[HN Gopher] Does our "need for speed" make our wi-fi suck?
___________________________________________________________________
Does our "need for speed" make our wi-fi suck?
Author : jamies
Score : 62 points
Date : 2025-10-10 18:55 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (orb.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (orb.net)
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I did some experimentation with UniFi hubs and came to the
| conclusion that if you can give each device its own WiFi channel
| that would be ideal -- contention is that bad and often an
| uncontended channel with otherwise poor characteristics will beat
| a contended channel that otherwise looks good.
|
| The other bit of advice that is buried in there that no-one wants
| to hear for residences is the best way to speed up your Wi-Fi is
| to _not use it_. You might think it 's convenient to have your TV
| connect to Netflix via WiFi and it is, but it is going to make
| everything else that really needs the Wi-Fi slower. It's a _much_
| better answer to hook up everything on Ethernet that you possibly
| can than it is to follow the more traveled route of more channels
| and more congestion with mesh Wi-Fi.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > The other bit of advice that is buried in there that no-one
| wants to hear for residences is the best way to speed up your
| Wi-Fi is to not use it. You might think it's convenient to have
| your TV connect to Netflix via WiFi and it is, but it is going
| to make everything else that really needs the Wi-Fi slower.
| It's a much better answer to hook up everything on Ethernet
| that you possibly can than it is to follow the more traveled
| route of more channels and more congestion with mesh Wi-Fi.
|
| Absolutely. Everything other than cell phones and laptops-not-
| at-a-desk should be on Ethernet.
|
| I had wires run in 2020 when I started doing even more video
| calls. Huge improvement in usability.
| typpilol wrote:
| The reality is that most people only have a single cord
| coming into the house
|
| So they would have to do quite a bit of work to run cable.
| Also people living in apartments that cant just start
| drilling through walls.
|
| I'd say most ppl use wifi because they have too, not pure
| convenience
| ericd wrote:
| Eh flat Ethernet cables can easily be snaked all over with
| adhesive clips, and if you color match cable/clips/walls,
| it doesn't look bad.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Visiting museum ships also showed me you can sometimes
| route cables over living and working spaces.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| This is what I did. Takes minimal effort and then you
| never have to worry about it again.
| dpark wrote:
| Cables routed on visible walls look absolutely terrible.
| I wish they didn't, but they do.
|
| Yes, it's better if your cable and clips and wall all
| match, but it still looks bad.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| MoCA adapters are an option if you're already wired for
| coax
| eikenberry wrote:
| Ethernet cables can be as long as 100meters, long enough to
| snake around most any apartment. Add on a few rugs to cover
| over where they'd be tripping hazards and you're all set.
| passivegains wrote:
| I got good results from running cables around the entire
| perimeter of a room to avoid crossing doorways. Doesn't
| work so well on bathrooms though.
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| Mu-MIMO would help. The real problem is that energy between
| a unit and an AP is not in a pencil-thin RF laser-beam ---
| it is spread out. Other nodes hear that energy, and back
| off. If we had better control of point-to-point links, then
| you could have plenty of bandwidth. It's not as if the
| photon field cannot hold them all. When we broadcast in all
| directions, we waste energy, and we cause unnecessary
| interference to other receivers.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| it was quite a while back but I read some press release
| about a manufacturer that would make an access point that
| had mechanically steered directional antennas.
| Unfortunately I don't think it ever made it to market.
| jdeibele wrote:
| We downsized from a house built in 1914 with phone jacks
| everywhere to a house built in 2007 with coax and ethernet
| ports in every room, some rooms with two.
|
| At the 1914 house, I used ethernet-over-powerline adapters
| so I could have a second router running in access point
| mode. The alternative was punching holes in the outside
| walls since there was no way to feasibly run cabling inside
| lath-and-plaster walls.
|
| I don't know how 2025 houses are built but I would be
| surprised if they didn't have an ethernet jack in every
| room to a wiring closet of some sort. Not sure about coax.
|
| My son has ethernet in his dorm with an ethernet switch so
| he can connect his video game consoles and TV. I think
| that's pretty common.
