PDA

View Full Version : 1mb going slower.


Florence
10-05-2004, 20:08
I have found recently that 1mb is going slower. Tonight is showing just how much slower it is.


Mon, 10 May 2004 18:01:50 GMT
1st 128K took 1142 ms = 114774 Bytes/sec = approx 955 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1142 ms = 114774 Bytes/sec = approx 955 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 4035 ms = 32484 Bytes/sec = approx 270 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1142 ms = 114774 Bytes/sec = approx 955 kbits/sec

kronas
10-05-2004, 20:10
try it a few times kits :)

here is mine

1st 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec

Nikko
10-05-2004, 23:08
try it a few times kits :)

here is mine


similar here

Mon, 10 May 2004 21:06:17 UTC
1st 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec

Defiant
10-05-2004, 23:09
Just reimaged and downloaded sp2 at 101kb/sec. Nothing else using the net either :(

If thats worth £37 they can see my arse

Florence
10-05-2004, 23:22
Mon, 10 May 2004 21:20:37 GMT
1st 128K took 1232 ms = 106390 Bytes/sec = approx 885 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 941 ms = 139290 Bytes/sec = approx 1159 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1102 ms = 118940 Bytes/sec = approx 990 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1041 ms = 125910 Bytes/sec = approx 1048 kbits/sec

Mon, 10 May 2004 21:22:01 GMT
1st 128K took 1102 ms = 118940 Bytes/sec = approx 990 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1101 ms = 119048 Bytes/sec = approx 990 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 3856 ms = 33992 Bytes/sec = approx 283 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1272 ms = 103044 Bytes/sec = approx 857 kbits/sec

I seem to not be able to stay at the faster speeds

TheBlueRaja
10-05-2004, 23:24
Just reimaged and downloaded sp2 at 101kb/sec. Nothing else using the net either :(

If thats worth £37 they can see my arse

Oh, so you pay an extra 12 quid for an extra - what - 31kps over what i get.. (600k)

:Yikes:

See the man above...

markmarkymark
10-05-2004, 23:28
this is my latest :

1st 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec

hmmm £37 and 500 kbits extra (so I hear ?) ...

You know what, I really do ask myself do I really need this speed now - and do I really need another 500kbits .... and do I really need to pay £37. To be honest the novelty is wearing a bit thin now ....

Amrk

TheBlueRaja
10-05-2004, 23:37
Well, your going to get 1.5 mbs pretty soon for the same price, so your actually going to be even quicker.

I would wait until then just to see what you think then.

Florence
11-05-2004, 09:04
this mornings perhaps one of the best I have had for a while.

Tue, 11 May 2004 07:02:04 GMT
1st 128K took 902 ms = 145313 Bytes/sec = approx 1209 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1061 ms = 123536 Bytes/sec = approx 1028 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1092 ms = 120029 Bytes/sec = approx 999 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1041 ms = 125910 Bytes/sec = approx 1048 kbits/sec

dr wadd
11-05-2004, 09:17
Just reimaged and downloaded sp2 at 101kb/sec. Nothing else using the net either :(

If thats worth £37 they can see my arse

I somehow doubt you were the only person on the internet in the entire world at that very time. Using a download of this nature isn`t a good way of testing your connection speed as it will be entirely contingent on what is going on further down the link.

LenMackin
12-05-2004, 00:20
Same here in Warwickshire, my 1mb service is the worst I have ever seen it. Its truly dreadful, particularly web browsing even though I have changed the proxy. Downloaded from Microsoft tonight at 34kb per sec!!! thats less that on a 600 service.

Can't see anything on the serverstats about this.

With the hike to £37 I am now thinking of saving £10 per month and going back to the lower speed.

Neil
12-05-2004, 00:26
I somehow doubt you were the only person on the internet in the entire world at that very time. Using a download of this nature isn`t a good way of testing your connection speed as it will be entirely contingent on what is going on further down the link.

I think what Defiant meant was that no other program on his PC was using the net-not that he was the only person online! ;)

BBKing
12-05-2004, 00:49
Sigh.

Only an extended download from a server known to be able to sustain transfer rates markedly in excess of your rated modem speed will come close to getting a viable result. Robin's speed test is very good for a quick check of speeds, but it is only 500Kbytes of data. At least 10Mbytes of data is required to get an accurate reading, and, for accuracy, repeat it several times.

