Finally installed this morning, only 3 months later than expected.

Speeds are certainly an improvement on the 6Mbit ADSL we were on though.

Nah South Brisbane is getting redone in Fibre because the Mater bought the exchange.

$100 for 300GB

$300 for unlimited

Trying the boost now

do want, I am on a RIM and typically get <2mbps :/

if he was on the nbn you would get 40mb up and not lazy 5mb up. Stupid Telstra!

I'll take that trade scoobs. Oh you mean dollars.

I would have said real world and speedtest are two totally different things, but it's good to see you're getting at least good downstream in that one benchmark

I, for one, am proud to state that I fought the good fight for decent internet back in the day for a very long time. *tips 3gb cap and wipes away a tear or two* Bring it! :p

Ive had the 100mb FTTP since Feb and it's pretty awesome.

During the Steam sales i'd cap out at about 12.5mbps downloading the games from the LA server (I'd only get about 2mb from the NSW Telstra one)

As far as loading other sites, youtube, facebook, news sites etc.. everything opens quickly (as expected).

My only gripe is my internet fucks out every once in a while requiring a modem power off/on.

Currently paying about $99 for 500gb.

edit: on torrent sites for ratio requirements, I can usually get about 600kb upload too which is pretty good as far as I know.

cool man

torrents suit me fine though.

oh the luxury of getting fibre. my businessed doesn't even have copper and won't have any broadband for the foreseeable future.

last edited by infi at 13:57:50 27/Jul/12

I would have said real world and speedtest are two totally different things

speedtest.net in my experience is a good reflection of what your service is capable of. I took it to mean, "real world" compared to the quoted speed when you purchase it.

Why do they always report in Mbps?

Services are usually sold in Mbps, so tests are the same so you can tell how close to your theoretical maximum the service actually is.

I guess you might ask why services are sold in mbit/sec instead of MByte/sec; my understanding is it dates back to analogue modems, which would typically have to send 10 bits to communicate 1 byte (8 bits plus a start and stop bit). The raw communication link would carry X number of bits per second, and then the protocol on top of that would determine how many bytes would get through.

The same is still true today, for different reasons; you wont get 125MB/second on a perfect 1000mbit link. Due to various overheads in TCP/IP and so on, its more like 120MB/sec. Reporting the link as 125MB/sec would thus likely lead to confusion about why you dont actually get 125MB/sec downloads on that link.

I would have said real world and speedtest are two totally different things, but it's good to see you're getting at least good downstream in that one benchmark

Yeah i mean he should have taken some pictures and commented on how the link interfered with his real life.

My joke is linked that it's testing virtual not real (as in tangible physical).

Be careful, you'll be engaged in a somehow meaningful debate on why it sucked.

cant believe ppl still use torrents lol, sif upload for ppl i use newsbins and get 20mbps down constant :)

i cant believe people pay for downloads, holy crap they must be idiots to pay for their medias

get your own cocks obes

How well does it stream video? (1080p)

£35 is $52.5 a month

I have virgin cable in the uk, £30 a month, 120 / 10 mbit fully unlimited. I haven't seen any evidence if p2p shaping.