes) and then the leveling off at my paid for throughput rate. 
Aside from all that it seems bad form to begin a conversation by calling people liars. OOKLA is showing the speed during what they perceive as the optimum 60% of the throughput speed. I suspect you are comparing apples and oranges.