When rolling out broadband a couple of years ago I generally used an 11Mbyte FTP of a Linux kernel patch archive from sunsite FTP at Imperial College, which I've always known to be capable of extremely high speeds.

Microsoft's website is a) in the USA and b) subject to highly variable loads - after a patch is released it often crawls.

andrew_wallasey
12-05-2004, 10:09
Im getting 120kb/sec no problem here.

http://81.29.70.160/scousetunez/ntldlspeed.jpg

andrew_wallasey
12-05-2004, 10:10
You cant judge the speed of a 1mbit connection very easily just downloading 128K. IMO.

DeadKenny
12-05-2004, 12:03
do I really need to pay £37. To be honest the novelty is wearing a bit thin now ....

That's what I've found.

Apart from the occasional download where by some miracle I get full speed, having looked at my statistics I'm not using anywhere near the 1Mbps capacity for 99% of the time (because I don't download 24/7, most of the time I'm just browsing). The difference between 600 and 1Mbps for browsing is not noticeable. Even playing games, it's nowhere near to the capacity.

Upstream is another matter. Although I don't saturate 256kbps by any means and most of the time it's next to nothing, but because I run a web server, when items are pulled off the server there's a short blip to the 256kbps max and those items download much quicker with 256kbps compared to 128kbps, the latter of which seems to make the web server painfully slow downloading images for some reason.


P.S. If you want a reliable download test, try the RedHat Fedora Core ISOs, either through their FTP/HTTP download mirrors or through their Bittorrent links. I pretty much get them downloading at full speed every time (although Bittorrent starts slow and then quickly builds up to full speed, but can be more reliable than the FTP servers due to the very high availability of sources, plus you're stressing downloads with a high upload bandwidth too).


I suggest using something like PRTG (http://www.paessler.com/prtg) if your Cable Modem supports SNMP, and then you can monitor usage over time and really see just how much you're using and what rate your downloads, browsing and P2P habits come in at. Also handy for spotting downtime 'blibs', such as this strange occurance around midnight :erm: ...

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2004/05/1.png

This was a bittorrent download I think and it ran flat out most of the time, but a little before midnight it started slowing down and then died completely (upstream too), then recovered (though not back to previous levels). Note that 'out' is from the modem to PC (downstream) and 'in' is from PC to modem (upstream). The real download levels never peaked much above 900kbps.

This was one of the rare occasions where I'd done a download maxing out the connection, but I don't think it will make a big difference if I dropped to 750k when it's out (even between 750 and 1.5). As these downloads are still lengthy and generally done overnight, it makes no odds to me whether it takes 1 hour or 2, especially if I can save £12 a month in the process.

Florence
12-05-2004, 21:10
tonights test and looking better again..

Wed, 12 May 2004 19:04:19 GMT
1st 128K took 1172 ms = 111836 Bytes/sec = approx 930 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1061 ms = 123536 Bytes/sec = approx 1028 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1112 ms = 117871 Bytes/sec = approx 981 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1061 ms = 123536 Bytes/sec = approx 1028 kbits/sec

rockabillybass
12-05-2004, 21:46
The service in Newport, South Wales, has been particularly terrible for several weeks and poor for a few months before that. I find that web browsing is the biggest problem. Loading of pages such as the ebay home page is awful. Can take upwards of 30 seconds and often stalls.


I've had broadband for about 3 years. I started on the 600 (was 512 when I had it) but updated to the 1 meg about 18 months ago. A couple of years ago the same pages loaded in 1 or 2 seconds if not quicker. There has been a gradual deterioration in service and speed. This has happened as NTL have signed up more broadband users. They just can't cope with the demand.

I think the network is completely overloaded both locally and nationally. I don't believe that you get an accurate reflection of how quick a connection feels by just measuring the speed of a download. Most of my delays are either DNS server problems or what I think are transparent cache issues.

