Hi, I just met with a representative from tikona , saying that he installed some wireless access point near my house and came for canvassing.In the advertisement, it says to give a download speed of 512 kbps for just 599 a month.Which means do I get a download rate at 512 kbps??I have airtel broadband with broadband speed of 512 kbps, but the download speed comes to only around 45 kbps.Is tikona mentioning about the broadband speed or download speed.since if I'm able to download at 512kbps then my broadband connection speed is equal to 4 mbps connection. But that is not available with other companies at such low price.
Tikona broadband download speed
- Thread starter thanver
- Start date
- Replies 10
- Views 11,671
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
Hi,
I just met with a representative from tikona , saying that he installed some wireless access point near my house and came for canvassing.
In the advertisement, it says to give a download speed of 512 kbps for just 599 a month.
Which means do I get a download rate at 512 kbps??
I have airtel broadband with broadband speed of 512 kbps, but the download speed comes to only around 45 kbps.
Is tikona mentioning about the broadband speed or download speed.
since if I'm able to download at 512kbps then my broadband connection speed is equal to 4 mbps connection. But that is not available with other companies at such low price.
You are clearly confusing kbit/s and kbyte/s. For 599, you will get the same speed as you do on Airtel (512kbit/s or around 45-55kbyte/s), and NOT 4-5mbit/s (at least, not "unlimited").
The primary difference between the two companies is likely to be customer service, and from reports on this forum about both products, you're probably better off with Airtel (or MTNL if you're in Mumbai or Delhi).
I just met with a representative from tikona , saying that he installed some wireless access point near my house and came for canvassing.
In the advertisement, it says to give a download speed of 512 kbps for just 599 a month.
Which means do I get a download rate at 512 kbps??
I have airtel broadband with broadband speed of 512 kbps, but the download speed comes to only around 45 kbps.
Is tikona mentioning about the broadband speed or download speed.
since if I'm able to download at 512kbps then my broadband connection speed is equal to 4 mbps connection. But that is not available with other companies at such low price.
You are clearly confusing kbit/s and kbyte/s. For 599, you will get the same speed as you do on Airtel (512kbit/s or around 45-55kbyte/s), and NOT 4-5mbit/s (at least, not "unlimited").
The primary difference between the two companies is likely to be customer service, and from reports on this forum about both products, you're probably better off with Airtel (or MTNL if you're in Mumbai or Delhi).
^ Adding a little to what MG said, kilobytes/second is normally written with a capital B as kBps or kB/s as opposed to kilobits/second which is written as kbps or kb/s. 1 kB is equal to 8 kb.Use of kb or kB is not directly related to broadband speed or download speed. Indirectly it is though. Broadband data consists of overhead plus payload and therefore kilobits are the preferred measure. When we talk of download speed, we are usually only concerned with the payload and so we measure it in kB. Note that you cannot take the broadband speed in kbps and divide it by 8 to get kBps as the download speed because of the aforementioned overhead. Hope that is clearer.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
Although it does affect the end-result, we don't necessarily have to account for overhead when working out download speeds based on a kbit/s advertisement...However, this is also why I differentiate my terminology by almost always writing kbit/s and kbyte/s: to avoid the kind of confusion between kbps and kBps.
^ You as a ISP don't have to. As far as you are concerned broadband speed = download speed.For the end-user again, the overhead is not an issue when choosing between ISPs. Just that he sees the browser or whatever application displaying the speed in kB/s which I expect will be just the payload with all overhead stripped off. I brought that up because I think that is what the OP was talking about when he said that he gets only 45 kbps when Airtel actually advertises it as 512 kbps. That discrepancy is largely because of the bits v/s bytes misunderstanding by the user which can account for a 1:8 ratio. But there is also a significant error contribution by the fact that the lower figure he quotes is probably reported by the downloading application. He has not explained where he got that number from.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
^ You as a ISP don't have to. As far as you are concerned broadband speed = download speed.
For the end-user again, the overhead is not an issue when choosing between ISPs. Just that he sees the browser or whatever application displaying the speed in kB/s which I expect will be just the payload with all overhead stripped off. I brought that up because I think that is what the OP was talking about when he said that he gets only 45 kbps when Airtel actually advertises it as 512 kbps. That discrepancy is largely because of the bits v/s bytes misunderstanding by the user which can account for a 1:8 ratio. But there is also a significant error contribution by the fact that the lower figure he quotes is probably reported by the downloading application. He has not explained where he got that number from.
