View Full Version : 300/64 To 150/150 or equivalent allowed ?
Hi, im an avid online gamer, and as such do not need tremendous download speeds such as 700k etc, only a nice ping and decent upload to send enough packets for a low ping.
Currently Im on 300/64 and basically when quaking online I have to limit the amount of packets i can send using cl_maxpackets 30 in quake3 game as the upload speed is far too low. This in turn doesnt allow me to get a lowest real draw ping possible, and clan mates from NL etc get a better ping than me to uk game servers such as Jolt.co.uk.
Is it possible to decrease the download from 300 in order so I can have an upload of at least 128k, as this is most efficient for me ?
Regards.
poolking
26-09-2004, 12:49
Sorry I don't think it works that way, someone with more knowledge will be able to tell you in more detail.
To Get 128 'up' you would need to upgrade to 750
quadplay
26-09-2004, 15:11
Sorry, the ntl home broadband packages come in three flavours only: 300/64, 750/128 and 1536/256. You can't customise them I'm afraid. The business packages can provide synchronous connections (where the upstream is the same as the download), but they tend to be more expensive.
paulyoung666
26-09-2004, 15:17
the other option would to be to go adsl 512/256 if you can get adsl of course :erm: :D
Ignition
26-09-2004, 15:19
Hi, im an avid online gamer, and as such do not need tremendous download speeds such as 700k etc, only a nice ping and decent upload to send enough packets for a low ping.
Currently Im on 300/64 and basically when quaking online I have to limit the amount of packets i can send using cl_maxpackets 30 in quake3 game as the upload speed is far too low. This in turn doesnt allow me to get a lowest real draw ping possible, and clan mates from NL etc get a better ping than me to uk game servers such as Jolt.co.uk.
Is it possible to decrease the download from 300 in order so I can have an upload of at least 128k, as this is most efficient for me ?
Regards.
Hrm, a blokey I know on the 300k gets superb pings to jolt on SoF2 (Q3 engine) sub-10ms, and bandwidth should be irrelevant to how quickly each datagram gets there.
Recheck them settings, upload speed of 64kbit is MORE THAN satisfactory for Q3, the game was produced when narrowband was still 'the norm' and even with 256k upstream I find the game only uses 24kbit of upstream most of the time.
Which system - ex C&W or original NTL?
CM or STB?
In ex-C&W, Pace 1000 STB, it seems to be 300/128
All STB copper service is 128k up. Don't ask me why (because I don't know, oddly enough, except that it's an artefact from about 1999).
bigitup_j
28-09-2004, 15:24
i'd say it does that, because the interactive needs 128k upload. just like interactive ran at 256k (so stb customers had 256k when they were on 150k)
that's my thinking :D
My nan is with Tiscali and gets 150 down and 256 up!
Maybe worth a look, as its only 17.99 a month :)
Ignition
28-09-2004, 17:49
My nan is with Tiscali and gets 150 down and 256 up!
Maybe worth a look, as its only 17.99 a month :)
Or maybe not as
a) Pings and bandwidth are nothing to do with each other, especially on cable
b) Tiscali's record as an ISP is appauling - check their ADSLGuide forum
c) ntl's latency will beat Tiscali's 99 times out of 100.
:)
The guy was asking about a greater upload speed, I told him about a service that provides it. I apologize for answering the posters question :rolleyes:
Ignition
28-09-2004, 23:26
Currently Im on 300/64 and basically when quaking online I have to limit the amount of packets i can send using cl_maxpackets 30 in quake3 game as the upload speed is far too low. This in turn doesnt allow me to get a lowest real draw ping possible, and clan mates from NL etc get a better ping than me to uk game servers such as Jolt.co.uk.
*Sigh* and he is under the impression this higher upload speed will improve his pings on quake 3, which it will not.
I apologise for daring to disagree with you even though you didn't read his post properly / don't understand why higher uploads are useless / recommend ****e ISPs with appauling records for customer service, speeds and latency. :rolleyes:
I was rushed at the time of posting and didn't have time to flower my response up with crap and just stuck to the facts - sorry if this offends however there's far too much crap flying about how great ADSL and certain providers are, check my corrections to Dr Awesome's all knowing (copy/pasted or completely inaccurate) ADSL thread or any of the other crap flowing on this forum about ADSL, there's tons of misinformation.
To be honest I think the powers that be should consider chucking the ADSL section and replacing it with a link to http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk, that way won't have people putting down as gospel that exchanges with ADSL get better reach by having DSLAMs added, that USB uses PPPoA and ethernet routers PPPoE, etc, nor that Bulldog are great.
Finally I'll repeat again, Q3 packets are of 200-ish bytes in size, most servers only accept ~ 30 updates/sec (the fps switch in the server config) so 200 x 30 - 6kB which is comfortably within the upload cap. The big data transfers are downstream when it gets hectic with loads of players on. Q3 works low pinging on all ntl tiers, and on 64k ISDN, and if OP is concerned about his pings I would have been happy to have a look at his connection and see what's up.
