jelwell

Someone please define: Kbps kB/s I thought Kbps means 1000 bits per second, and I thought kB/s equals 1000 bytes (8 bits) per second. My recent upload test result is: 1185 Kbps or 1.2 Mbps (145 kB/s) However when I divide 1185 Kbps by 8 bits, the result is 148.125 bytes per second and not 145 kB/s. Also, I believe 1024 bytes equal one kilobyte. So, 145 kB equals 148480 bytes, and that times 8 bits per byte equals 1187840 bits and not 1185 kilobits. So no matter how I calculate, 1185 Kbps doesn't seem to equal 145 kB/s. Help!

OK, the game's over. And the $40 solution (plus tax) is (Drum Roll) a hard-wired router. After installing the router, my download speed jumped to about 12 Mbps from 7.5, and my uploading speed remained about 1 Mbps. However, Speakeasy reports much higher speeds. Who's a user to believe? By the way, the last tecnician I spoke to at my VoIP provider, TeleBlend, recommended using a hub. However, the saleman at Fry's, a huge local electronics store and more, said hubs are obsolete and no longer carried by Fry's. Hence, I was forced to spring for the router. The instructions that came with the router insisted I use a CD that came with the router to install it. However, that software caused me much grief. Maybe I just didn't know how to use it. Anyway, I just plugged things together manually following an almost unnecessary set of written instructions, and the router worked immediately with no grief whatsoever.

As stated in my previous post, my VoIP provider is TeleBlend. I called Cox again today to clarify their position regarding routers. Contrary to what I thought I was previously told, Cox states a hard-wired router should not degrade upload or download speeds. (Perhaps the previous Cox representative had wireless-router issues on her mind.) Assuming Cox is correct, that means the ATA in my system is responsible for the speed problem. So, I called my VoIP provider, TeleBlend, and asked why my ATA should be degrading my speeds and was told it shouldn't. The representative said she'd never heard of an ATA doing such mischief. I responded tests showed my ATA at least seriously degraded my downloading speed. She then suggested using a hub to distribute the signal from my modem in parallel to my computer and ATA. What say you experts???

My modem is a Motorola SURFboard Model SB5101. My VoIP provider is TeleBlend.

With ATA in the Ethernet path: Download :: 6957 Kbps or 6.96 Mbps (849 kB/s) Upload :: 982 Kbps or 1 Mbps (120 kB/s) Other speed-testing software, such as Speakeasy, shows slighly higher download speed (about 7.5 Mbps) and much higher uploading speed (about 4.976 Mbps), which is hard to believe. Anyway, the big questions at the moment are these. Should a rounter seriously attenuate bandwidth from input to its various outputs? Can Cox configure a router to decrease bandwidth from input to its various outputs? Cox told me I would not get advertised download speeds if I used a router. Considering there is a router in my ATA, Cox doesn't seem to be whistling Dixie. No measurements are being done through a VoIP web site.

Cox recently increased upload and download speeds for my Internet service. Uploading changed from about 400 kbps (not sure what it was but 550 kbps was typically measured) to 768 kbps, and downloading changed from 7 Mbps to 9 Mbps. With my computer directly connected, I get more than the advertised speeds. Even Cox states my measured downloading speed to be 10 Mbps. Now, here comes the interesting part or one of them. When I connect my VoIP Analog Terminal Adaptor (aka Gizmo) into the system, my downloading speed remains the same as it was before Cox increased the speed, which runs around 7 to 7.5 Mbps. However, my uploading speed increased to 1 Mbps and much higher, depending on the measuring software. Although I didn't tell Cox I have a VoIP Gizmo in the system, they told me any router would keep me from getting the advertised downloading speed. Why I'm getting more than the advertised uploading speed wasn't explained to me. So experts, why would a router (which is also a part of the Gizmo) attenuate my downloading speed but not my uploading speed? Also, would a cable modem with two ethernet ports solve the speed problem? That is, one ethernet cable would connect from the modem to the computer, and the other would connect to the Gizmo. There's also a curve in the situation. Cox also has a thing they call PowerBoost, which adds additional bandwidth when needed. How is PowerBoost affected by Gizmos and just plain routers?