True. But a 512kbit/s connection *can* give 64kbyte/s, assuming perfect network conditions (and IMO, a user is right to expect over 80% of that target speed).
As we're delivering by Fiber, we should get closer to our advertised speeds because we shouldn't get the deterioration that a subscriber on copper would experience.
Nevertheless, we can't be too anal about what numbers we use: we advertise in bits, operating systems and applications display in bytes. And sometimes bytes are even measured differently by different operating systems. That's confusing enough for most people
For the end-user again, the overhead is not an issue when choosing between ISPs. Just that he sees the browser or whatever application displaying the speed in kB/s which I expect will be just the payload with all overhead stripped off. I brought that up because I think that is what the OP was talking about when he said that he gets only 45 kbps when Airtel actually advertises it as 512 kbps. That discrepancy is largely because of the bits v/s bytes misunderstanding by the user which can account for a 1:8 ratio. But there is also a significant error contribution by the fact that the lower figure he quotes is probably reported by the downloading application. He has not explained where he got that number from.
True. But a 512kbit/s connection *can* give 64kbyte/s, assuming perfect network conditions (and IMO, a user is right to expect over 80% of that target speed).
As we're delivering by Fiber, we should get closer to our advertised speeds because we shouldn't get the deterioration that a subscriber on copper would experience.
Nevertheless, we can't be too anal about what numbers we use: we advertise in bits, operating systems and applications display in bytes. And sometimes bytes are even measured differently by different operating systems. That's confusing enough for most people
True. But a 512kbit/s connection *can* give 64kbyte/s, assuming perfect network conditions (and IMO, a user is right to expect over 80% of that target speed).
Somehow I think we are not on the same page here. What I am saying is that the OP is looking at the application reporting the download speed. AFAIK the application will report the download for just the payload and disregard the overhead. This in turn makes it protocol dependent because a IP packet will have different amounts of header data size depending upon the protocol that the download application is using. In short, it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
The only fair way would be to meter the network traffic directly including IP headers et al. and compare that way or use the same application downloading the same data from the same server to compare.
Somehow I think we are not on the same page here. What I am saying is that the OP is looking at the application reporting the download speed. AFAIK the application will report the download for just the payload and disregard the overhead. This in turn makes it protocol dependent because a IP packet will have different amounts of header data size depending upon the protocol that the download application is using. In short, it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
The only fair way would be to meter the network traffic directly including IP headers et al. and compare that way or use the same application downloading the same data from the same server to compare.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
Somehow I think we are not on the same page here. What I am saying is that the OP is looking at the application reporting the download speed. AFAIK the application will report the download for just the payload and disregard the overhead. This in turn makes it protocol dependent because a IP packet will have different amounts of header data size depending upon the protocol that the download application is using. In short, it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
The only fair way would be to meter the network traffic directly including IP headers et al. and compare that way or use the same application downloading the same data from the same server to compare.
Yes, that's right. I think the OP was confused by that stupid subtle difference between kbps and kBps - he thought Tikona was offering 512kbyte/s (which is what the application would report) and would be highly disappointed to receive only 40-45 as he does currently (in other words, he thought he'd get an upgrade, but he may actually end up getting worse service).
So all I was pointing out was that, on a 512kbit/s service, 40-45kbyte/s is probably at the lower end of what that speed connection *should* reasonably provide - not many protocols have 30+% overheads.
The only fair way would be to meter the network traffic directly including IP headers et al. and compare that way or use the same application downloading the same data from the same server to compare.
Yes, that's right. I think the OP was confused by that stupid subtle difference between kbps and kBps - he thought Tikona was offering 512kbyte/s (which is what the application would report) and would be highly disappointed to receive only 40-45 as he does currently (in other words, he thought he'd get an upgrade, but he may actually end up getting worse service).
So all I was pointing out was that, on a 512kbit/s service, 40-45kbyte/s is probably at the lower end of what that speed connection *should* reasonably provide - not many protocols have 30+% overheads.