View Full Version : [Merged] Speed Tests
I thought i'd create this thread so people can keep it in one thread.
Post your speed tests at different times of the day, because this slow sh*t speeds in the evenings when i use it most is wrong, it never used to be like this.
State what service you're on (example 10Mbps) and what area you are in (example North West London)
Im in NW London & on the 10Mbps service
Sat, 9 Sep 2006 19:49:15 UTC
1st 512K took 14765 ms = 34.7 KB/sec, approx 286 Kbps, 0.28 Mbps
2nd 512K took 11125 ms = 46 KB/sec, approx 379 Kbps, 0.37 Mbps
3rd 512K took 15719 ms = 32.6 KB/sec, approx 269 Kbps, 0.26 Mbps
4th 512K took 16250 ms = 31.5 KB/sec, approx 260 Kbps, 0.25 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 299 Kbps, 0.29 Mbps
---------- Post added at 21:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:53 ----------
I've been told by technical support that there is planned upgrades in my area between 8th September - 16th September which will result in either loss of service of a heavily downgraded service.
Call 0800 052 4315 to find out if you're on the list of this upgrades which are causing issues, i come under Barnet on the list he reads out.
The speedtest's been going for 9minutes here... something tells me it's not that reliable...
EDIT:
Doncaster, TW 4Mb line...
Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:16:10 GMT
1st 512K took 26782 ms = 19.1 KB/sec, approx 157 Kbps, 0.15 Mbps
2nd 512K took 16172 ms = 31.7 KB/sec, approx 261 Kbps, 0.25 Mbps
3rd 512K took 18468 ms = 27.7 KB/sec, approx 228 Kbps, 0.22 Mbps
4th 512K took 19657 ms = 26 KB/sec, approx 214 Kbps, 0.21 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 215 Kbps, 0.21 Mbps
homealone
09-09-2006, 21:36
Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:30:27 GMT
1st 512K took 1252 ms = 408.9 KB/sec, approx 3369 Kbps, 3.29 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1703 ms = 300.6 KB/sec, approx 2477 Kbps, 2.42 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1422 ms = 360.1 KB/sec, approx 2967 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
4th 512K took 1492 ms = 343.2 KB/sec, approx 2828 Kbps, 2.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2910 Kbps, 2.84 Mbps
That is 4meg with Zonealarm running, which is known to reduce overall speed.
Cleethorpes is DN35 usually proxied through Nottingham - although proxies are currently (still) turned off, according to 'connection' link on here ;)
zing_deleted
09-09-2006, 21:41
10 meg with multithreaded download manager off easynews 24 hours a day pretty much every day unless theres problems
Check if you're on the list for planned network upgrades which will cause these slow speeds:
http://www.ntl-isp.ntl.com/ServiceStatus/ServiceDetails.aspx?FaultID=560
monkey2468
10-09-2006, 00:21
10Mb. Speed very rarely differ from max, but will do a speed test at a few peak times to see what I get. To be honest, I get little issues with connection speeds, more issue with proxy speed at peak times, ie excellent, reliable download speeds, but awful http at peak times (every now and again).
Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:18:33 UTC
1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9650 Kbps, 9.42 Mbps
hmm. I have just done this speed test at 00:18, but the speed test says 23:18, someone forgot to change to BST?:D
Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:30:11 UTC
1st 512K took 516 ms = 992.2 KB/sec, approx 8176 Kbps, 7.98 Mbps
2nd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
3rd 512K took 468 ms = 1094 KB/sec, approx 9015 Kbps, 8.8 Mbps
4th 512K took 532 ms = 962.4 KB/sec, approx 7930 Kbps, 7.74 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8529 Kbps, 8.33 Mbps
Yes, someone forgot to change the time, speed test was done at 00.30
The speed has shot up, thats a big difference from the evening speed test
bargepole
11-09-2006, 19:31
Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:46:28 UTC
1st 512K took 9875 ms = 51.8 KB/sec, approx 427 Kbps, 0.42 Mbps
2nd 512K took 9796 ms = 52.3 KB/sec, approx 431 Kbps, 0.42 Mbps
3rd 512K took 7312 ms = 70 KB/sec, approx 577 Kbps, 0.56 Mbps
4th 512K took 6859 ms = 74.6 KB/sec, approx 615 Kbps, 0.6 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 513 Kbps, 0.5 Mbps
time zones around the world are expressed as positive or negative offsets from UTC. utc-1= brit summer time
Fleetwood Mac
11-09-2006, 20:37
Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:31:19 GMT
1st 512K took 7668 ms = 66.8 KB/sec, approx 550 Kbps, 0.54 Mbps
2nd 512K took 7664 ms = 66.8 KB/sec, approx 550 Kbps, 0.54 Mbps
3rd 512K took 13600 ms = 37.6 KB/sec, approx 310 Kbps, 0.3 Mbps
4th 512K took 10052 ms = 50.9 KB/sec, approx 419 Kbps, 0.41 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 457 Kbps, 0.45 Mbps
This is on a 4 meg service,
Note dictionary definition of "service": "provide a service or services" !
Even with my fixed Router... This is quite the shock!
Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:39:26 GMT
1st 512K took 2390 ms = 214.2 KB/sec, approx 1765 Kbps, 1.72 Mbps
2nd 512K took 6562 ms = 78 KB/sec, approx 643 Kbps, 0.63 Mbps
3rd 512K took 9734 ms = 52.6 KB/sec, approx 433 Kbps, 0.42 Mbps
4th 512K took 3437 ms = 149 KB/sec, approx 1228 Kbps, 1.2 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1017 Kbps, 0.99 Mbps
Doncaster, TW, 4Mb.
dcclanuk
11-09-2006, 21:27
North West London,
Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:26:26 UTC
1st 512K took 703 ms = 728.3 KB/sec, approx 6001 Kbps, 5.86 Mbps
2nd 512K took 532 ms = 962.4 KB/sec, approx 7930 Kbps, 7.74 Mbps
3rd 512K took 718 ms = 713.1 KB/sec, approx 5876 Kbps, 5.74 Mbps
4th 512K took 594 ms = 862 KB/sec, approx 7103 Kbps, 6.94 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 6728 Kbps, 6.57 Mbps
oh i am on 10mb btw...
North West London (Edgware) - 10Mbps
Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:29:20 UTC
1st 512K took 4000 ms = 128 KB/sec, approx 1055 Kbps, 1.03 Mbps
2nd 512K took 6890 ms = 74.3 KB/sec, approx 612 Kbps, 0.6 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3141 ms = 163 KB/sec, approx 1343 Kbps, 1.31 Mbps
4th 512K took 5172 ms = 99 KB/sec, approx 816 Kbps, 0.8 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 957 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
I also can't get signed into Windows Live Messenger (Says my defauly gateway is offline, whatever that means)
11.34am - it's always in the morning that it is a good speed...
1st 512K took 547 ms = 936 KB/sec, approx 7713 Kbps, 7.53 Mbps
2nd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
3rd 512K took 454 ms = 1127.8 KB/sec, approx 9293 Kbps, 9.08 Mbps
4th 512K took 468 ms = 1094 KB/sec, approx 9015 Kbps, 8.8 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8834 Kbps, 8.63 Mbps
LemonyBrainAid
12-09-2006, 14:03
Absolutely fine here... Guildford on 4MB leeching giganews...
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:01:47 GMT
1st 512K took 1015 ms = 504.4 KB/sec, approx 4156 Kbps, 4.06 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1047 ms = 489 KB/sec, approx 4029 Kbps, 3.93 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1110 ms = 461.3 KB/sec, approx 3801 Kbps, 3.71 Mbps
4th 512K took 1062 ms = 482.1 KB/sec, approx 3973 Kbps, 3.88 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3990 Kbps, 3.89 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1158066112335).
Cheadle, SK8, 1 Mbps
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:01:19 GMT
1st 512K took 8250 ms = 62.1 KB/sec, approx 512 Kbps, 0.5 Mbps
2nd 512K took 15282 ms = 33.5 KB/sec, approx 276 Kbps, 0.27 Mbps
3rd 512K took 14859 ms = 34.5 KB/sec, approx 284 Kbps, 0.28 Mbps
4th 512K took 10203 ms = 50.2 KB/sec, approx 414 Kbps, 0.4 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 372 Kbps, 0.36 Mbps
By the way, http://www.broadbandspeedtest.net/ gives similar results.
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:56:23 UTC
1st 512K took 4340 ms = 118 KB/sec, approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4290 ms = 119.3 KB/sec, approx 983 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4830 ms = 106 KB/sec, approx 873 Kbps, 0.85 Mbps
4th 512K took 4280 ms = 119.6 KB/sec, approx 986 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 954 Kbps, 0.93 Mbps
I am in Leeds on the 1 meg
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/17.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Leeds on 4mb
SNAKEKIL
12-09-2006, 17:26
Ok, its 1725hrs tues.. in the BN area.
Your Connection
Speed Test Results
Downstream1,770.4 Kbps( = 1.7 Mbps ) Upstream375.3 Kbps( = 0.4 Mbps ) And i am surposed to be on 4mg... lol:td:
scoobydoo[uk]
12-09-2006, 18:33
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:30:20 GMT
1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 468 ms = 1094 KB/sec, approx 9015 Kbps, 8.8 Mbps
3rd 512K took 485 ms = 1055.7 KB/sec, approx 8699 Kbps, 8.5 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9256 Kbps, 9.04 Mbps
Its never been this fast at 6.30pm before... im sure it will all go downhill soon!.
Fleetwood Mac
12-09-2006, 19:15
Still a load of rubbish on the Wirral!!!
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:12:18 GMT
1st 512K took 7935 ms = 64.5 KB/sec, approx 531 Kbps, 0.52 Mbps
2nd 512K took 11832 ms = 43.3 KB/sec, approx 357 Kbps, 0.35 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4917 ms = 104.1 KB/sec, approx 858 Kbps, 0.84 Mbps
4th 512K took 6391 ms = 80.1 KB/sec, approx 660 Kbps, 0.64 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 602 Kbps, 0.59 Mbps
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:08:57 GMT
1st 512K took 2891 ms = 177.1 KB/sec, approx 1459 Kbps, 1.42 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3375 ms = 151.7 KB/sec, approx 1250 Kbps, 1.22 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3562 ms = 143.7 KB/sec, approx 1184 Kbps, 1.16 Mbps
4th 512K took 3016 ms = 169.8 KB/sec, approx 1399 Kbps, 1.37 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1323 Kbps, 1.29 Mbps
Crap, im on 4mb.
For anyone getting bad results on the Cable Forum speed test you might want to try disabling web filtering in your firewall. I did this in Kerio and my speeds jumped from 3mbit to 10mbit.
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:22:31 GMT
1st 128K took 1859 ms = 70507 Bytes/sec = approx 587 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 5734 ms = 22859 Bytes/sec = approx 190 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 3453 ms = 37959 Bytes/sec = approx 316 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 3329 ms = 39373 Bytes/sec = approx 328 kbits/sec
This is supposedly on a 4meg connection...
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:22:31 GMT
1st 128K took 1859 ms = 70507 Bytes/sec = approx 587 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 5734 ms = 22859 Bytes/sec = approx 190 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 3453 ms = 37959 Bytes/sec = approx 316 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 3329 ms = 39373 Bytes/sec = approx 328 kbits/sec
This is supposedly on a 4meg connection...
Does the above post help?
Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:30:11 UTC
1st 512K took 516 ms = 992.2 KB/sec, approx 8176 Kbps, 7.98 Mbps
2nd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
3rd 512K took 468 ms = 1094 KB/sec, approx 9015 Kbps, 8.8 Mbps
4th 512K took 532 ms = 962.4 KB/sec, approx 7930 Kbps, 7.74 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8529 Kbps, 8.33 Mbps
Yes, someone forgot to change the time, speed test was done at 00.30
The speed has shot up, thats a big difference from the evening speed test
So that speed test above was done the other day after 12am
Here is one done at around 21.30
1st 512K took 22657 ms = 22.6 KB/sec, approx 186 Kbps, 0.18 Mbps
2nd 512K took 16093 ms = 31.8 KB/sec, approx 262 Kbps, 0.26 Mbps
3rd 512K took 24391 ms = 21 KB/sec, approx 173 Kbps, 0.17 Mbps
4th 512K took 20203 ms = 25.3 KB/sec, approx 208 Kbps, 0.2 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 207 Kbps, 0.2 Mbps
So that speed test above was done the other day after 12am
Here is one done at around 21.30
1st 512K took 22657 ms = 22.6 KB/sec, approx 186 Kbps, 0.18 Mbps
2nd 512K took 16093 ms = 31.8 KB/sec, approx 262 Kbps, 0.26 Mbps
3rd 512K took 24391 ms = 21 KB/sec, approx 173 Kbps, 0.17 Mbps
4th 512K took 20203 ms = 25.3 KB/sec, approx 208 Kbps, 0.2 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 207 Kbps, 0.2 Mbps
Try downloading RC1 from here, http://download.windowsvista.com/preview/rc1/en/download.htm
Try downloading RC1 from here, http://download.windowsvista.com/preview/rc1/en/download.htm
It started at 160KB/s but its gone down to around 55KB/s transfer rate now...
Does the above post help?
Nope - sorry.
There seem to be blips like this frequently sometimes short lived and sometimes lasting hours. Then it goes back to normal 4Meg results or therabouts.
It started at 160KB/s but its gone down to around 55KB/s transfer rate now...
Now that is bad......
1st 512K took 2218 ms = 230.8 KB/sec, approx 1902 Kbps, 1.86 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2672 ms = 191.6 KB/sec, approx 1579 Kbps, 1.54 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2141 ms = 239.1 KB/sec, approx 1970 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
4th 512K took 2062 ms = 248.3 KB/sec, approx 2046 Kbps, 2 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1874 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
It is slowly creeping up again, as it does ... in about 2 hours it will be almost full 10Mbps
---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:36 ----------
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
3rd 512K took 421 ms = 1216.2 KB/sec, approx 10021 Kbps, 9.79 Mbps
4th 512K took 594 ms = 862 KB/sec, approx 7103 Kbps, 6.94 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9103 Kbps, 8.89 Mbps
Now this ****es me off, because im about to go offline now, it does this everytime im online
7.11pm:
1st 512K took 3203 ms = 159.9 KB/sec, approx 1318 Kbps, 1.29 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3297 ms = 155.3 KB/sec, approx 1280 Kbps, 1.25 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3157 ms = 162.2 KB/sec, approx 1337 Kbps, 1.31 Mbps
4th 512K took 2687 ms = 190.5 KB/sec, approx 1570 Kbps, 1.53 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1376 Kbps, 1.35 Mbps
7.11pm:
1st 512K took 3203 ms = 159.9 KB/sec, approx 1318 Kbps, 1.29 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3297 ms = 155.3 KB/sec, approx 1280 Kbps, 1.25 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3157 ms = 162.2 KB/sec, approx 1337 Kbps, 1.31 Mbps
4th 512K took 2687 ms = 190.5 KB/sec, approx 1570 Kbps, 1.53 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1376 Kbps, 1.35 Mbps
What modem do you have?
im on 10mb for F***sake!! i know my Sammy STB limits me to around 7-8000 KBS..
but i cant even get that anymore, its total CRAP!!! (until this week i was always getting 8mbs reliably at all times)
Im in Ashtead (surrey), have no idea wether im in one of those Upgrade area's or not, if somebody could let me know i'd appreciate it.
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 04:58:24 UTC
1st 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1468 ms = 348.8 KB/sec, approx 2874 Kbps, 2.81 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1313 ms = 389.9 KB/sec, approx 3213 Kbps, 3.14 Mbps
4th 512K took 1250 ms = 409.6 KB/sec, approx 3375 Kbps, 3.3 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 4475 Kbps, 4.37 Mbps
and a Retest later...