Although speeds reported by testmy.net are about the same as they were before the problem, they seldom are as fast as those reported by other online test sites or close to what testmy.net reports for my ISP, Cox. For example, testmy.net this morning showed Cox to be 7.2 Mbps down and my speed to be 5.7. However, Speakeasy routinely reports my download speed to be about 7.5 Mbps. Cox advertises 7 Mbps down with short bursts above that.

Although I reported some days ago the speed test appeared to be fixed, it wasn't. However after the recent notification the repair has been completed or words to that effect, the speed test definitely seems to be its old self again. Thanks for the repair.

Speed tester seems to be working OK again.

Speed testing is still busted as of 3/20/08 AM.

Yes! In fact, the problem appears to be getting worse.

My computer is using XP Pro with Internet Explorer 7, which is set to the Full Screen mode. Mostly, the full-screen mode works fine, but, occasionally, I log onto a web site where the full-screen mode doesn't work. If fact on some sites, the full-screen works sometimes and doesn't work other times. What keeps the full-screen mode from working occasionally?

Cox San Diego

Before the new server was installed, testmy.net routinely reported my computer's download speed to be roughly 6.7 to 7.0 Mbps. Since the server's installation, my computer's download speeds are frequently reported to be much less than before. However, Speakeasy and Speedtest continue to report speeds above 7 Mbps. So, why is testmy.net frequently reporting speeds much lower than it did before the server change?

Before the new server was installed, testmy.net routinely reported my computer's download speed to be roughly 6.7 to 7.0 Mbps. Since the server's installation, my computer's download speeds are frequently reported to be much less than before. However, Speakeasy and Speedtest continue to report speeds slightly above 7 Mbps. So, why is testmy.net frequently reporting speeds much lower than it did before the server change?

This is an update to my post titled "Cox Downloading Speed and Security Suite". Enjoy! After several calls to Cox and two Cox technicians visiting my residence, my low, downloading speed problem appears to be solved. Calls to Cox did no good except to get technicians dispatched to my residence. The first technician agreed my downloading speed was dismal, put a pad on the cable input to my modem, and switched my cable connection to another source. I think the pad is an impedance-matching device, but neither technician could adequately explain its function. Nothing the first technician did solved my speed problem. So, he left, saying he would see if any of my neighbors were having problems and would report my slow-speed problem to Cox. I never heard from him or Cox again. The second technician immediately focused on my modem being the problem. Between technician visits, I noticed bizarre behavior of my downloading speed apparently caused by my modem. After disconnecting power to the modem for a few minutes and then reconnecting it, the downloading speed would shoot to speeds as high as 20-Mbps! Then, the speed would reduce to 1 - 2.x Mbps a few hours later. After a few such tests, the modem wouldn't start (i.e., all LEDs solid on) for 20 to 30 minutes and up to several hours one time. When the modem restarted, the downloading speed shot into double-digit territory. I had asked the first technician to replace my modem with another to see if the modem was the problem, but he refused, saying it was "too complicated". However, the second technician replaced my modem in a few minutes, and my downloading speeds increased immediately and have stayed high ever since. Speeds vary but are typically 8 to 20 Mbps as indicated by testmy.net and Speakeasy. Inasmuch as I'm only paying for 7 or 8 Mbps, depending on the Cox source for that information, I'm now a happy camper. I suspect my downloading speeds that are much higher than the advertised Preferred-customer speed could be caused in part by the PowerBoost feature Cox has recently implemented. However, the second Cox technician was not familiar enough with that feature to confirm or deny its involvement in my much higher than advertised speeds. As for my security problem, the test copy of PC-cillin I installed worked well for a month. So, I bought it. I asked why PC-cillin doesn't block ads and pop-ups and was told it does but only if there are threats to the computer. So, I've accepted using Internet Explorer 7's pop-up blocker, which works pretty well, and living with ads, which aren't very annoying to me. Actually, I probably should be looking at ads, for occasionally one benefits me.

