Want something efficacious to do?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true

Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any relationship
is revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered that I'm technically
disadvantaged for that project.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
> Want something efficacious to do?
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>
>
> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any relationship is
> revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered that I'm technically
> disadvantaged for that project.
>

Will do.

On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
> Want something efficacious to do?
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>
>
> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any relationship is
> revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered that I'm technically
> disadvantaged for that project.
>

Hey, bfh! Check it out. I can't really see any correlation to time, but
maybe I'm missing something...

http://www.zippodrones.com/uploads/files/download-speed-over-time.xlsx

kmiller wrote:
> On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
>> Want something efficacious to do?
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>>
>>
>> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any
>> relationship is revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered that
>> I'm technically disadvantaged for that project.
>>
>
> Hey, bfh! Check it out. I can't really see any correlation to time,
> but maybe I'm missing something...
>
> http://www.zippodrones.com/uploads/files/download-speed-over-time.xlsx

Hey, thanks. If I sort on time and change the chart to a line chart -
and sort of blur my brain - it looks like it's mostly faster between
about 1:30AM and about 6AM.

However, if I do an average starting at 1:30, it stays around 120
until about 8AM, when it starts decreasing. If I move down the column
selecting 4-5 hours worth of cells, I can't find an average near 120
anywhere else.

I would like to conclude that 1:30 to 8 AM is the fastest time, but
those sorted times could be on any date between 2/15 and now, and I
have no idea what that is doing to the averages.

However comma again, I do know that if I sort on date and do an
average every 30 days from 2/15 until now, the average steadily falls.
My first 30 days had an avg of 101, and my last 30 is 67.

I'm more than ready for an inflection point to arrive.....but but
but....even 20-30 Mbps has proven to be more than efficacious for web
surfing and video streaming. I don't think I'm likely to pivot into
literal squint-faced annoyance until I have to download a large file
on a slow day.

Thanks again for your help.
Download Mbps
57.93
Upload Mbps
7.75
Ping ms 71

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On 7/27/2022 10:12 PM, bfh wrote:
> kmiller wrote:
>> On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
>>> Want something efficacious to do?
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>>>
>>>
>>> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any relationship
>>> is revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered that I'm technically
>>> disadvantaged for that project.
>>>
>>
>> Hey, bfh! Check it out. I can't really see any correlation to time,
>> but maybe I'm missing something...
>>
>> http://www.zippodrones.com/uploads/files/download-speed-over-time.xlsx
>
> Hey, thanks. If I sort on time and change the chart to a line chart -
> and sort of blur my brain - it looks like it's mostly faster between
> about 1:30AM and about 6AM.
>
> However, if I do an average starting at 1:30, it stays around 120 until
> about 8AM, when it starts decreasing. If I move down the column
> selecting 4-5 hours worth of cells, I can't find an average near 120
> anywhere else.
>
> I would like to conclude that 1:30 to 8 AM is the fastest time, but
> those sorted times could be on any date between 2/15 and now, and I have
> no idea what that is doing to the averages.
>
> However comma again, I do know that if I sort on date and do an average
> every 30 days from 2/15 until now, the average steadily falls. My first
> 30 days had an avg of 101, and my last 30 is 67.
>
> I'm more than ready for an inflection point to arrive.....but but
> but....even 20-30 Mbps has proven to be more than efficacious for web
> surfing and video streaming. I don't think I'm likely to pivot into
> literal squint-faced annoyance until I have to download a large file on
> a slow day.
>
> Thanks again for your help.
>  Download Mbps
> 57.93
> Upload Mbps
> 7.75
> Ping ms 71
>

It looked like a bad wire brush when I sorted by time. I couldn't glean
any rhyme or reason from it. I think you should cut down those trees and
re-evaluate.