| runjake wrote:
| _> I don 't know how 2025 houses are built but I would be
| surprised if they didn't have an ethernet jack in every
| room to a wiring closet of some sort. Not sure about
| coax._
|
| Speaking from a US standpoint, it still not common in new
| construction for ethernet to be deployed in a house. I'm
| not sure why. It seems like a no-brainer.
|
| Coax is still usually reserved to a couple jacks --
| usually in the living room and master bedrooms.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Adding cat5e or cat6 to each room is just a cost.
| Builders generally compete on cost.
| ipython wrote:
| Well, unless you're multihomed, you'll always only have one
| cable coming in.
|
| It's what you do with that cable that matters :)
|
| Even the telco provided router/ap combo units usually have
| a built in switch, so you don't even need another device in
| most cases.
| fragmede wrote:
| And the big one I want to point out, is that this AI stuff
| has me downloading so many ten gigabyte model files to run
| them locally that I'm really feeling the lack of speed that
| my setup has.
| marssaxman wrote:
| The house I live in was built with ethernet, but of the
| fourteen outlets the builders saw fit to include, not one is
| located where we can make use of it. The two devices in our
| house which use a wired connection are both plugged directly
| into the switch in our utility closet.
|
| (We do have one internet-connected device which permanently
| lives about an inch away from one of the ethernet sockets,
| but it is, ironically, a wifi-only device with no RJ45 port.)
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > The house I live in was built with ethernet, but of the
| fourteen outlets the builders saw fit to include, not one
| is located where we can make use of it.
|
| I had a similar situation a few years back. It was a rental
| so I didn't have access to the attic let alone permission
| to do my own drops. It'll depend a _lot_ on your exact
| setup, but we had reasonably good results with some
| ethernet-over-power adapters.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Ethernet pretty much sucks and has not improved substantially
| in consumer devices since the previous century. It also has
| pretty severe idle power consumption consequences for PCs,
| unless you are an expert who goes around fixing that.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| You still get the best speeds over ethernet today because of
| how wifi standards are slow walked, both on the router and
| the device connected with the router. Ethernet standards are
| slow walked too of course but we are talking slow walking a
| 2.5g or 10g connection here, even otherwise crappy hardware
| is likely to have 1g ethernet and it's been that way for at
| least 10 or 15 years.
| jeffbee wrote:
| If you want to transfer the contents of your old mac to
| your new mac, your best options in order of speed are 1)
| thunderbolt, 2) wifi, and 3) ethernet. You do not, in any
| sense, get "the best speeds" from ethernet. The market
| penetration of greater-than-1gb wired networks in consumer
| devices is practically nothing.
| astrange wrote:
| I have all 2.5gbit at home with some 10gbit SFP copper
| connections, it wasn't particularly difficult. The
| devices with built-in Ethernet ports are all gigabit of
| course, but the ones with USB-C ports have 2.5gbit
| adapters.
|
| I could go to 10gbit but the Thunderbolt adapters for
| those all have fans.
| pbronez wrote:
| If you're the kind of person who wants better than
| gigabit Ethernet, it's very available. 2.5Gbe is just a
| USB adapter away. Mac Studio comes with 10GbE. Unifi
| networking gives you managed multi-gig and plenty of
| others do unmanaged multigig at affordable prices. Piles
| of consumer NAS support multigig.
|
| I think this market is driven by content creators. Lots
| of prosumers shoot terabytes of video on a weekly basis.
| Local NAS are essential and multi-gig local networks
| dramatically improve the editing experience.
| kulahan wrote:
| brb ima turn on my microwave halfway through your
| transfer
| bobbiechen wrote:
| To this day I expect my wifi to drop whenever I hear a
| microwave, thanks to the one in my parents house:
| https://digitalseams.com/blog/microwave-ovens-wi-fi-and-
| http
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Yes thunderbolt is best but look at costs. Apple is
| selling a 4ft cable for $130. I have a ton of random cat
| 5e and cat 6 and they go for a couple dollars.
|
| Now lets talk about my actual "old mac" and "new mac" Mid
| 2012 mbp and my m3 pro. The 2012 only can do 802.11n so
| not gigabit speeds. It does have a gigabit ethernet
| however.
