Home Broadband Speed Tests Using Wi-Fi-Connected Devices are Rubbish

Does your smartphone have an Ethernet port? Do you own spare Ethernet cables? Do you own a port converter to connect Ethernet to your smartphone?

And if you do run speed tests on your PC, do you use Wi-Fi or direct connect using Ethernet? All those questions matter because they essentially invalidate all the home broadband speed test data we see so often. 

Testing your smartphone’s “speed” when connected to Wi-Fi only tells you the bandwidth you are getting from that device, at that location, for the moment, over the Wi-Fi connection. It does not tell you the actual speed delivered to your home broadband location by the internet service provider. And the home broadband speed enabled by the ISP can be as much as 10 times higher than the measured speed on your Wi-Fi device. 

Methodology matters. 

The Central Iowa Broadband Internet Study, for example, conducted in the first half of 2021,  illustrates many issues faced by rural households as well as the testing methodology issue. 

 In rural areas studied, some 27.5 percent of internet users had some form of non-cabled access--satellite, fixed wireless or mobile. 

Area wide, 42 percent of download speed tests failed to reach 25 Mbps, the study says. The number of town/city respondents failing to meet the threshold was about 32 percent. In rural areas the percentage of tests delivering less than 25 Mbps was about 64 percent. 

But the study also suggests a big methodological problem: speeds delivered by the internet service provider likely were not tested. Instead, respondents likely used their Wi-Fi connections. And that can mean underreporting the actual speed of the connection by 10 times. 

To be sure, that same problem happens with almost every consumer speed test data, as most such tests use Wi-Fi-connected devices. 

The point is that ISP delivered speeds quite often degraded by performance of the in-home Wi-Fi networks, older equipment or in-building obstructions. Actual speeds delivered by the internet service provider to a router are one matter. Actual speeds experienced by any Wi-Fi-connected device within the home are something else. 

source: CMIT Solutions 

One important caveat is that speed tests made by consumers using their Wi-Fi connections might not tell us too much that is useful about internet access speeds. In other words, consumers who say they do not get 25 Mbps on their Wi-Fi-connected devices could well be on access networks that actually are bringing speeds 10 times faster (250 Mbps) than reported. 

Of the respondents reporting they use a non-terrestrial (cabled network) for home broadband, 41 percent used a satellite provider. Some 30 percent used a fixed wireless provider and 29 percent reported using a mobile network. 

Only about 1.5 percent of survey respondents buying internet access reported they use a non-terrestrial provider for internet access. About 6.7 percent of survey respondents said “no internet service is available at their home.”

“The average download speed recorded was 80.7 Mbps, but the median download speed was just 34.0 Mbps,” the study reports. 

The median download speed for city/town respondents (101.6 Mbps) was three times higher than the median speed among rural respondents (34.0 Mbps), the study says. 

Keep in mind, however, that the speed tests likely were conducted over a local Wi-Fi connection, the study says. That matters, as speed actually delivered to the premises quite often is significantly higher--as much as an order of magnitude--than the Wi-Fi speed experienced by any single device within the home or business. 

Complain all you want about map inaccuracies. The amount of divergence from “reality” from that source of error arguably pales with testing error that only measures Wi-Fi device performance, not the actual speeds delivered to any location by an ISP.

In fact, virtually all user tests of speed are outside the margin of error by such a huge margin that the reported speeds are likely wrong--and undercounted--by as much as an order of magnitude.

Only 28% of U.K. Customers Able to Buy FTTH Broadband Do So

Ofcom’s latest research shows the continuing lag between broadband supply and demand. In other words, it is one thing to make FTTH or gigabit-per-second internet access available. It is something else to entice customers to buy such services.

Fiber-to-home facilities now are available to more than eight million U.K. homes, or 28 percent of dwelling units. 

Meanwhile, gigabit-capable broadband is available to 13.7 million homes, or 47 percent of total homes. But take-up of gigabit speed services is still low, with around seven percent of FTTH  customers buying gigabit services, says Ofcom. 

source: Ofcom 

Fully 96 percent  of U.K. premises have access to 30 Mbps broadband connections. About 69 percent of locations able to buy 30 Mbps actually buy it, says Ofcom. Also, Ofcom notes that “94 percent of U.K. premises have access to an MNO (mobile network operator) FWA (fixed wireless access) service.” 

Mobile operators claim average download speeds up to 100 Mbps to 200 Mbps on their 5G fixed wireless services, Ofcom says. 

Satellite services add more potential coverage. “For example, Konnect states that its satellite covers around 75 percent of the U.K. and offers commercial services on a 24/7 basis direct to consumers with download speeds between 30 Mbps and 100 Mbps, with upload speeds averaging 3 Mbps.”