kmiller wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 10:12 PM, bfh wrote:
>> kmiller wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>> Want something efficacious to do?
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any
>>>> relationship is revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered that
>>>> I'm technically disadvantaged for that project.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, bfh! Check it out. I can't really see any correlation to time,
>>> but maybe I'm missing something...
>>>
>>> http://www.zippodrones.com/uploads/files/download-speed-over-time.xlsx
>>
>> Hey, thanks. If I sort on time and change the chart to a line chart
>> - and sort of blur my brain - it looks like it's mostly faster
>> between about 1:30AM and about 6AM.
>>
>> However, if I do an average starting at 1:30, it stays around 120
>> until about 8AM, when it starts decreasing. If I move down the
>> column selecting 4-5 hours worth of cells, I can't find an average
>> near 120 anywhere else.
>>
>> I would like to conclude that 1:30 to 8 AM is the fastest time, but
>> those sorted times could be on any date between 2/15 and now, and I
>> have no idea what that is doing to the averages.
>>
>> However comma again, I do know that if I sort on date and do an
>> average every 30 days from 2/15 until now, the average steadily
>> falls. My first 30 days had an avg of 101, and my last 30 is 67.
>>
>> I'm more than ready for an inflection point to arrive.....but but
>> but....even 20-30 Mbps has proven to be more than efficacious for
>> web surfing and video streaming. I don't think I'm likely to pivot
>> into literal squint-faced annoyance until I have to download a large
>> file on a slow day.
>>
>> Thanks again for your help.
>>  Â Download Mbps
>> 57.93
>> Upload Mbps
>> 7.75
>> Ping ms 71
>>
>
> It looked like a bad wire brush when I sorted by time. I couldn't
> glean any rhyme or reason from it. I think you should cut down those
> trees and re-evaluate.

With 3-6 sats allegedly up there whenever I check, I can't convince
myself that the trees are a big problem. For example, right now
Starlink tells me that in the last 12 hours I've been obstructed for 1
minute 18 seconds, no signal for 2 secs, and network issue for 14 secs.

Also right now, that other site - which "is NOT affiliated with
Starlink or SpaceX" - claims that there 5 available sats in view, and
3 of them are east of north where there are no trees.

And I can't cut down any more trees. If I did, some transitorily
disoriented PNW tourist with a malfunctioning GPS would drive by and
report me under the Greenie Flag laws, and before I knew it, people
wearing birkenstocks, cargo shorts, and Earth Day T-shirts would show
up in a camo EV to psychoanalyze me and confiscate my chainsaws.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

bfh wrote:
> kmiller wrote:
>> On 7/27/2022 10:12 PM, bfh wrote:
>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>>> Want something efficacious to do?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any
>>>>> relationship is revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered that
>>>>> I'm technically disadvantaged for that project.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, bfh! Check it out. I can't really see any correlation to
>>>> time, but maybe I'm missing something...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.zippodrones.com/uploads/files/download-speed-over-time.xlsx
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, thanks. If I sort on time and change the chart to a line chart
>>> - and sort of blur my brain - it looks like it's mostly faster
>>> between about 1:30AM and about 6AM.
>>>
>>> However, if I do an average starting at 1:30, it stays around 120
>>> until about 8AM, when it starts decreasing. If I move down the
>>> column selecting 4-5 hours worth of cells, I can't find an average
>>> near 120 anywhere else.
>>>
>>> I would like to conclude that 1:30 to 8 AM is the fastest time, but
>>> those sorted times could be on any date between 2/15 and now, and I
>>> have no idea what that is doing to the averages.
>>>
>>> However comma again, I do know that if I sort on date and do an
>>> average every 30 days from 2/15 until now, the average steadily
>>> falls. My first 30 days had an avg of 101, and my last 30 is 67.
>>>
>>> I'm more than ready for an inflection point to arrive.....but but
>>> but....even 20-30 Mbps has proven to be more than efficacious for
>>> web surfing and video streaming. I don't think I'm likely to pivot
>>> into literal squint-faced annoyance until I have to download a
>>> large file on a slow day.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for your help.
>>>  Â Download Mbps
>>> 57.93
>>> Upload Mbps
>>> 7.75
>>> Ping ms 71
>>>
>>
>> It looked like a bad wire brush when I sorted by time. I couldn't
>> glean any rhyme or reason from it. I think you should cut down those
>> trees and re-evaluate.
>
> With 3-6 sats allegedly up there whenever I check, I can't convince
> myself that the trees are a big problem. For example, right now
> Starlink tells me that in the last 12 hours I've been obstructed for 1
> minute 18 seconds, no signal for 2 secs, and network issue for 14 secs.
>
> Also right now, that other site - which "is NOT affiliated with
> Starlink or SpaceX" - claims that there 5 available sats in view, and
> 3 of them are east of north where there are no trees.
>
> And I can't cut down any more trees. If I did, some transitorily
> disoriented PNW tourist with a malfunctioning GPS would drive by and
> report me under the Greenie Flag laws, and before I knew it, people
> wearing birkenstocks, cargo shorts, and Earth Day T-shirts would show
> up in a camo EV to psychoanalyze me and confiscate my chainsaws.
>
Here's a little more:
Avg down speed
12AM - 6AM 107
6AM -12PM 105
12PM - 6PM 90
6PM - 12AM 58