|
| Even if I was going m3 pro to m3 pro, I'm only getting
| full wifi 6e speeds if I actually have a router that
| makes use of 160hz channels. My router can't. It is hard
| to even gleam router offerings to see which are offering
| proper wifi 6 because there are like dozens of skus sold
| even to different stores from the same brand getting
| slightly different skus. Afaik my mac does not support
| 160hz wifi 6 either.
| kstrauser wrote:
| This is so insanely wrong that I almost feel like we're
| being trolled. Yes, a direct Thunderbolt connection would
| be best. Failing that, a guaranteed 1Gb Ethernet
| connection, which is ubiquitous and dirt cheap, and has
| latency measured in microseconds, is going to wipe the
| floor with real-world Wi-Fi 7 speeds. And for what you'd
| pay for end-to-end Wi-Fi 7 compatible gear, you could be
| using 10Gb Ethernet, which is in a different league of
| stability and actual observed throughput compared to
| anything wireless.
|
| I have Firewalla Wi-Fi 7 APs connected via 10Gb Ethernet
| to my router. They're brilliant, very expensive, very
| high quality devices. I use them only for devices which I
| can't hardwired, because even 1Gb Ethernet smokes them in
| actual real-world use.
| jeffbee wrote:
| > wipe the floor with real-world Wi-Fi 7 speeds.
|
| I see that you have never tried this. By the way, Mac
| Migration Assistant doesn't need Wi-Fi infrastructure at
| all.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Sure have, within the last 2 weeks when I helped a
| coworker migrate to a new machine! Both were November
| 2024 MacBook Pros, so Apple's current top-of-the-line
| laptops.
|
| Running over Wi-Fi dragged on interminably and we gave up
| several hours in. When we scrounged up a could of USB
| Ethernet dongles and started over, it took about an hour.
|
| So yeah, my own personal experience confirms exactly what
| I'd expect: Wi-Fi is slow and high-latency compared to
| Ethernet, and you should always use hardwired connections
| when you care about stability and performance more than
| portability. By all means, use Wi-Fi for routine laptop
| mobility. If you have the option, definitely run a cable
| to your stationary desktop computers, game consoles, set-
| top boxes, NASes, and everything else within reach of a
| switch.
| tass wrote:
| My isp-supplied router had 10gbe on both wan and lan
| sides. I swapped it for my own, but that is what modern
| consumer equipment looks like.
|
| You can find a 2 port 10gbe+4 port 2.5gbe switch for just
| over $30 on Amazon.
|
| If the run isn't too long this can all run over cat5.
| Handily beats wifi especially for reliability but
| Thunderbolt is fastest if you only have 2 machines to
| link.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| I have a U7 Pro XGS hooked up to a Pro HD 24 POE switch
| (all 2.5gb ports or faster).
|
| The only way I've managed to convince _any_ Wifi 7 client
| to exceed 1gbps is by freshly connecting to it over 6ghz
| while standing physically within arm 's reach of the AP.
| That's it. That's the only time it can exceed 1gbps.
|
| In all other scenarios it's well under 1gbps, often more
| like 300-500mbps. Which is great for wifi, but still
| quite below the cheapest ethernet ports around. And 6ghz
| client behavior across OS's (Windows, MacOS, iOS, and
| Android) is _so bad_ at roaming that I actually end up
| just disabling it entirely. The only thing it can do is
| generate bragging rights screenshots, in actual use it 's
| basically entirely DOA.
|
| And that's ignoring that ~$200 N150 NUCs come with
| 2.5gbps ethernet now.
| tryauuum wrote:
| even with 1Gbit/s ethernet, measure latency. It will be
| smaller and more predictable than any wifi you can have.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >Ethernet [...] has not improved substantially in consumer
| devices since the previous century.
|
| We've gone from 100 Mbps being standard consumer level to 2.5
| or 10 Gbps being standard now. That sounds substantial to me.
| jeffbee wrote:
| There is not any meaningful sense in which 2.5gb ethernet
| is "standard". There are no TVs with 2.5gb ethernet ports.
| Or even 1gb ports. Yet they all have WiFi 5 or better.
| dpark wrote:
| In practical terms, WiFi 5 is slower than 1gb Ethernet.
