There are good reasons to use bits for engineers, but residential internet consumers are not engineers. In no other context do you market incomprehensible engineering details, just here because higher number is better marketing. Almost everyone I know is confused why the speeds they pay for don’t match the speed of downloads in Chrome. Marketing in bits is anti-consumer, since average consumer does not understand what actual download speed they will get when buying.
Marketing in bits is anti-consumer, since average consumer does not understand what actual download speed they will get when buying.
It’s not anti-consumer to advertise a product’s capabilities in the most accurate way possible. When you pay for internet bandwidth you’re not paying for download speed, you’re paying for a transmission rate. Advertising internet plans based on the speeds you get in Chrome would not be possible and therefore any attempt to do so would be deceptive to the customer.
Almost everyone I know is confused why the speeds they pay for don’t match the speed of downloads in Chrome
The Internet bandwidth they pay for will never match the speed of downloads in Chrome, even if you convert bits to bytes.
What you’re missing here is that you want the number you pay for from your ISP and the number you can measure downloading a file at to match. But they never will, because they’re two completely different concepts. One of those number is a constituent part of the other number. They’re not interchangeable.
Why wouldn’t it be possible?
Convert Mbit/s to a reasonable real-world mb/s estimation for download/upload to a reasonably close location, with some losses built into the estimate.
You’re asking why it’s not possible, and then explained a work around that would be needed because it’s not possible.
What you’re suggesting is that instead of selling a service to you based on a quantifiable number based on things within their control that you can reasonably hold them accountable for, they should sell their service to you based on a series of educated guesses about what you could potentially get based on a number of factors entirely outside of their control.
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
You can give an accurate enough estimate. Yes, you may have to make some assumptions on protocol and server. And yes, you will be a few percent off. But so what? It is much more informative to the average consumer than transmission rate. In the first place, transmission rate is also a meaningless metric without information on overprovisioning, latencies, etc. Except instead of an understandable but slightly inaccurate download speed estimate, you have one engineering parameter that is unhelpful to an engineer anyway without more information as well as not understandable to the average consumer.
PS: I am not saying I can’t include engineering parameters, but it shouldn’t be the main marketing number.
Accurate enough for who? It wouldn’t be accurate enough for me. And it certainly wouldn’t be accurate enough for the consumer who you described as expecting that estimate to match reality. And worst of all, it wouldn’t be enough for any consumer protection agencies or remedies. So many assumptions would have to be made based on factors entirely outside of their control in order to sell to you based on your file download speed. And if you allow them to sell you a product based on assumptions of things outside of their control, then you then have no recourse to hold them accountable. I don’t want companies to sell me a product based on a number offered via a shrug. I want a promised number I can measure against what I’m getting.
Transmission rate is the only metric with any meaning in this context, because the transmission rate is the product they’re selling to you. The overprovisioning and etc is actually accounted for in the transmission rate they’re selling you. Thats why they almost always overprovision your connection based on what you’re paying for.
It’s as if you’re asking for a car dealer to sell you vehicles based on how many how many people you can move between two locations per hour, instead of the number of seats it has and the speed it can go. They would have to start making guesses based on the average waistline of people in your area, the speed limits of the roads in your town, your driving ability, what routes you like to take, etc. that might be sorta handy because you don’t have to do that math yourself now, but it’s not going to be all that accurate to you specifically, and if that number of people is lower than what they estimated, it’s kinda on you because they don’t know if your friends are petite or 600 lbs, etc etc. But if they sell you a car that seats 5 people of normal healthy size and it can go 100mph, and they deliver you something that seats 4 with a top speed of 80, they’re accountable for that.
Transmission rate is the only metric with any meaning in this context, because the transmission rate is the product they’re selling to you. The overprovisioning and etc is actually accounted for in the transmission rate they’re selling you.
What are you talking about? Overprovisioning literally means selling more transmission rate than what the upstream lines can accommodate. It is not accounted for. Therefore, you only get your advertised transmission rate if your neighbors are not fully utilizing theirs.
Accurate enough for who? It wouldn’t be accurate enough for me.
How can it not be accurate enough when it is just a conversion from transmission rate via a formula that converts to bytes and accounts for expected protocol overheads? It’s the same number, converted to easily understandable units. If it is not accurate enough, neither is transmission rate.
What are you talking about? Overprovisioning literally means selling more transmission rate than what the upstream lines can accommodate. It is not accounted for.
I’m talking about overprovisioning, where your ISP actually provisions you for more bandwidth than you’re paying for. It is accounted for.
You’re talking over subscription.
How can it not be accurate enough when it is just a conversion from transmission rate via a formula that converts to bytes and accounts for expected protocol overheads?