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On 7/28/2022 10:25 AM, bfh wrote:
> bfh wrote:
>> kmiller wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2022 10:12 PM, bfh wrote:
>>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>>> On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>>>> Want something efficacious to do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any
>>>>>> relationship is revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered that
>>>>>> I'm technically disadvantaged for that project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, bfh! Check it out. I can't really see any correlation to time,
>>>>> but maybe I'm missing something...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.zippodrones.com/uploads/files/download-speed-over-time.xlsx
>>>>
>>>> Hey, thanks. If I sort on time and change the chart to a line chart
>>>> - and sort of blur my brain - it looks like it's mostly faster
>>>> between about 1:30AM and about 6AM.
>>>>
>>>> However, if I do an average starting at 1:30, it stays around 120
>>>> until about 8AM, when it starts decreasing. If I move down the
>>>> column selecting 4-5 hours worth of cells, I can't find an average
>>>> near 120 anywhere else.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to conclude that 1:30 to 8 AM is the fastest time, but
>>>> those sorted times could be on any date between 2/15 and now, and I
>>>> have no idea what that is doing to the averages.
>>>>
>>>> However comma again, I do know that if I sort on date and do an
>>>> average every 30 days from 2/15 until now, the average steadily
>>>> falls. My first 30 days had an avg of 101, and my last 30 is 67.
>>>>
>>>> I'm more than ready for an inflection point to arrive.....but but
>>>> but....even 20-30 Mbps has proven to be more than efficacious for
>>>> web surfing and video streaming. I don't think I'm likely to pivot
>>>> into literal squint-faced annoyance until I have to download a large
>>>> file on a slow day.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for your help.
>>>>  Â Download Mbps
>>>> 57.93
>>>> Upload Mbps
>>>> 7.75
>>>> Ping ms 71
>>>>
>>>
>>> It looked like a bad wire brush when I sorted by time. I couldn't
>>> glean any rhyme or reason from it. I think you should cut down those
>>> trees and re-evaluate.
>>
>> With 3-6 sats allegedly up there whenever I check, I can't convince
>> myself that the trees are a big problem. For example, right now
>> Starlink tells me that in the last 12 hours I've been obstructed for 1
>> minute 18 seconds, no signal for 2 secs, and network issue for 14 secs.
>>
>> Also right now, that other site - which "is NOT affiliated with
>> Starlink or SpaceX" - claims that there 5 available sats in view, and
>> 3 of them are east of north where there are no trees.
>>
>> And I can't cut down any more trees. If I did, some transitorily
>> disoriented PNW tourist with a malfunctioning GPS would drive by and
>> report me under the Greenie Flag laws, and before I knew it, people
>> wearing birkenstocks, cargo shorts, and Earth Day T-shirts would show
>> up in a camo EV to psychoanalyze me and confiscate my chainsaws.
>>
> Here's a little more:
> Avg down speed
> 12AM - 6AM 107
> 6AM -12PM 105
> 12PM - 6PM 90
> 6PM - 12AM 58
>

That tells me that it's fastest when you use it the most - you night
owl, you. Also, is there any streaming going on elsewhere in the
household during the times of measurement? Particularly, during times of
lower speeds?