|
| It is bizarre that they are putting 100mbps Ethernet
| ports on TVs though.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > It is bizarre that they are putting 100mbps Ethernet
| ports on TVs though.
|
| It's a few pennies cheaper and i'm sure they have some
| data showing 70%+ will just use WiFi. TCL in particular
| doesn't even have very good/stable drivers for their
| 10/100 NIC; there's a ton of people on the Home Assistant
| forums that have noticed that their android powered smart
| TV will just ... stop working / responding on the network
| until it's rebooted.
| lxgr wrote:
| Compared to what?
| avree wrote:
| Unfortunately, Unifi only supports DFS channels (which is the
| only real way for 'each device to have its own wifi channel in
| a crowded area) on some of their models.
| mlinhares wrote:
| Yeah, we built our home and i made sure whenever there would be
| devices on the wall there was an ethernet cable there, best
| decision ever.
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| yes, and... convenience says 'use WiFi'. No wires! I've said,
| if it moves - wireless. If it doesn't -- wired. Counterexamples
| that 'work': AM / FM / TV / Paging big transmitters to
| simple/cheap receivers. For the 1-way case, that works. But for
| 2-way....
| paulddraper wrote:
| There are two kinds of networks: wireless networks and reliable
| networks.
|
| Wired connection is an absolute hack.
| lxgr wrote:
| I hear people say this often, but when you look into what
| they actually mean, it's often a comparison of having a
| single mediocre ISP CPE in a corner of an apartment, at most
| with a wireless repeater in another, vs. Ethernet. Of course
| the wire wins in that comparison.
|
| Now put an access point into every room and wire them to the
| router, and things start looking very differently.
| ipython wrote:
| > the best way to speed up your Wi-Fi is to not use it.
|
| So true!
|
| Other tips I've found useful:
|
| Separate 2.4ghz network for only IoT devices. They tend to have
| terrible WiFi chipsets and use older WiFi standards. Slower
| speed = more airtime used for the same amount of data. This way
| the "slow" IoT devices don't interfere with your faster devices
| which...
|
| Faster devices such as laptops and phones belong on 5ghz only
| network, if you're able to get enough coverage. Prefer wired
| backhaul and more access points, as you're better off with a
| device talking on another channel to an ap closer to it rather
| than tieing up airtime with lots of retries to a far away ap
| (which impacts all the other clients also trying to talk to
| that ap)
|
| WiFi is super solid at our house but it took some tweaking and
| wiring everything that doesn't move.
| rbranson wrote:
| > It's a much better answer to hook up everything on Ethernet
| that you possibly can than it is to follow the more traveled
| route of more channels and more congestion with mesh Wi-Fi.
|
| Certainly this is the brute-force way to do it and can work if
| you can run enough UTP everywhere. As a counterexample, I went
| all-in on WiFi and have 5 access points with dedicated
| backhauls. This is in SF too, so neighbors are right up against
| us. I have ~60 devices on the WiFi and have no issues, with
| fast roaming handoff, low jitter, and ~500Mbit up/down. I built
| this on UniFi, but I suspect Eero PoE gear could get you pretty
| close too, given how well even their mesh backhaul gear
| performs.
| xmprt wrote:
| I'm not super familiar with SF construction materials but I
| wonder if that plays a part in it too? If your neighbors are
| separated by concrete walls then you're probably getting less
| interference from them than you'd think and your mesh might
| actually work better(?)... but what do I know since I'm no
| networking engineer.
| rbranson wrote:
| It's all wood construction, originally stick victorians
| with 2x4 exterior walls. My "loudest" neighbor is being
| picked up on 80MHz at -47 dBm.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| you have five access points and 60 devices? How many square
| feet are you trying to cover?
| lxgr wrote:
| > You might think it's convenient to have your TV connect to
| Netflix via WiFi and it is, but it is going to make everything
| else that really needs the Wi-Fi slower.
|
| TV streaming seems like a bad example, since it's usually much
| lower average bandwidth than e.g. a burst of mobile app updates
| installing with equal priority on the network as as soon as a
| phone is plugged in for charging, or starting a cloud photo
| backup.
