Why Do My Results Differ From Speedtest.net / Ookla Speed Tests?

[Sean]

Two more things to add:

Testing very slow connections (especially uplink):

Based on my experience, Ookla's browser based Speedtest can't seem to handle connections below about 0.1Mbps, at least on the uplink.  My fixed wireless ISP's connection has had an issue for over a month now where the uplink struggles to perform better than 0.1Mbps, then intermittently spikes to about 9Mbps as shown below:

While Ookla's browser based Speedtest seems to measure the link during the brief periods the uplink is running quick, I have yet to see it record a single speed test with a result below 0.1Mbps.  When the uplink is running slow, this is what happens when I run the Ookla's Speedtest:

That's as far as it gets, even when I check an hour later - It stalls like trying to drive a manual gear stick car below 5MPH without pressing the clutch.

I'm not sure if this ISP has access to the test results since it hosts an Ookla server, but if it does, they'll obviously be skewed as the only test results it would have logged from my end were the ones the test successfully completed, i.e. during the brief periods my uplink worked.  Then again, this ISP also uses a carrier grade NAT, so if it did have access to the logs with IP addresses, it probably couldn't map them with each logged IP address being shared amongst many customers.

Single threaded tests:

Another problem I noticed with Ookla's app is that it does not provide the ability to perform a single threaded speed test.  While multi-threaded tests are great at determining the maximum bandwidth available on an ISP's connection, it does not show what one will get when streaming video or even downloading a large individual file.  This potentially also explains why some users who get fast results on Speedtest have problems with video on demand services repetitively buffering or showing a grainy low resolution stream.

While on a business trip in Germany, I stayed at a Leonardo hotel which had plenty of advertising about having free Wi-Fi.  Going by Ookla's Speedtest, it looked reasonably good with a 2Mb download test result, yet when I tried watching YouTube, it would only play in 240p with a grainy picture even though I know 2Mbps is plenty to play videos at 480p and some even at 720p. 

When I tested with TestMy, sure enough it reported my speed as about 500kbps consistently, which explains the YouTube playback problem.  When I started a download in my web browser, it came in at a steady 60KB/s.  However, when I started running simultaneous downloads, each single one continued to run at about 60KB/s.  Sure enough, when I ran TestMy in multi-threaded mode, I got over 2Mbps as the test result.

I saw a flyer on the table mentioning about high speed Wi-Fi, so was curious to see what it said after my strange Wi-Fi experience.  It mentioned that the complementary Wi-Fi is suitable for general web browsing and e-mail only and in order to stream video, download large files and so on, I would need to purchase premium Wi-Fi access for €8 per hour.

So what I reckon they've done is throttle individual connections to 500kbps, which is just fast enough to comfortably browse the web as web browsers make multi-threaded connections to download all the web page elements, pictures, etc.  However, as video streaming services only establish a single connection to run the stream, 500kbps is not enough for most streaming services as many require at least 1Mbps to stream at all, yet Ookla's Speedtest will falsely give the impression that the connection is well capable of streaming video when throttling occurs on individual connections.

Some mobile/cellular and fixed wireless services also seem to throttle individual connections, which effectively reduces network load as video streaming services generally stream at the maximum resolution possible over a single connection.  For example, a 4G provider could throttle individual connections at 4Mbps would prevent most streaming services being able to play full HD, yet if one uses the popular Speedtest app which performs a multi-threaded test, it will report a vastly higher test result.

[Sean]

I had an interesting call with my work colleague in the UK who got in Pulse8's Fibreoptic 38Mbps Broadband package, which runs over VDSL. 

 

I asked him what speed he's getting and sent him the TestMy combo speed test link.  He came back saying he's getting 4.8Mbps down and 7.5Mbps up.  So I called his VoIP phone and asked him to accept a remote desktop connection so I could try some further tests.

 

I then tried several download speed tests with both the UK and German servers.  It seemed like each time I ran a test, it gradually got slower and slower, hitting 3.8Mbps after 3 x 50MB tests with both the UK and German servers.  So I then checked what Speedtest.net gives and it gave 16Mbps on the download and 8Mbps on the upload. 

 

He was quite surprised and wondered why there such a drastic difference.  As I know Speedtest uses multiple threads, I decided to do a 50MB multi-threaded test on TestMy using the UK server.  As soon as the test started, my remote desktop picture went to a crawl where it started painting chunks of pixels at a time and my colleague could only hear the odd word I spoke.