That's my .02 pence worth.... Rant over,

Cheers,

Martin

Ramrod
12-05-2004, 21:58
For what it's worth, here's my 2 pence worth (SE London):
Wed, 12 May 2004 19:55:06 UTC
1st 128K took 1082 ms = 121139 Bytes/sec = approx 1008 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1061 ms = 123536 Bytes/sec = approx 1028 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1052 ms = 124593 Bytes/sec = approx 1037 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1112 ms = 117871 Bytes/sec = approx 981 kbits/sec

and again:
Wed, 12 May 2004 19:58:30 UTC
1st 128K took 1052 ms = 124593 Bytes/sec = approx 1037 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1081 ms = 121251 Bytes/sec = approx 1009 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1072 ms = 122269 Bytes/sec = approx 1017 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1051 ms = 124712 Bytes/sec = approx 1038 kbits/sec

John S
12-05-2004, 22:46
I upgraded from 150k to 600k when CS phoned me saying the first month would be free but they still charged me.
My homepage took 2 and a half minutes to load tonight.
I have been told on here that there are no problems with the Cwmbwrla UBR well that is hard to believe when my connection runs fast in the morning and takes 2 and a half minutes to load the homepage tonight.
I think the only way I am going to be convinced that its not NTL and my UBR is to go back to BT and let them have the £600+ a year of my hard earned cash instead.
BTW a friend in work has already dumped NTL on principle for direct debiting him an extra £20 for the free upgrade but I didnt hoping it would be worthwhile but the reverse is the case as its now slower than ever.
Im furious at NTL's treatment of its long term customers Ive been here for over 5 years hoping it would improve continually giving NTL the benefit of the doubt like a fool.


John S.

LenMackin
13-05-2004, 00:34
Well I tried again tonight, following on from posts earlier in this thread i visited the Imperial College SUNSITE servers and downloaded a 12mb file from THEIR server - best i got was 65kb and it averaged 55kb. Something is wrong somewhere.

I am going to take a look at downgrading to the 600 service, save myself £120 per year then review my ISP - ADSL seems to be providing cheaper (and faster) options.

rockabillybass
13-05-2004, 08:15
I have been told on here that there are no problems with the Cwmbwrla UBR well that is hard to believe when my connection runs fast in the morning and takes 2 and a half minutes to load the homepage tonight.


Same in Newport. 5pm to 10pm Monday to Friday, the service is unusable. Same at weekends. Great at 6.00 am though..

Ian-Highlander
13-05-2004, 09:24
Thu, 13 May 2004 07:20:54 UTC
1st 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec

Taken at 8.30 in the morning. Spot on, I've never had any problems with mine at all other than the normal web cache problem which changing to another one almost always resolves instantly. Downloads are always a constant 125 - 130kbps

John S
13-05-2004, 10:30
Hi Rockabillybass,
Your problems mirror mine almost exactly as I also mainly browse and use Ebay etc. Its OK this morning but from 630pm until 1130pm its all over the place with interminable slowdowns. I agree entirely with you that the problem is oversubscription and overloaded servers and UBR's. Ntl have doubled ther user base but have they doubled their servers and UBR capacity not likely so long term customers can see the results on their screens.

John S.

Neil
13-05-2004, 10:36
Hi Rockabillybass,
Your problems mirror mine almost exactly as I also mainly browse and use Ebay etc. Its OK this morning but from 630pm until 1130pm its all over the place with interminable slowdowns. I agree entirely with you that the problem is oversubscription and overloaded servers and UBR's. Ntl have doubled ther user base but have they doubled their servers and UBR capacity not likely so long term customers can see the results on their screens.

John S.

Pretty much sums it up. :td:

Stuart
13-05-2004, 13:17
Just a little, thing, but has anyone who has reported problems in this thread (slow browsing etc.) actually *talked* to NTL about it? Oversubscribed UBRs are *one* possible reason for slow networking, badly configured proxies are another but there can be many reasons for the slow network.

If the problem is local to certain users, it is entirely possible that NTL may be unaware of it. If they are aware of the problem, they may or may not fix it. If they are not aware of the problem they will almost certainly not fix it.

Chris W
13-05-2004, 13:25
Hi Rockabillybass,
Your problems mirror mine almost exactly as I also mainly browse and use Ebay etc. Its OK this morning but from 630pm until 1130pm its all over the place with interminable slowdowns. I agree entirely with you that the problem is oversubscription and overloaded servers and UBR's. Ntl have doubled ther user base but have they doubled their servers and UBR capacity not likely so long term customers can see the results on their screens.

John S.

PM me the mac address of your modem and i will have a look at this for you.

There are no problems with the cwmbrula UBR and i am on it as well and browsing and d/ling fine. It is most likely to be the proxy server that you are using or something on your pc using the bandwidth, but if you send me your mac address i will have a look at everything on the network side of things for you.

