I've found Fast.com gamed sometimes when traveling in Asia/Europe, in the sense the ISP prioritizes Netflix traffic but normal traffic never gets within 20% of that Fast.com download speed or has much higher latency or something...?
With Cloudflare I'm guessing it's a more balanced measure.
> I've found Fast.com gamed sometimes … the ISP prioritizes Netflix traffic
The other side of this is why Netflix created Fast.com in the first place: ISPs throttling Netflix traffic (or just having poor peering arrangements that affected it) and blaming Netflix when customers complained about poor video quality (due to Netflix downgrading when experiencing congestion) because some speedtest (that likely the ISP prioritized, or at least knew it had better peering to) gave good numbers.
> With Cloudflare I'm guessing it's a more balanced measure.
Both serve the same purpose for their respective owners: to get good scores on fast.com an ISP can't throttle (or allowed to be throttled by avoidable congestion) Netflix traffic, to get good scores on speed.cloudflare.com they can't throttle (or allowed to be throttled by avoidable congestion) traffic to/from Cloudflair's topologically local DCs.
From a user's point of view using both, plus other tests, gives most meaningful results overall.
And they’ve figured out how to get around that. T-Mobile will show full speed on fast but if you have SD video enabled it’ll throttle Netflix videos but not fast.
Fast.com frequently tells me speeds that cannot exist. Why yes, I am definitely getting 1.2gbps over this gigabit Ethernet and 940mbps Internet connection.
Fast.com seemingly tries to compensate for the overhead. Bandwidth includes every bit on the wire and that's why "940mbps" internet is usually just normal gigabit with a bunch of packet headers and intentionally unused transmit space consuming the phantom 60mbps.
It's hard to guesstimate the exact bandwidth of the data that arrives in your browser because of differences in protocol, MTU, header compression and all that nonsense, especially over technologies like WiFi. In my experience, the WiFi throughput numbers seem spot on.
Their compensation makes for some hilarious statistics, but when you're downloading more than 200mbps the fast.com speedtest doesn't make much sense anyway. No way in hell is Netflix going to allow your single home internet connection to somehow pull in a full gigabit of streaming video. If you're your own ISP you can make it happen, but on the other hand you'll probably also know how to get statistics directly from your network hardware, in which case the fast.com numbers are useless but it still becomes a useful way to spike the load.
Netflix's speedtest is mostly reliable for what it's meant to do, which is solve the question of "my internet is fast but Netflix keeps buffering".
Edit: another factor to consider is that accurate timing has been disabled in most browsers because of side channel attacks like SPECTRE. It's possible that those are affecting your measurements at very high speeds.
I'm familiar with why they sell it as 940mbps vs gigabit; that doesn't concern me. I also don't buy the explanations of MTU, accurate timing, etc for one big reason: other sites like Speedtest.net and the Cloudflare speed test we're on the discussion thread for simply do not have this problem.
And of course, I'd not expect them to want me to pull down 1gbps of streaming video. But I would expect them to burst my connection when downloading videos for offline viewing, their own bandwidth permitting. Unused bandwidth at a point in time is wasted bandwidth. But more central to my original point, I'd also expect their browser-based speed test to not claim I'm going faster than is physically possible. Let's be honest - however they're measuring the actual connection speeds is not as accurate as some of the alternatives on the same playing field.
Netflix and Google both have servers colocated within ISPs' networks so this is probably why. Also SEA is a routing cesspool, many providers don't do settlement free peering and actively throttle IX routes, which is probably why your Internet was so slow.
Huh, that's strange, I usually see the opposite when I'm out and about (particularly in Europe/South America). Popular services like Netflix are throttled but downloading huge blobs from my own servers is much faster.
Here in Europe it's all equally fast. I don't remember ever having a throttled service, that sounds like a page out of the dystopian scenarios produced in the era where net neutrality legislation was being proposed/promoted ten years ago or something. There were rumors back then that bittorrent was being throttled (and corresponding protocol obfuscation and port changing) but I never had that myself
Well, Europe has lots of different countries and I've definitely been in countries that are considered to be in Europe where it's not equally fast, and using a VPN can speed up a lot of things.
Obviously there are faster and slower broadband connections; by "equally fast" I assume GP meant that various services can be reached without ISP choking or throttling, thanks to EU-wide network neutrality rules.
Fast.com was created specifically to pinpoint the throttling that was actively applied to Netflix in many occurrences back then. It seems to be mostly gone, especially since streaming video now accounts for >50% of web traffic you can't easily throttle it and hope no one notices.
In the USA specifically, I thought? Or which other regions has that happened in? I remember Comcast specifically having a monopoly in many areas and being able to pressure Netflix into getting money from both sides of the fiber (consumers and service providers)
With Cloudflare I'm guessing it's a more balanced measure.