> ISPs. They do this for routers, bridges, FR services so they can
> probably find a respectable consulting/measurement group to collect
Yes, they do. It would be better (sometimes) if they did not -
When I read their comparations I sometimes think to drom all my hardware
(BAD in terms of this magasines) and bue new one (Bay Networks as BB routers,
FORE ATM as ATM
, etc...). Through it's strange idea (for example) to compare
hight-end Bay router with CS7200 (middle-range router), or to
compare middle-range Lt1010 with Cascade back-bone ATM switchs.
And I am afraid thy would use the same technik for ISP comparation.
Well, besides being interesting ISP comparison *may* not be as objective and
informative as we'd like to. In addition, what technique do you propose for
such comparison? Just asking customers aren't enough, IMHO. And you can't
count *every* ISP, even in the US...
  Well, besides being interesting ISP comparison *may* not be as objective and
  informative as we'd like to. In addition, what technique do you propose for
  such comparison? Just asking customers aren't enough, IMHO. And you can't
  count *every* ISP, even in the US...
As for me, it is interesting two technoques used simultaneously:
1) Journal asks ISP to make dialup-IP and 64K account for the testing;
and asks where they coud try T1 connection.
2) Journal bue (anonimously) dialup account from the same ISP's.
Then, every day in 1 months (or some 5 different days during this months)
they measure CPS for - WWW to some interesting pages, FTP from some servers,
quality of real-audio connections, etc...
Then (since 1 months) it will be very interestind data.
But I am afrayd we'll see quite another picture - "we prefere XXX because
they sell dialup-kit with MS Exploper, and do not recommend YYY because
in our ONLY ftp test from www.cisco.com CPS was 5% less than in our 10
ftp tests via XXX_, or something simular.