| vel0city wrote:
| Kind of true, but potentially also untrue. If that TV is
| running a crappy WiFi chip running an older WiFi standard on
| the same channel, it'll end up performing worse or not
| playing as nice with other clients during those bursts of
| buffering. That'll potentially be seen by other clients as
| little bursts of jitter.
|
| That's true of any client with older and crappier WiFi chips
| though, but TVs are such a race to the bottom when it comes
| to performance in so many other things.
| drob518 wrote:
| That tip about not using it also works with Ethernet and other
| technologies, BTW.
| semiquaver wrote:
| The thing about speed tests causing a bad experience because they
| hog airtime felt like a non sequitur (since performing them is
| rare and manual) until I saw this: > Many ISPs,
| device manufacturers, and consumers automate periodic, high-
| intensity speed tests that negatively impact the consumer
| internet experience as demonstrated
|
| But there's no support for this claim presented frankly I am
| skeptical. What WiFi devices are regularly conducting speed tests
| without being asked?
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > What WiFi devices are regularly conducting speed tests
| without being asked?
|
| ISP provided routers, at least Xfinity does. I've gotten emails
| from them (before I ripped out their equipment and put my own
| in) "Great news, you're getting more than your plan's promised
| speeds" with speedtest results in the email, because they ran
| speed tests at like 3AM.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if it's happening often across all the
| residential ISPs, most likely for marketing purposes.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I have noticed Spectrum internet shits the bed at 12:30am
| pretty reliably.
| typpilol wrote:
| Really? My spectrum has been super reliable in Michigan.
| Way better than when I had Comcast here
| gm678 wrote:
| Pretty sure Verizon does this as well, when I had a tech come
| out he had access to historical speed test results from my
| router (I didn't ask any questions about it at the time so
| don't have any more info).
| lxgr wrote:
| That would be a speedtest between the router/modem and CMTS
| then, not one between a Wi-Fi connected device and the ISP,
| no?
| esseph wrote:
| Ubiquiti UniFi used to, I don't know if it still does.
| pbronez wrote:
| It's configurable
| nativeit wrote:
| At least in my UniFi instance, this is only done when
| manually triggered, but I seem to recall a setting where it
| could be automatically updated daily.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Eero does this automatically (mine says it was last run 2 days
| ago at 5:08am) and I had software on my DD-WRT router
| (OpenLede) that did it, though obviously not many people
| (overall) are running that.
|
| I used to run a docker than ran a speed test every hour and
| graphed the results but I haven't done that in a while now.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Google Nest access points do this, but they do it only when
| networks are idle, so I fail to see the negative consequences.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| DOCSIS cable modems perform perform regularly scheduled tests,
| but it's only between devices, and shouldn't affect available
| bandwidth, because there's far more bandwidth within the DOCSIS
| network than between the network and the Internet.
| lxgr wrote:
| > there's far more bandwidth within the DOCSIS network than
| between the network and the Internet.
|
| Really? DOCSIS has been the bottleneck out of Wi-Fi, DOCSIS,
| and wider Internet every time I've had the misfortune of
| having to use it in an apartment.
|
| Especially the tiny uplink frequency slice of DOCSIS 3 and
| below is pathetic.
| ttshaw1 wrote:
| I don't get what the point of the article is. Is the takeaway
| that I should lower the channel width in my home? How many WAPs
| would I need to be running for that to matter? I'd argue it's
| more important to get everyone to turn down TX power in cases
| where your neighbors in an apartment building are conflicting.
| And that's never going to happen, so just conform to the legal
| limit and your SNR should be fine. Anything that needs to be high
| performance shouldn't be on wifi anyway.
|
| If you want to spend a really long time optimizing your wifi,
| this is the resource: https://www.wiisfi.com/
| jerf wrote:
| This sort of thing is definitely in the class of "are you
| experiencing problems? if not don't worry about it".
|
| If you are experiencing problems, this might give you an angle
| to think about that you hadn't otherwise, if you just naively
| assume Wifi is as good as a dedicated wire. Modern Wifi has an
| awful lot of resources, though. I only notice degradation of
| any kind when I have one computer doing a full-speed transfer
| for quite a while to another, but that's a pretty exceptional
| case and not one I'm going to run any more wires around for for
| something that happens less than once a month.