This is an update on my post titled "Cox Downloading Speed and Security Suite". Enjoy! After several calls to Cox and two Cox technicians visiting my residence, my low, downloading speed problem appears to be solved. Calls to Cox did no good except to get technicians dispatched to my residence. The first technician agreed my downloading speed was dismal, put a pad on the cable input to my modem, and switched my cable connection to another source. I think the pad is an impedance-matchng device, but neither technician could adequately explain its function. Nothing the first technician did solved my speed problem. So, he left, saying he would see if any of my neighbors were having problems and would report my slow-speed problem to Cox. I never heard from him or Cox again. The second technician immediately focused on my modem being the problem. Between the technician visits, I noticed bizarre behavior of my downloading speed apparently caused by my modem. After disconnecting power to the modem for a few minutes and then reconnecting it, the downloading speed would shoot to speeds as high as 20-Mbps! Then, the speed would reduce to 1 - 2.x Mbps a few hours later. After a few such tests, the modem wouldn't start (i.e., all LEDs solid on) for 20 to 30 minutes to several hours. When the modem would finially restart, the downloading speed would again shoot way up into double-digit territory. I had asked the first technician to replace my modem with another to see if the modem was the problem, but he refused, saying it was "too complicated". However, the second technician replaced my modem in a few minutes, and my downloading speeds increased immediately and have stayed high ever since. Speeds vary but are typically 8 to 20 Mbps as indicated by testmy.net and Speakeasy. Inasmuch as I'm only paying for 7 or 8 Mbps, depending on the Cox source for that information, I'm now a happy camper. I suspect my downloading speeds that are much higher than the advertised Preferred-customer speed could be caused in part by the new PowerBoost feature Cox has recently implemented. However, the second Cox technician was not familiar enough with that feature to confirm or deny its involvement in my much higher than adveritsed speeds. As for my security problem, the test copy of PC-cillin I installed worked well for a month. So, I bought it. I asked why PC-cillin doesn't block ads and pop-ups and was told it does but only if they are threats to the computer. So, I've accepted using Internet Exporer 7's pop-up blocker, which works pretty well, and living with ads, which aren't very annoying to me. Actually, I probably should be looking at ads, for occasionally one benefits me.

I moved into Cox territory in North San Diego County at the end of February 2007. At that time, my downloading speed typically ran about 8.2 Mbps, which I thought odd inasmuch as I'm only paying for the advertised 7 Mbps. Over the next month and a half, I sometimes saw speeds as high as 11.x Mbps. In recent weeks, my dowloading speed has dropped, on average, little by little to about 2.x Mbps. Occasionally, I've seen speeds as high as 6.x Mbps. I haven't called Cox yet about the low speed because, for some strange reason, I don't notice my web pages are loading any slower at 2.0 Mbps than they did when I was getting 11.x Mpbs. However, I plan to call Cox for whatever it's worth to inquire about this speed issue one day soon. I downloaded and installed the Cox Security Suite in early March, and it was a continual headache until I removed it yesterday. There was apparently a conflict with a Google time/calendar gaget that caused my system's time to advance one hour periodically. Another problem was key stronkes were dropped when typing into a user ID or password field periodically. That problem was solved by resetting the parameters of Internet Explorer 7 to factory settings. Still another problem that was never solved was the phishing function periodically could contact the mother ship and had to be reset periodically. The biggest problem of all was the suite software started slowly or not at all upon booting the computer. When it wouldn't start, it used 100% of my CPU time and prevented almost anything else from running. After a fresh install, the suite would run OK for a few days and then begin its slow-starting behavior and finally not start at all. At that point, it was often very difficult to remove the suite from the computer. Last night after the suite wouldn't start again, I, with great difficulty, removed it again from my computer and attempted another fresh installation. This time, the suite wouldn't install after several attempts. So, I called Authentium, which is the manufacturer of the suite for Cox for the umteenth time. After the tech listened to my dreary complaint, he told me the suite won't run properly with XP Pro, which I'm using, and some other operating system I forget. He said Authentium is recommending AVG security software for systems that won't run the Cox Security Suite. In addition, he told me there wasn't much hope the problems with the Cox suite running on XP would ever be resolved because the software engineers are busily working on a suite for Vista. Consequently, my opinion of Cox Communications, at the moment, is very, very low. I did download and install a 30-day trial copy of AVG, and it seemed to work well except for one very bad thing. The speed of my computer was reduced to a crawl. So, I quickly deep-sixed AVG. Today, I downloaded and installed a 30-day trial version of PC-cillin Internet Security 2007, which is running fine at the moment. However, this software doesn't contain ad and pop-up blocking. So, I turned on Explorer's pop-up blocking function, which seems to be working OK. However, I'm still short an ad-blocking function.