Are you asking me how a flat base number derived direct from the source is more accurate than a different number that takes that first number and then adds a bunch of guesswork on top based on a bunch of unknown variables? Well that’s because in your head “expected protocol overheads” must be a simpler and more quantifiable number than it is in real life. For starters, which protocol? Downloads happen over TCP and UDP, both have completely different overhead profiles. What about the protocols above that? How are we proposing the file is being downloaded? Tor? SMB? NFS? HTTP? MLS stream? Which OS is the client? Different operating systems have different TCP window scaling logic. Different devices have different MTU sizes. The Internet service you’re buying can be used for all of them. Are we picking picking one set based on the most common use case? Averaging them all together? Weighting them based on common usage? Uhhh or we could just advertise the product based on the product the ISP is actually selling you, the transmission rate.
Your entire argument here is like being upset at McDonald’s for giving you the nutrient values of their food, like calorie counts and detailed macronutrient breakdowns, because you think instead they should just tell you how full each item will make you.
I really can’t break this down any simpler for you than I already have.
Dude, what is your fixation on the protocol parameters? I said average. Yes, for the purpose of getting the exact speed Chrome downloads shit, it will be off by a few percent. Who cares? The weight of the food you buy is allowed to be off by a few percent. The calories in food are already an approximation based on energy released while burning, not digestion. Every measurement in the world has error bars.
But a number most people can understand is a lot more useful than a slightly more accurate representation of the same number most people don’t understand. I am sure you can still find the details in a spec sheet if you feel too smart to use the simple representation and too lazy to convert it back.
I’m talking about overprovisioning, where your ISP actually provisions you for more bandwidth than you’re paying for. It is accounted for.
Ok, let’s say I used the wrong term for the sake of the argument. Point, is (most) ISPs don’t guarantee your full ratelimit will be available to you. Which you clearly understood yet did not address.
I mean, wasn’t this discussion started by whether bits per second or bytes per second is deceptive or misleading in order to make people think “woah, bigger number means better internet” ?
Also, how is a division or multiplication by a factor of 8 the difference between what most people do or don’t understand? It’s a primary school mathematical operation. If people cannot understand that, how are they going to understand that different downloads or uploads inside different applications provide them with different (byte-based) values depending on protocol and server performance of whatever service they are using?
It really is the truest and simplest unit to use that the ISP can reasonably guarantee to you, because on the lowest level, whether using fibre or copper, we send bits and not bytes across the wire.
No one who was not specifically taught this will notice the difference between Mbps and MBps since it’s the same fucking letters. Let alone know the difference is division by 8. Not everyone has formal IT education and bits never come out in daily life of most people except for internet speeds. You are expert in this field. You massively overestimate how much average people know if you think they recognize the difference and know how to convert it.
If people cannot understand that, how are they going to understand that different downloads or uploads inside different applications provide them with different (byte-based) values depending on protocol and server performance of whatever service they are using?
Why do you keep insisting they need to? An average person will not care much about the difference between a download taking 6 minutes or 7 minutes. They will care about the difference between 6 minutes and an hour, which is about the difference if they misinterpret bits as bytes.
There are good reasons to use bits for engineers, but residential internet consumers are not engineers. In no other context do you market incomprehensible engineering details, just here because higher number is better marketing. Almost everyone I know is confused why the speeds they pay for don’t match the speed of downloads in Chrome. Marketing in bits is anti-consumer, since average consumer does not understand what actual download speed they will get when buying.
It’s not anti-consumer to advertise a product’s capabilities in the most accurate way possible. When you pay for internet bandwidth you’re not paying for download speed, you’re paying for a transmission rate. Advertising internet plans based on the speeds you get in Chrome would not be possible and therefore any attempt to do so would be deceptive to the customer.
The Internet bandwidth they pay for will never match the speed of downloads in Chrome, even if you convert bits to bytes.
What you’re missing here is that you want the number you pay for from your ISP and the number you can measure downloading a file at to match. But they never will, because they’re two completely different concepts. One of those number is a constituent part of the other number. They’re not interchangeable.
Why wouldn’t it be possible? Convert Mbit/s to a reasonable real-world mb/s estimation for download/upload to a reasonably close location, with some losses built into the estimate.
You’re asking why it’s not possible, and then explained a work around that would be needed because it’s not possible.
What you’re suggesting is that instead of selling a service to you based on a quantifiable number based on things within their control that you can reasonably hold them accountable for, they should sell their service to you based on a series of educated guesses about what you could potentially get based on a number of factors entirely outside of their control.
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.
You can give an accurate enough estimate. Yes, you may have to make some assumptions on protocol and server. And yes, you will be a few percent off. But so what? It is much more informative to the average consumer than transmission rate. In the first place, transmission rate is also a meaningless metric without information on overprovisioning, latencies, etc. Except instead of an understandable but slightly inaccurate download speed estimate, you have one engineering parameter that is unhelpful to an engineer anyway without more information as well as not understandable to the average consumer.
PS: I am not saying I can’t include engineering parameters, but it shouldn’t be the main marketing number.