Is that manually sampled data?

kmiller wrote:
> On 7/28/2022 10:25 AM, bfh wrote:
>> bfh wrote:
>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2022 10:12 PM, bfh wrote:
>>>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>>>>> Want something efficacious to do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any
>>>>>>> relationship is revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered
>>>>>>> that I'm technically disadvantaged for that project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, bfh! Check it out. I can't really see any correlation to
>>>>>> time, but maybe I'm missing something...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.zippodrones.com/uploads/files/download-speed-over-time.xlsx
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, thanks. If I sort on time and change the chart to a line
>>>>> chart - and sort of blur my brain - it looks like it's mostly
>>>>> faster between about 1:30AM and about 6AM.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if I do an average starting at 1:30, it stays around 120
>>>>> until about 8AM, when it starts decreasing. If I move down the
>>>>> column selecting 4-5 hours worth of cells, I can't find an
>>>>> average near 120 anywhere else.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to conclude that 1:30 to 8 AM is the fastest time,
>>>>> but those sorted times could be on any date between 2/15 and now,
>>>>> and I have no idea what that is doing to the averages.
>>>>>
>>>>> However comma again, I do know that if I sort on date and do an
>>>>> average every 30 days from 2/15 until now, the average steadily
>>>>> falls. My first 30 days had an avg of 101, and my last 30 is 67.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm more than ready for an inflection point to arrive.....but but
>>>>> but....even 20-30 Mbps has proven to be more than efficacious for
>>>>> web surfing and video streaming. I don't think I'm likely to
>>>>> pivot into literal squint-faced annoyance until I have to
>>>>> download a large file on a slow day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again for your help.
>>>>>  Â Download Mbps
>>>>> 57.93
>>>>> Upload Mbps
>>>>> 7.75
>>>>> Ping ms 71
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It looked like a bad wire brush when I sorted by time. I couldn't
>>>> glean any rhyme or reason from it. I think you should cut down
>>>> those trees and re-evaluate.
>>>
>>> With 3-6 sats allegedly up there whenever I check, I can't convince
>>> myself that the trees are a big problem. For example, right now
>>> Starlink tells me that in the last 12 hours I've been obstructed
>>> for 1 minute 18 seconds, no signal for 2 secs, and network issue
>>> for 14 secs.
>>>
>>> Also right now, that other site - which "is NOT affiliated with
>>> Starlink or SpaceX" - claims that there 5 available sats in view,
>>> and 3 of them are east of north where there are no trees.
>>>
>>> And I can't cut down any more trees. If I did, some transitorily
>>> disoriented PNW tourist with a malfunctioning GPS would drive by
>>> and report me under the Greenie Flag laws, and before I knew it,
>>> people wearing birkenstocks, cargo shorts, and Earth Day T-shirts
>>> would show up in a camo EV to psychoanalyze me and confiscate my
>>> chainsaws.
>>>
>> Here's a little more:
>> Avg down speed
>> 12AM - 6AM 107
>> 6AM -12PM 105
>> 12PM - 6PM 90
>> 6PM - 12AM 58
>>
>
> That tells me that it's fastest when you use it the most - you night
> owl, you. Also, is there any streaming going on elsewhere in the
> household during the times of measurement? Particularly, during times
> of lower speeds?

The wife is on at random times, but she rarely streams anything, and I
literally doubt that she had any statistically significant effect on
the Ookla tests. If I had a top-tier press secretary like Brandon has,
I'd get her to explain to you why I think that.

> Is that manually sampled data?

Yes, it's almost entirely manual (but with a little calculus involved)
and I'm glad you asked. Inspired by Catmobile, I cobbled up a little
turbine that can be slid in and out of an ethernet cable - or even a
Starlink proprietary cable - and is spun by the flow of megabits
through it. Once it's spinning from downloading something spinful, I
use a Briggs & Stratton Treysit Sirometer to measure the RPM of the
turbine which can readily be converted to Mbps with the use of my
secret and as-yet-unpatented algorithm. I know it's accurate, because
I calibrated the sirometer with my nearly always consistent 2.7 Mbps
DSL connection while streaming a video about the Treysit.

Note: In case you're wondering after refamiliarizing yourself with
Treysit operation, I put a tiny drop of JB Weld on one of the turbine
blades - without which the Treysit would have just sat there doing
literally nearly nothing.

