I'm going to be extremely blunt, because it's after midnight here and I'm cranky:

In short what's wrong with your question is that instead of including all of this relevant information that you decided to post on meta in a great fit of offense you chose to throw a turd against our window and then asked us to use Google for you.

The Google part I can forgive (because I tried a few obvious searches, knowing I would recommend Aria or a few other tools for multi-streaming downloads, and I didn't get useful results with that foreknowledge). Your question is, as a whole, on-topic.

The turd part I can't. Your question needs some additional effort in order to be "professional quality".

##If you ask a good question people will be happy to help you.
Good questions tell us what you've researched and eliminated.
We shouldn't HAVE to tell you about bandwidth delay product, buffer bloat, route saturation, etc.: As a professional you should have some research, determined whether or not these things are a factor, and shown us your work so we don't have to rehash it and waste everyone's time.

Of course we don't expect you to figure out EVERYTHING on your own - you wouldn't need us if that were the case! We just want to see that you've done something and aren't just taking the lazyweb way out.

If you want to improve your question and have it reopened take a few minutes of your time to edit it to include the details you've provided here. Make it a professional quality question that shows you take your work seriously, and aren't just asking the internet to do all the thinking for you.

Remember that we only know what you tell us, so let us know that you know delay isn't a major factor, and that the remote site can meet or exceed your server's available bandwidth (and if you aren't sure tell us that -- it's important, and influences our recommendations).

We aren't doing this to be mean.

Please don't take having your question closed personally. We really don't care who you are - we care about whether or not the question meets our standards for quality and topicality.

Pitching a fit on Meta is not the way to handle this sort of thing.
It just results in your question sitting, closed, for a longer period of time while we wait for you to improve it.

If you had taken 15 minutes to include the relevant information in your question it would be reopened already and I wouldn't be wasting my evening giving you a lecture.

You'd be happier, I'd be happier, and the community would have a good question about performing real-world bandwidth tests, that will attract good detailed answers (as opposed to just a link to a multi-streaming download tool).

I'm going to be extremely blunt, because it's after midnight here and I'm cranky:

In short what's wrong with your question is that instead of including all of this relevant information that you decided to post on meta in a great fit of offense you chose to throw a turd against our window and then asked us to use Google for you.

The Google part I can forgive (because I tried a few obvious searches, knowing I would recommend Aria or a few other tools for multi-streaming downloads, and I didn't get useful results with that foreknowledge). Your question is, as a whole, on-topic.

The turd part I can't. Your question needs some additional effort in order to be "professional quality".

If you ask a good question people will be happy to help you.

Good questions tell us what you've researched and eliminated.
We shouldn't HAVE to tell you about bandwidth delay product, buffer bloat, route saturation, etc.: As a professional you should have some research, determined whether or not these things are a factor, and shown us your work so we don't have to rehash it and waste everyone's time.

Of course we don't expect you to figure out EVERYTHING on your own - you wouldn't need us if that were the case! We just want to see that you've done something and aren't just taking the lazyweb way out.

If you want to improve your question and have it reopened take a few minutes of your time to edit it to include the details you've provided here. Make it a professional quality question that shows you take your work seriously, and aren't just asking the internet to do all the thinking for you.

Remember that we only know what you tell us, so let us know that you know delay isn't a major factor, and that the remote site can meet or exceed your server's available bandwidth (and if you aren't sure tell us that -- it's important, and influences our recommendations).

We aren't doing this to be mean.

Please don't take having your question closed personally. We really don't care who you are - we care about whether or not the question meets our standards for quality and topicality.

Pitching a fit on Meta is not the way to handle this sort of thing.
It just results in your question sitting, closed, for a longer period of time while we wait for you to improve it.

If you had taken 15 minutes to include the relevant information in your question it would be reopened already and I wouldn't be wasting my evening giving you a lecture.

You'd be happier, I'd be happier, and the community would have a good question about performing real-world bandwidth tests, that will attract good detailed answers (as opposed to just a link to a multi-streaming download tool).