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:04:41 UTC
1st 512K took 2062 ms = 248.3 KB/sec, approx 2046 Kbps, 2 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2094 ms = 244.5 KB/sec, approx 2015 Kbps, 1.97 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2125 ms = 240.9 KB/sec, approx 1985 Kbps, 1.94 Mbps
4th 512K took 3703 ms = 138.3 KB/sec, approx 1140 Kbps, 1.11 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1797 Kbps, 1.76 Mbps
and 1 more for luck
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:07:38 UTC
1st 512K took 1703 ms = 300.6 KB/sec, approx 2477 Kbps, 2.42 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1203 ms = 425.6 KB/sec, approx 3507 Kbps, 3.42 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1141 ms = 448.7 KB/sec, approx 3697 Kbps, 3.61 Mbps
4th 512K took 1922 ms = 266.4 KB/sec, approx 2195 Kbps, 2.14 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2969 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
ROFL!!!! Great job NTL!!
bjorkiii
14-09-2006, 09:22
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:19:24 GMT
1st 512K took 418 ms = 1224.9 KB/sec, approx 10093 Kbps, 9.86 Mbps
2nd 512K took 513 ms = 998.1 KB/sec, approx 8224 Kbps, 8.03 Mbps
3rd 512K took 443 ms = 1155.8 KB/sec, approx 9524 Kbps, 9.3 Mbps
4th 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9369 Kbps, 9.15 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
Its usually anywere from 5 to about this sort of speed Teesside Area.
What modem do you have?
I have the blue Ambit 250 modem.
Cant be a modem problem though, or can it?
Since, in the daytime its usually good at 8Mbps, but in the evening it goes as low as like 0.25Mbps.
Taken at: 5.07pm
1st 512K took 1578 ms = 324.5 KB/sec, approx 2674 Kbps, 2.61 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1687 ms = 303.5 KB/sec, approx 2501 Kbps, 2.44 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2235 ms = 229.1 KB/sec, approx 1888 Kbps, 1.84 Mbps
4th 512K took 1875 ms = 273.1 KB/sec, approx 2250 Kbps, 2.2 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2328 Kbps, 2.27 Mbps
ultimate
14-09-2006, 17:12
I am on 4M
Result from Robin's speed test:
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:05:47 GMT
1st 128K took 265 ms = 494611 Bytes/sec = approx 4115 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 266 ms = 492752 Bytes/sec = approx 4100 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 266 ms = 492752 Bytes/sec = approx 4100 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 265 ms = 494611 Bytes/sec = approx 4115 kbits/sec
Speed test on this site is not working at the moment.
SNAKEKIL
14-09-2006, 17:31
Its 1730hrs in the BN. and yet again its bad. surpose to be 4mg...:td:
Broadband Speed Test Results
Results from broadband speed test recorded on Thursday, 14 September 2006, 17:27.
Your Connection
Speed Test Results
Downstream2,409.8 Kbps( = 2.4 Mbps ) Upstream373.7 Kbps( = 0.4 Mbps )
I have the blue Ambit 250 modem.
Cant be a modem problem though, or can it?
Since, in the daytime its usually good at 8Mbps, but in the evening it goes as low as like 0.25Mbps.
Taken at: 5.07pm
1st 512K took 1578 ms = 324.5 KB/sec, approx 2674 Kbps, 2.61 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1687 ms = 303.5 KB/sec, approx 2501 Kbps, 2.44 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2235 ms = 229.1 KB/sec, approx 1888 Kbps, 1.84 Mbps
4th 512K took 1875 ms = 273.1 KB/sec, approx 2250 Kbps, 2.2 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2328 Kbps, 2.27 Mbps
You got the best modem going.
bjorkiii
14-09-2006, 19:36
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:34:40 GMT
1st 512K took 423 ms = 1210.4 KB/sec, approx 9974 Kbps, 9.74 Mbps
2nd 512K took 435 ms = 1177 KB/sec, approx 9698 Kbps, 9.47 Mbps
3rd 512K took 446 ms = 1148 KB/sec, approx 9460 Kbps, 9.24 Mbps
4th 512K took 456 ms = 1122.8 KB/sec, approx 9252 Kbps, 9.04 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9596 Kbps, 9.37 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here. Ambit silver 200 modem.
1st 512K took 2016 ms = 254 KB/sec, approx 2093 Kbps, 2.04 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1421 ms = 360.3 KB/sec, approx 2969 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4188 ms = 122.3 KB/sec, approx 1008 Kbps, 0.98 Mbps
4th 512K took 3172 ms = 161.4 KB/sec, approx 1330 Kbps, 1.3 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1850 Kbps, 1.81 Mbps
By this time the other nights it would have been like 0.30Mbps or something, so it isn't as bad, but still expreemly sh|t for the 10Mbps service.
EDIT:
Just checked ntlworld, seems they have extended the maintenance in my area with MORE network updates & Network optimisation till 21st September, this could explain the poor service.
I just hope they FIX it!
1st 512K took 2016 ms = 254 KB/sec, approx 2093 Kbps, 2.04 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1421 ms = 360.3 KB/sec, approx 2969 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4188 ms = 122.3 KB/sec, approx 1008 Kbps, 0.98 Mbps
4th 512K took 3172 ms = 161.4 KB/sec, approx 1330 Kbps, 1.3 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1850 Kbps, 1.81 Mbps
By this time the other nights it would have been like 0.30Mbps or something, so it isn't as bad, but still expreemly sh|t for the 10Mbps service.
I think you used to use ZA didn't you? If you still use it, i think you should uninstall and see what you get. :)
I think you used to use ZA didn't you? If you still use it, i think you should uninstall and see what you get. :)
ZA uninstalled, no firewall running:
1st 512K took 2531 ms = 202.3 KB/sec, approx 1667 Kbps, 1.63 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2703 ms = 189.4 KB/sec, approx 1561 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2031 ms = 252.1 KB/sec, approx 2077 Kbps, 2.03 Mbps
4th 512K took 2000 ms = 256 KB/sec, approx 2109 Kbps, 2.06 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1854 Kbps, 1.81 Mbps
ZA uninstalled, no firewall running:
1st 512K took 2531 ms = 202.3 KB/sec, approx 1667 Kbps, 1.63 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2703 ms = 189.4 KB/sec, approx 1561 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2031 ms = 252.1 KB/sec, approx 2077 Kbps, 2.03 Mbps
4th 512K took 2000 ms = 256 KB/sec, approx 2109 Kbps, 2.06 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1854 Kbps, 1.81 Mbps
Engineer time i guess if NTL let you have one. Or maybe its just congestion.
Have you checked your levels? Do they look ok....
Engineer time i guess if NTL let you have one. Or maybe its just congestion.
Have you checked your levels? Do they look ok....
How do i go about checking this please?
How do i go about checking this please?
http://192.168.100.1/
username, password both..... root
I'm no expert of levels though, but i think there is a thread on that here somewhere. (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=26006)
I'm not sure what i am supported to be posting, but here...
Downstream Frequency : 586750000 Hz
Downstream Modulation : QAM64
Downstream Symbol Rate : 6952 Ksym/sec
Downstream Interleave Depth : taps12Increment17
Downstream Receive Power Level : -2.9 dBmV
Downstream SNR : 33.6 dB
Maximum Downstream Data Rate : 10240000
Maximum Upstream Data Rate : 512000
Maximum Upstream Channel Burst : 1600
Maximum Number of CPEs : 1
Modem Capability : Concatenation Enabled, Fragametation Enabled, PHS Disabled
ultimate
14-09-2006, 21:10
Why are speed test results so different between using the speed test on this site and Robin's test :
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html
The test result on this forum is always a lot slower than his, are these 2 different tests, and which one is more reliable?
Well, i've called up technical support, after 20 minutes on the phone and set on hold twice she said it could be server load or something. Anyway, i wasn't able to book a call out because there was a problem so they said do a call back.
So hopefully i can get a call out for Saturday afternoon, because im working on Sunday and out in the evening
Well, i've called up technical support, after 20 minutes on the phone and set on hold twice she said it could be server load or something. Anyway, i wasn't able to book a call out because there was a problem so they said do a call back.
So hopefully i can get a call out for Saturday afternoon, because im working on Sunday and out in the evening
Try calling back now, and see what happens.
Well it's nearly Friday now so maybe it'll be Monday or Tuesday if your lucky. I guess its the luck of the draw.
Try calling back now, and see what happens.
Well it's nearly Friday now so maybe it'll be Monday or Tuesday if your lucky. I guess its the luck of the draw.
:tu: i'll call when i get back home today!
Well doing a speed test at 7.50am
1st 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
2nd 512K took 703 ms = 728.3 KB/sec, approx 6001 Kbps, 5.86 Mbps
3rd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
4th 512K took 859 ms = 596 KB/sec, approx 4911 Kbps, 4.8 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7087 Kbps, 6.92 Mbps
Better obviously then in the evenings, but still poor for this early and the service i am on.
I wouldn't have minded that if it was 8 in the evening, but its before 8 in the morming, come on NTL! :Yikes:
still ****e here..
Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:39:17 UTC
1st 512K took 718 ms = 713.1 KB/sec, approx 5876 Kbps, 5.74 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1891 ms = 270.8 KB/sec, approx 2231 Kbps, 2.18 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1250 ms = 409.6 KB/sec, approx 3375 Kbps, 3.3 Mbps
4th 512K took 719 ms = 712.1 KB/sec, approx 5868 Kbps, 5.73 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 4338 Kbps, 4.24 Mbps
---------- Post added at 09:01 ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 ----------
this is bs,, ntl insist its my fault and that im pobably being attacked because i used a Bittorent client.
funny my firewall log is clear :)..
Hi all,
I'm a bit confused by the speed test results that I've been getting. I've supposedly got a 1 meg connection which I don't think has been upgraded yet (I live just north of Leicester in the LE7 post code). I consistently get speeds of 0.12 Mbps (is this the same as 120 Kbps?) using the above test. The time taken is usually around 33000 ms, ie just over half a minute for each 512k. This can't be right surely.
I also get pretty much the same speed if I use the Dan Elwell or any any other test. Using Dan's test on the 2meg ADSL line at work usually returns between 2.5 and 3.5 meg so that looks fine.
The other thing that is confusing me is that when I look at the modem (NTL 250) configuration file, the maximum download says 150000 (150 thousand) whereas other people are reporting figures of 1024000 or 2048000 depending on whether they have 1 or 2 meg connections.
Needless to say, NTL have not been able to shed any light on this, other than saying that the upgrades are ongoing and to keep checking. On the scheduled maintenance it looks as though the Leicester area may still be being worked on for about another week, so maybe I will have to wait and see.
The system was only installed three weeks ago, and has always run at this sort of speed as far as I can tell, I've only been actually testing it for a few days. Taking off the firewall (Norton) doesn't seem to have any effect either way.
One other thing, the digital TV went t*ts-up a couple of nights ago, so now the Pace STB is displaying a load of fractured symbols on its' panel where the number of the TV channel should be - has anyone else had this problem and what can you do (apart from throwing yourself on the mercy of NTL)?
Will try to post some actual test results this evening when I get home, but if anyone has any ideas in the meantime please reply.
Hi all,
I'm a bit confused by the speed test results that I've been getting. I've supposedly got a 1 meg connection which I don't think has been upgraded yet (I live just north of Leicester in the LE7 post code). I consistently get speeds of 0.12 Mbps (is this the same as 120 Kbps?) using the above test. The time taken is usually around 33000 ms, ie just over half a minute for each 512k. This can't be right surely.
I also get pretty much the same speed if I use the Dan Elwell or any any other test. Using Dan's test on the 2meg ADSL line at work usually returns between 2.5 and 3.5 meg so that looks fine.
The other thing that is confusing me is that when I look at the modem (NTL 250) configuration file, the maximum download says 150000 (150 thousand) whereas other people are reporting figures of 1024000 or 2048000 depending on whether they have 1 or 2 meg connections.
Needless to say, NTL have not been able to shed any light on this, other than saying that the upgrades are ongoing and to keep checking. On the scheduled maintenance it looks as though the Leicester area may still be being worked on for about another week, so maybe I will have to wait and see.
The system was only installed three weeks ago, and has always run at this sort of speed as far as I can tell, I've only been actually testing it for a few days. Taking off the firewall (Norton) doesn't seem to have any effect either way.
One other thing, the digital TV went t*ts-up a couple of nights ago, so now the Pace STB is displaying a load of fractured symbols on its' panel where the number of the TV channel should be - has anyone else had this problem and what can you do (apart from throwing yourself on the mercy of NTL)?
Will try to post some actual test results this evening when I get home, but if anyone has any ideas in the meantime please reply.
That looks like a 150k config file which is definitely wrong!
0.12mb = 120kbps. So, in that case your line is performing ok at the 150kb config. However it should read 1024000, which is 1Mb.
You certainly have a problem there.
That's what I thought - but what do I do about it??
That's what I thought - but what do I do about it??
Ring NTL of course, i do believe the free numbers work now, 150 for customer services, and 151 for faults.
monkey2468
15-09-2006, 17:59
That's what I thought - but what do I do about it??
Try rebooting your modem.
my current speeds:
Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:25:06 UTC
1st 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9730 Kbps, 9.5 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1158344708750).
Just got off the phone from ntl again (who told me to ring today) they said it's due to a hardware fault in the area, they said they will call back in 3 days to check if browsing & downloading is OK.
Guys, I can't seem to paste my results in here! What am I doing wrong?
I'm probably being a bit dumb, but treat me gently!!!
Guys, I can't seem to paste my results in here! What am I doing wrong?
I'm probably being a bit dumb, but treat me gently!!!
go to www.cableforum.co.uk/board/speed.php (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/speed.php) do the test and then just copy the results from that window to the quick reply box at the bottom and submit. :tu:
Right, it's taken me about four hours to get the computer to run reliably, so here are my results (very typical of what I've been getting each time I've tested)
Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:12:14 GMT
1st 512K took 35640 ms = 14.4 KB/sec, approx 119 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
2nd 512K took 33340 ms = 15.4 KB/sec, approx 127 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
3rd 512K took 34110 ms = 15 KB/sec, approx 124 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
4th 512K took 35700 ms = 14.3 KB/sec, approx 118 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 122 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
Cable Modem Downstream
Downstream Lock : Locked
Downstream Channel Id : 1
Downstream Frequency : 402750000 Hz
Downstream Modulation : QAM64
Downstream Symbol Rate : 5056.941 Ksym/sec
Downstream Interleave Depth : taps32Increment4
Downstream Receive Power Level : -3.8 dBmV
Downstream SNR : 35.6 dB
Cable Modem Operation Configuration
Network Access : Allowed
Maximum Downstream Data Rate : 150000
Maximum Upstream Data Rate : 32000
Maximum Upstream Channel Burst : 1600
Maximum Number of CPEs : 1
Modem Capability : Concatenation Enabled, Fragametation Enabled, PHS Disabled
Can anyone tell me what to do next, apart from ring NTL or rebooting the modem - I've already done those.
---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------
Don't know if these mean anything to anyone:
Cable Modem Information
Cable Modem : DOCSIS 1.0/1.1/2.0 Compliant
Serial Number : MAC ADDRESS REMOVED
Boot Code Version : 2.1.6d
Software Version : 2.94.1010
Hardware Version : 1.19
Remove that MAC address please, noone needs to know that ;)
Not sure how to do that
Click Edit underneath your post to the right hand side, hen proceed to take it out of the post.
If you can't dso this, then usually a passing mod will.
Also, that does confirm a 150k downstream and a 32k upstream... Basically not much better than dial-up to be honest...
Post edited - didn't have the symbols showing, then discovered my 17 year old son had put an adblocker onto Firefox. That's teenagers for you!
Downstream and upstream values are pretty cr*p aren't they. Is there any way I can amend them, or is this an NTL job?
Post edited - didn't have the symbols showing, then discovered my 17 year old son had put an adblocker onto Firefox. That's teenagers for you!
Downstream and upstream values are pretty cr*p aren't they. Is there any way I can amend them, or is this an NTL job?
Ntl Job i'm afraid.
And Adblocker is a lovely peice of kit when it's configured correctly, i wouldn't knock it just yet ;)
Hi Guys, just done a couple of tests on my 10Mb in Andover, Hants
Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:40:51 UTC
1st 512K took 471 ms = 1087 KB/sec, approx 8957 Kbps, 8.75 Mbps
2nd 512K took 571 ms = 896.7 KB/sec, approx 7389 Kbps, 7.22 Mbps
3rd 512K took 480 ms = 1066.7 KB/sec, approx 8790 Kbps, 8.58 Mbps
4th 512K took 441 ms = 1161 KB/sec, approx 9567 Kbps, 9.34 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8676 Kbps, 8.47 Mbps
Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:41:42 UTC
1st 512K took 420 ms = 1219 KB/sec, approx 10045 Kbps, 9.81 Mbps
2nd 512K took 431 ms = 1187.9 KB/sec, approx 9788 Kbps, 9.56 Mbps
3rd 512K took 421 ms = 1216.2 KB/sec, approx 10021 Kbps, 9.79 Mbps
4th 512K took 420 ms = 1219 KB/sec, approx 10045 Kbps, 9.81 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9975 Kbps, 9.74 Mbps
Also Dan Elwell's is giving a one off result of 8.947Mbps
Both taken with Zone Alarm running
---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------
go to www.cableforum.co.uk/board/speed.php (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/speed.php) do the test and then just copy the results from that window to the quick reply box at the bottom and submit. :tu:
Zee, thanks, but found I can paste in results using IE6 but not in Firefox!!!!
Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:51:16 UTC
1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 454 ms = 1127.8 KB/sec, approx 9293 Kbps, 9.08 Mbps
4th 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9479 Kbps, 9.26 Mbps
six o clock on a saturday night can`t grumble 17.49 a month aswell
As usual a sh|t service for me on the 10MB service
1st 512K took 4828 ms = 106 KB/sec, approx 873 Kbps, 0.85 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3375 ms = 151.7 KB/sec, approx 1250 Kbps, 1.22 Mbps
3rd 512K took 7219 ms = 70.9 KB/sec, approx 584 Kbps, 0.57 Mbps
4th 512K took 3578 ms = 143.1 KB/sec, approx 1179 Kbps, 1.15 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
Taken at: 6.35pm
monkey2468
16-09-2006, 19:27
Sppeds are still max here, which isn't bad considering that now is as peak time as it gets.
Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:28:00 UTC
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9735 Kbps, 9.51 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1158431281937).
No change here I'm afraid:
Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:34:39 GMT
1st 512K took 35370 ms = 14.5 KB/sec, approx 119 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
2nd 512K took 34610 ms = 14.8 KB/sec, approx 122 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
3rd 512K took 34330 ms = 14.9 KB/sec, approx 123 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
4th 512K took 34050 ms = 15 KB/sec, approx 124 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 122 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
DerekRothwell
16-09-2006, 21:37
Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:36:35 GMT
1st 512K took 1672 ms = 306.2 KB/sec, approx 2523 Kbps, 2.46 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1219 ms = 420 KB/sec, approx 3461 Kbps, 3.38 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
4th 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3412 Kbps, 3.33 Mbps
Not too bad for a Saturday night
1st 512K took 15734 ms = 32.5 KB/sec, approx 268 Kbps, 0.26 Mbps
2nd 512K took 21172 ms = 24.2 KB/sec, approx 199 Kbps, 0.19 Mbps
3rd 512K took 24625 ms = 20.8 KB/sec, approx 171 Kbps, 0.17 Mbps
4th 512K took 17000 ms = 30.1 KB/sec, approx 248 Kbps, 0.24 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 222 Kbps, 0.22 Mbps
Taken at: 11.02pm
un, 17 Sep 2006 20:39:18 GMT
1st 512K took 156 ms = 3282.1 KB/sec, approx 27045 Kbps, 26.41 Mbps
2nd 512K took 281 ms = 1822.1 KB/sec, approx 15014 Kbps, 14.66 Mbps
3rd 512K took 156 ms = 3282.1 KB/sec, approx 27045 Kbps, 26.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 157 ms = 3261.1 KB/sec, approx 26871 Kbps, 26.24 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 23994 Kbps, 23.43 Mbps
And I'm on a 1MB connection:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
un, 17 Sep 2006 20:39:18 GMT
1st 512K took 156 ms = 3282.1 KB/sec, approx 27045 Kbps, 26.41 Mbps
2nd 512K took 281 ms = 1822.1 KB/sec, approx 15014 Kbps, 14.66 Mbps
3rd 512K took 156 ms = 3282.1 KB/sec, approx 27045 Kbps, 26.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 157 ms = 3261.1 KB/sec, approx 26871 Kbps, 26.24 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 23994 Kbps, 23.43 Mbps
And I'm on a 1MB connection:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Clear your cache and try again ;)
Clear your cache and try again ;)
haha .. awww, its funny when people get excited about stuff then get the truth shoved in their face! lol
you enjoy your 30Mbps connection :p: lol
And when its in my cache i usually get like 200-300Mbps so it could be a surge or something in his area? :Yikes:
Anyway, here is mine for 10.10pm: 10Mbps
1st 512K took 2578 ms = 198.6 KB/sec, approx 1636 Kbps, 1.6 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1813 ms = 282.4 KB/sec, approx 2327 Kbps, 2.27 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2218 ms = 230.8 KB/sec, approx 1902 Kbps, 1.86 Mbps
4th 512K took 1594 ms = 321.2 KB/sec, approx 2647 Kbps, 2.58 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2128 Kbps, 2.08 Mbps
Not as bad as it usually goes, but still poor
mandrake
17-09-2006, 22:14
DA1 area, up to 10mb
Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:12:29 UTC
1st 512K took 672 ms = 761.9 KB/sec, approx 6278 Kbps, 6.13 Mbps
2nd 512K took 688 ms = 744.2 KB/sec, approx 6132 Kbps, 5.99 Mbps
3rd 512K took 594 ms = 862 KB/sec, approx 7103 Kbps, 6.94 Mbps
4th 512K took 640 ms = 800 KB/sec, approx 6592 Kbps, 6.44 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 6526 Kbps, 6.38 Mbps
FusionXN1
17-09-2006, 22:41
Disappointed :( Just got NTL and first day was 10mb all day now 4 days later 12pm to around 9am i get:
Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:39:59 GMT
1st 512K took 1914 ms = 267.5 KB/sec, approx 2204 Kbps, 2.15 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1905 ms = 268.8 KB/sec, approx 2215 Kbps, 2.16 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1259 ms = 406.7 KB/sec, approx 3351 Kbps, 3.27 Mbps
4th 512K took 1507 ms = 339.7 KB/sec, approx 2799 Kbps, 2.73 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2642 Kbps, 2.58 Mbps
9 -12 i get 9.6mbps :(
Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:15:07 UTC
1st 512K took 485 ms = 1055.7 KB/sec, approx 8699 Kbps, 8.5 Mbps
2nd 512K took 484 ms = 1057.9 KB/sec, approx 8717 Kbps, 8.51 Mbps
3rd 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
4th 512K took 485 ms = 1055.7 KB/sec, approx 8699 Kbps, 8.5 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8638 Kbps, 8.44 Mbps
Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:04:58 UTC
1st 128K took 266 ms = 492752 Bytes/sec = approx 4100 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 265 ms = 494611 Bytes/sec = approx 4115 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 282 ms = 464794 Bytes/sec = approx 3867 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 265 ms = 494611 Bytes/sec = approx 4115 kbits/sec
Not sure if this is right for a 4mb line :erm:
---------- Post added at 09:09 ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 ----------
Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:08:44 UTC
1st 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
4th 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3885 Kbps, 3.8 Mbps
mandrake
18-09-2006, 12:25
DA1 area
Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:23:19 UTC
1st 512K took 812 ms = 630.5 KB/sec, approx 5195 Kbps, 5.07 Mbps
2nd 512K took 922 ms = 555.3 KB/sec, approx 4576 Kbps, 4.47 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1016 ms = 503.9 KB/sec, approx 4152 Kbps, 4.05 Mbps
4th 512K took 281 ms = 1822.1 KB/sec, approx 15014 Kbps, 14.66 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7234 Kbps, 7.06 Mbps
bargepole
18-09-2006, 18:11
Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:06:20 UTC
1st 512K took 17234 ms = 29.7 KB/sec, approx 245 Kbps, 0.24 Mbps
2nd 512K took 18562 ms = 27.6 KB/sec, approx 227 Kbps, 0.22 Mbps
3rd 512K took 30063 ms = 17 KB/sec, approx 140 Kbps, 0.14 Mbps
4th 512K took 14594 ms = 35.1 KB/sec, approx 289 Kbps, 0.28 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 225 Kbps, 0.22 Mbps
Mine isn't too bad today, im kinda happy :) (10Mbps Service)
1st 512K took 5344 ms = 95.8 KB/sec, approx 789 Kbps, 0.77 Mbps
2nd 512K took 859 ms = 596 KB/sec, approx 4911 Kbps, 4.8 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1422 ms = 360.1 KB/sec, approx 2967 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
4th 512K took 1156 ms = 442.9 KB/sec, approx 3649 Kbps, 3.56 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3079 Kbps, 3.01 Mbps
Taken: 6.23pm
Ok...here's my real result:
Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:22:02 GMT
1st 512K took 4265 ms = 120 KB/sec, approx 989 Kbps, 0.97 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4328 ms = 118.3 KB/sec, approx 975 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4344 ms = 117.9 KB/sec, approx 971 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
4th 512K took 4297 ms = 119.2 KB/sec, approx 982 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 979 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
:)
HSH85 (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/member.php?u=21197) were you the one who said you was in NW London? If yes, where abouts? I'm from NW London too and getting simular speeds to you.
Today isn't as bad though, usually i'd be down to something like 0.80Mbos overall average
1st 512K took 3047 ms = 168 KB/sec, approx 1384 Kbps, 1.35 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3797 ms = 134.8 KB/sec, approx 1111 Kbps, 1.08 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4000 ms = 128 KB/sec, approx 1055 Kbps, 1.03 Mbps
4th 512K took 6266 ms = 81.7 KB/sec, approx 673 Kbps, 0.66 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1056 Kbps, 1.03 Mbps
When did I say I live in North West London? I live in Giffnock up in scotland.
BTW I have a 1MB connection, not 10MB what you have.
Nedkelly
19-09-2006, 07:55
1st 512K took 1071 ms = 478.1 KB/sec, approx 3940 Kbps, 3.85 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1042 ms = 491.4 KB/sec, approx 4049 Kbps, 3.95 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1021 ms = 501.5 KB/sec, approx 4132 Kbps, 4.04 Mbps
4th 512K took 1092 ms = 468.9 KB/sec, approx 3864 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3996 Kbps, 3.9 Mbps
I am seeing this on both modems had my neighbour round as he is on 4 meg getting around 2meg
North Manchester...
Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:23:34 GMT
1st 512K took 468 ms = 1094 KB/sec, approx 9015 Kbps, 8.8 Mbps
2nd 512K took 407 ms = 1258 KB/sec, approx 10366 Kbps, 10.12 Mbps
3rd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9673 Kbps, 9.44 Mbps
=========================================
Not bad this time :)
Using this speed test always seems to be up and down, but yet if I use news hostings to download I always seem to get the full speeds... 1.1Mbps to 1.2Mbps
bjorkiii
19-09-2006, 10:07
Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:06:29 GMT
1st 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 406 ms = 1261.1 KB/sec, approx 10391 Kbps, 10.15 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9675 Kbps, 9.45 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
This is with zone alarm installed.
When did I say I live in North West London? I live in Giffnock up in scotland.
BTW I have a 1MB connection, not 10MB what you have.
I don't know when you said, thats why i asked "were you the one who said..." :rolleyes:
4mb
Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:35:07 GMT
1st 512K took 18953 ms = 27 KB/sec, approx 222 Kbps, 0.22 Mbps
2nd 512K took 13594 ms = 37.7 KB/sec, approx 311 Kbps, 0.3 Mbps
3rd 512K took 23094 ms = 22.2 KB/sec, approx 183 Kbps, 0.18 Mbps
4th 512K took 21937 ms = 23.3 KB/sec, approx 192 Kbps, 0.19 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 227 Kbps, 0.22 Mbps
This has been going on for a couple of weeks now. I get a decent speed all day & its like someone flicks a switch at 6.00pm. Grrr
timewarrior2001
19-09-2006, 20:09
This is now really pathetic.
I am paying for 10Mb Broadband. I am lucky to get over dialup speeds.
Tonight
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/9.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
16/09
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/10.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
14/09
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/11.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
04/09
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/12.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
02/09
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/13.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Yet NTL tech support insist there is no problem, I recently had an engineer out to change my modem and do some cable checks, he couldnt get anything over 1Mb with the new modem.....yet theres no fault.
I think I'll cancel all my NTL services, its just not up to scratch, Everyhting was rujnning like a dream up until about 2 or 3 weeks ago.
monkey2468
19-09-2006, 20:17
Still ok for me.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/8.png
Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:15:47 UTC
1st 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
4th 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9485 Kbps, 9.26 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
timewarrior2001
19-09-2006, 20:36
Just set my laptop up on the wireless network now, getting the same **** poor performance there.
So again it isnt my computer, The cable forum speed test will not run.
I've tried in both normal boot mode and in safe mode with networking.
My LAN performance is perfect. :shrug:
EDIT:
From my laptop
Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:36:05 UTC
1st 512K took 55297 ms = 9.3 KB/sec, approx 77 Kbps, 0.08 Mbps
2nd 512K took 52906 ms = 9.7 KB/sec, approx 80 Kbps, 0.08 Mbps
3rd 512K took 44000 ms = 11.6 KB/sec, approx 96 Kbps, 0.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 59937 ms = 8.5 KB/sec, approx 70 Kbps, 0.07 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 81 Kbps, 0.08 Mbps
Having suffered from what I perceived to be a slow BB connection pretty much ever since it was installed about four weeks ago, I have been running speed tests for about a couple of weeks now. I consistently get results in the 120 to 125k region on a 1 meg connection.
I have just come off the phone to Tech Support (is this in India?), they checked the line and said that I was on a 1 meg connection which should be 2 meg by the end of the month, and that 125k was about right for that level. How can this be right - is there some confusion over kilobytes and kilobits or what?
Whichever speed test I run, I always get the same general result, but when I ran the Dan Elwell test on my office computer this morning which is on a Nildram 2 meg connection it came back with approx 4 meg. I usually get a result of between 2 and 4 meg on this computer, but only 125k using the same test at home.
The other thing that I tried to query with them was that on my modem configuration the max download says 150000 (ie 150k) whereas other people on this forum have reported that theirs are saying 1024000 or 2048000 depending on whether they have 1 or 2 meg connections. I don't think they really understood what I was trying to get across, but I will keep testing and see what result I get when I have been upgraded.
In the meantime can I ask that as many people as possible log into their cable modem and report what their max download capability is please?
I will search back through previous posts and put the link here shortly.
Here it is:
http://192.168.100.1/
username and password are both root by default
Maximum Downstream Data Rate : 4096000 - 4 Meg connection.
I think they are confusing bits and bytes if you are getting 125Kbits/sec on a speedtest site that is not 'about right' for a 1Meg connection.
Mine is still poor
1st 512K took 4000 ms = 128 KB/sec, approx 1055 Kbps, 1.03 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2891 ms = 177.1 KB/sec, approx 1459 Kbps, 1.42 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2172 ms = 235.7 KB/sec, approx 1942 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps
4th 512K took 3312 ms = 154.6 KB/sec, approx 1274 Kbps, 1.24 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1433 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps
This is now really pathetic.
Everyhting was rujnning like a dream up until about 2 or 3 weeks ago.
Same here, was fine till 2-3 weeks ago ...
Atleast they admited to me there is a hardware fault in my area which was supposed to be fixed 4 days ago
More evidence :-
Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:26:41 GMT
1st 512K took 8514 ms = 60.1 KB/sec, approx 495 Kbps, 0.48 Mbps
2nd 512K took 21504 ms = 23.8 KB/sec, approx 196 Kbps, 0.19 Mbps
3rd 512K took 8662 ms = 59.1 KB/sec, approx 487 Kbps, 0.48 Mbps
4th 512K took 16519 ms = 31 KB/sec, approx 255 Kbps, 0.25 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 358 Kbps, 0.35 Mbps
And I'm on 4MB!!
It's crap !
Here we go again :(
Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:28:26 GMT
1st 512K took 18891 ms = 27.1 KB/sec, approx 223 Kbps, 0.22 Mbps
2nd 512K took 10797 ms = 47.4 KB/sec, approx 391 Kbps, 0.38 Mbps
3rd 512K took 10953 ms = 46.7 KB/sec, approx 385 Kbps, 0.38 Mbps
4th 512K took 23609 ms = 21.7 KB/sec, approx 179 Kbps, 0.17 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 295 Kbps, 0.29 Mbps
Actually it's worse than I thought!!!
Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:33:07 GMT
1st 512K took 31803 ms = 16.1 KB/sec, approx 133 Kbps, 0.13 Mbps
2nd 512K took 26121 ms = 19.6 KB/sec, approx 162 Kbps, 0.16 Mbps
3rd 512K took 24886 ms = 20.6 KB/sec, approx 170 Kbps, 0.17 Mbps
4th 512K took 25174 ms = 20.3 KB/sec, approx 167 Kbps, 0.16 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 158 Kbps, 0.16 Mbps
Bring back Dial up!
ntl better do something quickly or they will start losing customers
I'm going to cancel my Phone and Internet tomorrow, but keep the TV.
This is just getting worse and worse, there is no interest when you call NTL, they claim there are no speed issues, but yet we all have them.
CS is a joke, can't get through or unwilling to listen, well enough is enough.
Any ideas on who I should move my internet / phone to?
If you can get Be in your area, i'd go with them, i heard they are very good
www.bethere.co.uk
I'm going to cancel my Phone and Internet tomorrow, but keep the TV.
This is just getting worse and worse, there is no interest when you call NTL, they claim there are no speed issues, but yet we all have them.
CS is a joke, can't get through or unwilling to listen, well enough is enough.
Any ideas on who I should move my internet / phone to?
I'm not sure you can just have tv? Well you can, but you still pay for the phone line even if you don't have it.
It seems you are correct.
I can't just have TV, I have to have an NTL phone line as well.
And guess what you can't get any other Broadband over an NTL phone line.
So they have you captive, well not me.
I will cancel all three tomorrow, that's £65 a month they lose, all down to their poor broadband service.
I guess I will have to get a BT phone line maybe broadband as well.
As for TV it might have to be Freeview, as I'm not keen on Sky.
I will not be abused by companies though who take money for poor service, the only way to show them is to hit them in the pocket.
Ian
You can have TV without a phone line. They announced it not long back. When you ring up, ask about it first!
You can have TV without a phone line. They announced it not long back. When you ring up, ask about it first!
Will do, thanks.
Ian
Here's a nice little 10meg connection from ntl:-
Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:48:58 UTC
1st 512K took 2078 ms = 246.4 KB/sec, approx 2030 Kbps, 1.98 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1984 ms = 258.1 KB/sec, approx 2127 Kbps, 2.08 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1782 ms = 287.3 KB/sec, approx 2367 Kbps, 2.31 Mbps
4th 512K took 1843 ms = 277.8 KB/sec, approx 2289 Kbps, 2.24 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2203 Kbps, 2.15 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1158770946312).
hahahaha - after speaking to ntl on the phone for hours to some ladies and gentlmen in India who couldn't understand English very well, their only response was - "we'll send out another engineer" - yet again. thats at least 20 in a nine month period. They'll be moving in at this rate!!! I've had a new modem, that didn't solve the problem, spoke to a nice guy by name of DJ, who duly informed me that I had too much anti-spyware in my comp which I thought rather strange, cause I'd just formatted my comp!! There was nothing in it bar the internet connection!! For your interest, don't bother complaining, because it gets u nowhere. This also must include my ISP (ntl), Trading Standards and OTELO, the last two being as much use as 2 glass hammers. This makes all three totally useless. If anybody out there knows of a decent ISP, plz let me know, as I can't find one.
Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:05:50 UTC
1st 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
2nd 512K took 515 ms = 994.2 KB/sec, approx 8192 Kbps, 8 Mbps
3rd 512K took 750 ms = 682.7 KB/sec, approx 5625 Kbps, 5.49 Mbps
4th 512K took 516 ms = 992.2 KB/sec, approx 8176 Kbps, 7.98 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7608 Kbps, 7.43 Mbps
acceptable ,sort of usually than 8 at any time of the day
Will do, thanks.
Ian
Well I called to cancel, no statement from them about the speed.
Offered me Broadband service at half price for 6 months, and told me to call back in 6 months to get it extended!
Will see what the speed is like over the next week but may still cancel and move to BT.
Ian
Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:32:10 GMT
1st 512K took 1156 ms = 442.9 KB/sec, approx 3649 Kbps, 3.56 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1156 ms = 442.9 KB/sec, approx 3649 Kbps, 3.56 Mbps
4th 512K took 1500 ms = 341.3 KB/sec, approx 2812 Kbps, 2.75 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3465 Kbps, 3.38 Mbps
TW, 4Mb, Donny
US.M@JORHAZZARD
22-09-2006, 12:32
Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:31:03 UTC
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9735 Kbps, 9.51 Mbps
will do another test later in the day to see if my speeds drop thoughout the day...
scoobydoo[uk]
22-09-2006, 17:45
WTF is this NTL... 10mb and i get this...
Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:44:15 GMT
1st 512K took 2640 ms = 193.9 KB/sec, approx 1598 Kbps, 1.56 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2938 ms = 174.3 KB/sec, approx 1436 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2312 ms = 221.5 KB/sec, approx 1825 Kbps, 1.78 Mbps
4th 512K took 3875 ms = 132.1 KB/sec, approx 1089 Kbps, 1.06 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1487 Kbps, 1.45 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
Not much better today on my 4MB :-
Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:18:22 GMT
1st 512K took 3568 ms = 143.5 KB/sec, approx 1182 Kbps, 1.15 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1753 ms = 292.1 KB/sec, approx 2407 Kbps, 2.35 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3048 ms = 168 KB/sec, approx 1384 Kbps, 1.35 Mbps
4th 512K took 2245 ms = 228.1 KB/sec, approx 1880 Kbps, 1.84 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1713 Kbps, 1.67 Mbps
Looks like BT will be getting my custom, especially as they are going into the on demand TV soon.
I'm being sad here, but what the hell...here's mine... ;)
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/3.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
US.M@JORHAZZARD
22-09-2006, 23:43
Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:39:56 UTC
1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9484 Kbps, 9.26 Mbps
Just done this speed test as you can see by the 1st test i did this morning i was getting on average 9.5 Mbps with no traffic going out from my end other than the test itself.
This test was done while my wife was playing online FPS America's Army, and im still getting an average of 9 Mbps :)
Other than my sometimes intermitant service i would say i'm getting what i pay for :)
1 HAPPY BUNNY HERE :)
ultimate
24-09-2006, 09:11
Speed test link on this forum does not work this morning, got a blank page.
Speed test link on this forum does not work this morning, got a blank page.
Doesn't work for me either.
bjorkiii
24-09-2006, 11:29
Aye its seems a bit buggered ;)
Working again now.
It's such a shame its a very unreliable speed test for me compared to another one i use.
Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:00:49 GMT
1st 512K took 531 ms = 964.2 KB/sec, approx 7945 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps
2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 1203 ms = 425.6 KB/sec, approx 3507 Kbps, 3.42 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7862 Kbps, 7.68 Mbps
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/2.png
ultimate
24-09-2006, 22:12
Has anybody compared speed test results from this site with speed test results from other sites ? My findings are the speeds shown from the tests on this forum is consistantly a lot lower than all the other results.
homealone
24-09-2006, 22:18
dan elwells tests are as good as any, imo ;)
ultimate
24-09-2006, 22:19
who is dan elwells?
who is dan elwells?
Put Dan Elwell speed test into Google, and you can download his program for free
---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------
I find that my speed is consistently crap, whichever test I do it is always approx 125 Kbs (on a 1 meg connection)
AbyssUnderground
24-09-2006, 23:01
Put Dan Elwell speed test into Google, and you can download his program for free
---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------
I find that my speed is consistently crap, whichever test I do it is always approx 125 Kbs (on a 1 meg connection)
Why are you complaining? 125KB/s is the best you can get from a 1meg connection anyway...
LenMackin
24-09-2006, 23:13
Lets be honest about this, it seems now that those of us expecting to achieve decent speeds (because we are on a 10mb service) arent getting them and have not for a couple of weeks at least. I am seeing my evening speeds drop down consistently to around 3.5mb. It is time to stop messing around on here and frankly pull the plug on the 10mb service, reduce to 4mb and also save myself £10 a month (£120) a year. NTL have not espanded their network capabilities to cope with speeds and numbers of users and as a result have intoduced traffic shaping to reduce speeds at certain times of day. Of course they will say 'yes but we have always said, its UP TO 10MB, not a guarunteed 10mb' so i guess we pay full wack and settle for much less. HOPELESS
What we need is users to speed test before 6.00pm and after 6.pm that way we will know soon enough if they are throttling the connections at peak times.
my speed at the moment
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:59:49 GMT
1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
3rd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
4th 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9095 Kbps, 8.88 Mbps
will do it again at 7.00pm tonight
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1159163991828).
Why are you complaining? 125KB/s is the best you can get from a 1meg connection anyway...
He actually said 125Kb/s not 125KB/s - bits v bytes...
If he actually meant 125Kb/s then that is certainly not the best you can get from a 1Mb connection.
Saneboy13
25-09-2006, 16:48
I must be one of the lucky ones;
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:46:55 UTC
1st 512K took 547 ms = 936 KB/sec, approx 7713 Kbps, 7.53 Mbps
2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9250 Kbps, 9.03 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1159199217765).
Guess that's what happens when you work for NTL;)
scoobydoo[uk]
25-09-2006, 19:16
Bill C
I have done a number of tests and posted them in other threads. Im in Stoke on Trent, and before 6pm im getting 9.2mb +. come 6pm and my speeds drop to 2mb and below.
Now this has got to be something to do with either throttling, traffic shaping etc etc, it needs someone to look into it, the problem is when you speak to techinical support those dumb a**es in india just keep on saying its your firewall, antivirus etc etc. BUT as i keep on telling them my system doesnt just from 5.59pm to 6pm but there network comes to a stop after that 1min difference.
This is my speed now
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:16:28 GMT
1st 512K took 843 ms = 607.4 KB/sec, approx 5005 Kbps, 4.89 Mbps
2nd 512K took 891 ms = 574.6 KB/sec, approx 4735 Kbps, 4.62 Mbps
3rd 512K took 875 ms = 585.1 KB/sec, approx 4821 Kbps, 4.71 Mbps
4th 512K took 875 ms = 585.1 KB/sec, approx 4821 Kbps, 4.71 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 4846 Kbps, 4.73 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
Which for the past 2 weeks isnt bad, its been below 2.0mbps on most nights.
At 5pm this afternoon it was at 9.4mbps. so come 6pm and something is happening to the network.
;34123846']Bill C
I have done a number of tests and posted them in other threads. Im in Stoke on Trent, and before 6pm im getting 9.2mb +. come 6pm and my speeds drop to 2mb and below.
Now this has got to be something to do with either throttling, traffic shaping etc etc, it needs someone to look into it, the problem is when you speak to techinical support those dumb a**es in india just keep on saying its your firewall, antivirus etc etc. BUT as i keep on telling them my system doesnt just from 5.59pm to 6pm but there network comes to a stop after that 1min difference.
This is my speed now
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:16:28 GMT
1st 512K took 843 ms = 607.4 KB/sec, approx 5005 Kbps, 4.89 Mbps
2nd 512K took 891 ms = 574.6 KB/sec, approx 4735 Kbps, 4.62 Mbps
3rd 512K took 875 ms = 585.1 KB/sec, approx 4821 Kbps, 4.71 Mbps
4th 512K took 875 ms = 585.1 KB/sec, approx 4821 Kbps, 4.71 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 4846 Kbps, 4.73 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
Which for the past 2 weeks isnt bad, its been below 2.0mbps on most nights.
At 5pm this afternoon it was at 9.4mbps. so come 6pm and something is happening to the network.
I had the same from Support yesterday and today. Customer service just said that my connection is up to 10 meg so if i have 1 meg then it works. The outcome is that i have today activated my bt line and will use it just for the broadband. Its naff for anything else. I have ordered 16 meg broadband from Sky and have been given a disconnection date of the 24 of October for my NTL slow band.
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:25:32 GMT
1st 512K took 10781 ms = 47.5 KB/sec, approx 391 Kbps, 0.38 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2813 ms = 182 KB/sec, approx 1500 Kbps, 1.46 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3749 ms = 136.6 KB/sec, approx 1126 Kbps, 1.1 Mbps
4th 512K took 7109 ms = 72 KB/sec, approx 593 Kbps, 0.58 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 903 Kbps, 0.88 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1159208757800).
Ntl think they can get away with traffic shaping and not telling anyone that they are using traffic shaping. I know they are and because
A. They have messed it up
B. They will not admit they are using it then i for one have had enough.
They have lost my custom
So roll on my new connection anything is better than what i have now.
I had the same from Support yesterday and today. Customer service just said that my connection is up to 10 meg so if i have 1 meg then it works. The outcome is that i have today activated my bt line and will use it just for the broadband. Its naff for anything else.
they actually said "if i have 1 meg then it works" as their justification ?, perhaps its time one of the 10 meg'ers filling in a county court N1 form and challenged the 'UPTO' claim and how its not defined in the T&C contract (any upto bb company even).
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/helpful-external-links/10-moneyclaim-start-your-county.html
BankFodder,
Administrator
The Consumer Action Group
"This excellent service will allow you to start your County Court claim quickly and easily from your own computer.
www.moneyclaim.gov.uk (http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/)
Claims are begun automatically in the Northampton County Court but will be transferred to a local court if a defence is received or a hearing is needed for any other reason."
iv not used my BT line for many years, i wonder what the real full cost is today after waiding through the bunff , whats the real cost of asking bt to active the line then get another company SKY/whatever to provide the BB +total initial cost and per month after that, bill?.
Parrot of Doom
25-09-2006, 21:45
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:44:23 GMT
1st 512K took 5000 ms = 102.4 KB/sec, approx 844 Kbps, 0.82 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1719 ms = 297.8 KB/sec, approx 2454 Kbps, 2.4 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1468 ms = 348.8 KB/sec, approx 2874 Kbps, 2.81 Mbps
4th 512K took 3454 ms = 148.2 KB/sec, approx 1221 Kbps, 1.19 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1848 Kbps, 1.8 Mbps
:( Thats on 4MB
Here are my latest results:
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:13:43 GMT
1st 512K took 87880 ms = 5.8 KB/sec, approx 48 Kbps, 0.05 Mbps
2nd 512K took 43390 ms = 11.8 KB/sec, approx 97 Kbps, 0.09 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1600 ms = 320 KB/sec, approx 2637 Kbps, 2.58 Mbps
4th 512K took 34380 ms = 14.9 KB/sec, approx 123 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 726 Kbps, 0.71 Mbps
A bit up and down on the speed, 0.05 is the worst ever and 2.58 the best!
Here are my latest results:
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:13:43 GMT
1st 512K took 87880 ms = 5.8 KB/sec, approx 48 Kbps, 0.05 Mbps
2nd 512K took 43390 ms = 11.8 KB/sec, approx 97 Kbps, 0.09 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1600 ms = 320 KB/sec, approx 2637 Kbps, 2.58 Mbps
4th 512K took 34380 ms = 14.9 KB/sec, approx 123 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 726 Kbps, 0.71 Mbps
A bit up and down on the speed, 0.05 is the worst ever and 2.58 the best!
Try this speed test as i'm finding the CF one useless at the moment.
http://www.speedtest.net/
Thanks - tried that.
Download 132, upload 23 (on a 1meg connection)
Thanks - tried that.
Download 132, upload 23 (on a 1meg connection)
Nothing wrong with that speed test. It proves the issue is with the CF test.
When you say nothing wrong with the speedtest, OK the test itself worked but my speed is still way down on what it should be.
When you say nothing wrong with the speedtest, OK the test itself worked but my speed is still way down on what it should be.
Your speed is spot on, on that second test for a 1mbit connection.
Thanks - tried that.
Download 132, upload 23 (on a 1meg connection)
132 what? KB/s or Kb/s? Big B or Small b?
1st 512K took 1532 ms = 334.2 KB/sec, approx 2754 Kbps, 2.69 Mbps
2nd 512K took 937 ms = 546.4 KB/sec, approx 4502 Kbps, 4.4 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1219 ms = 420 KB/sec, approx 3461 Kbps, 3.38 Mbps
4th 512K took 1516 ms = 337.7 KB/sec, approx 2783 Kbps, 2.72 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3375 Kbps, 3.3 Mbps
Taken: 11.18pm
I'm on the 10Mbps service, i don't mind that speed actually, its fine i guess but what ****es me off is tech support telling me a load of bull**** on the phone, anyway browsing is so bad right now i cant even get to many sites its just way to slow ...