 

About 2 minutes later, the test completed along with my remote desktop screen and VoIP quality returning back to normal.  The test result showed 3.5Mbps. 

 

My work colleague told me that Pulse8 said to use their website's speed test to check if there is any speed issue.  So I decided to check that one.  Like Speedtest.net, it also reported about 16Mbps down and 8Mbps up and sure enough it showed 'OOKLA' at the top-right corner, which clearly is the same engine as Ookla's Speedtest.net site. 

 

Unlike TestMy's test, Ookla's tests did not cause my remote desktop screen or VoIP call to break up.  So it's pretty clear his ISP (or Tiscali it operates over) has traffic shaping to give plenty of bandwidth to Ookla's servers, but only 3.5Mbps to 4.8Mbps overall capacity to the Internet, at least around 4pm to 5pm when I was testing his connection.

[CA3LE]

7 minutes ago, Sean said:

As soon as the test started, my remote desktop picture went to a crawl where it started painting chunks of pixels at a time and my colleague could only hear the odd word I spoke.

 

Unlike TestMy's test, Ookla's tests did not cause my remote desktop screen or VoIP call to break up.

 

Proof during the TMN test that you were topping out the connection. 

 

Funny the ookla tests read higher yet didn't cause your voip and rd streams to die out.  The only way in my mind that happens is if there's funny business or it's just plain BS.

[mudmanc4]

The one and only reason Ookla is even remotely available on the net today, is the simple fact first of all, they have the ISP insiders market flooded.

 

Who else knowing, would harbor a flash base script within their internal network, unless the ends outweighed the means, or likelihood of an infiltration. If your confident enough to allow this thing to live within your public network, than obviously you've got said network protected. Fair enough right? That type of ISP network protection would likely come at the cost of the consumer. If for no other reason than isolation, which is the complete antithesis of the meaning to testing throughput across networks, that at the very least represents what the intentions are for the masses taking the test.

 

Secondly the ISP know well the entire idea of a test being run on any high level network, is useless and nothing more than a 'feel good' item.

 

These tests of Ookla, should be completely isolated on a per ISP level, if they must be used at all. Of course they are useful for tech to determine if there is or not an issue between modem/ head end (or wherever these flash tests are living). No?

[jjackzhn]

There is actually a browser-independent tool that tests the Internet speed using Ookla's servers. It's a Python script. (https://github.com/sivel/speedtest-cli)

 

I think there might be some difference in results since testing this way doesn't involve plugins like Flash or Java, nor web page rendering. I am not sure how much this affects the results, though. I wonder if TMN offers any API that allows scripts like this to be written. Scripts also allow testing rented servers remotely using SSH (where it's impossible to test via a browser), and I'd really like to see TMN offering this.

[TestMySeemsWrong]

I just created an account for saying this... TestMy results seem to be wrong. In a download speed test, it took so long to download a 42 MB test file... and it showed me a speed of 1.9 MBPS. I have a 5 MBPS connection. And ookla speed test is spot on.

To verify this I downloaded something else (and it was of size 42 MB too) and I got correct speeds there, and it took much shorter time to download.

 

What does this prove?

[Pgoodwin1]

3 hours ago, TestMySeemsWrong said:

I just created an account for saying this... TestMy results seem to be wrong. In a download speed test, it took so long to download a 42 MB test file... and it showed me a speed of 1.9 MBPS. I have a 5 MBPS connection. And ookla speed test is spot on.

To verify this I downloaded something else (and it was of size 42 MB too) and I got correct speeds there, and it took much shorter time to download.

 

What does this prove?

What makes you think the ookla speed test is giving you the truth? Just because your ISP says you get "up to 5Mbps", that doesn't mean your throughput from the Internet is at that plan max.

 

go read all the tabs here. It will help you understand that many ookla based speed tests were picked by ISPs just because they were created to show a high speed

[TestMySeemsWrong]

19 hours ago, Pgoodwin1 said:

What makes you think the ookla speed test is giving you the truth? Just because your ISP says you get "up to 5Mbps", that doesn't mean your throughput from the Internet is at that plan max.

 

go read all the tabs here. It will help you understand that many ookla based speed tests were picked by ISPs just because they were created to show a high speed

 

Come on, are you not reading what I wrote there? I did not ascertain my internet speed just from the ookla results. I mentioned that after my testmy.net results were complete, I downloaded something, and I got proper speeds there! That proves that testmy.net was wrong for me. According to a 5 mbps connection, I should be getting around 640 kb/s speed, and that's what I got. But testmy.net should my download speed 241 kb/s.