MB

John S
13-05-2004, 16:40
Hi Monkey breath I already posted my modem address last month but was sent a letter to phone which I did during the storm on Monday when the Net and TV wend down and it seemed like a good time.
The problem is not now its between 6pm and midnight when most users are online.
I am almost certainly on the Swanet proxy as I changed to the Belfast proxy last year but is was OK for a day then back to square one.
I tried the settings as suggested last month OK until the following day then back to square one.
An engineer came out last year and checked my modem and said it was OK when it took over a minute to load the NTL homepage, last night it took 2mins 45seconds, an hour later it was OK. I was on 150k now Im on 600k.
Its not my computer either as Ive got a notebook alongside and the performance is identical.
Ive got no complaints with CS or TS as recently Ive got through in less than 5 minutes and staff have been very helpful.
Im grateful to you for trying but at 7 tonight when it slows down and is all over the place again Ill try to believe its not NTL nor the Cwmbwrla UBR.

John S.

BBKing
13-05-2004, 16:52
monkeybreath, remember that you can be on the same UBR and have considerably different browsing experiences depending on which downstream/upstream channels you're on. Is John S on the same upstream you are?

rockabillybass
13-05-2004, 17:14
It is most likely to be the proxy server that you are using


I changed from "Cardiff 1" proxy to "Bristol 1" about 10.00pm last night. There is a noticeable improvement so far.

Martin

Chris W
13-05-2004, 18:03
monkeybreath, remember that you can be on the same UBR and have considerably different browsing experiences depending on which downstream/upstream channels you're on. Is John S on the same upstream you are?

true enough... i dont know which upsteam john s is on yet cos i haven't got his details, but all of the issues with the cwbrula router that were going on in september time last year have been resolved and i haven't heard of any problems with it since then.

My first guess is that it is a proxy issue.

timewarrior2001
13-05-2004, 18:39
1Mb service on NTL is a touch flakey, sometimes its spot on other times it leaves a lot to be desired.


OT bit

At work i thought i'd do a speed test..........Get ready.......

Thu, 13 May 2004 16:38:26 UTC
1st 128K took 21 ms = 6241524 Bytes/sec = approx 51929 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec

John S
13-05-2004, 19:51
Hi,

I just got home from work Email is down no messages after 2 timeouts of a minute web is up and working OK so far, think it will be the other way round in an hour so Ill be able to read my Email when the connection slows.

John S.

Florence
14-05-2004, 18:26
After a visit from Bill C I have now taken this speed test

Fri, 14 May 2004 16:22:55 GMT
1st 128K took 1071 ms = 122383 Bytes/sec = approx 1018 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1061 ms = 123536 Bytes/sec = approx 1028 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1072 ms = 122269 Bytes/sec = approx 1017 kbits/sec

Thanks Bill for sorting out the connection after being told there is nothing wrong with my connection on after calling in. NTL we need more like Bill to save your customers from giving up and moving over to ADSL.

Paul
14-05-2004, 21:16
Thu, 13 May 2004 16:38:26 UTC
1st 128K took 21 ms = 6241524 Bytes/sec = approx 51929 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec

Show off :Peace:

Xtrm2Matt
14-05-2004, 21:49
How do i do a speed test such as this? :D

paulyoung666
14-05-2004, 21:51
1Mb service on NTL is a touch flakey, sometimes its spot on other times it leaves a lot to be desired.


OT bit

At work i thought i'd do a speed test..........Get ready.......

Thu, 13 May 2004 16:38:26 UTC
1st 128K took 21 ms = 6241524 Bytes/sec = approx 51929 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec


bluddy hell are you plugged straight into the pipe or what :Yikes: :disturbd: :Yikes: :D :D :D

kronas
14-05-2004, 21:53
How do i do a speed test such as this? :D

click on the link below:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html

Xtrm2Matt
14-05-2004, 22:01
Fri, 14 May 2004 20:01:49 UTC
1st 128K took 1031 ms = 127131 Bytes/sec = approx 1058 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec


Thanks :D

kronas
14-05-2004, 22:02
no problem, looking good for the 1meg service :)

