Exactly. Same as here. Thank you.

Now . . . why?

2072.1 Kbps at home on the cable. Twice what I was getting at work.

95–120 KB out when using the Airport to stream music to the stereo, despite only 20 KB in listening to RP.

stop iTunes and numbers drop to a few hundred bytes max.

I know. Cut my internet teeth on a univeristy T-1, myself. However, I am paying about four times as many dollars/kbps than I would be in a larger market. C'mon, Quest! C'mon, anybody else!

Dude, it's a university. No ISP is gonna match it for residential service. I was just thumpin me chest.

Mine is supposedly 700-something, never actually runs more than about half that, and costs me a hundred bucks a month! Curse you, small-town monopoly ISP! Curse you!

DSL throttles it back, too, for similar reasons, if it's run-of-the-mill ADSL.

Wasn't sure what utility Xeric was using, but what you say makes sense if it's accounting for apps. in use, and if he's using some. I'd have to check from home to see what my current up pipe is, but 120K/s sounds about right. Still slow.

EDIT: I just checked--I get 5973.6 Kbps at work. woo hoo! I should just live here.

I don't. Don't use an airport normally, but I can investigate when I get home, --but so can you. Jack into your 'net source directly and see what happens when you cut out the wireless.

At least I think that's a valid test.

Well above 300kbps, according to that test and another I have bookmarked. And the Activity Moniter indeed shows a burst in download speed when I'm running that test (or on a big web page, etc.). But that "up" just keeps chugging along.

I'm gonna PM a couple of folks I know are using Airports/Macs and see if they're seeing similar things. Unless SFW, who I see has chimed in, has the answer. . . .

I think the Airport theory makes sense.

DSL is one thing, but cable specifically throttles back your upload speed because they want you to buy a commercial web-hosting account. There are multi-user problems where putting a bottleneck on keeps someone from hosting a media-intensive site, thereby wrecking the performance of everyone in the neighborhood, but in the everyday scheme it's more about money than capacity. IMO.

He's not really talking capacity, just current usage. A steady 120 KB out is quite a bit.

My data rate in while listening to RP 128 MP3 hovers between 15–18 KB/sec

Ah. That's pretty unusual. The numbers you cite (which I must have swapped in reading them) suggest to me that you should just call your ISP--that actually looks about right for your up pipe, but your down pipe ought to be above 300 if you're on broadband, and assuming the monitor is reading raw connection speed and not accounting for apps running (including the music stream). Maybe check here before you bother with that sure-to-be-long-ass call to your ISP.

Ah. That's pretty unusual. The numbers you cite (which I must have swapped in reading them) suggest to me that you should just call your ISP--that actually looks about right for your up pipe, but your down pipe ought to be above 300 if you're on broadband, and assuming the monitor is reading raw connection speed and not accounting for apps running (including the music stream). Maybe check here before you bother with that sure-to-be-long-ass call to your ISP.

Not a platform-specific problem, no. Service from most ISPs provides much fatter downpipes than up pipes. It's substantially easier for them to throw data at you than to manage data you're sending through them, and since the latter is less common anyway, they don't support it with a fatter pipe. Unless you get SDSL or a T3, in which case you'll be paying so much a month that they'll be happy to help. Lookie.

This is reverse--large data flow upstream all the time. I'm not wondering about pipe size so much as why anything's going OUT of here all the time. What's up with that?

Not a platform-specific problem, no. Service from most ISPs provides much fatter downpipes than up pipes. It's substantially easier for them to throw data at you than to manage data you're sending through them, and since the latter is less common anyway, they don't support it with a fatter pipe. Unless you get SDSL or a T3, in which case you'll be paying so much a month that they'll be happy to help. Lookie.

Quotin' myself as a *bump* for the daytime geeks. . . .

Quotin' myself as a *bump* for the daytime geeks. . . .

This is probably not Mac-specific, but it's got me scratching my head. If I go to the Activity Moniter and look at the "Network" pane, I typically show an UPLOAD rate ("Data sent/sec")--contantly--of about 120K. The "Data received" rate is around 20K. Huh? Much faster up, well, whatever. But--all the time? What am I uploading? Somebody told me it's the Airport talking to the base--ya think?

It's got elements of virus, trojan horse, whatever. It requires user activation, but (tries to) send itself and trash programs... anyway, it's very narrow in scope. This article covers the real life--almost funny--ineffectiveness of it, but the point should not be lost: Macs are potentially vulnerable. There are some of us who've never really worried and are not taking adequate steps to protect ourselves. For instance, right now, every user account on this machine (except the 3-year-old's) is an Admin. Evidently, the everyday users should not have admin powers, even if I AM the actual admin. Who knew? Okay, I'll work on that.

Anyway, here's the article that dissects this "virus":
Macworld