Just Upgraded To Cox Ultimate....unimpressed.

[natedogg2]

So I just upgraded to cox ultimate, for $90/month my speeds aren't really any better than the tier I used to be on.

when the cox tech came out he checked my speed by doing a speed test on http://azspeedtest.cox.com/, on that I consistently get 50-60Mbps but never have I seen those speeds anywhere else...

any ideas/suggestions?

[CA3LE]

when the cox tech came out he checked my speed by doing a speed test on http://azspeedtest.cox.com/, on that I consistently get 50-60Mbps but never have I seen those speeds anywhere else...

any ideas/suggestions?

Yeah, I suggest that you never listen to your providers test... ever. They are testing internally. Too close to be a real test of your internet. God, I wish that the world knew this... I'd have allot more visitors.

You need to tell them about the issue because I'm on Cox.net Ultimate too, over 1000 miles from the server and look what I get.

... Oh yeah, that test is flash based so you can throw it's accuracy out the window anyway. What are your system specs? You may have something out of place. TestMy.net is a more thorough and can detect things that flash speed tests don't seem to notice. Like incorrect MTU and Rwin settings, read http://old.testmy.net/t-1013. I've seen poor hard drive performance effect the results here as well.

Flash based tests are more of a novelty than a real test of your performance.

[rainabba]

Umm, the issue isn't Cox. Since you CAN NOT get Ultimate installed without a tech toning your line and checking your modem, the issue is CPE (customer premis equipment). In other words, your router, connection, PC, the server you're testing against MAYBE (not CPE really, but for this purpose the point's the same). With those speeds I'm guessing that you're on some poorly configured wireless (B/G) setup. Even when you've done everything right (for example, I'm on commercial equipment and can hit 65Mb/7.5Mb regularly against certain test sites), if you're testing against a server that won't give you the bandwidth you're capable of, or you're hitting the test server over bad routes, you'll still see bad speeds.

Despite what so many ignorant people claim, "Flash Tests" are perfectly valid tests, but just like benchmarks will never tell you how good your PC will play any given game, Flash sites won't tell you what kind of performance you'll see for any given application/purpose. If someone tries to tell you otherwise, ask them to prove it and explain. They won't/can't because it's not true. You can confirm this yourself quite easily by using any router that provides a bandwidth meter and comparing what it reads to what the test site tells you. Not to bad-mouth this site (I DO use it also), but a perfect example of all this is that I can use speedtest.net against San Jose CA, Internode (my favorite server given its proximity to major pipes and yet its distance from me here in Phoenix). I use pfSense in a VM for my CORPORATE firewall/VPN/router solution. I've actually got two Ultimate connections and run them both in over a single gigabit link off a managed switch using vlans (the modems are on one side of the house and my rack where the firewall runs is on the other and I've already got one line connected to the switch in my rack) so I can do some truly telling tests (like if COX REALLY gives me a total of 100Mb+ at once, which they do). Anyway, I can fire up speedtest.net and watch the traffic graph in pfSense and confirm what the "Flash test" tells me and to San Jose Internode, that's typically ~60Mb/5.5Mb or better. I can then run the 50MB test on this site and it will tell me anywhere between 30Mb and 40Mb (rarely above that) and my graph again confirms. Just goes to show that the test site can fall behind your connections abilities and that's to be expected.

You might ask how I know I can trust speedtest to not be pulling something funny. Well, I also managed dedicated servers in DC (high-end hosting facility) and have 100Mb guarantees with 1,000Mb bursting capabilities so I can setup a "real-world" download scenario, time it (for another type of confirmation), and then once again, watch my pfSense traffic graph. Simple math tells me how fast the transfer averaged and then I can compare to my graphs to AGAIN see that they were accurate. In the end, I KNOW that the "Flash test" didn't lie to me and I CAN EXPLAIN why in terms that nearly anyone can understand (no fast talk to come up with a BS explanation).

If you want to know how fast your connection will be when you download from Steam or when you use Torrents or when you stream Vudu, etc.... then go do just that and see. Also, don't overlook your router, ESPECIALLY if you're wireless. These days the cheaper ones aren't too bad, but with connections hitting 100Mb nowadays, getting a 100Mb router (non gigabit) is immediately going to impose restrictions.

Another think you might want to do is visit http://www.dslreports.com/forum/coxhsi and get some official, direct support from COX. These guys have access to tools that Tier-1 don't and quite frankly, Tier-1 is generally so clueless you'd only get the "reboot your modem" line anyway. They and the users there are a wealth of information and help.

[mudmanc4]

If flash based tests were as accurate as stated, why each time I Do have a known issue, and I'm testing as much as possible in as many ways , to locate the issue along thew lines , as a general rule, it shows no issues. When I'm well aware there is an issue. Makes no sense.

From what I understand , and i could be incorrect, many of these flash tests use many small tests then do the average result math. If this is so , thats not real world.

Real world today is maxing out bi-directional throughput. At once. Or one solid chunk of data transferred in one fashion or another. Point my flaw in thinking.