Chrysalis
14-05-2004, 23:08
ahhh gotta love nottingham proxies

test without going through my own proxy server

Fri, 14 May 2004 21:06:22 UTC
1st 128K took 1522 ms = 84645 Bytes/sec = approx 704 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1341 ms = 94432 Bytes/sec = approx 786 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1662 ms = 72825 Bytes/sec = approx 610 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1300 ms = 99476 Bytes/sec = approx 826 kbits/sec

through my proxy server

Fri, 14 May 2004 21:12:34 UTC
1st 128K took 1152 ms = 113778 Bytes/sec = approx 947 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1101 ms = 119048 Bytes/sec = approx 990 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1082 ms = 121139 Bytes/sec = approx 1008 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1051 ms = 124712 Bytes/sec = approx 1038 kbits/sec

John S
14-05-2004, 23:21
Hi Monkeybreath,
As you are on the Cwmbwrla UBR is your Email working because mine isnt.
If yours is down as well I suggest the bloke who went home for the weekend and turned off the server to turn it back on LOL.

John.

Paul
14-05-2004, 23:22
ahhh gotta love nottingham proxies

Yep - you certainly have :)

Fri, 14 May 2004 21:20:24 UTC
1st 128K took 1016 ms = 129008 Bytes/sec = approx 1073 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1047 ms = 125188 Bytes/sec = approx 1042 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1032 ms = 127008 Bytes/sec = approx 1057 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec

Rarely see anything below 1000 kbits/sec. :D

Chris W
15-05-2004, 00:07
Hi Monkeybreath,
As you are on the Cwmbwrla UBR is your Email working because mine isnt.
If yours is down as well I suggest the bloke who went home for the weekend and turned off the server to turn it back on LOL.

John.

my email is working fine at the moment mate... haven't had any problems with email for quite a long time (fingers crossed, now i am tempting fate!)

Chrysalis
15-05-2004, 01:58
just ran it again speeds are normal now, they are very on and off. Pem are you in nottingham because since you dont have problems yourself I am wondering if they just work better for local users.

Nikko
15-05-2004, 02:05
just ran it again speeds are normal now, they are very on and off. Pem are you in nottingham because since you dont have problems yourself I am wondering if they just work better for local users.


You join the network locally in LE* this routes to LE central which relays it to Nottingham which relays it to the backbone which routes via all sorts of unheard of places via dynamic switching - Pem's/my/your routing will be different despite us being not that far away.

Have you called TS? it sounds like a Local/UBR issue.

John S
17-05-2004, 15:32
I just got home from work Email is down again.
Got it working after trying about 5 times but no messages.
I sent a message to myself and guess what it went down again.
Then it came back sent my message but nothing in the inbox.
Tried the above again down again now its back now its down now its back no messages. What is the point in pretending something is working when its not. No messages when obviously there should be for over 12 hours cant Email myself either.
Is this my connection or my computer on my UBR or NTL's Email server.

John S.

John S
17-05-2004, 16:26
Just Emailed myself and got the message back so its working again but what about the last 12 hours including those to myself.

I think I could run a server provided I didnt take on more customers than the server could handle as Id have to be selective about who I provided a service. Id expect to get Advertising Standards on my back then but if I got big enough I could ignore them.

John S.

Paul
17-05-2004, 17:48
just ran it again speeds are normal now, they are very on and off. Pem are you in nottingham because since you dont have problems yourself I am wondering if they just work better for local users.

Yes I am - which is why I suggested in a previous post somewhere that the problem must be LE - NG connectivity as the cache servers themselves do not have the problems you are experiencing.

homealone
17-05-2004, 18:29
Yes I am - which is why I suggested in a previous post somewhere that the problem must be LE - NG connectivity as the cache servers themselves do not have the problems you are experiencing.

my experience tends to confirm that, as I am also cached via Nottingham & connect through the Grimsby UBR and I have not noticed any problems :)

John S
18-05-2004, 10:17
Emaildown again this morning .
Web down at first but now working but over a minute to load my homepage.
What on earth is going on.

John.

John S
18-05-2004, 10:28
Email still down, Ntl homepage down, but the web is up think this is an indicator to find another ISP.
Rollout Telewest cant wait.

John S.

poolking
18-05-2004, 12:17
Email still down, Ntl homepage down, but the web is up think this is an indicator to find another ISP.
Rollout Telewest cant wait.

John S.
That would be a little difficult, don't you think, considering you are in an NTL area? ;)

Paul
18-05-2004, 14:23
NTL Homepage down ?

