Elsewhere in the thread it looks like some ISPs do exactly that! Not sure why you are against the mb/s estimate.
Edit: thanks for the detail re: Mbit in your other answer!
I still think an estimate of Mbit/8 e.g. mb/s would still be a more useful thing for consumers to compare to the download rates they’re actually getting.
The first speedtest I ever used was from the ISP and gave results in Mbit – which confused 12 y.o. me because I was not getting anything close to that when I downloaded files.
If the speedtest said 1 mb/s and then I got 0.8 mb/s downloading from a server, I wouldn’t call ISP support, but I think we did call support when the speedtest said we were getting “10 M” but our downloads were closer to 1.1 mb/s.
Listing the bandwidth in bytes would be less useful because they still wouldn’t match the download rates they’re getting, but also your internet bandwidth would now be in a different format from every other networking device in your house. Paying for 125 Megabytes but your downloads only ever being 100-112MB/s is still going to prompt those service desk calls, and now going to the store and trying to buy a router would be more confusing as well because you’d want to buy one that matches the speed you’re paying for but now your bandwidth is in bytes but all the routers measure their throughput in bits and you’re right back to being confused.
If you’re streaming video from or to the internet and run into issues it’ll be harder to figure out what the problem is because your ISP bandwidth is in bytes but your video bitrate is in bits.
Changing one factor in your internet solution to bytes while every single other component involved measures it in bits is just not by any stretch of the imagination going to result in less confusion overall. You’re robbing Peter to pay Paul, but Paul is still being shorted.
At the upper end of that range, you are only getting 90% of their advertised bandwidth, even in ideal conditions. Is that actually an acceptable loss? Maybe they shouldn’t advertise 125 mb/s if they can only deliver 90% of that in the best case.
Routers, network cards, and Ethernet cables being “gigabit” or similar is also confusing, but i see your point there.
I still don’t see the harm in providing both formats, thought i do see the point in not switching to mb/s only.
In the example you posted, it would be 1000Mbit/s down, which translates to a real world speed of 110-112 mb/s .
Maybe they shouldn’t advertise 125 mb/s if they can only deliver 90% of that in the best case.
They aren’t delivering 90% to you, they’re delivering 100%. You are getting all 125MB/s, the full amount they advertised to you. The fact that you’re confused here is exactly why they do not advertise bandwidth this way.
Routers, network cards, and Ethernet cables being “gigabit” or similar is also confusing,
No, it’s not confusing. Those devices pass bits between each other. It would be confusing if you measured the bits they’re passing in Bytes for some reason.
1000Mbit/s down, which translates to a real world speed of 110-112 mb/s
The job of computer networks and network devices is not file transfer. Its to pass information, only a subset of which is for file transfer. Networking devices pass pass bits between each other, so it only makes sense to measure how many of those bits they can pass per second.
Hiding it is not anti-consumer. Nothing is being hidden. The capabilities of the devices are simply being accurately described based on the job they perform and the way they perform it.
What good is it that i can reach the local node in 1000Mbit/s if their first hop to an internet server slows the connection by 90%?
The first hop to an internet server doesn’t slow the connection by 90%. The connection remains at 100% the entire time.
You’re referring to two different things. You are using 100% of the bandwidth they’ve sold to you, which is 1000Mb/s or 125MB/s. Thats the “speed” at which you’re transferring data across the network.
90% of that bandwidth — that you are using 100% of —consists of the file data you’re downloading.
This is why those two numbers are not interchangeable, and why simply converting to bytes won’t result in the numbers you expect as a consumer. Because of the very nature of how computer networking works.
Elsewhere in the thread it looks like some ISPs do exactly that! Not sure why you are against the mb/s estimate.
Edit: thanks for the detail re: Mbit in your other answer!
I still think an estimate of Mbit/8 e.g. mb/s would still be a more useful thing for consumers to compare to the download rates they’re actually getting.
The first speedtest I ever used was from the ISP and gave results in Mbit – which confused 12 y.o. me because I was not getting anything close to that when I downloaded files.
If the speedtest said 1 mb/s and then I got 0.8 mb/s downloading from a server, I wouldn’t call ISP support, but I think we did call support when the speedtest said we were getting “10 M” but our downloads were closer to 1.1 mb/s.
Listing the bandwidth in bytes would be less useful because they still wouldn’t match the download rates they’re getting, but also your internet bandwidth would now be in a different format from every other networking device in your house. Paying for 125 Megabytes but your downloads only ever being 100-112MB/s is still going to prompt those service desk calls, and now going to the store and trying to buy a router would be more confusing as well because you’d want to buy one that matches the speed you’re paying for but now your bandwidth is in bytes but all the routers measure their throughput in bits and you’re right back to being confused.
If you’re streaming video from or to the internet and run into issues it’ll be harder to figure out what the problem is because your ISP bandwidth is in bytes but your video bitrate is in bits.
Changing one factor in your internet solution to bytes while every single other component involved measures it in bits is just not by any stretch of the imagination going to result in less confusion overall. You’re robbing Peter to pay Paul, but Paul is still being shorted.
At the upper end of that range, you are only getting 90% of their advertised bandwidth, even in ideal conditions. Is that actually an acceptable loss? Maybe they shouldn’t advertise 125 mb/s if they can only deliver 90% of that in the best case.
Routers, network cards, and Ethernet cables being “gigabit” or similar is also confusing, but i see your point there.
I still don’t see the harm in providing both formats, thought i do see the point in not switching to mb/s only.
In the example you posted, it would be 1000Mbit/s down, which translates to a real world speed of 110-112 mb/s .
They aren’t delivering 90% to you, they’re delivering 100%. You are getting all 125MB/s, the full amount they advertised to you. The fact that you’re confused here is exactly why they do not advertise bandwidth this way.
No, it’s not confusing. Those devices pass bits between each other. It would be confusing if you measured the bits they’re passing in Bytes for some reason.
The real world speed is 1000Mb/s down.
It’s not some reason, the reason is that file transfer uses bytes.
Hiding it is anti-consumer.
What good is it that i can reach the local node in 1000Mbit/s if their first hop to an internet server slows the connection to 90%?
If i upgrade to the 2500Mbit/s connection, am i only getting 90% of that too?
They should advertise what internet service they’re really providing.
The job of computer networks and network devices is not file transfer. Its to pass information, only a subset of which is for file transfer. Networking devices pass pass bits between each other, so it only makes sense to measure how many of those bits they can pass per second.
Hiding it is not anti-consumer. Nothing is being hidden. The capabilities of the devices are simply being accurately described based on the job they perform and the way they perform it.
The first hop to an internet server doesn’t slow the connection by 90%. The connection remains at 100% the entire time.
If it is 100% why is it 90%?
You’re referring to two different things. You are using 100% of the bandwidth they’ve sold to you, which is 1000Mb/s or 125MB/s. Thats the “speed” at which you’re transferring data across the network.
90% of that bandwidth — that you are using 100% of —consists of the file data you’re downloading.
This is why those two numbers are not interchangeable, and why simply converting to bytes won’t result in the numbers you expect as a consumer. Because of the very nature of how computer networking works.