Yes friends, TWC is out doing themselves today! TV and Internet services have been down this morning in my area of North San Diego County. In fact, I'm having to retype my post because my Internet service died before I could successfully post my last attempt at this message. I can log onto Road Runner now, but access to Web Mail is long and bumpy. However, my Microsoft Outlook linked to Road Runner e-mail service continues to work OK. Downloading speed continues to run about 400 Kbps or more below the speed it normally ran before TWC began operating Adelphia's network. I haven't tested uploading speed yet, but I'll no doubt be disappointed when I do.

TWC fiddled with their network yesterday in North San Diego County. My connection was briefly interrupted several times. When the smoke cleared, I was able to log onto Road Runner and access and log onto Web Mail from that web page. Likewise, I was able to log onto Web Mail using: http://webmail.adelphia.net/webedge/do/mail/folder/view My Microsoft Outlook, which is linked to my Road Runner e-mail account, continued to work properly as it had been. So, I guess all is well with the Road Runner web site and Web Mail at the moment. Hmmm, I wonder if the complaints about TWC posted in this forum had anything to do with the repair to the Road Runner web site and Web Mail.

Count your blessings. What is your neighborhood?

I followed FallowEarth's and cak46's recommendations, and nothing worked. Essentially, my situation is the same. I can't log onto Road Runner. I can access Web Mail, but still get the same error message when I try to log on. Apparently, the software understands my ID and password because that's the only combination that produces the error message. If I put in an incorrect ID or password, the resulting error message indicates a wrong ID or password has been entered. I'm fairly certain TWC is at fault, and they admitted they were at fault a couple weeks ago. Apparently, nothing has been done to fix the problem. In my opinion, the TWC takeover of the Adelphia net in San Diego's North County area has been dismal from the start, and there's been little improvement. I never thought I'd see the day I'd wish Adelphia was running our net, but that day is here.

So far as I can determine, Road Runner Web Mail is Adelphia's Web Mail with some Road Runner cosmetic changes. Currently, I can't access Road Runner using http://www.rr.com/flash. However, I can access Web Mail using http://webmail.adelphia.net/webedge/do/mail/folder/view. However after entering my user name and password, I get the following error message: There was a problem processing your last request. Please try again later. I contacted chat support a couple weeks ago and was told my issue is a known problem and would soon be fixed. Clearly, the problem remains, and a new one has been added. That is, I can't even access the Road Runner web page currently. Soon after TWC took over, I could access Road Runner and use Web Mail.

I don't know if this technique actually works, but it seemed to with Adelphia. Let me explain. When I first subscribed to Adelphia's 4-Mbps service (actually 3 Mbps initially), I got very low downloading speeds (around 5-700 Kbps). After many go arounds with Adelphia's people at two levels, I decided to reinstall Windows and a minimum of other software to determine if my computer was the problem. My downloading speed jumped to about 2000 Kbps. After confronting Adelphia again to prove my computer was clean of spyware etc, they still couldn't adequately explain my low speed. I heard about the possibilty of a bad splitter, bad cables, and on and on. Finally, I wrote a complaint to management via their chat service and stated if my problem wasn't fixed promptly I would file a complaint with the FCC. Two days later my downloading speed went to about 4.2 Mbps where it stayed until Time Warner Cable (TWC) took over a few weeks ago. Now, my speed is typically around 3500 to 3700 Kbps. I'm waiting for the takeover to settle down before I do battle with TWC on the speed issue. However, I can't access Web Mail and will probably pursue that issue soon. My Microsoft Outlook linked to Road Runner works OK. So, I'm not in a hurry for Web Mail. I can get my mail online via Yahoo. Still, the Web Mail issue is just another of the problems that occurred the moment TWC began operating the old Adelphia network in North San Diego County. In other words, TWC sucks big time at the moment.

I live in northwestern San Diego County, and my Road Runner e-mail service has been down all morning. Live Chat is also not working. Downloading speed as mesured by testmy.net was 3.8 Mbps a few minutes ago. That speed is close to the advertised 4.0-Mbps speed. However, my downloading speed dropped from about 4.2-Mbps to anywhere from about 3.2- to 3.8 Mbps the day Time Warner began operating the old Adelphia net in this area. Of course, there was the on-and-off service, including e-mail problems, the first few days after the takeover I previously reported. So far, Time Warner Cable service sucks in my area!