[CA3LE]

4 hours ago, TestMySeemsWrong said:

 

Come on, are you not reading what I wrote there? I did not ascertain my internet speed just from the ookla results. I mentioned that after my testmy.net results were complete, I downloaded something, and I got proper speeds there! That proves that testmy.net was wrong for me. According to a 5 mbps connection, I should be getting around 640 kb/s speed, and that's what I got. But testmy.net should my download speed 241 kb/s.

 

What it proves is that you were running slower to that server.  You should test against other servers and also multithread.  I see now that you switched to a server in India (much closer to you) and you were able to get close to 5 Mbps so it looks like you may have already figured that out.  Your speed will vary depending on where you're testing against, that's why I offer those extra servers and options.

 

 

You get much slower speed to New York... pretty common at that distance.  

 

 

You have to route through a lot to get there.  Are there providers that can provide the same level of service at that distance?  Yes, usually on the high end commercial or private.

 

TestMy.net isn't wrong.  You just don't like what it told you.   ...if you read around here you'll see it's a pretty common theme, my results don't always match the other guys.  That's because this isn't the other guys test.  I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to make a faster Internet.

[Tyrod]

That is pretty cool, wish someone would help me a little bit like that! I have Straight Talk and they use Verizon network in my area and I should be getting pretty good speeds but it seems like somehow they slow it down or something because my girlfriend has Verizon and she gets like 9 megabits per second & I get like 1 megabit/sec in the same spot. I have called them numerous times on many occassions & they just tell me to dial *22890 for their over the air programing over and over & over & over again; that's all they can do, or know how to do I guess. people they're mentioned that I needed to reload my phone which would mean wiping my phone clean and then reinstalling it from factory default like that maybe I had a virus in it or something or there was a problem with settings somewhere that we couldn't find & that was causing a problem with the phone and

Finally, Straighttalk services in Susanville, Ca suggested we call Verizon network whom is their provider up in that area and maybe have them tweak something in the network or on my phone I guess.

 

If you have any comments on this or any answers to boost speed on this issue, please let me know and I will go from there, I thank you &, or anyone very much for your consideration and, or time 4 any thoughts, ideas, or direction forward.

 

Thank You!!

Ty 

 

[Pgoodwin1]

27 minutes ago, Tyrod said:

That is pretty cool, wish someone would help me a little bit like that! I have Straight Talk and they use Verizon network in my area and I should be getting pretty good speeds but it seems like somehow they slow it down or something because my girlfriend has Verizon and she gets like 9 megabits per second & I get like 1 megabit/sec in the same spot. I have called them numerous times on many occassions & they just tell me to dial *22890 for their over the air programing over and over & over & over again; that's all they can do, or know how to do I guess. people they're mentioned that I needed to reload my phone which would mean wiping my phone clean and then reinstalling it from factory default like that maybe I had a virus in it or something or there was a problem with settings somewhere that we couldn't find & that was causing a problem with the phone and

Finally, Straighttalk services in Susanville, Ca suggested we call Verizon network whom is their provider up in that area and maybe have them tweak something in the network or on my phone I guess.

 

If you have any comments on this or any answers to boost speed on this issue, please let me know and I will go from there, I thank you &, or anyone very much for your consideration and, or time 4 any thoughts, ideas, or direction forward.

 

Thank You!!

Ty 

 

 

If that's all StraightTalk will do for you, I would exit them and find a better ISP. As your provider, they are responsible for supporting you and not just passing you off to to Verizon.

 

are you testing using your home internet wireless connection or through the phone service (wireless)?

[Pgoodwin1]

When I had a router that was bad (intermittent), SpeedTest never reported the erratic results. During the tests, you could see that the speed plot had big variances in it, but when the end of test results came up, the speed was right at my plan max. Not so here at TestMy. Them dropping out the lowest 30% of the data points was giving me the wrong numbers. The router was a piece of my equipment and TestMy helped identify that there really was a problem. The router finally really died.

[Sean]

2 hours ago, Pgoodwin1 said:

When I had a router that was bad (intermittent), SpeedTest never reported the erratic results. During the tests, you could see that the speed plot had big variances in it, but when the end of test results came up, the speed was right at my plan max. Not so here at TestMy. Them dropping out the lowest 30% of the data points was giving me the wrong numbers.