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:42:31 UTC
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9564 Kbps, 9.34 Mbps
ng11,i really dont get less than 8 at anytime of the day,must be lucky,bring on 30 or 50
Taken: 8.05am
1st 512K took 531 ms = 964.2 KB/sec, approx 7945 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps
2nd 512K took 563 ms = 909.4 KB/sec, approx 7493 Kbps, 7.32 Mbps
3rd 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
4th 512K took 562 ms = 911 KB/sec, approx 7507 Kbps, 7.33 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7846 Kbps, 7.66 Mbps
Come the evening it will be **** - l8rs all
bjorkiii
26-09-2006, 09:13
Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:12:07 GMT
1st 512K took 459 ms = 1115.5 KB/sec, approx 9192 Kbps, 8.98 Mbps
2nd 512K took 440 ms = 1163.6 KB/sec, approx 9588 Kbps, 9.36 Mbps
3rd 512K took 415 ms = 1233.7 KB/sec, approx 10166 Kbps, 9.93 Mbps
4th 512K took 428 ms = 1196.3 KB/sec, approx 9858 Kbps, 9.63 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9701 Kbps, 9.48 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.Same here last night it was under half a gig speed from just after 6 to late on.
132 what? KB/s or Kb/s? Big B or Small b?
Kilobits, small 'b' everytime. Always around 120 to 125 on the download.
Equates to approx 15 Kilobytes (big 'B') or 0.15 meg.
Erm, College... gigabit backbone... :p:
Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:12:50 GMT
1st 512K took 172 ms = 2976.7 KB/sec, approx 24528 Kbps, 23.95 Mbps
2nd 512K took 219 ms = 2337.9 KB/sec, approx 19264 Kbps, 18.81 Mbps
3rd 512K took 266 ms = 1924.8 KB/sec, approx 15860 Kbps, 15.49 Mbps
4th 512K took 516 ms = 992.2 KB/sec, approx 8176 Kbps, 7.98 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 16957 Kbps, 16.56 Mbps
Kilobits, small 'b' everytime. Always around 120 to 125 on the download.
Equates to approx 15 Kilobytes (big 'B') or 0.15 meg.
I thought so - that is definitely not 'spot on' for a 1 meg connection then as you say. I think SnoopZ was assuming you meant KB as that's why he's saying the result is fine.
Think I might have found out what the problem is!
I also had a problem with the CTV box, so when the engineer was here this morning swapping my recon Pace for a brand new shiny Samsung 2110, I asked him what the problem might be and showed him the modem config screen showing maximum download 150000.
He had a bit of a fiddle around and then said had I registered the cable modem, I said no I thought that the installation crew had done all that and he said that they used to but don't any more (something to do with Data protection Act). Apparently they set it up on a low download setting, then when you have registered you should be able to see your 1, 4 or 10 meg setting.
He then found the registration page for me and bookmarked it. Problem is that the registration process requires an 11 digit number (and probably a PIN as well) which is supposed to be on my welcome letter. I have looked all through the welcome booklet and on the sheet of paper left by the installers and there is nothing that looks remotely like what I need.
Anyone got any ideas, or do I need to contact NTL to obtain the necessary information. It looks like two steps forward and one back at the moment!
Any help would be appreciated.
Think I might have found out what the problem is!
I also had a problem with the CTV box, so when the engineer was here this morning swapping my recon Pace for a brand new shiny Samsung 2110, I asked him what the problem might be and showed him the modem config screen showing maximum download 150000.
He had a bit of a fiddle around and then said had I registered the cable modem, I said no I thought that the installation crew had done all that and he said that they used to but don't any more (something to do with Data protection Act). Apparently they set it up on a low download setting, then when you have registered you should be able to see your 1, 4 or 10 meg setting.
He then found the registration page for me and bookmarked it. Problem is that the registration process requires an 11 digit number (and probably a PIN as well) which is supposed to be on my welcome letter. I have looked all through the welcome booklet and on the sheet of paper left by the installers and there is nothing that looks remotely like what I need.
Anyone got any ideas, or do I need to contact NTL to obtain the necessary information. It looks like two steps forward and one back at the moment!
Any help would be appreciated.
Before the engineer came to install broadband I got a letter from NTL in the post. At the top of the letter it says "Your PIN:xxxxxxx, Your Surname: (As if I didn't know that already) and Your Serial Number:".
In that letter it says "during the registration process you will need your PIN, you username, and your serial number".
That is the letter you need to find... if you have lost it maybe NTL can send you a duplicate copy or provide the details over the phone.
Anyone got any ideas, or do I need to contact NTL to obtain the necessary information. It looks like two steps forward and one back at the moment!
Any help would be appreciated.
i had the same problem with no pin,,installer told me to ring them and they sorted it over the phone.
Taken: 8.05am
1st 512K took 531 ms = 964.2 KB/sec, approx 7945 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps
2nd 512K took 563 ms = 909.4 KB/sec, approx 7493 Kbps, 7.32 Mbps
3rd 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
4th 512K took 562 ms = 911 KB/sec, approx 7507 Kbps, 7.33 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7846 Kbps, 7.66 Mbps
Come the evening it will be **** - l8rs all
1st 512K took 4000 ms = 128 KB/sec, approx 1055 Kbps, 1.03 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2610 ms = 196.2 KB/sec, approx 1617 Kbps, 1.58 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2828 ms = 181 KB/sec, approx 1491 Kbps, 1.46 Mbps
4th 512K took 2218 ms = 230.8 KB/sec, approx 1902 Kbps, 1.86 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1516 Kbps, 1.48 Mbps
Compared to this mornings results, these evening results are bull****
bjorkiii
26-09-2006, 18:57
Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:56:18 GMT
1st 512K took 585 ms = 875.2 KB/sec, approx 7212 Kbps, 7.04 Mbps
2nd 512K took 749 ms = 683.6 KB/sec, approx 5633 Kbps, 5.5 Mbps
3rd 512K took 733 ms = 698.5 KB/sec, approx 5756 Kbps, 5.62 Mbps
4th 512K took 747 ms = 685.4 KB/sec, approx 5648 Kbps, 5.52 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 6062 Kbps, 5.92 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here. 6.56pm
1st 512K took 4000 ms = 128 KB/sec, approx 1055 Kbps, 1.03 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2610 ms = 196.2 KB/sec, approx 1617 Kbps, 1.58 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2828 ms = 181 KB/sec, approx 1491 Kbps, 1.46 Mbps
4th 512K took 2218 ms = 230.8 KB/sec, approx 1902 Kbps, 1.86 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1516 Kbps, 1.48 Mbps
Compared to this mornings results, these evening results are bull****
Crazy... It may be worth starting a thread over at Chetnet http://www.chetnet.co.uk/portal/ . I was having some NTL problems a while ago and helpdesk were being their usual obstructive selves; I started a thread over there and it got fixed. Chet works for NTL - point him in the direction of the threads on this board.
I would do it but I am off out now so don't have time...
DanTheMan
26-09-2006, 19:24
Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:18:09 UTC
1st 128K took 7500 ms = 17476 Bytes/sec = approx 145 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 7515 ms = 17441 Bytes/sec = approx 145 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 10141 ms = 12925 Bytes/sec = approx 108 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 5141 ms = 25495 Bytes/sec = approx 212 kbits/sec
Overall 152 kbits/sec so thats only twice as good as dial up !!! pretty crap for 2MB :Yikes:
Have an engineer booked as modem keeps losing line and resetting every 5 mins
Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:57:53 GMT
1st 512K took 1484 ms = 345 KB/sec, approx 2843 Kbps, 2.78 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1702 ms = 300.8 KB/sec, approx 2479 Kbps, 2.42 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2937 ms = 174.3 KB/sec, approx 1436 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps
4th 512K took 4781 ms = 107.1 KB/sec, approx 883 Kbps, 0.86 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1910 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1159297085218).
Gone 6.00pm so traffic shaping in operation.
I am so glad i am moving provider. There is no way i am staying with a company that changes there level of service and does NOT tell its customers.
---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 20:00 ----------
Crazy... It may be worth starting a thread over at Chetnet http://www.chetnet.co.uk/portal/ . I was having some NTL problems a while ago and helpdesk were being their usual obstructive selves; I started a thread over there and it got fixed. Chet works for NTL - point him in the direction of the threads on this board.
I would do it but I am off out now so don't have time...
NTL be it Customer service or via Chetnet will NOT admit that they are traffic shaping.
I think the Mods or Admins on this forum should ask NTL for a statement. Lets face it for the last 2 weeks speeds have been ok up till 6.00pm then they go crap, then come 11.00pm they go ok again. If NTL refuse to make a statement then it just shows what they think of there customer base.
wyngriff
26-09-2006, 21:43
Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:57:53 GMT
1st 512K took 1484 ms = 345 KB/sec, approx 2843 Kbps, 2.78 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1702 ms = 300.8 KB/sec, approx 2479 Kbps, 2.42 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2937 ms = 174.3 KB/sec, approx 1436 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps
4th 512K took 4781 ms = 107.1 KB/sec, approx 883 Kbps, 0.86 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1910 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1159297085218).
Gone 6.00pm so traffic shaping in operation.
I am so glad i am moving provider. There is no way i am staying with a company that changes there level of service and does NOT tell its customers.
---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 20:00 ----------
NTL be it Customer service or via Chetnet will NOT admit that they are traffic shaping.
I think the Mods or Admins on this forum should ask NTL for a statement. Lets face it for the last 2 weeks speeds have been ok up till 6.00pm then they go crap, then come 11.00pm they go ok again. If NTL refuse to make a statement then it just shows what they think of there customer base.
Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:29:29 UTC
1st 512K took 4657 ms = 109.9 KB/sec, approx 906 Kbps, 0.88 Mbps
2nd 512K took 7406 ms = 69.1 KB/sec, approx 569 Kbps, 0.56 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4609 ms = 111.1 KB/sec, approx 915 Kbps, 0.89 Mbps
4th 512K took 2047 ms = 250.1 KB/sec, approx 2061 Kbps, 2.01 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1113 Kbps, 1.09 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1159302590453).
I agree they are traffic shaping, full speeds this morning 34brick a month for this c**p i dont think so, Its been like this for weeks in south manchester i work through the day so speeds like this in the evening are no good to me.
Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:51:35 GMT
1st 512K took 1235 ms = 414.6 KB/sec, approx 3416 Kbps, 3.34 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1140 ms = 449.1 KB/sec, approx 3701 Kbps, 3.61 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1219 ms = 420 KB/sec, approx 3461 Kbps, 3.38 Mbps
4th 512K took 2000 ms = 256 KB/sec, approx 2109 Kbps, 2.06 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3172 Kbps, 3.1 Mbps
TW,Donny, 4mbps.
No real difference here.
I agree they are traffic shaping, full speeds this morning 34brick a month for this c**p i dont think so, Its been like this for weeks in south manchester i work through the day so speeds like this in the evening are no good to me.
I will shortly be paying £10.00 a month for upto 16 meg broadband from Sky. Add to that £11.00 for line rental on a phone line that will never have a phone connected to it and i will be happy. £34.99 for a traffic shaped 1meg to 8 meg is not my idea of a good deal. I never get 10 meg anymore.
I don't think it is traffic shaping, they don't traffic shape HTTP traffic, the whole point of traffic shaping is to maximise HTTP and Gaming and lower the amount of bandwidth used for stuff like P2P.
Maybe they screwed something up and don't know how to fix it, or could just be a national network issue.
wyngriff
26-09-2006, 22:21
I will shortly be paying £10.00 a month for upto 16 meg broadband from Sky. Add to that £11.00 for line rental on a phone line that will never have a phone connected to it and i will be happy. £34.99 for a traffic shaped 1meg to 8 meg is not my idea of a good deal. I never get 10 meg anymore.
No it certenly is not a good deal, ive been with them since the days of nynex tv phone the lot, and if cancel broadband the tv and phone will go with it, its sad really but im not going to be robbed by no cable company.
I having major slowness connection. I'm having trouble getting through google search engine, hotmail and it took me 21 seconds to load up cable forum main page, yet I get a decent score:
Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:05:37 GMT
1st 512K took 4282 ms = 119.6 KB/sec, approx 986 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4296 ms = 119.2 KB/sec, approx 982 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4375 ms = 117 KB/sec, approx 964 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
4th 512K took 4282 ms = 119.6 KB/sec, approx 986 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 980 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
wyngriff
27-09-2006, 08:32
You must turn on JavaScript to get results from this Speed Test.
Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:29:18 UTC1st 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps4th 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 MbpsOverall Average Speed = approx 9730 Kbps, 9.5 MbpsTo repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1159342160578).veary good at the moment wait till teatime and i bet it will be pants again
--[/SIZE]
NTL be it Customer service or via Chetnet will NOT admit that they are traffic shaping.
I think the Mods or Admins on this forum should ask NTL for a statement. Lets face it for the last 2 weeks speeds have been ok up till 6.00pm then they go crap, then come 11.00pm they go ok again. If NTL refuse to make a statement then it just shows what they think of there customer base.
Fair enough it was just a suggestion. Personally I don't think it is traffic shaping unless it is extremely poorly configured. I would expect traffic shaping to be used to control applications that are sucking up bandwidth such as P2P not HTTP. I think it is a capacity issue and that is why it is occuring at peak times - the network (or some element of the network) is not coping well with increase in demand.
I think if the right people at NTL got to be aware of the issue it would get fixed.
Just my opinion.
Ntl think they can get away with traffic shaping and not telling anyone that they are using traffic shaping. I know they are and because
A. They have messed it up
B. They will not admit they are using it then i for one have had enough.
They have lost my custom
So roll on my new connection anything is better than what i have now.
so after this i ordered sky this morning. then out of the blue they phone me just now and tell me they have it wrong. I cannot get MAX upto 16 meg and should not have been told i could have it. So they offered me 2 meg 2 gig capped with a £50.00 install fee, you can imagine what i have told them they can do with that offer, Sky worse than Ntl when it comes to knowing their **** from elbow
Fireplace
28-09-2006, 18:59
Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:55:22 GMT
1st 512K took 19984 ms = 25.6 KB/sec, approx 211 Kbps, 0.21 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2969 ms = 172.4 KB/sec, approx 1421 Kbps, 1.39 Mbps
3rd 512K took 5531 ms = 92.6 KB/sec, approx 763 Kbps, 0.75 Mbps
4th 512K took 4875 ms = 105 KB/sec, approx 865 Kbps, 0.84 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 815 Kbps, 0.8 Mbps
Surely something wrong here, I'm supposed to be on 10MB
3 minutes later
Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:58:31 GMT
1st 512K took 734 ms = 697.5 KB/sec, approx 5747 Kbps, 5.61 Mbps
2nd 512K took 719 ms = 712.1 KB/sec, approx 5868 Kbps, 5.73 Mbps
3rd 512K took 797 ms = 642.4 KB/sec, approx 5293 Kbps, 5.17 Mbps
4th 512K took 719 ms = 712.1 KB/sec, approx 5868 Kbps, 5.73 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 5694 Kbps, 5.56 Mbps
Not got anywhere near 10Meg since upgrade on Saturday.
Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:55:22 GMT
1st 512K took 19984 ms = 25.6 KB/sec, approx 211 Kbps, 0.21 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2969 ms = 172.4 KB/sec, approx 1421 Kbps, 1.39 Mbps
3rd 512K took 5531 ms = 92.6 KB/sec, approx 763 Kbps, 0.75 Mbps
4th 512K took 4875 ms = 105 KB/sec, approx 865 Kbps, 0.84 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 815 Kbps, 0.8 Mbps
Surely something wrong here, I'm supposed to be on 10MB
3 minutes later
Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:58:31 GMT
1st 512K took 734 ms = 697.5 KB/sec, approx 5747 Kbps, 5.61 Mbps
2nd 512K took 719 ms = 712.1 KB/sec, approx 5868 Kbps, 5.73 Mbps
3rd 512K took 797 ms = 642.4 KB/sec, approx 5293 Kbps, 5.17 Mbps
4th 512K took 719 ms = 712.1 KB/sec, approx 5868 Kbps, 5.73 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 5694 Kbps, 5.56 Mbps
Not got anywhere near 10Meg since upgrade on Saturday.
If you're using a Samsung tv box for your internet then you will need to get a SACM (cable modem) installed as the Samsung is only capable of delivering 5-6 mbit. There might be a £50 charge for the modem.
Fireplace
28-09-2006, 20:02
If you're using a Samsung tv box for your internet then you will need to get a SACM (cable modem) installed as the Samsung is only capable of delivering 5-6 mbit. There might be a £50 charge for the modem.