John S
18-05-2004, 20:40
Tonight Email is so slow its unreal timeout after timeout then finally it works. This is not new its been the same on and off for over a year.
The NTL homepage fails to load it was the same last year when NTL said the homepage was unavailable as the site was busy. Then the whole thing went down for 24 hours at a time with no service whatsoever.
If Telewest take over NTL or there is a merger as predicted then things might get better. Telewest have apparently brought forward their increased speeds etc NTL are sitting back doing nothing as they always seem to do except advertise and ask people to upgrade and then when I do upgrade the service has got worse.
The last 2 days have been unreliable undependable and almost useless.

John S

paulyoung666
18-05-2004, 21:09
NTL Homepage down ?


cant get it from teesside :(

John S
18-05-2004, 22:35
Enough is enough,
Im dumping NTL tomorrow.
There is no way they deserve £600+ a year from me.
5 years+ of NTL incompetence is enough for anyone.
Bye John S.

Florence
18-05-2004, 22:53
I have taken another speed test and its looking more like the old speeds.

Tue, 18 May 2004 20:53:52 GMT
1st 128K took 1082 ms = 121139 Bytes/sec = approx 1008 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1051 ms = 124712 Bytes/sec = approx 1038 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1081 ms = 121251 Bytes/sec = approx 1009 kbits/sec

kronas
19-05-2004, 00:50
me tonight :)

1st 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec

ok their cs and tech support are crap but i love their service :D

Tezcatlipoca
19-05-2004, 01:44
ok their cs and tech support are crap but i love their service :D

Not all of them! ;) :)

Oh, & don't forget the crap email servers, the crap news servers, the crap proxies, the....;)

But yeah, the service isn't too bad :D (if you're lucky)



My results from just now (1Mb service, Cambridge)

RDHW's speed test:

1st 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1047 ms = 125188 Bytes/sec = approx 1042 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec

Dan Elwell's speed test:

(from http://www.broadbandspeedtest.net/)


Section 3: Download Speed Results
Three downloads are tested; one from one of your ISPs servers, one through your Transparent Cache and one through an alterntive cache. This will give you an idea of how capable your connection is. Note: You should take the highest download speed into account.

ntl:World - 1Mb service Server Download:
114KB/s (912Kb/s) - Average, though much higher should be achieved

Download through Transparent Cache:
118KB/s (944Kb/s) - Perfect - running at full speed!

Download through alternative Cache (cache4-brnt.server.ntli.net):
113KB/s (904Kb/s) - Average, though much higher should be achieved

Nikko
19-05-2004, 02:44
Not all of them! ;) :)

Oh, & don't forget the crap email servers, the crap news servers, the crap proxies, the....;)

But yeah, the service isn't too bad :D (if you're lucky)



My results from just now (1Mb service, Cambridge)

RDHW's speed test:

1st 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1047 ms = 125188 Bytes/sec = approx 1042 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec

Dan Elwell's speed test:

(from http://www.broadbandspeedtest.net/)

Ok here's mine:

Wed, 19 May 2004 00:42:39 UTC
1st 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec



Section 3: Download Speed Results
Three downloads are tested; one from one of your ISPs servers, one through your Transparent Cache and one through an alterntive cache. This will give you an idea of how capable your connection is. Note: You should take the highest download speed into account.

ntl:World - 1Mb service Server Download:
119KB/s (952Kb/s) - Perfect - running at full speed!

Download through Transparent Cache:
120KB/s (960Kb/s) - Perfect - running at full speed!

Download through alternative Cache (webcache.verynaughty.co.uk):
999KB/s (1 million Kb/s) - Blimey thats a bit swift you will have ntl on yer case :eek:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

kronas
19-05-2004, 03:46
Not all of them! ;) :)

Oh, & don't forget the crap email servers, the crap news servers, the crap proxies, the....;)

But yeah, the service isn't too bad :D (if you're lucky)


yep your right, no disrespect to anyone who actually does a good job people like monkeybreath are unsung heroes, its just others who are 'not up to par' with the service levels required for these positions i mentioned earlier that i have come across ALOT :erm:

Florence
19-05-2004, 17:48
Just completed another speed test
ntlhome 120
Downstream Receive Power Level : -0.51 dBmv
Downstream SNR : 33.74 dB
Upstream Transmit Power Level : 55.75 dBmv

and the speeds are
Wed, 19 May 2004 15:42:43 GMT
1st 128K took 1382 ms = 94842 Bytes/sec = approx 789 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1121 ms = 116924 Bytes/sec = approx 973 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1071 ms = 122383 Bytes/sec = approx 1018 kbits/sec