| tetris11 wrote:
| I lose wifi signal consistently in my bedroom on my 80Mhz wide
| 5Ghz wifi.
|
| I just now reduced it to 20Mhz, and though there is a (slight)
| perceptible drop in latency, those 5 extra dB I gained from
| Signal/Noise have given me wifi in the bedroom again
| 725686 wrote:
| "The average US household has 21 Wi-Fi devices"... wtf?
| lynndotpy wrote:
| And that's not to mention everything else on the 2.4GHz band :)
| Bluetooth, zigbee, your microwave, etc
| MrZander wrote:
| That seems very high to me. A family of four each has 5 devices
| connected at the same time?
| paxys wrote:
| Smartphone, laptop, tablet, watch - that's 4 already. And
| this isn't just counting personal devices. Include TV,
| streaming stick, game console, printers, bulbs, plugs,
| speakers, doorbell, security cameras, thermostat and you'll
| hit that number pretty quick.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Check your network and see how many wifi devices you have.
| I'm up to 60+ thanks to a handful of IoT devices, smart
| speakers, etc... It adds up quick.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Doesn't seem unreasonable. Look at your router. I have 17 and I
| would say we're a totally normal household - the kids don't
| even have phones yet.
|
| We have 2 phones, a tablet for the kids, a couple of Google
| homes, a Chromecast, 2 yoto players, a printer, a smart TV, 2
| laptops, a raspberry pi, a solar power Inverter, an Oculus
| Quest, and a couple of things that have random hostnames.
|
| It adds up.
| isaacdl wrote:
| I live alone, and just counted, I have 10 in regular use. A few
| more that can connect to WiFi but aren't (why would I want my
| tower fans on the internet, anyway?)
|
| I had probably 20 prior to swapping out some smart light bulbs
| and switches for Zigbee.
|
| 21 for an average household isn't nuts.
| gnabgib wrote:
| Doesn't take long to add up. Family of 4 - every phone,
| including prior generation which might be off in a draw: 3-8
|
| Router, and extenders (multi floor house): 1-4
|
| Chromecast|Sonos|Apple
| speaker/Chromecast|google|firestick|roku|apple TV/smart
| speaker/hifi receiver/eaves dropping devices: 2-10
|
| Smart doorbell/light switch/temperature sensor/weather
| station/co2|co detector/flood detector/bulb/led strip/led
| light/nanoleaf/garage door: 4-16
|
| Some cars: 0-2
|
| Some smart watches speak wifi: 0-4
|
| Computers.. maybe the desktops are wired (likely still support
| wifi), all laptops, chromebooks, and tablets : 3-8
|
| All game consoles, many TVs, some computer monitors: 3-8
|
| Some smart appliances: 0-4 (based on recent news of ads, best
| to aim for 0)
| tempestn wrote:
| 34 devices connected to my router at the moment, 8 wired and 26
| wifi. About 8 of the wifi devices are phones, tablets, and
| laptops; the rest are various iot things: locks, plugs, alarm,
| thermostat, water heater, doorbell, etc.
| seemaze wrote:
| I just checked;
|
| I currently have 23, my parent's house has 19
|
| People have all kinds of stuff on wifi these days - cameras,
| light bulbs, dishwashers, irrigation, solar, hifi..
| rpcope1 wrote:
| Honestly what's unsaid in a lot of this is that it would be
| really nice if there were more and wider ISM bands. So much makes
| use of 900Mhz, 2.4GHz and 5GHz in novel and innovative ways, that
| if the government and FCC really actually wanted to spark
| innovation including augmenting wifi performance, they'd stop
| letting telcos and other questionable interests hoard spectrum
| and release it as ISM (and no, they shouldn't steal from ham
| bands to make ISM bands either).
| lxgr wrote:
| > Many ISPs, device manufacturers, and consumers automate
| periodic, high-intensity speed tests that negatively impact the
| consumer internet experience as demonstrated.
|
| Is that actually a thing? Why would any ISP intentionally add
| unnecessary load to their network?
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I've only met around 10 people that even know what a speed test
| is. I'm not sure how most consumers would even go about
| automating one. What would be the first step?
| somanyphotons wrote:
| Is there a good guide on what the right things to do are?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-10 23:00 UTC)