Accurate enough for who? It wouldn’t be accurate enough for me. And it certainly wouldn’t be accurate enough for the consumer who you described as expecting that estimate to match reality. And worst of all, it wouldn’t be enough for any consumer protection agencies or remedies. So many assumptions would have to be made based on factors entirely outside of their control in order to sell to you based on your file download speed. And if you allow them to sell you a product based on assumptions of things outside of their control, then you then have no recourse to hold them accountable. I don’t want companies to sell me a product based on a number offered via a shrug. I want a promised number I can measure against what I’m getting.
Transmission rate is the only metric with any meaning in this context, because the transmission rate is the product they’re selling to you. The overprovisioning and etc is actually accounted for in the transmission rate they’re selling you. Thats why they almost always overprovision your connection based on what you’re paying for.
It’s as if you’re asking for a car dealer to sell you vehicles based on how many how many people you can move between two locations per hour, instead of the number of seats it has and the speed it can go. They would have to start making guesses based on the average waistline of people in your area, the speed limits of the roads in your town, your driving ability, what routes you like to take, etc. that might be sorta handy because you don’t have to do that math yourself now, but it’s not going to be all that accurate to you specifically, and if that number of people is lower than what they estimated, it’s kinda on you because they don’t know if your friends are petite or 600 lbs, etc etc. But if they sell you a car that seats 5 people of normal healthy size and it can go 100mph, and they deliver you something that seats 4 with a top speed of 80, they’re accountable for that.
deleted by creator
What are you talking about? Overprovisioning literally means selling more transmission rate than what the upstream lines can accommodate. It is not accounted for. Therefore, you only get your advertised transmission rate if your neighbors are not fully utilizing theirs.
How can it not be accurate enough when it is just a conversion from transmission rate via a formula that converts to bytes and accounts for expected protocol overheads? It’s the same number, converted to easily understandable units. If it is not accurate enough, neither is transmission rate.
I’m talking about overprovisioning, where your ISP actually provisions you for more bandwidth than you’re paying for. It is accounted for.
You’re talking over subscription.
Are you asking me how a flat base number derived direct from the source is more accurate than a different number that takes that first number and then adds a bunch of guesswork on top based on a bunch of unknown variables? Well that’s because in your head “expected protocol overheads” must be a simpler and more quantifiable number than it is in real life. For starters, which protocol? Downloads happen over TCP and UDP, both have completely different overhead profiles. What about the protocols above that? How are we proposing the file is being downloaded? Tor? SMB? NFS? HTTP? MLS stream? Which OS is the client? Different operating systems have different TCP window scaling logic. Different devices have different MTU sizes. The Internet service you’re buying can be used for all of them. Are we picking picking one set based on the most common use case? Averaging them all together? Weighting them based on common usage? Uhhh or we could just advertise the product based on the product the ISP is actually selling you, the transmission rate.
Your entire argument here is like being upset at McDonald’s for giving you the nutrient values of their food, like calorie counts and detailed macronutrient breakdowns, because you think instead they should just tell you how full each item will make you.
I really can’t break this down any simpler for you than I already have.
Dude, what is your fixation on the protocol parameters? I said average. Yes, for the purpose of getting the exact speed Chrome downloads shit, it will be off by a few percent. Who cares? The weight of the food you buy is allowed to be off by a few percent. The calories in food are already an approximation based on energy released while burning, not digestion. Every measurement in the world has error bars.
But a number most people can understand is a lot more useful than a slightly more accurate representation of the same number most people don’t understand. I am sure you can still find the details in a spec sheet if you feel too smart to use the simple representation and too lazy to convert it back.
Ok, let’s say I used the wrong term for the sake of the argument. Point, is (most) ISPs don’t guarantee your full ratelimit will be available to you. Which you clearly understood yet did not address.
I mean, wasn’t this discussion started by whether bits per second or bytes per second is deceptive or misleading in order to make people think “woah, bigger number means better internet” ?
Also, how is a division or multiplication by a factor of 8 the difference between what most people do or don’t understand? It’s a primary school mathematical operation. If people cannot understand that, how are they going to understand that different downloads or uploads inside different applications provide them with different (byte-based) values depending on protocol and server performance of whatever service they are using?
It really is the truest and simplest unit to use that the ISP can reasonably guarantee to you, because on the lowest level, whether using fibre or copper, we send bits and not bytes across the wire.
No one who was not specifically taught this will notice the difference between Mbps and MBps since it’s the same fucking letters. Let alone know the difference is division by 8. Not everyone has formal IT education and bits never come out in daily life of most people except for internet speeds. You are expert in this field. You massively overestimate how much average people know if you think they recognize the difference and know how to convert it.
Why do you keep insisting they need to? An average person will not care much about the difference between a download taking 6 minutes or 7 minutes. They will care about the difference between 6 minutes and an hour, which is about the difference if they misinterpret bits as bytes.