I have the same experience with 4G (cellular LTE) based broadband connections, such as when positioning a directional antenna.  When the network is quiet (e.g. early on a weekend morning), there can be a large variation between what SpeedTest and TestMy reports if the antenna is not aimed correctly.  Once the antenna is carefully aimed, the TestMy results climb up towards what Speedtest reports.  It's similar also if there are swaying branches in line of sight as Speedtest will again ignore the brief dips as if the bandwidth is sustained. 

 

If Speedtest measured road trip speeds, their speed test methodology would eliminate traffic lights, construction zones, slow vehicles, busy junctions and everything else that accounted for the slowest 30% of the journey.

 

If TestMy measured road trips, it would run a stopwatch from the moment of departure to the moment of arrival.

 

Of course like the Speedtest fanatics, there would be those that would argue the same for road trip measurements - "What if that construction zone was not there, those traffic lights were green, no accident on the route, ..." 

[suddenLYUNlinked]

Today, during yet another worthless 'field tech' appointment re our Suddenlink ("suddenLYUNlinked" as we call them) speeds crawling along at amazing slow speeds, then spiking to very high (DL/incoming), then [the modem freaks out due to the spike, as explained to me once by a suddenlink phone tech support rep], I tried showing the TWO suddenlink tech employees that the site they wanted me to test at (https://SPACEfastDOTcom) was a 'flash-based' test and therefore not truly accurate for reasons detailed here at testmy.net. They refused to even consider what I was saying. (Typical suddenlink.)  I tried showing them the graph and the individual entries from the auto tests (both tmn and not, both DL/UP, and DL only) I've been running ever 10-15 mins. for days and days. Again, no interest.

Either they had no idea what I was talking about, or they just flat out weren't interested in any info source that conflicted with their canned 'you're getting exactly [the speeds] what you are supposed to' canned, unhelpful, useless speech. They refused TO EVEN LOOK at the screenshot I'd saved on the 'why flash tests aren't accurate' testmy.net website info page.

And the fight continues......... (after one tech actually agreed that I might just have to switch to 56k dial-up fro days of old..... figures, right?)

[CA3LE]

On 11/30/2016 at 6:21 PM, suddenLYUNlinked said:

Either they had no idea what I was talking about, or they just flat out weren't interested in any info source that conflicted with their canned 'you're getting exactly [the speeds] what you are supposed to' canned, unhelpful, useless speech. They refused TO EVEN LOOK at the screenshot I'd saved on the 'why flash tests aren't accurate' testmy.net website info page.

And the fight continues......... 

 

Thank you for spreading the word, I love your username.  Noticed you online here and there before you posted and it made me laugh.

The ISPs don't seem to like me these days.  I get no love from them anymore.   :-/  --- good thing I didn't make this site for them.  

[CA3LE]

On 9/20/2016 at 9:48 AM, Sean said:

If Speedtest measured road trip speeds, their speed test methodology would eliminate traffic lights, construction zones, slow vehicles, busy junctions and everything else that accounted for the slowest 30% of the journey.

 

If TestMy measured road trips, it would run a stopwatch from the moment of departure to the moment of arrival.

 

Of course like the Speedtest fanatics, there would be those that would argue the same for road trip measurements - "What if that construction zone was not there, those traffic lights were green, no accident on the route, ..." 

 

Great analogy!

 

For those who'd argue "What if that construction zone was not there, those traffic lights were green, no accident on the route, ..." 

 

Do you want to know how long it might take if everything were perfect... or would you rather know the true amount of time it will take?  Who cares about the time it would take if there were no variables, it's irrelevant if it can never be achieved in the real world.  I don't know about you but if I set off on a road trip and Google Maps said, "6 hours" and then it ends up taking 24 hours because of stop lights, construction and speed limits (all known before)... I'd be really pissed.  I'd rather be told the truth with all things considered so that I can plan accordingly.

 

 

[jrtcjrjr]

Here is an odd case... I am getting pretty much the same speed scores when testing with OOKLA and with testMy.net.....

Something has changed. Has the OOKLA methodology been corrected?

[ShakTib]

Hey @jrtcjrjr,

 

I personally doubt Ookla the dead cat has any new tricks.

Though I'm sure Ca3le would know more technical knowledge.

 

Also I love the Sean's analogy as well! Who cares about "Ideal Situation Results". I'm not testing to see what my internet can give me at "Ideal" connection.

I am testing to see with all variables, what is going on with my connection.

[CharterTech1084]

Let us examine some false information that TestMy.Net would like you to believe, but also let me clarify something before we start.

Do I believe the test results are accurate on this site? Yes, to a degree.