I'll sod off where I'm not criticised for daring to criticise one of the golden b0llocks crew - frankly the pro-DSL tone from certain moderators along with the BS misinformation that thrives and anti-ntl slant placed on various news stories is tiresome, fighting a losing battle is boring, I'll stick to working hard for customers behind the scenes, as I get it thrown in my face on here.
<snip>
Would you like me to call someone to help you untwist your knickers? :erm:
The guy asked about a service with a greater upload speed, I told him of one. Nothing more nothing less, if you want to look down your nose at someone for not knowing that upload doesn't equal better pings then have a go at the original poster, after all we shouldn't be so dumb!
If you're going to have an attitude every time you post then maybe it's time I stuck you on ignore, I don't come here to read posts about how dumb we all are and how our opinions don't matter, life's too short. :)
Edit - Thinking about it, when we last had Ntl DTV (that worked) they were advertising on channelNtl that people who wanted to game should have the 1Mbit service as it has the best upload for better pings, more people for you to scowl at. :dozey:
poolking
28-09-2004, 23:51
Ignition,
I think you'd better go and chill out.
?
The chap asked:
Is it possible to decrease the download from 300 in order so I can have an upload of at least 128k, as this is most efficient for me ?
So he wasn't asking for a service with better upload speed, he was asking if he could swap some download for upload in order to play Q3 better, to which the answer is no, it doesn't work like that. Ig is perfectly correct to state that changing upload speed doesn't affect latency on the same connection, and certainly shouldn't be slated for pointing out an actual fact. He also offered to investigate why the OP was getting poor performance, which should also be applauded.
He should, however, drop a note to the channel ntl people setting them right on some aspects of their production, although considering I'm more TV orientated, perhaps I should.
He also offered to investigate why the OP was getting poor performance, which should also be applauded.
No one was detracting from the good in his post, but was there really a need for a rant on how dumb the rest of us are? At the end of the day the guy/gal was inquiring about getting a better upload, I told him/her about a service that has just that, I cant honestly say I deserved a barrage of abuse like I got from JAN :erm: :(
He should, however, drop a note to the channel ntl people setting them right on some aspects of their production, although considering I'm more TV orientated, perhaps I should.
BB do you honestly think the PR people would care, no matter which company it was they would just be interested in making more money, not telling the whole truth :(
Ignition
29-09-2004, 21:00
*sigh* I could point out which of us got stroppy initially because he was disagreed with but that's quite a pointless exercise.
I answered the question asked, dispelled what I and others believe to be incorrect, and will continue to, frankly I don't care if I offended you I told it like it is and you took offense at that. If you have an issue with people disagreeing with you either create your own forum or hide somewhere you can make like a sheep, acquire rep points kissing ass, and be popular.
As I repeatedly said the guy was looking for a lower ping and mistakenly believed that higher upstream would provide this.
Re: Tiscali, http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=tiscali
Oooh look as of now the front page of that forum has 3 threads complaining of poor speeds, one complaining of poor latency, two celebrating leaving Tiscali, one questioning port blocking on port 25, oh and just the one asking questions rather than complaining. Quality ISP. Check the sticky threads out too:
Slow connection/other problem checklist
Contacting Tiscali
Tiscali are going by those posts and others in that forum and numerous others crap. Simple as.
Increasing upload doesn't improve latency particularly on any medium for gaming and specifically not on cable.
By all means put me on ignore if I don't appeal to your sensitive disposition, go back to free chat or wherever it is you accumulated most of those 2,500+ posts and to the more appreciative audience there competing for the big rep points.
Nothing personal of course, I try to be nasty to everyone who disagrees / argues with me talking BS equally.
Incidentally I have emailled the PR types regarding the issue of bandwidth and pings, will see what occurs from this, as it's really incorrect selling.
Incidentally I have emailled the PR types regarding the issue of bandwidth and pings, will see what occurs from this, as it's really incorrect selling.
Probably do as much good as your intervention here. (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showpost.php?p=294429&postcount=16) :erm: :rolleyes:
........By all means put me on ignore........
:rolleyes:
Your wish is my command, like I said I don't come here to be belittled or bullied. :sleep:
BB do you honestly think the PR people would care, no matter which company it was they would just be interested in making more money, not telling the whole truth
It's worth trying. Incidentally, I can't see where Ig called anyone 'dumb' - 'golden-bo11ocked' and purveyors of 'crap' are the terms he used, we can discuss the truth or otherwise of them, if you like. I don't necessarily agree with his analysis, but at least criticise him for something he actually said.
BB, My interpretation of his comments were that you should keep your mouth shut if you don't know the definitive answer on something. If we all did that all of the time the world would be a very quiet place.
I thought this was a discussion board where all were welcome to express their opinions, obviously this part of the forum isn't so I'll try not to stray over here too often 'cos I can do without the hassle :(
" 'golden-bo11ocked' and purveyors of 'crap' are the terms he used"
Thats alright then :rolleyes: To be frank BB I'm not one bit bothered about his posts, if he wants to belittle people in his posts then let him, I won't be reading them.
*Goes off to find these magical golden bo11ocked people you all keep on about. :wavey:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.