I did have a modem installed on Saturday.
Before the engineer came to install broadband I got a letter from NTL in the post. At the top of the letter it says "Your PIN:xxxxxxx, Your Surname: (As if I didn't know that already) and Your Serial Number:".
In that letter it says "during the registration process you will need your PIN, you username, and your serial number".
That is the letter you need to find... if you have lost it maybe NTL can send you a duplicate copy or provide the details over the phone.
Fingers crossed, I think it's sorted!
After spending 30 minutes on the phone to India, during which the tech support guy managed to ascertain that I still had the MAC address from my old modem at my previous house registered to my account, he has now registered the MAC address of my new modem. Here is the speed test result:
Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:13:11 GMT
1st 512K took 4180 ms = 122.5 KB/sec, approx 1009 Kbps, 0.99 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2410 ms = 212.4 KB/sec, approx 1750 Kbps, 1.71 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2310 ms = 221.6 KB/sec, approx 1826 Kbps, 1.78 Mbps
4th 512K took 2420 ms = 211.6 KB/sec, approx 1744 Kbps, 1.7 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1582 Kbps, 1.55 Mbps
When I did the Dan Elwell test it showed 1.8 Mb, so I'm happy with both of those.
The modem config page is now showing max download as 2048000, so clearly the Leicester area has now been upgraded to 2 meg.
My faith in NTL has been well and truly restored this week, as I also had an issue with the Pace STB which has now been swopped for a brand new Samsung 2110! Just hope it lasts. Well done to Tech Support.:)
---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------
Another different test result
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/1.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
My upload is now faster than the download was!!
homealone
28-09-2006, 20:47
Fingers crossed, I think it's sorted!
After spending 30 minutes on the phone to India, during which the tech support guy managed to ascertain that I still had the MAC address from my old modem at my previous house registered to my account, he has now registered the MAC address of my new modem. Here is the speed test result:
Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:13:11 GMT
1st 512K took 4180 ms = 122.5 KB/sec, approx 1009 Kbps, 0.99 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2410 ms = 212.4 KB/sec, approx 1750 Kbps, 1.71 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2310 ms = 221.6 KB/sec, approx 1826 Kbps, 1.78 Mbps
4th 512K took 2420 ms = 211.6 KB/sec, approx 1744 Kbps, 1.7 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1582 Kbps, 1.55 Mbps
When I did the Dan Elwell test it showed 1.8 Mb, so I'm happy with both of those.
The modem config page is now showing max download as 2048000, so clearly the Leicester area has now been upgraded to 2 meg.
My faith in NTL has been well and truly restored this week, as I also had an issue with the Pace STB which has now been swopped for a brand new Samsung 2110! Just hope it lasts. Well done to Tech Support.:)
---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------
Another different test result
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/09/1.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
My upload is now faster than the download was!!
good news :tu:
it looks like getting the registration issue sorted has enabled the modem to download the correct config file, not the one restricting you to 150Kb, it had previously :)
Not yet LE4........
Although there's something going on.... My Cable box keeps switching itself on. Blasted thing. If I'm watching a different source it causes the telly to default to the c/b.
Nuisance when watching a dvd thru the hdmi connection.
Just changed my anti virus from Nod32 to Kaspersky.
This forums speed test now gives me 2-3mbit instead of my usual 10mbit. So i can conclude that Kaspersky is to blame and turning off it's real time protection proves this.
So it's important to note that its not just firewalls that can slow your connection/speed tests down.
However i get much more favourable results using other speed tests.
I can get 8-9mbit from http://www.speedtest.net/ with Kaspersky protection enabled and 10mbit from http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedtest.asp which kind of leaves me scratching my head. Also newsgroup speeds arn't affected by Kaspersky's real time protection.
So if all else fails check those settings in your anti virus software. :)
Rufus Fook
02-10-2006, 14:18
Help, Im supposed to be on 10mb, but only get these results
on, 02 Oct 2006 13:15:32 GMT
1st 512K took 1732 ms = 295.6 KB/sec, approx 2436 Kbps, 2.38 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1683 ms = 304.2 KB/sec, approx 2507 Kbps, 2.45 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1372 ms = 373.2 KB/sec, approx 3075 Kbps, 3 Mbps
4th 512K took 1542 ms = 332 KB/sec, approx 2736 Kbps, 2.67 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2689 Kbps, 2.63 Mbps
Ive got a Terayon TJ210 modem and a US Robotics USR5462 wireless router,currently no wirless devices connected.
scoobydoo[uk]
02-10-2006, 19:19
Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:17:53 GMT
1st 512K took 578 ms = 885.8 KB/sec, approx 7299 Kbps, 7.13 Mbps
2nd 512K took 484 ms = 1057.9 KB/sec, approx 8717 Kbps, 8.51 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8832 Kbps, 8.62 Mbps
Havent had speeds like this after 6pm for over a month now... somethings changed on the network tonight for the better :) lets just hope it stays like this now.
;34128268']Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:17:53 GMT
1st 512K took 578 ms = 885.8 KB/sec, approx 7299 Kbps, 7.13 Mbps
2nd 512K took 484 ms = 1057.9 KB/sec, approx 8717 Kbps, 8.51 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8832 Kbps, 8.62 Mbps
Havent had speeds like this after 6pm for over a month now... somethings changed on the network tonight for the better :) lets just hope it stays like this now.
Its so nice to have the speeds back
Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:22:37 GMT
1st 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
2nd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8936 Kbps, 8.73 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1159816959962).
wyngriff
02-10-2006, 20:46
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:42:41 UTC
1st 512K took 8328 ms = 61.5 KB/sec, approx 507 Kbps, 0.5 Mbps
2nd 512K took 6687 ms = 76.6 KB/sec, approx 631 Kbps, 0.62 Mbps
3rd 512K took 11047 ms = 46.3 KB/sec, approx 382 Kbps, 0.37 Mbps
4th 512K took 16234 ms = 31.5 KB/sec, approx 260 Kbps, 0.25 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 445 Kbps, 0.44 Mbps
anyone else getting results like this in southmanchester browsing web is painfully slow
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:42:41 UTC
1st 512K took 8328 ms = 61.5 KB/sec, approx 507 Kbps, 0.5 Mbps
2nd 512K took 6687 ms = 76.6 KB/sec, approx 631 Kbps, 0.62 Mbps
3rd 512K took 11047 ms = 46.3 KB/sec, approx 382 Kbps, 0.37 Mbps
4th 512K took 16234 ms = 31.5 KB/sec, approx 260 Kbps, 0.25 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 445 Kbps, 0.44 Mbps
anyone else getting results like this in southmanchester browsing web is painfully slow
In Wirral:
Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:07:28 GMT
1st 128K took 5860 ms = 22367 Bytes/sec = approx 186 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1045 ms = 125428 Bytes/sec = approx 1044 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1153 ms = 113679 Bytes/sec = approx 946 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1029 ms = 127378 Bytes/sec = approx 1060 kbits/sec
Check out hop 8 below:
Target Name: homepage.ntlworld.com
IP: 62.253.162.12
Date/Time: 02/10/2006 20:36:13
1 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms [192.168.1.1]
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms [10.137.108.1]
3 9 ms 7 ms 9 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-v134.inet.ntl.com [80.5.163.201]
4 9 ms 33 ms 35 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan23.inet.ntl.com [195.182.175.45]
5 11 ms 10 ms 9 ms lee-bb-b-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.73]
6 9 ms 12 ms 15 ms man-bb-a-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.193]
7 11 ms 10 ms 38 ms man-bb-b-so-120-0.inet.ntl.com [62.252.192.66]
8 259 ms * * win-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
9 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms win-dc-a-v903.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.34]
10 18 ms 18 ms 19 ms homepage02-win.server.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.12]
I am going on holiday soon - if it like this when I get back I am moving my broadband elsewhere.
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:42:41 UTC
1st 512K took 8328 ms = 61.5 KB/sec, approx 507 Kbps, 0.5 Mbps
2nd 512K took 6687 ms = 76.6 KB/sec, approx 631 Kbps, 0.62 Mbps
3rd 512K took 11047 ms = 46.3 KB/sec, approx 382 Kbps, 0.37 Mbps
4th 512K took 16234 ms = 31.5 KB/sec, approx 260 Kbps, 0.25 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 445 Kbps, 0.44 Mbps
anyone else getting results like this in southmanchester browsing web is painfully slow
Try with this proxy
cache2-lang.server.ntli.net:8080
Try with this proxy
cache2-lang.server.ntli.net:8080
Cool - works for me. Thanks :)
scoobydoo[uk]
02-10-2006, 22:11
Its looking good tonight, speeds are still up in the 8mbps.. Come on NTL keep this going.. we've got faith in you.
Cool - works for me. Thanks :)
:tu:
i've trawled through this thread and still don't know if what i'm getting is ok
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:31:35 UTC
1st 512K took 3460 ms = 148 KB/sec, approx 1220 Kbps, 1.19 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3740 ms = 136.9 KB/sec, approx 1128 Kbps, 1.1 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3290 ms = 155.6 KB/sec, approx 1282 Kbps, 1.25 Mbps
4th 512K took 2580 ms = 198.4 KB/sec, approx 1635 Kbps, 1.6 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1316 Kbps, 1.29 Mbps
that's with using that proxy.tried a few tests before that and didn't see a great deal of difference.can anybody help me out?
Changing proxys are not going to do much about download speeds, only browsing will be either better or worse...
---------- Post added at 22:55 ---------- Previous post was at 22:54 ----------
Taken: 11.59pm - ntl: 10Mbps
1st 512K took 1516 ms = 337.7 KB/sec, approx 2783 Kbps, 2.72 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1422 ms = 360.1 KB/sec, approx 2967 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1296 ms = 395.1 KB/sec, approx 3256 Kbps, 3.18 Mbps
4th 512K took 1329 ms = 385.3 KB/sec, approx 3175 Kbps, 3.1 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3045 Kbps, 2.98 Mbps
If i showed the speed test done at 7pm that would be crazy, 0.09Mbps average
Good grief this must be the worst service I have had from NTL in over 7 years of using the BB service
Upto 4Mbps !
Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:00:27 GMT
1st 512K took 1359 ms = 376.7 KB/sec, approx 3104 Kbps, 3.03 Mbps
2nd 512K took 9156 ms = 55.9 KB/sec, approx 461 Kbps, 0.45 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
4th 512K took 3953 ms = 129.5 KB/sec, approx 1067 Kbps, 1.04 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2096 Kbps, 2.05 Mbps
I hope this settles down really soon.
bjorkiii
02-10-2006, 23:49
Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:49:56 GMT
1st 512K took 435 ms = 1177 KB/sec, approx 9698 Kbps, 9.47 Mbps
2nd 512K took 427 ms = 1199.1 KB/sec, approx 9881 Kbps, 9.65 Mbps
3rd 512K took 439 ms = 1166.3 KB/sec, approx 9610 Kbps, 9.38 Mbps
4th 512K took 434 ms = 1179.7 KB/sec, approx 9721 Kbps, 9.49 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9728 Kbps, 9.5 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
Changing proxys are not going to do much about download speeds, only browsing will be either better or worse...
---------- Post added at 22:55 ---------- Previous post was at 22:54 ----------
Taken: 11.59pm - ntl: 10Mbps
1st 512K took 1516 ms = 337.7 KB/sec, approx 2783 Kbps, 2.72 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1422 ms = 360.1 KB/sec, approx 2967 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1296 ms = 395.1 KB/sec, approx 3256 Kbps, 3.18 Mbps
4th 512K took 1329 ms = 385.3 KB/sec, approx 3175 Kbps, 3.1 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3045 Kbps, 2.98 Mbps
If i showed the speed test done at 7pm that would be crazy, 0.09Mbps average
Indeed you are correct, But that test i think uses port 80 so it WILL go through the proxy's :)
Parrot of Doom
04-10-2006, 20:53
Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:52:00 GMT
1st 512K took 20781 ms = 24.6 KB/sec, approx 203 Kbps, 0.2 Mbps
2nd 512K took 9422 ms = 54.3 KB/sec, approx 447 Kbps, 0.44 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
4th 512K took 7157 ms = 71.5 KB/sec, approx 589 Kbps, 0.58 Mbps
Yay for NTL :(
Overall Average Speed = approx 799 Kbps, 0.78 Mbps
Wed, 4 Oct 2006 19:57:30 UTC
1st 512K took 595 ms = 860.5 KB/sec, approx 7091 Kbps, 6.92 Mbps
2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 407 ms = 1258 KB/sec, approx 10366 Kbps, 10.12 Mbps
4th 512K took 454 ms = 1127.8 KB/sec, approx 9293 Kbps, 9.08 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9187 Kbps, 8.97 Mbps
ng11 2100 hrs
Nedkelly
04-10-2006, 21:26
Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:24:44 UTC
1st 512K took 430 ms = 1190.7 KB/sec, approx 9811 Kbps, 9.58 Mbps
2nd 512K took 441 ms = 1161 KB/sec, approx 9567 Kbps, 9.34 Mbps
3rd 512K took 430 ms = 1190.7 KB/sec, approx 9811 Kbps, 9.58 Mbps
4th 512K took 451 ms = 1135.3 KB/sec, approx 9355 Kbps, 9.14 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9636 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
ok here today :)
Fwiw, I think the moral is to go for the lower tiers!
I'm sitting here downloading some Red Hat ISO's via FF on a 2Mb line - over 250 kB/sec according FF, even though it's coming from the US.
Putting that into context, I wasn't able to get much more on the corporate lan this afternoon.
:)
1st 512K took 1687 ms = 303.5 KB/sec, approx 2501 Kbps, 2.44 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1750 ms = 292.6 KB/sec, approx 2411 Kbps, 2.35 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1250 ms = 409.6 KB/sec, approx 3375 Kbps, 3.3 Mbps
4th 512K took 1797 ms = 284.9 KB/sec, approx 2348 Kbps, 2.29 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2659 Kbps, 2.6 Mbps
**** as usual on my 10Mbps service
Fleetwood Mac
05-10-2006, 19:56
Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:37:26 GMT
1st 512K took 9982 ms = 51.3 KB/sec, approx 423 Kbps, 0.41 Mbps
2nd 512K took 6904 ms = 74.2 KB/sec, approx 611 Kbps, 0.6 Mbps
3rd 512K took 12917 ms = 39.6 KB/sec, approx 326 Kbps, 0.32 Mbps
4th 512K took 8315 ms = 61.6 KB/sec, approx 508 Kbps, 0.5 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 467 Kbps, 0.46 Mbps
They are taking the p*** here!!!!
Sherlock614
05-10-2006, 21:04
So having read Bill C's highly informative and revealing thread on traffic shaping, plus NTL's admission to traffic shaping, who should we be complaining to, given that CS do not have any idea that traffic shaping exists?
I personally am not suffering with newsgroup downloads, but general http traffic and speed tests are a joke, as with the rest of this thread. I too am in Wirral.
PS Went from 10mb to 4mb - Back up to 10mb recently (only lasted a day at 4mb).... :p:
rang them this afto and they've bin aware of problems ( in MY area i was told) for the last two mths.everytime somebody rings in with the problem they log it the guy told me.on average i get 9 meg till mid afto then the speeds drop-most evening's to less than 1 meg.the first guy i spoke to ( unpleasant which is unusual for an indian) told me that on the 10 meg service anything upto 5 meg is acceptable-not in MY eyes
rang them this afto and they've bin aware of problems ( in MY area i was told) for the last two mths.
Ntl employ some very clever people, I know as i know some of them. Do you honestly think that NTL would allow something that was at fault to run for 2 months. Sorry but they have given you a load of NTL bull****. There is a simple reason why we are having these crap speeds at night its called
TRAFFIC SHAPING.
If its not traffic shaping then NTL have some very BIG contention problems which is just as bad . And they are trying to release 20 meg when they cannot even provide a stable 10 meg for most users.
i almost laughed at the guy when he said the problem was with the cable in MY area.after speaking to the guy in india he mailed me ( 4 different emails) on what can cause problems with one's connection.email one started with how to check the sequence of lites on the modem.then we proceeded to the benefits of using ethernet over usb and to cap it all the last email it told me abt spyware/adaware/trojans/viruses...... ending in firewalls.do they they we're all bl**dy thick?
