When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
|
View Poll Results: When Is Less Than 100% A Fault? 1 From Each Peak / Off-peak
|
|
Peak Times, 95% of Max
|
   
|
2 |
3.57% |
|
Peak Times, 90% of Max
|
  
|
6 |
10.71% |
|
Peak Times, 85% of Max
|
  
|
6 |
10.71% |
|
Peak Times, 80% of Max
|
  
|
17 |
30.36% |
|
Peak Times, 75% of Max
|
  
|
12 |
21.43% |
|
Peak Times, 70% of Max
|
  
|
8 |
14.29% |
|
Off-peak, 95% of Max
|
|
11 |
19.64% |
|
Off-peak, 90% of Max
|
|
9 |
16.07% |
|
Off-peak, 85% of Max
|
|
8 |
14.29% |
|
Off-peak, 80% of Max
|
|
14 |
25.00% |
|
Off-peak, 75% of Max
|
|
6 |
10.71% |
Something Else (more details please?  )
|
|
2 |
3.57% |
10-04-2005, 15:31
|
#1
|
|
AWOL
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South-East London
Age: 30
Services: Depends who's being serviced :p
Posts: 2,588
|
When Are Slower Than Max Speeds Unacceptable?
What it says really, at what point would you lovely people consider the following options unacceptably slow (please one from each section for peak and off-peak speeds).
__________________
Any Telewest bods please do vote, also ADSL peeps, it's just in this section as it's the busiest
Last edited by Ignition; 10-04-2005 at 15:54.
|
|
|
|
10-04-2005, 15:36
|
#2
|
|
Eric Cartman Wannabe
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cockney geeza land
Age: 27
Services: c:\> net start punky
Posts: 12,086
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Well, you have to allow for the usual overheads, which NTL don't, they advertise theoretical maximum of 0% overheads, which is impossible? 5% overheads are realistic aren't they?
NTL should guarantee at least 15% within the realistic maxmimum, 24/7 so I ticked 20% for both. Anything less than that, it should be ticketed you should get refunds on your bill.
__________________
"We're not here for a long time, we're here for a good time" - Mike Ness (Social Distortion)
"Reach for the sky, 'cause tomorrow may never come" - Reach For The Sky (Social Distortion)
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2005, 15:42
|
#3
|
|
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: /root/
Age: 31
Services: netstat -tula > /home/raistlin/netstat.txt
Posts: 8,158
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Well, you have to allow for the usual overheads, which NTL don't, they advertise theoretical maximum of 0% overheads, which is impossible? 5% overheads are realistic aren't they?
NTL should guarantee at least 15% within the realistic maxmimum, 24/7 so I ticked 20% for both. Anything less than that, it should be ticketed you should get refunds on your bill.
|
What he said 
__________________
Formerly known as 'Raistlin'
For Clarity: Bold = Moderating Decision/Comment :: Normal = My Opinion/Comment
Pausing Live TV and Eating Wotsits
|
|
|
|
10-04-2005, 15:51
|
#4
|
|
Guest
Location: Sale, Cheshire
Services: 10MB Broadband, DTV, Telephone
Posts: n/a
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Perhaps the question should be 'what is considered acceptable' rather than 'what is considered a fault'. Logically, on a 20:1 contended service, anything < 5% is a FAULT, but anything < 80% could be regarded as 'unacceptable', particularly in off-peak time.
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2005, 15:55
|
#5
|
|
AWOL
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South-East London
Age: 30
Services: Depends who's being serviced :p
Posts: 2,588
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnHorb
Perhaps the question should be 'what is considered acceptable' rather than 'what is considered a fault'. Logically, on a 20:1 contended service, anything < 5% is a FAULT, but anything < 80% could be regarded as 'unacceptable', particularly in off-peak time.
|
Duly edited.
I should quantify that I've seen posts on here reporting 85% performance as indicating a fault..
Last edited by Ignition; 10-04-2005 at 16:00.
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2005, 16:21
|
#6
|
|
stringy
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cleethorpes
Age: 55
Services: VM XLplus
Posts: 15,470
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ignition
Duly edited.
I should quantify that I've seen posts on here reporting 85% performance as indicating a fault..
|
hmm - bearing in mind some of us have had speed increases, recently, I was inclined to be charitable, here.
- 75% of 2Mb is still 200% better than the 750Kb I used to have and found 'acceptable' 
__________________
Gaz
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2005, 20:29
|
#7
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leics
Age: 29
Services: none
Posts: 5,638
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Off-peak, 80% of Max
I would expect my isp to be capable of at least that during quiet periods.
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2005, 00:38
|
#8
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Huthwaite, Nottinghamshire
Services: VM 2Mb, VM phone 5p plan, 2xSky+ boxes (Family pack, sports & movies)
Posts: 4,520
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnHorb
Perhaps the question should be 'what is considered acceptable' rather than 'what is considered a fault'. Logically, on a 20:1 contended service, anything < 5% is a FAULT, but anything < 80% could be regarded as 'unacceptable', particularly in off-peak time.
|
I would tend to agree broadly with that although a user could get less than 5% of the theoretical maximum and there may be no fault at all on the NTL side. It could be the users fault entirely, how he has got his system configured and how he is using his connection that is the problem.