Now, the fact that this site says providers shouldn't have any part in the speed test process is ridiculous. Let me explain. Any service provider can only guarantee the speeds of their network, therefor we usually run speed tests that pull from our own servers. When you go off grid to different servers you take a journey across strange and far away lands. You cross other networks, other servers, and will get different paths at different times of day and night due to heavier or lighter internet traffic. Why should a provider like Spectrum or Comcast be to blame for slow speeds and poor connection when you are requesting information, or even a speed test, from someone else's network? Lets make it simple. If you bought a new car and the manufacturer promised that it would get 60MPG, that means under normal driving conditions, or keeping it on the smooth flat roads....in network. Now when you take that car across country, out of network, up and down mountains, back country roads, and mud holes...poorly maintained infrastructure, remote locations, bad servers...you let less MPG, or in our case Mbps. Are you gonna blame the car manufacturer for the lowered MPG when you took the car into strange locations? The bottom line is that any company can not be blamed for the performance of any outside networks. They can only be held responsible for their own network speeds. So in short, TestMy.Net is not testing your ISP against itself. It is testing your ISP along with every network along the way to the destination server, and then laying 100% of the blame on your ISP. If you are late to work, do you blame yourself and your car(assuming its in good working condition), or do you blame the condition of the roads and the traffic along your route to your final destination? Your boss blames you(TestMy.Net blames ISP), but you blame the conditions that you could not control. Smooth sailing until you get to the roads or near the destinations that everyone else is trying to get to. Even a Bugatti cant get you to work any faster when you travel on bad roads or in high congestion areas. Think about that. Your ISP spends money on its own maintenance and infrastructure. They don't give any thought to the health and performance of the competitors. It's a competition between companies, and any IPS can only guarantee advertised speeds when the internet traffic is processed in their own network.

[mudmanc4]

One word: Peering

 

As end users pay for an internet connection, not simply a good route through ISP nodes, where a flash test lives on internal networking, which can only be viable on that internal network.

 

Once ISPs shift toward creating a more efficient infrastructure across the continent, this will change.

If we use testmy.net a bit more, we can begin to verify where our network path flaws are located among the peers.

[vink]

Results could be different on basis of location of test servers.

[ShakTib]

On 12/07/2017 at 4:19 PM, CharterTech1084 said:

Let us examine some false information that TestMy.Net would like you to believe, but also let me clarify something before we start.

Do I believe the test results are accurate on this site? Yes, to a degree.

Now, the fact that this site says providers shouldn't have any part in the speed test process is ridiculous. Let me explain. Any service provider can only guarantee the speeds of their network, therefor we usually run speed tests that pull from our own servers. When you go off grid to different servers you take a journey across strange and far away lands. You cross other networks, other servers, and will get different paths at different times of day and night due to heavier or lighter internet traffic. Why should a provider like Spectrum or Comcast be to blame for slow speeds and poor connection when you are requesting information, or even a speed test, from someone else's network? Lets make it simple. If you bought a new car and the manufacturer promised that it would get 60MPG, that means under normal driving conditions, or keeping it on the smooth flat roads....in network. Now when you take that car across country, out of network, up and down mountains, back country roads, and mud holes...poorly maintained infrastructure, remote locations, bad servers...you let less MPG, or in our case Mbps. Are you gonna blame the car manufacturer for the lowered MPG when you took the car into strange locations? The bottom line is that any company can not be blamed for the performance of any outside networks. They can only be held responsible for their own network speeds. So in short, TestMy.Net is not testing your ISP against itself. It is testing your ISP along with every network along the way to the destination server, and then laying 100% of the blame on your ISP. If you are late to work, do you blame yourself and your car(assuming its in good working condition), or do you blame the condition of the roads and the traffic along your route to your final destination? Your boss blames you(TestMy.Net blames ISP), but you blame the conditions that you could not control. Smooth sailing until you get to the roads or near the destinations that everyone else is trying to get to. Even a Bugatti cant get you to work any faster when you travel on bad roads or in high congestion areas. Think about that. Your ISP spends money on its own maintenance and infrastructure. They don't give any thought to the health and performance of the competitors. It's a competition between companies, and any IPS can only guarantee advertised speeds when the internet traffic is processed in their own network.

 

 

 

I'm going to break things down bit.. by bit... by bit... because I can... and I'm bored.

 

"When you go off grid to different servers you take a journey across strange and far away lands. You cross other networks, other servers, and will get different paths at different times of day and night due to heavier or lighter internet traffic. Why should a provider like Spectrum or Comcast be to blame for slow speeds and poor connection when you are requesting information, or even a speed test, from someone else's network?"