.......ummmm......crap. I just had an inconveniently timed attack of
transparency which forces me to unwillingly tell you the unvarnished
and unhyperbolized truth. So...........I got the data from my Ookla
speed tests which you so considerately put into spreadsheet time and
speed columns for me. I used those columns to get average speeds for
selected time spans.

However comma in my defense, I did in fact manually operate the mouse
to get the Ookla tests started and to select the sections of the speed
column that LibreOffice used to calculate averages.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On 7/28/2022 6:17 PM, bfh wrote:
> kmiller wrote:
>> On 7/28/2022 10:25 AM, bfh wrote:
>>> bfh wrote:
>>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2022 10:12 PM, bfh wrote:
>>>>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>>>>>> Want something efficacious to do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any
>>>>>>>> relationship is revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered
>>>>>>>> that I'm technically disadvantaged for that project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, bfh! Check it out. I can't really see any correlation to
>>>>>>> time, but maybe I'm missing something...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.zippodrones.com/uploads/files/download-speed-over-time.xlsx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, thanks. If I sort on time and change the chart to a line
>>>>>> chart - and sort of blur my brain - it looks like it's mostly
>>>>>> faster between about 1:30AM and about 6AM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if I do an average starting at 1:30, it stays around 120
>>>>>> until about 8AM, when it starts decreasing. If I move down the
>>>>>> column selecting 4-5 hours worth of cells, I can't find an average
>>>>>> near 120 anywhere else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to conclude that 1:30 to 8 AM is the fastest time,
>>>>>> but those sorted times could be on any date between 2/15 and now,
>>>>>> and I have no idea what that is doing to the averages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However comma again, I do know that if I sort on date and do an
>>>>>> average every 30 days from 2/15 until now, the average steadily
>>>>>> falls. My first 30 days had an avg of 101, and my last 30 is 67.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm more than ready for an inflection point to arrive.....but but
>>>>>> but....even 20-30 Mbps has proven to be more than efficacious for
>>>>>> web surfing and video streaming. I don't think I'm likely to pivot
>>>>>> into literal squint-faced annoyance until I have to download a
>>>>>> large file on a slow day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks again for your help.
>>>>>>  Â Download Mbps
>>>>>> 57.93
>>>>>> Upload Mbps
>>>>>> 7.75
>>>>>> Ping ms 71
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It looked like a bad wire brush when I sorted by time. I couldn't
>>>>> glean any rhyme or reason from it. I think you should cut down
>>>>> those trees and re-evaluate.
>>>>
>>>> With 3-6 sats allegedly up there whenever I check, I can't convince
>>>> myself that the trees are a big problem. For example, right now
>>>> Starlink tells me that in the last 12 hours I've been obstructed for
>>>> 1 minute 18 seconds, no signal for 2 secs, and network issue for 14
>>>> secs.
>>>>
>>>> Also right now, that other site - which "is NOT affiliated with
>>>> Starlink or SpaceX" - claims that there 5 available sats in view,
>>>> and 3 of them are east of north where there are no trees.
>>>>
>>>> And I can't cut down any more trees. If I did, some transitorily
>>>> disoriented PNW tourist with a malfunctioning GPS would drive by and
>>>> report me under the Greenie Flag laws, and before I knew it, people
>>>> wearing birkenstocks, cargo shorts, and Earth Day T-shirts would
>>>> show up in a camo EV to psychoanalyze me and confiscate my chainsaws.
>>>>
>>> Here's a little more:
>>> Avg down speed
>>> 12AM - 6AM 107
>>> 6AM -12PM 105
>>> 12PM - 6PM 90
>>> 6PM - 12AM 58
>>>
>>
>> That tells me that it's fastest when you use it the most - you night
>> owl, you. Also, is there any streaming going on elsewhere in the
>> household during the times of measurement? Particularly, during times
>> of lower speeds?
>
> The wife is on at random times, but she rarely streams anything, and I
> literally doubt that she had any statistically significant effect on the
> Ookla tests. If I had a top-tier press secretary like Brandon has, I'd
> get her to explain to you why I think that.