Many users think that they have a right to the full 100% speed of their connection and that if they can't achieve this then NTL should improve the infrastructure so that they can. Oh, and NTL should at the same time treble the download speed, at least treble the upload speed and half the cost.
__________________
Please put brain in gear before posting.
There is no such thing as the average man (or woman).
DigiGuide - the best by far source for planning your TV viewing http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=11440
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2005, 01:51
|
#9
|
|
cf.addict
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 455 sk9 7xx
Services: 10mB :) doing nicely
Posts: 452
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Off Peak 95%
Peak 80%
on a correctly configured machine
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2005, 03:04
|
#10
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 1,995
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
This is probably going to sound wrong and not a great help, but personally, less than 100% service i would consider a fault, as in since the start i have had never than less, generally the problems being myself.
Though in heavy areas, I'd expect off peak no less than 95% and for the isp to compensate to about 85% on-peak. If the system can't hold that much, they shold change how the system works or not over-subscribe areas, which obviously in the world of business, is not going to happen.
On the topic, Do ntl actively refuse service in areas knowingly oversubscribed (not talking about saying no to properties not on their db)? Would policy be to get as many as possible and then warn/remove the heaviest users?
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2005, 09:38
|
#11
|
|
Busy Admin
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nottingham
Age: 45
Services: VM Phone : Sky+ Multiroom : VM Cable (20 Mbps)
Posts: 14,475
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Speed is dependant on the intermediate network (outside of ntl) and the far end server. If four or more people are downloading from a server on a 10Mbit connection then they are not going to get 3Mbit each, not matter what ntl's network is like ......
__________________
 Click here for a real, interactive, tv guide.
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2005, 10:58
|
#12
|
|
Five Percenter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Belfast
Age: 33
Services: 10 mb NTL Broadband, Sky TV (full package).
Posts: 309
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
On my 1.5mb connection i ALWAYS got the full 188k (i think that's what it was). Now that i'm on 3mb i get about 355k. For 1.5 that was 100% of the speed i should have been getting. On 3mb i'm about 20k short. I'd consider that reasonable though. I'd say 80% in peak hours is fine, and about 95% (not including overheads) is fine in off-peak.
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2005, 11:59
|
#13
|
|
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: It's Lahndun, Innit?
Age: 37
Services: Virgin for TV, BT for phone and Be* for Broadband.
Posts: 17,451
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul M
Speed is dependant on the intermediate network (outside of ntl) and the far end server. If four or more people are downloading from a server on a 10Mbit connection then they are not going to get 3Mbit each, not matter what ntl's network is like ......
|
That's actually a point I've made a few times myself..
You can have the fastest connection on earth, yet if the server you are accessing (or any of the intermediate "hops" on the data's journery to you) is operating at anywhere near it's full capacity, you will be limited by that.
__________________
Just to make it clear if a post is bold and is from a team member, it's a moderating decision. If it's not bold or not from a team member, it's not.
"This is an important announcement. This is flight 121 to Los Angeles. If your travel plans today do not include Los Angeles, now would be a perfect time to disembark.”
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2005, 19:07
|
#14
|
|
The Best??...Of Course! !
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Higham, Northants
Age: 30
Services: 10MBIT, NTL
Sky Digital
Posts: 144
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
My tick went into the 85% catagory...
The odd day here and there of slower than normal I can live with quite happily.
The problems start when you have days, weeks and in some cases months of poor speeds this is when customers start to get ratty.
Funnily though any and all slow speeds I have had have ALWAYS been with the upload and not download........
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2005, 21:13
|
#15
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Reading
Age: 24
Services: Virgin Media Broadband Size M
Posts: 6,849
|
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
It depends how people are measuring their speed- for example:
- i will be happy with downing 150k on bit torrent
- i will be happy with 300k on a reliable http download source
- i would not be happy with a result less than 250k on robin walkers test site....
Generally speaking though, i would expect a network to be able to provide 75% of the maximum during peak times and 85 at others.
__________________
Chinese Proverb: Man who walks round with hand in pocket feels cocky all day.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:08.
|
Join CF
You are here: 