I cannot understand how NTL can even consider Upgrades to 20 meg with the contention issues in my area. The ONLY possible reason as i see it is to match or beat Sky's 16 meg max package. This would mean that NTL don't or will not care if it works just that they have 20 meg not 16meg, And will be able to brag there faster than Sky.
So have any of you contacted watchdog or a similar body to officially raise the question to NTL/TELEWEST about traffic shaping and or contention issues (i think it is a mixture of both) as doing it as an individual over the phone to their technical support seems to have no impact. No if enough complaints are raised via one official body maybies voices will be heard.
"MAYBIES"
So have any of you contacted watchdog or a similar body to officially raise the question to NTL/TELEWEST about traffic shaping and or contention issues (i think it is a mixture of both) as doing it as an individual over the phone to their technical support seems to have no impact. No if enough complaints are raised via one official body maybies voices will be heard.
"MAYBIES"
The problem is that NTL will always say upto 10 meg. I would take it that legally NTL could give you upto 10 meg even when its only 3 meg and be able to legally get away with ripping you off.
Traffic shaping again is legal if it's in there aup or terms "at the moment it's not by the look of it"
Taken 8.02am:
1st 512K took 531 ms = 964.2 KB/sec, approx 7945 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps
2nd 512K took 531 ms = 964.2 KB/sec, approx 7945 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps3rd 512K took 485 ms = 1055.7 KB/sec, approx 8699 Kbps, 8.5 Mbps
4th 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8257 Kbps, 8.07 Mbps
As you can see, its so much better then it is after 5pm :Yikes:
10.58am exteme slowdown - thought i'd check before i have to leave...
1st 512K took 8163 ms = 62.7 KB/sec, approx 517 Kbps, 0.5 Mbps
2nd 512K took 7673 ms = 66.7 KB/sec, approx 550 Kbps, 0.54 Mbps
3rd 512K took 6140 ms = 83.4 KB/sec, approx 687 Kbps, 0.67 Mbps4th 512K took 4748 ms = 107.8 KB/sec, approx 888 Kbps, 0.87 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 661 Kbps, 0.65 Mbps
Quote:
Originally Posted by kev350d http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?p=34130702#post34130702)
So have any of you contacted watchdog or a similar body to officially raise the question to NTL/TELEWEST about traffic shaping and or contention issues (i think it is a mixture of both) as doing it as an individual over the phone to their technical support seems to have no impact. No if enough complaints are raised via one official body maybies voices will be heard.
"MAYBIES"
The problem is that NTL will always say upto 10 meg. I would take it that legally NTL could give you upto 10 meg even when its only 3 meg and be able to legally get away with ripping you off.
Traffic shaping again is legal if it's in there aup or terms "at the moment it's not by the look of it"
hmm multi posting/quoting doesnt seem to be pulling in both posters so i had to add it in...
well Bill your a clever bloke and i have lots of respect for you and the other posters here, but you do come over in your posts in relation to this 'Traffic shaping' as an "im alright jack so 'F*&^% it', and as long as it doesnt effect the services i personally use, then fine....
its a rather blinkered point of view and indeed rather defeatist in that NTL:tw are always right in what they (the executive board and top tear managers) do, so is the assumption "that legally NTL could give you upto 10 meg even when its only 3 meg and be able to legally get away with ripping you off."
you (the reader)could, rather than take the easy route and find a way to leave, take the even easyer route of the small claims courts and bring an injunction for instance to provent them artificially restricting (with 'Traffic shaping') the full potential of your subscribed download:upload package.
you could challenge the UPTO part of the T&C, infact any part of these T&Cs and for any companys not just NTL, its simple now that the banks and the credit reference agences have forced the average users into a corner and refused to budge on unlawful T&Cs,charges etc, then people have been forced to learn how relatively easy it is to bypass the bull, and go direct to the courts to finally get a fair deal, so can you in respect of these 'Traffic shaping' and upto marketeering ploys, of course NTL:tw could just ask what we want as a fair deal and give it to us and everyone (with the obvious exceptions)is happy and more profitable as it encurages less churn etc.
hmm multi posting/quoting doesnt seem to be pulling in both posters so i had to add it in...
well Bill your a clever bloke and i have lots of respect for you and the other posters here, but you do come over in your posts in relation to this 'Traffic shaping' as an "im alright jack so 'F*&^% it', and as long as it doesnt effect the services i personally use, then fine....
its a rather blinkered point of view and indeed rather defeatist in that NTL:tw are always right in what they (the executive board and top tear managers) do, so is the assumption "that legally NTL could give you upto 10 meg even when its only 3 meg and be able to legally get away with ripping you off."
you (the reader)could, rather than take the easy route and find a way to leave, take the even easyer route of the small claims courts and bring an injunction for instance to provent them artificially restricting (with 'Traffic shaping') the full potential of your subscribed download:upload package.
you could challenge the UPTO part of the T&C, infact any part of these T&Cs and for any companys not just NTL, its simple now that the banks and the credit reference agences have forced the average users into a corner and refused to budge on unlawful T&Cs,charges etc, then people have been forced to learn how relatively easy it is to bypass the bull, and go direct to the courts to finally get a fair deal, so can you in respect of these 'Traffic shaping' and upto marketeering ploys, of course NTL:tw could just ask what we want as a fair deal and give it to us and everyone (with the obvious exceptions)is happy and more profitable as it encurages less churn etc.
So do you think i am happy that my connection is not worth a salt. I used to work for NTL and know what they are like. There again i could have kept my mouth shut and said nothing. Then you would all be scratching your arses wondering why your connection had gone to ****.
Just a point NTL will do nothing over this i promise you now. They will have a good joke about it and then check the bank balance.
I want a good connection what i dont want is to be ripped off.
So do you think i am happy that my connection is not worth a salt. I used to work for NTL and know what they are like. There again i could have kept my mouth shut and said nothing. Then you would all be scratching your arses wondering why your connection had gone to ****.
Just a point NTL will do nothing over this i promise you now. They will have a good joke about it and then check the bank balance.
I want a good connection what i dont want is to be ripped off.
I would like to thank you Bill C I was scratching my *** and head over my problem which I now release that its not just my problem also Tech support can no longer keep pointing there finger at my PC and CS I will point out did try and solve my problems even if it was passing me over to Tech support for them to use there pointy finger.
Thanks again Bill and I know you have taken a lot of stick over this issue which I think was not required.
I would like to thank you Bill C I was scratching my *** and head over my problem which I now release that its not just my problem also Tech support can no longer keep pointing there finger at my PC and CS I will point out did try and solve my problems even if it was passing me over to Tech support for them to use there pointy finger.
Thanks again Bill and I know you have taken a lot of stick over this issue which I think was not required.
We all have to understand that not everyone's problems will be traffic shaping. However when you look at when everyone started to complain all at once about slow speeds and slow browsing, That sudden surge in problems related to about the 19th of September. That was when i started to see weird problems with my connection that could only relate to shaping. I would love to have a good connection and i hope i get one, Problem is i don't foresee that coming from NTL when all they are interested in is the numbers game with there competitors. Such a shame really considering that NTL broadband was the Rolls Royce of connections at one time now its just the Aldi.
I didnt mean to stir the pot, but take a spy at my connection taken just now and yes im on 10mb:
1st 512K took 5609 ms = 91.3 KB/sec, approx 752 Kbps, 0.73 Mbps
2nd 512K took 6250 ms = 81.9 KB/sec, approx 675 Kbps, 0.66 Mbps
3rd 512K took 5047 ms = 101.4 KB/sec, approx 836 Kbps, 0.82 Mbps
4th 512K took 8594 ms = 59.6 KB/sec, approx 491 Kbps, 0.48 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 689 Kbps, 0.67 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
Traffic shaping is whats going on and yes its allowed if they inform us but NOT soley in area's to cover contention issues instead of upgrading their network.
Hence why alot of folk dont have an issue YET.
Hence why im also ****** off
scoobydoo[uk]
09-10-2006, 18:14
Dont know if NTL have been tweaking their network,but its after 6pm now in Stoke and im currently maxing out my 10mb connection.. The first time ive seen it like this for a couple of months.
FusionXN1
09-10-2006, 19:53
;34133433']Dont know if NTL have been tweaking their network,but its after 6pm now in Stoke and im currently maxing out my 10mb connection.. The first time ive seen it like this for a couple of months.
Cleethorpes here and yes i am maxing mine out after 6pm - first time since i took it out a month ago. What ever it is go NTL!
samsungdude
09-10-2006, 19:55
my results are:
Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:17:31 GMT
1st 512K took 23187 ms = 22.1 KB/sec, approx 182 Kbps, 0.18 Mbps
2nd 512K took 17703 ms = 28.9 KB/sec, approx 238 Kbps, 0.23 Mbps
3rd 512K took 11516 ms = 44.5 KB/sec, approx 367 Kbps, 0.36 Mbps
4th 512K took 21969 ms = 23.3 KB/sec, approx 192 Kbps, 0.19 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 245 Kbps, 0.24 Mbps
I live in Portsmouth, im on 2 or 3mb cant quite remember as i never get the speeds im supposed too. and my ntl box is a Samsung SMT-2100C
my results are:
Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:17:31 GMT
1st 512K took 23187 ms = 22.1 KB/sec, approx 182 Kbps, 0.18 Mbps
2nd 512K took 17703 ms = 28.9 KB/sec, approx 238 Kbps, 0.23 Mbps
3rd 512K took 11516 ms = 44.5 KB/sec, approx 367 Kbps, 0.36 Mbps
4th 512K took 21969 ms = 23.3 KB/sec, approx 192 Kbps, 0.19 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 245 Kbps, 0.24 Mbps
I live in Portsmouth, im on 2 or 3mb cant quite remember as i never get the speeds im supposed too. and my ntl box is a Samsung SMT-2100C
1mbit is in the process of being upgraded to 2mbit for free and 2mbit has been upgraded to 4mbit for free, also 3mbit was upgraded to 10mbit a good while ago for free.
What ever you have, it looks like something is wrong. As i don't use an STB i can't really help, hopefully someone will be along soon who maybe able to help.
All i can suggest is to take the router out of the loop and do a speed test. Also read this thread regarding Zone Alarm and my post on anti virus settings.
last wk my speed started off around 9 and slowly went down during the day.today i've bin getting speeds of between 2 and 4 meg.xtremely pi**ed off
Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:34:00 GMT
1st 512K took 7701 ms = 66.5 KB/sec, approx 548 Kbps, 0.54 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2995 ms = 171 KB/sec, approx 1409 Kbps, 1.38 Mbps
3rd 512K took 5067 ms = 101 KB/sec, approx 832 Kbps, 0.81 Mbps
4th 512K took 3275 ms = 156.3 KB/sec, approx 1288 Kbps, 1.26 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1019 Kbps, 1 Mbps
I'm on 10mbit, well actually 20mbit trial. This morning I got 15mbit speeds! At prime time the speed is just awful. I'm in E17.
what speed test are you using?
my 4mb internet is atrotious at the moment.
what speed test are you using?
my 4mb internet is atrotious at the moment.
At the top of this page. Or http://www.speedtest.net/ or http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedtest.asp
ok thanks, can post some results now...
Downstream 112.1 Kbps ( = 0.1 Mbps )
Upstream 302.8 Kbps ( = 0.3 Mbps )
and
1st 512K took 45516 ms = 11.2 KB/sec, approx 92 Kbps, 0.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 44312 ms = 11.6 KB/sec, approx 96 Kbps, 0.09 Mbps
3rd 512K took 46907 ms = 10.9 KB/sec, approx 90 Kbps, 0.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 40828 ms = 12.5 KB/sec, approx 103 Kbps, 0.1 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 95 Kbps, 0.09 Mbps
4mb in Leeds
murfitUK
10-10-2006, 18:47
;34133433']Dont know if NTL have been tweaking their network,but its after 6pm now in Stoke and im currently maxing out my 10mb connection.. The first time ive seen it like this for a couple of months.
Maybe they have given you some of my speed because mine's is worse than ever:
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:40:17 GMT
1st 512K took 42250 ms = 12.1 KB/sec, approx 100 Kbps, 0.1 Mbps
2nd 512K took 32922 ms = 15.6 KB/sec, approx 129 Kbps, 0.13 Mbps
3rd 512K took 43328 ms = 11.8 KB/sec, approx 97 Kbps, 0.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 55500 ms = 9.2 KB/sec, approx 76 Kbps, 0.07 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 101 Kbps, 0.1 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
4 meg in Stoke.
Is this the same ntl that complained to ofcom about another provider making wildly inaccurate claims about its broadband speed?
Maybe they have given you some of my speed because mine's is worse than ever:
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:40:17 GMT
1st 512K took 42250 ms = 12.1 KB/sec, approx 100 Kbps, 0.1 Mbps
2nd 512K took 32922 ms = 15.6 KB/sec, approx 129 Kbps, 0.13 Mbps
3rd 512K took 43328 ms = 11.8 KB/sec, approx 97 Kbps, 0.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 55500 ms = 9.2 KB/sec, approx 76 Kbps, 0.07 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 101 Kbps, 0.1 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
4 meg in Stoke.
Is this the same ntl that complained to ofcom about another provider making wildly inaccurate claims about its broadband speed?
10 meg NTL high speed broadband in Warrington :rofl:
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:03:45 GMT
1st 512K took 1594 ms = 321.2 KB/sec, approx 2647 Kbps, 2.58 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
3rd 512K took 953 ms = 537.3 KB/sec, approx 4427 Kbps, 4.32 Mbps
4th 512K took 844 ms = 606.6 KB/sec, approx 4998 Kbps, 4.88 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3956 Kbps, 3.86 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160503430171).
At least its not as bad as your excellent advert for all that is NTL broadband.
Damn slow on 10Mbps in NW London
1st 512K took 5250 ms = 97.5 KB/sec, approx 803 Kbps, 0.78 Mbps
2nd 512K took 5625 ms = 91 KB/sec, approx 750 Kbps, 0.73 Mbps
3rd 512K took 5390 ms = 95 KB/sec, approx 783 Kbps, 0.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 4860 ms = 105.3 KB/sec, approx 868 Kbps, 0.85 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 801 Kbps, 0.78 Mbps
geminian68
10-10-2006, 19:24
10mb in Derby :(
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:20:21 GMT
1st 512K took 4625 ms = 110.7 KB/sec, approx 912 Kbps, 0.89 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3719 ms = 137.7 KB/sec, approx 1135 Kbps, 1.11 Mbps
3rd 512K took 5797 ms = 88.3 KB/sec, approx 728 Kbps, 0.71 Mbps
4th 512K took 2140 ms = 239.3 KB/sec, approx 1972 Kbps, 1.93 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1187 Kbps, 1.16 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
Results for a 10 Meg service in Swindon, Wiltshire on Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:26:40 GMT:-
1st 512K took 718 ms = 713.1 KB/sec, approx 5876 Kbps, 5.74 Mbps
2nd 512K took 610 ms = 839.3 KB/sec, approx 6916 Kbps, 6.75 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1047 ms = 489 KB/sec, approx 4029 Kbps, 3.93 Mbps
4th 512K took 1218 ms = 420.4 KB/sec, approx 3464 Kbps, 3.38 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 5071 Kbps, 4.95 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
This is pretty awful :(
Don't forget NTL are about to unleash an even bigger joke on us all.
20 Meg :rofl::rofl:
Lol why is that Bill?:D Nah I understand...I think :erm:
Just cheaking my speeds at peak time:
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:50:07 GMT
1st 512K took 2235 ms = 229.1 KB/sec, approx 1888 Kbps, 1.84 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2140 ms = 239.3 KB/sec, approx 1972 Kbps, 1.93 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
4th 512K took 2157 ms = 237.4 KB/sec, approx 1956 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1943 Kbps, 1.9 Mbps
I love my 2MB connection!
**** NTL - they are giving me more of a reason to move, can't wait to switch to Be's 24Mbps service for £20 per month (Will be that price in my area when it launches)
:)
still taking the pi** here
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:28:48 UTC
1st 512K took 1040 ms = 492.3 KB/sec, approx 4057 Kbps, 3.96 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1210 ms = 423.1 KB/sec, approx 3486 Kbps, 3.4 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1760 ms = 290.9 KB/sec, approx 2397 Kbps, 2.34 Mbps
4th 512K took 1860 ms = 275.3 KB/sec, approx 2268 Kbps, 2.21 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3052 Kbps, 2.98 Mbps
My bill says 2Mb, Internetfrog speed test never get more than 990Kbps. CS told me this is due to having Limewire installed,or firewalls etc.