I'd certainly believe her. It's not like she'd claim the election was
stolen, or anything like that...

>
>> Is that manually sampled data?
>
> Yes, it's almost entirely manual (but with a little calculus involved)
> and I'm glad you asked. Inspired by Catmobile, I cobbled up a little
> turbine that can be slid in and out of an ethernet cable - or even a
> Starlink proprietary cable - and is spun by the flow of megabits through
> it. Once it's spinning from downloading something spinful, I use a
> Briggs & Stratton Treysit Sirometer to measure the RPM of the turbine
> which can readily be converted to Mbps with the use of my secret and
> as-yet-unpatented algorithm. I know it's accurate, because I calibrated
> the sirometer with my nearly always consistent 2.7 Mbps DSL connection
> while streaming a video about the Treysit.

I think you've just publicly admitted to violating multiple patented and
copyrighted phrases, materials, and techniques. I expect you'll be
charged and prosecuted right after the DOJ finishes with the orange goon.

>
> Note: In case you're wondering after refamiliarizing yourself with
> Treysit operation, I put a tiny drop of JB Weld on one of the turbine
> blades - without which the Treysit would have just sat there doing
> literally nearly nothing.
>
> .......ummmm......crap. I just had an inconveniently timed attack of
> transparency which forces me to unwillingly tell you the unvarnished and
> unhyperbolized truth. So...........I got the data from my Ookla speed
> tests which you so considerately put into spreadsheet time and speed
> columns for me. I used those columns to get average speeds for selected
> time spans.
>
> However comma in my defense, I did in fact manually operate the mouse to
> get the Ookla tests started and to select the sections of the speed
> column that LibreOffice used to calculate averages.
>

You, sir, are a modern miracle in an increasingly difficult and
challenging world. Your mastery of mice is second to none and your
ability to catalogue, correlate, disperse, dispense, and promote this
data is simply stellar. Even the experts say so.

96.37
4.09
35

Netflix is streaming just fine during above test.