 

Because most ISP actually guarantee that on their end and state that it is the speed you'll get. When it's mostly not true. Power users usually look at +/- and understand the losses during up time and downtime. However an average Joe wouldn't.

That is why. If an ISP is stating 250mbps. Then you should be getting somewhere near that.

 

 

"If you bought a new car and the manufacturer promised that it would get 60MPG, that means under normal driving conditions, or keeping it on the smooth flat roads....in network. Now when you take that car across country, out of network, up and down mountains, back country roads, and mud holes...poorly maintained infrastructure, remote locations, bad servers...you let less MPG, or in our case Mbps. Are you gonna blame the car manufacturer for the lowered MPG when you took the car into strange locations?"

 

Yes, a poorly designed frame, body weight placement, bhp to whp performance ratio, and shock absorbent on struts and shocks for a vehicle can cause heavy MPG downfall. Which is the manufacture's issue, especially if advertised only on "optimal situations".

Especially if I buy a SUV that can barely handle highway roads and pot holes, when it is advertised as an OFFROAD in their commercial and marketing. Yes. I would heavily blame the manufacture. If the issue is big enough it can be a class action suite as well lol

 

Isn't it fun when I know a little about the interwebs and cars? Your point you're making is valid in principle.

btw, you have a shitty boss. My boss blames the traffic

 

If we are taking about the internet and highways. Let's really come back up from the dumb-down version for end users.

We relate it to the highway to give newbs and low-end users an understanding of what the internet works with or like. That's a lot of empty land mass if you look at a map.

Your internet highway had multiple exits, routes and connection that is a two way lane and your car can travel either direction without a loss of speed or slow down. Congestion doesn't happen on the road, it happens on the terminating node or server, so pretty much a ball of yarn is what the internet looks like as "highway" surrounding the globe. X amount routes and nodes it can connect and move to.

This is why you get packet loss (one of many reasons) when you are hitting a bad node/server. right? riiiight.

 

However, if your ISP in North America says "You will get 300mbps download speed" and the users are testing at "230mbps" from Mother Russia, then that's not bad. Because 150mbps isn't hard hit for power users, unless you are expecting exactly 300mbps consistently ... which I would consider silly because that won't ever be true, speed fluctuate.

but for users who have ISP telling them "You will get 25mbps download speed" and they are getting "0.01mbps or 10kbps" as a test from same server in Mother Russia then the issue would be more so the ISP then "situational highways"

 

The Infrastructure that is lagging is normally the ISP and the agreement of other ISP by the said ISP, it is business and throttling. Nothing more.

 

Like I said, the point you're making is very much valid in principle... but you forget what TMN here is for.

 

Ookla for example, shows you ideal results. TMN at least shows you how crappy the roads are.

Your message fully felt like the hate on the the glory of TMN.

So what false information are you referring to? the ones you are trying to portray? because that's what it sounded like to me, a one sided view. So I wanted to add mine.

My issue is other Speed Test sites, some have partnered up with ISPs (they get a kick back). I don't think TMN is saying your ISP suck; TMN shows what it pulls.

Just. Data.

Now, you wanna hate your ISP, your dog or your neighbour for sleeping with your wife, it isn't TMN's issue. What you do with the data logs is up to you. It's a tool to help YOU.

 

A tool. That's it.

 

FYI, I am adding to the friendly debate, with humor along the way. I could be horribly wrong. Who knows.

 

 

Also. WHAT IS WITH THAT GIANT FLOWER?! 

[Bartoomann]

Soooooooooo, if I pay my ISP provider for 200/20 and I'm getting 200/20 on OOkla and 80/20 on Testme (hard wired) can I argue with my ISP?  I get similar results with multi treading.

My gut feel is that I would be happier tilting with wind mills.

Thanks anyway.

[Pgoodwin1]

On 12/28/2017 at 8:09 PM, my-user-name said:

Soooooooooo, if I pay my ISP provider for 200/20 and I'm getting 200/20 on OOkla and 80/20 on Testme (hard wired) can I argue with my ISP?  I get similar results with multi treading.

My gut feel is that I would be happier tilting with wind mills.

Thanks anyway.

Not sure where you are located. You’re testing to the Dallas Test server. Is that the closest one to you?

[Bartoomann]

Yes, Dallas is closest to Austin.  I get 200MB on Ookla and 80 on TestMy hardwired.