I took off Limewire & closed firewall but still the same results. I have Samsung STB. (Orpington area)
I complained to NTL last week and yesterday a guy came to investigate my slow 10 meg service (an average of about 4 Meg). After a few tests he concluded that my NTL 200 cable modem had been damaged (although it still worked - albeit very slow) by the recent lightning storm and replaced it with a new NTL 250 (blue) modem. My performance now shows a significant improvment :p: :-
Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:53:14 GMT
1st 512K took 360 ms = 1422.2 KB/sec, approx 11719 Kbps, 11.44 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 10251 Kbps, 10.01 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
wyngriff
11-10-2006, 16:25
Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:16:24 UTC
1st 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1343 ms = 381.2 KB/sec, approx 3141 Kbps, 3.07 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1657 ms = 309 KB/sec, approx 2546 Kbps, 2.49 Mbps
4th 512K took 1656 ms = 309.2 KB/sec, approx 2548 Kbps, 2.49 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2996 Kbps, 2.93 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160579790921).
Less than half my supposed speed. just cancelled direct debit will wait and see what they have to say about that
Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:16:24 UTC
1st 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1343 ms = 381.2 KB/sec, approx 3141 Kbps, 3.07 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1657 ms = 309 KB/sec, approx 2546 Kbps, 2.49 Mbps
4th 512K took 1656 ms = 309.2 KB/sec, approx 2548 Kbps, 2.49 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2996 Kbps, 2.93 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160579790921).
Less than half my supposed speed. just cancelled direct debit will wait and see what they have to say about that
My god its only 16.48 and its crap already.
Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:47:20 GMT
1st 512K took 1360 ms = 376.5 KB/sec, approx 3102 Kbps, 3.03 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1562 ms = 327.8 KB/sec, approx 2701 Kbps, 2.64 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3610 ms = 141.8 KB/sec, approx 1168 Kbps, 1.14 Mbps
4th 512K took 2687 ms = 190.5 KB/sec, approx 1570 Kbps, 1.53 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2135 Kbps, 2.09 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160581655515).
NTL your broadband is now as much use as a light house in the desert
NTL How the hell did you get this bad :mad:
Taken: 7.01pm 10Mbps service - NW London
1st 512K took 1390 ms = 368.3 KB/sec, approx 3035 Kbps, 2.96 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1219 ms = 420 KB/sec, approx 3461 Kbps, 3.38 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1610 ms = 318 KB/sec, approx 2620 Kbps, 2.56 Mbps
4th 512K took 1531 ms = 334.4 KB/sec, approx 2755 Kbps, 2.69 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2968 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
And why am i downloading from Microsoft's website at such poor speeds, 19KB/s or 11KB/s sometimes a little faster at 60KB/s
They have no right to offer customers on the 10Mbps package lower speeds then 4Mbps, *******s!
Oh yes, and these speeds are super fast compared to what i'd usually get by this time :) so... YAYYY :/
I get terrible results on this sites speed test since i installed Kaspersky Anti virus, but other speeds tests are great.
Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:15:04 GMT
1st 512K took 907 ms = 564.5 KB/sec, approx 4651 Kbps, 4.54 Mbps
2nd 512K took 812 ms = 630.5 KB/sec, approx 5195 Kbps, 5.07 Mbps
3rd 512K took 672 ms = 761.9 KB/sec, approx 6278 Kbps, 6.13 Mbps
4th 512K took 828 ms = 618.4 KB/sec, approx 5096 Kbps, 4.98 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 5305 Kbps, 5.18 Mbps
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/10/22.png
Speed Test Results
Downstream 9,255.3 Kbps ( = 9.0 Mbps )
Upstream 478.1 Kbps ( = 0.5 Mbps )
Taken: 10.18pm: 10Mbps service - NW London
I'm struggling to even get on websites, took me 6 minutes to load CableForum
1st 512K took 26718 ms = 19.2 KB/sec, approx 158 Kbps, 0.15 Mbps
2nd 512K took 27156 ms = 18.9 KB/sec, approx 156 Kbps, 0.15 Mbps
3rd 512K took 6078 ms = 84.2 KB/sec, approx 694 Kbps, 0.68 Mbps
4th 512K took 8843 ms = 57.9 KB/sec, approx 477 Kbps, 0.47 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 371 Kbps, 0.36 Mbps
This is the 3rd time im trying to post it because browsing is so poor
wyngriff
12-10-2006, 06:25
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:19:10 UTC
1st 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9730 Kbps, 9.5 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160630351953).
06.20am time for work and its running on rocket fuel,wait till i get home tonight?
wyngriff
12-10-2006, 16:49
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:19:10 UTC
1st 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
2nd 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps
3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9730 Kbps, 9.5 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160630351953).
06.20am time for work and its running on rocket fuel,wait till i get home tonight?
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:45:10 UTC
1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9393 Kbps, 9.17 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160667912359).
4.46pm and still going strong, i dont think it was possible
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:45:10 UTC
1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
3rd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
4th 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9393 Kbps, 9.17 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160667912359).
4.46pm and still going strong, i dont think it was possible
But wait till 6.00pm
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:02:00 GMT
1st 512K took 657 ms = 779.3 KB/sec, approx 6421 Kbps, 6.27 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 562 ms = 911 KB/sec, approx 7507 Kbps, 7.33 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8304 Kbps, 8.11 Mbps
Not bad at the moment :tu:
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160668923187).
wyngriff
12-10-2006, 17:34
But wait till 6.00pm
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:02:00 GMT
1st 512K took 657 ms = 779.3 KB/sec, approx 6421 Kbps, 6.27 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 562 ms = 911 KB/sec, approx 7507 Kbps, 7.33 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8304 Kbps, 8.11 Mbps
Not bad at the moment :tu:
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160668923187).
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:27:45 UTC
1st 512K took 1719 ms = 297.8 KB/sec, approx 2454 Kbps, 2.4 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1563 ms = 327.6 KB/sec, approx 2699 Kbps, 2.64 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1343 ms = 381.2 KB/sec, approx 3141 Kbps, 3.07 Mbps
4th 512K took 1204 ms = 425.2 KB/sec, approx 3504 Kbps, 3.42 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2950 Kbps, 2.88 Mbps
Sorry Bill you were wrong mate did not have to wait while 6pm more like 5.30pm
As usual, in Edgware NTL offer an extremely poor service
1st 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1484 ms = 345 KB/sec, approx 2843 Kbps, 2.78 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1672 ms = 306.2 KB/sec, approx 2523 Kbps, 2.46 Mbps
4th 512K took 1407 ms = 363.9 KB/sec, approx 2999 Kbps, 2.93 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3029 Kbps, 2.96 Mbps
wyngriff
12-10-2006, 18:09
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:01:41 UTC
1st 512K took 5734 ms = 89.3 KB/sec, approx 736 Kbps, 0.72 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4157 ms = 123.2 KB/sec, approx 1015 Kbps, 0.99 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3562 ms = 143.7 KB/sec, approx 1184 Kbps, 1.16 Mbps
4th 512K took 4625 ms = 110.7 KB/sec, approx 912 Kbps, 0.89 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 962 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
Yes its now 6pm and true to form were back to this, ntl award winning broadband at £34.99 a month what a joke. are they taking the p..s i think so
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:01:41 UTC
1st 512K took 5734 ms = 89.3 KB/sec, approx 736 Kbps, 0.72 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4157 ms = 123.2 KB/sec, approx 1015 Kbps, 0.99 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3562 ms = 143.7 KB/sec, approx 1184 Kbps, 1.16 Mbps
4th 512K took 4625 ms = 110.7 KB/sec, approx 912 Kbps, 0.89 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 962 Kbps, 0.94 Mbps
Yes its now 6pm and true to form were back to this, ntl award winning broadband at £34.99 a month what a joke. are they taking the p..s i think so
Now how about this
If i use this proxy i get
midd-cache-8.server.ntli.net
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:14:09 GMT
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 421 ms = 1216.2 KB/sec, approx 10021 Kbps, 9.79 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9576 Kbps, 9.36 Mbps
If i use the Baguley proxy's I get this.
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:16:52 GMT
1st 512K took 1672 ms = 306.2 KB/sec, approx 2523 Kbps, 2.46 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2203 ms = 232.4 KB/sec, approx 1915 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1391 ms = 368.1 KB/sec, approx 3033 Kbps, 2.96 Mbps
4th 512K took 3234 ms = 158.3 KB/sec, approx 1304 Kbps, 1.27 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2194 Kbps, 2.14 Mbps
:Yikes:
Try the mid proxy
wyngriff
12-10-2006, 18:34
Now how about this
If i use this proxy i get
midd-cache-8.server.ntli.net
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:14:09 GMT
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 421 ms = 1216.2 KB/sec, approx 10021 Kbps, 9.79 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9576 Kbps, 9.36 Mbps
If i use the Baguley proxy's I get this.
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:16:52 GMT
1st 512K took 1672 ms = 306.2 KB/sec, approx 2523 Kbps, 2.46 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2203 ms = 232.4 KB/sec, approx 1915 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1391 ms = 368.1 KB/sec, approx 3033 Kbps, 2.96 Mbps
4th 512K took 3234 ms = 158.3 KB/sec, approx 1304 Kbps, 1.27 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2194 Kbps, 2.14 Mbps
:Yikes:
Try the mid proxy
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:27:46 UTC
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 485 ms = 1055.7 KB/sec, approx 8699 Kbps, 8.5 Mbps
3rd 512K took 922 ms = 555.3 KB/sec, approx 4576 Kbps, 4.47 Mbps
4th 512K took 671 ms = 763 KB/sec, approx 6287 Kbps, 6.14 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7304 Kbps, 7.14 Mbps
Thanks Bill it is an improvment baguley must be completly pepperd
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:27:46 UTC
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 485 ms = 1055.7 KB/sec, approx 8699 Kbps, 8.5 Mbps
3rd 512K took 922 ms = 555.3 KB/sec, approx 4576 Kbps, 4.47 Mbps
4th 512K took 671 ms = 763 KB/sec, approx 6287 Kbps, 6.14 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7304 Kbps, 7.14 Mbps
Thanks Bill it is an improvment baguley must be completly pepperd
This is what gets my back up. Why should we have to do the investigation . It should be the Engineers at NTL who look after the proxies doing this.
WHY should we have to do the proxy dance every night. :mad:
weird.that midd proxy SLOWS my connection
wyngriff
12-10-2006, 18:54
This is what gets my back up. Why should we have to do the investigation . It should be the Engineers at NTL who look after the proxies doing this.
WHY should we have to do the proxy dance every night. :mad:
Yes i agree this is what happens when they lay off all there own staff, and put all the work out to tender. The way they are going they will never get it right
This is what i get with that midd proxy:
1st 512K took 7359 ms = 69.6 KB/sec, approx 574 Kbps, 0.56 Mbps
2nd 512K took 9563 ms = 53.5 KB/sec, approx 441 Kbps, 0.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 5828 ms = 87.9 KB/sec, approx 724 Kbps, 0.71 Mbps
4th 512K took 5672 ms = 90.3 KB/sec, approx 744 Kbps, 0.73 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 621 Kbps, 0.61 Mbps
This is what i get without using the midd proxy
1st 512K took 3282 ms = 156 KB/sec, approx 1285 Kbps, 1.25 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2578 ms = 198.6 KB/sec, approx 1636 Kbps, 1.6 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
4th 512K took 2953 ms = 173.4 KB/sec, approx 1429 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1577 Kbps, 1.54 Mbps
monkey2468
12-10-2006, 19:33
Now how about this
If i use this proxy i get
midd-cache-8.server.ntli.net
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:14:09 GMT
1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 421 ms = 1216.2 KB/sec, approx 10021 Kbps, 9.79 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9576 Kbps, 9.36 Mbps
If i use the Baguley proxy's I get this.
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:16:52 GMT
1st 512K took 1672 ms = 306.2 KB/sec, approx 2523 Kbps, 2.46 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2203 ms = 232.4 KB/sec, approx 1915 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1391 ms = 368.1 KB/sec, approx 3033 Kbps, 2.96 Mbps
4th 512K took 3234 ms = 158.3 KB/sec, approx 1304 Kbps, 1.27 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2194 Kbps, 2.14 Mbps
:Yikes:
Try the mid proxy
NO,NO,NO, thats my proxy and you leeches will suck the life out of it!!! :D
NO,NO,NO, thats my proxy and you leeches will suck the life out of it!!! :DAnd oh so finger lickin good it is too
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:44:05 GMT
1st 512K took 500 ms = 1024 KB/sec, approx 8438 Kbps, 8.24 Mbps
2nd 512K took 468 ms = 1094 KB/sec, approx 9015 Kbps, 8.8 Mbps
3rd 512K took 438 ms = 1169 KB/sec, approx 9633 Kbps, 9.41 Mbps
4th 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 9021 Kbps, 8.81 Mbps
:)
wyngriff
12-10-2006, 19:47
NO,NO,NO, thats my proxy and you leeches will suck the life out of it!!! :D
SORRY Monkey ill pee off back to baguley lol
Monkey, can i bother you again please?
Any news on my UBR? Is it still ****ed up?
---------- Post added at 21:29 ---------- Previous post was at 20:33 ----------
Taken: 8.18pm (Only posted now because its taken over 10 mins to load this site) 10Mbps service NW London
This is fu*king out of order
1st 512K took 35157 ms = 14.6 KB/sec, approx 120 Kbps, 0.12 Mbps
2nd 512K took 29640 ms = 17.3 KB/sec, approx 143 Kbps, 0.14 Mbps
3rd 512K took 115375 ms = 4.4 KB/sec, approx 36 Kbps, 0.04 Mbps
4th 512K took 117750 ms = 4.3 KB/sec, approx 35 Kbps, 0.03 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 84 Kbps, 0.08 Mbps
How can this level of service be allowed?
Chrysalis
12-10-2006, 22:51
My god its only 16.48 and its crap already.
Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:47:20 GMT
1st 512K took 1360 ms = 376.5 KB/sec, approx 3102 Kbps, 3.03 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1562 ms = 327.8 KB/sec, approx 2701 Kbps, 2.64 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3610 ms = 141.8 KB/sec, approx 1168 Kbps, 1.14 Mbps
4th 512K took 2687 ms = 190.5 KB/sec, approx 1570 Kbps, 1.53 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2135 Kbps, 2.09 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1160581655515).
NTL your broadband is now as much use as a light house in the desert
NTL How the hell did you get this bad :mad:
Bill now you know why I used to moan :)
remember my area was so congested my speeds started dropping off around midday and didnt go fast again until about 3am.
bamabama
13-10-2006, 00:40
Sorry to chime in late (and I hope this not a pointless point as I have not read the whole of this thread)... but...
These speed tests are using FTP I take it ?
Sorry to chime in late (and I hope this not a pointless point as I have not read the whole of this thread)... but...
These speed tests are using FTP I take it ?
Not the ones i am doing.
bamabama
13-10-2006, 14:42
try FTP to avoid the NTL cacheing proxies 'getting in the way' - or use HTTPS.
i.e don't use the intercepted protocols.
Guys, has anyone noticed that you get different results running the Paul Marsden test from Firefox or IE6. I ran the test several times alternately in Firefox & IE6 and the following is typical of the results I got. And this was despite earlier having run an 8 minute download from Newsgroups at a rock solid 1200KB/s
IE6
Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:28:37 UTC
1st 512K took 460 ms = 1113 KB/sec, approx 9171 Kbps, 8.96 Mbps
2nd 512K took 601 ms = 851.9 KB/sec, approx 7020 Kbps, 6.86 Mbps
3rd 512K took 531 ms = 964.2 KB/sec, approx 7945 Kbps, 7.76 Mbps
4th 512K took 471 ms = 1087 KB/sec, approx 8957 Kbps, 8.75 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 8273 Kbps, 8.08 Mbps
Firefox
Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:28:41 GMT
1st 512K took 921 ms = 555.9 KB/sec, approx 4581 Kbps, 4.47 Mbps
2nd 512K took 831 ms = 616.1 KB/sec, approx 5077 Kbps, 4.96 Mbps
3rd 512K took 821 ms = 623.6 KB/sec, approx 5138 Kbps, 5.02 Mbps
4th 512K took 812 ms = 630.5 KB/sec, approx 5195 Kbps, 5.07 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 4998 Kbps, 4.88 Mbps
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.