At the upper end of that range, you are only getting 90% of their advertised bandwidth, even in ideal conditions. Is that actually an acceptable loss? Maybe they shouldn’t advertise 125 mb/s if they can only deliver 90% of that in the best case.
Routers, network cards, and Ethernet cables being “gigabit” or similar is also confusing, but i see your point there.
I still don’t see the harm in providing both formats, thought i do see the point in not switching to mb/s only.
In the example you posted, it would be 1000Mbit/s down, which translates to a real world speed of 110-112 mb/s .
Maybe they shouldn’t advertise 125 mb/s if they can only deliver 90% of that in the best case.
They aren’t delivering 90% to you, they’re delivering 100%. You are getting all 125MB/s, the full amount they advertised to you. The fact that you’re confused here is exactly why they do not advertise bandwidth this way.
Routers, network cards, and Ethernet cables being “gigabit” or similar is also confusing,
No, it’s not confusing. Those devices pass bits between each other. It would be confusing if you measured the bits they’re passing in Bytes for some reason.
1000Mbit/s down, which translates to a real world speed of 110-112 mb/s
The job of computer networks and network devices is not file transfer. Its to pass information, only a subset of which is for file transfer. Networking devices pass pass bits between each other, so it only makes sense to measure how many of those bits they can pass per second.
Hiding it is not anti-consumer. Nothing is being hidden. The capabilities of the devices are simply being accurately described based on the job they perform and the way they perform it.
What good is it that i can reach the local node in 1000Mbit/s if their first hop to an internet server slows the connection by 90%?
The first hop to an internet server doesn’t slow the connection by 90%. The connection remains at 100% the entire time.
At the upper end of that range, you are only getting 90% of their advertised bandwidth, even in ideal conditions. Is that actually an acceptable loss? Maybe they shouldn’t advertise 125 mb/s if they can only deliver 90% of that in the best case.
Routers, network cards, and Ethernet cables being “gigabit” or similar is also confusing, but i see your point there.
I still don’t see the harm in providing both formats, thought i do see the point in not switching to mb/s only.
In the example you posted, it would be 1000Mbit/s down, which translates to a real world speed of 110-112 mb/s .
They aren’t delivering 90% to you, they’re delivering 100%. You are getting all 125MB/s, the full amount they advertised to you. The fact that you’re confused here is exactly why they do not advertise bandwidth this way.
No, it’s not confusing. Those devices pass bits between each other. It would be confusing if you measured the bits they’re passing in Bytes for some reason.
The real world speed is 1000Mb/s down.
It’s not some reason, the reason is that file transfer uses bytes.
Hiding it is anti-consumer.
What good is it that i can reach the local node in 1000Mbit/s if their first hop to an internet server slows the connection to 90%?
If i upgrade to the 2500Mbit/s connection, am i only getting 90% of that too?
They should advertise what internet service they’re really providing.
The job of computer networks and network devices is not file transfer. Its to pass information, only a subset of which is for file transfer. Networking devices pass pass bits between each other, so it only makes sense to measure how many of those bits they can pass per second.
Hiding it is not anti-consumer. Nothing is being hidden. The capabilities of the devices are simply being accurately described based on the job they perform and the way they perform it.
The first hop to an internet server doesn’t slow the connection by 90%. The connection remains at 100% the entire time.
If it is 100% why is it 90%?