New low earth orbit satellite services such as Starlink also are coming. “Starlink indicates that users can currently expect to see 100 Mpbs to 200 Mbps or greater download speeds and upload speeds of 10 Mbps to 20 Mbpss with latency of 20 milliseconds or lower in most locations,” says Ofcom. 

The point is that although we might think consumers would jump at the chance to buy either FTTH service or gigabit-per-second service, that is not the case. Only about 28 percent of households able to buy FTTH service do so, while just seven percent of households able to buy gigabit service do so. 

To a large extent, internet service providers are investing ahead of demand, rather than following consumer demand. That is one key reason why customer experience did not fall off a cliff when pandemic-related shutdowns happened. ISPs already had created excess supply. 

That is likely to be the trend virtually forever.

Deutsche Telekom Speeds FTTH, Cable Already Supplies Gigabit Per Second Service to Half of German Households.

If Germany has about 40 million households, then Deutsche Telekom’s goal of connecting 10 million homes with fiber-to-home facilities by 2025 suggests coverage of about 25 percent of German homes with FTTH. 

source: IDATE   

Of course, physical media is one thing; bandwidth another. Vodafone's hybrid fiber coax network already covers at least 22 million German households with gigabit-per-second speeds, meaning more than half of German households can buy gigabit service. Cable gigabit households should reach 25 million homes soon.  

source: Viavi

What Exactly is Web3?

Juan Benet, Founder & CEO of Protocol Labs, talks about Web3.

Do Network Effects Still Drive Connectivity Business Moats?

Theodore Vail and Bob Metcalfe are among the entrepreneurs whose thinking has implicitly or explicitly relied on the notion of network effect, the increase in value or utility that happens when more people use a product or service. 

source: Medium 

James Currier and NfX argue there are some clear different types of network effect, which they argue drive 70 percent of the value of technology companies. That is reason enough to understand the principle. 

Essentially, network effects create business moats; barriers to entry by rivals. But some may argue that “network effects” are overrated sources of advantage. 

Are network effects explainable some other way? Can “economies of scale” explain advantage? Are the supposed advantages of network effects explainable by something else?

Perhaps “platform” is a way of explaining the success of a business model otherwise considered to be anchored in network effects. “Even among the companies that have come to define the sector--Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google--only Facebook’s franchise was primarily built on network effects,” some argue. 

Might  “viral” status, “branding,” “switching costs,” critical mass or other advantages explain defensive moats? It might not be so clear.  

When the network itself--the number of people one can reach on a particular communications network, for example--drives value, that is an example of network effect, somewhat clearly.

As an example of a business moat, Theodore Vail, the chairman of AT&T, said in 1908 that “no one has use for two telephone connections if he can reach all with whom he desires connection through one. 

In the connectivity business in the internet era, one might actually question the network effect to a large extent, since, by definition, every customer or user can reach any other lawful user without regard to the particular details of access network supply. 

As important as network effect might have been for monopolist AT&T, it is unclear whether such advantage still is possible in the internet era. Scale arguably continues to matter. But network effects? Unclear. 

Is There Really an Enterprise "Middle Mile?"

Terminology changes in the connectivity business, over time. Consider the term “middle mile,” which has come into use over the past decade. The term refers to the part of the network segment between the core network backbone (the wide area network) and the local access network. 

Think of this as what we used to refer to as the trunking network, or perhaps the distribution network. If the core network terminates at a class 4 switch or a colocation facility, then the “middle mile” is the transport network connecting the colo to the local access network (a central office or headent, for example).

 

Some illustrations tend to distort the network architecture, even when subject matter experts correctly understand the concept. In this illustration, which shows the way an enterprise user might see matters, the entire WAN is considered “middle mile,” not simply the connections between a colo site and the WAN. 

source: Telegeography

That is understandable if we conceive of the network the way an enterprise might: that “everything not part of my own network” (“my local area network”) is “in the cloud,” an abstraction. 

Even viewed that way, the middle mile is an abstraction. It is part of the network “cloud,” in the sense network architects have depicted it: all the network that is not owned by the enterprise. 

The point is that there is a difference between network terms such as “middle mile” as a description of network facilities and the use of the term (perhaps even incorrectly) as a matter of networking architecture. 

“WAN transport” is not “middle mile,” in terms of network function. But everything other than the enterprise LAN is “cloud” or “not owned by me” in terms of data architecture. But in that sense the term middle mile is unnecessary.

 

How Do Network Effects Underpin Business Models?