I'm going to be extremely blunt, because it's after midnight here and I'm cranky:

In short what's wrong with your question is that instead of including all of this relevant information that you decided to post on meta in a great fit of offense you chose to throw a turd against our window and then asked us to use Google for you.

The Google part I can forgive (because I tried a few obvious searches, knowing I would recommend Aria or a few other tools for multi-streaming downloads, and I didn't get useful results with that foreknowledge). Your question is, as a whole, on-topic.

The turd part I can't. Your question needs some additional effort in order to be "professional quality".

##If you ask a good question people will be happy to help you.
Good questions tell us what you've researched and eliminated.
We shouldn't HAVE to tell you about bandwidth delay product, buffer bloat, route saturation, etc.: As a professional you should have some research, determined whether or not these things are a factor, and shown us your work so we don't have to rehash it and waste everyone's time.

Of course we don't expect you to figure out EVERYTHING on your own - you wouldn't need us if that were the case! We just want to see that you've done something and aren't just taking the lazyweb way out.

If you want to improve your question and have it reopened take a few minutes of your time to edit it to include the details you've provided here. Make it a professional quality question that shows you take your work seriously, and aren't just asking the internet to do all the thinking for you.

Remember that we only know what you tell us, so let us know that you know delay isn't a major factor, and that the remote site can meet or exceed your server's available bandwidth (and if you aren't sure tell us that -- it's important, and influences our recommendations).

We aren't doing this to be mean.

Please don't take having your question closed personally. We really don't care who you are - we care about whether or not the question meets our standards for quality and topicality.

Pitching a fit on Meta is not the way to handle this sort of thing.
It just results in your question sitting, closed, for a longer period of time while we wait for you to improve it.

If you had taken 15 minutes to include the relevant information in your question it would be reopened already and I wouldn't be wasting my evening giving you a lecture.

You'd be happier, I'd be happier, and the community would have a good question about performing real-world bandwidth tests, that will attract good detailed answers (as opposed to just a link to a multi-streaming download tool).

I'm going to be extremely blunt, because it's after midnight here and I'm cranky:

In short what's wrong with your question is that instead of including all of this relevant information that you decided to post on meta in a great fit of offense you chose to throw a turd against our window and then asked us to use Google for you.

The Google part I can forgive (because I tried a few obvious searches, knowing I would recommend Aria or a few other tools for multi-streaming downloads, and I didn't get useful results with that foreknowledge). Your question is, as a whole, on-topic.

The turd part I can't. Your question needs some additional effort in order to be "professional quality".

##If you ask a good question people will be happy to help you.
Good questions tell us what you've researched and eliminated.
We shouldn't HAVE to tell you about bandwidth delay product, buffer bloat, route saturation, etc.: As a professional you should have some research, determined whether or not these things are a factor, and shown us your work so we don't have to rehash it and waste everyone's time.

Of course we don't expect you to figure out EVERYTHING on your own - you wouldn't need us if that were the case! We just want to see that you've done something and aren't just taking the lazyweb way out.

If you want to improve your question and have it reopened take a few minutes of your time to edit it to include the details you've provided here. Make it a professional quality question that shows you take your work seriously, and aren't just asking the internet to do all the thinking for you.

Remember that we only know what you tell us, so let us know that you know delay isn't a major factor, and that the remote site can meet or exceed your server's available bandwidth (and if you aren't sure tell us that -- it's important, and influences our recommendations).

We aren't doing this to be mean.

Please don't take having your question closed personally. We really don't care who you are - we care about whether or not the question meets our standards for quality and topicality.

Pitching a fit on Meta is not the way to handle this sort of thing.
It just results in your question sitting, closed, for a longer period of time while we wait for you to improve it.

If you had taken 15 minutes to include the relevant information in your question it would be reopened already and I wouldn't be wasting my evening giving you a lecture.

You'd be happier, I'd be happier, and the community would have a good question about performing real-world bandwidth tests, that will attract good detailed answers (as opposed to just a link to a multi-streaming download tool).