kmiller wrote:
> On 7/28/2022 6:17 PM, bfh wrote:
>> kmiller wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2022 10:25 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>> bfh wrote:
>>>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 10:12 PM, bfh wrote:
>>>>>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2022 11:32 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Want something efficacious to do?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qtpUHMf5Vay5K5iVZMVGdclZapofho9t/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105875262482197039209&rtpof=true&sd=true
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Take the time of day and download speeds, and see if any
>>>>>>>>> relationship is revealed. I'd do it myself, but I discovered
>>>>>>>>> that I'm technically disadvantaged for that project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey, bfh! Check it out. I can't really see any correlation to
>>>>>>>> time, but maybe I'm missing something...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.zippodrones.com/uploads/files/download-speed-over-time.xlsx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, thanks. If I sort on time and change the chart to a line
>>>>>>> chart - and sort of blur my brain - it looks like it's mostly
>>>>>>> faster between about 1:30AM and about 6AM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, if I do an average starting at 1:30, it stays around
>>>>>>> 120 until about 8AM, when it starts decreasing. If I move down
>>>>>>> the column selecting 4-5 hours worth of cells, I can't find an
>>>>>>> average near 120 anywhere else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to conclude that 1:30 to 8 AM is the fastest time,
>>>>>>> but those sorted times could be on any date between 2/15 and
>>>>>>> now, and I have no idea what that is doing to the averages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However comma again, I do know that if I sort on date and do an
>>>>>>> average every 30 days from 2/15 until now, the average steadily
>>>>>>> falls. My first 30 days had an avg of 101, and my last 30 is 67.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm more than ready for an inflection point to arrive.....but
>>>>>>> but but....even 20-30 Mbps has proven to be more than
>>>>>>> efficacious for web surfing and video streaming. I don't think
>>>>>>> I'm likely to pivot into literal squint-faced annoyance until I
>>>>>>> have to download a large file on a slow day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks again for your help.
>>>>>>>  Â Download Mbps
>>>>>>> 57.93
>>>>>>> Upload Mbps
>>>>>>> 7.75
>>>>>>> Ping ms 71
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looked like a bad wire brush when I sorted by time. I
>>>>>> couldn't glean any rhyme or reason from it. I think you should
>>>>>> cut down those trees and re-evaluate.
>>>>>
>>>>> With 3-6 sats allegedly up there whenever I check, I can't
>>>>> convince myself that the trees are a big problem. For example,
>>>>> right now Starlink tells me that in the last 12 hours I've been
>>>>> obstructed for 1 minute 18 seconds, no signal for 2 secs, and
>>>>> network issue for 14 secs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also right now, that other site - which "is NOT affiliated with
>>>>> Starlink or SpaceX" - claims that there 5 available sats in view,
>>>>> and 3 of them are east of north where there are no trees.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I can't cut down any more trees. If I did, some transitorily
>>>>> disoriented PNW tourist with a malfunctioning GPS would drive by
>>>>> and report me under the Greenie Flag laws, and before I knew it,
>>>>> people wearing birkenstocks, cargo shorts, and Earth Day T-shirts
>>>>> would show up in a camo EV to psychoanalyze me and confiscate my
>>>>> chainsaws.
>>>>>
>>>> Here's a little more:
>>>> Avg down speed
>>>> 12AM - 6AM 107
>>>> 6AM -12PM 105
>>>> 12PM - 6PM 90
>>>> 6PM - 12AM 58
>>>>
>>>
>>> That tells me that it's fastest when you use it the most - you
>>> night owl, you. Also, is there any streaming going on elsewhere in
>>> the household during the times of measurement? Particularly, during
>>> times of lower speeds?
>>
>> The wife is on at random times, but she rarely streams anything, and
>> I literally doubt that she had any statistically significant effect
>> on the Ookla tests. If I had a top-tier press secretary like Brandon
>> has, I'd get her to explain to you why I think that.
>
> I'd certainly believe her. It's not like she'd claim the election was
> stolen, or anything like that...
>
>>
>>> Is that manually sampled data?
>>
>> Yes, it's almost entirely manual (but with a little calculus
>> involved) and I'm glad you asked. Inspired by Catmobile, I cobbled
>> up a little turbine that can be slid in and out of an ethernet cable
>> - or even a Starlink proprietary cable - and is spun by the flow of
>> megabits through it. Once it's spinning from downloading something
>> spinful, I use a Briggs & Stratton Treysit Sirometer to measure the
>> RPM of the turbine which can readily be converted to Mbps with the
>> use of my secret and as-yet-unpatented algorithm. I know it's
>> accurate, because I calibrated the sirometer with my nearly always
>> consistent 2.7 Mbps DSL connection while streaming a video about the
>> Treysit.
>
> I think you've just publicly admitted to violating multiple patented
> and copyrighted phrases, materials, and techniques. I expect you'll be
> charged and prosecuted right after the DOJ finishes with the orange goon.

Then I don't have anything to worry about.

>> Note: In case you're wondering after refamiliarizing yourself with
>> Treysit operation, I put a tiny drop of JB Weld on one of the
>> turbine blades - without which the Treysit would have just sat there
>> doing literally nearly nothing.
>>
>> .......ummmm......crap. I just had an inconveniently timed attack of
>> transparency which forces me to unwillingly tell you the unvarnished
>> and unhyperbolized truth. So...........I got the data from my Ookla
>> speed tests which you so considerately put into spreadsheet time and
>> speed columns for me. I used those columns to get average speeds for
>> selected time spans.
>>
>> However comma in my defense, I did in fact manually operate the
>> mouse to get the Ookla tests started and to select the sections of
>> the speed column that LibreOffice used to calculate averages.
>>
>
> You, sir, are a modern miracle in an increasingly difficult and
> challenging world. Your mastery of mice is second to none and your
> ability to catalogue, correlate, disperse, dispense, and promote this
> data is simply stellar. Even the experts say so.

Well, that's troubling. The experts are seldom right, and then then
they soon evolve.

> 96.37
> 4.09
> 35
>
> Netflix is streaming just fine during above test.

That's good - but do you understand what they're saying?

I, OTOH:
Download Mbps
28.84
Upload Mbps
10.29
Ping ms 40

Beat the crap out of you on upload, though.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.