View Full Version : Snails.............
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 12:37
Repeated this several times this hardly changes. Trouble is I cant ring them at their prices to tell them they are so slow and have them tell me to power off the modem. Virgin wind me up. I think I am going to go to Sky TV and Broadband.
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:32:24 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 1906 ms = 537.3 KB/sec, approx 4427 Kbps, 4.32 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 2844 ms = 360.1 KB/sec, approx 2967 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 3485 ms = 293.8 KB/sec, approx 2421 Kbps, 2.36 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 5046 ms = 405.9 KB/sec, approx 3345 Kbps, 3.27 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3290 Kbps, 3.21 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1190575958390).
Repeated this several times this hardly changes. Trouble is I cant ring them at their prices to tell them they are so slow and have them tell me to power off the modem. Virgin wind me up. I think I am going to go to Sky TV and Broadband.
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:32:24 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 1906 ms = 537.3 KB/sec, approx 4427 Kbps, 4.32 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 2844 ms = 360.1 KB/sec, approx 2967 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 3485 ms = 293.8 KB/sec, approx 2421 Kbps, 2.36 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 5046 ms = 405.9 KB/sec, approx 3345 Kbps, 3.27 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3290 Kbps, 3.21 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1190575958390).
Your profile says 10 meg. Are you 10 meg or 20 meg. I was under the impression that VM had finished the roll out of 20 meg.
Hope you get better service from BT-Sky
How many times does it take to tell people that HTTP speed test sites are crap and dont work.
:wavey: Bye
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 12:45
I am supposed to be on 20Meg. Havent changed the details on the profile yet.
slowcoach
23-09-2007, 12:45
I don't think he would be getting such low speeds on 10Meg. :p:
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 12:48
if it was Virgin media I probably would mate :)
Ok here we go (Funny thing is my speeds are great today makes a bloody change)
This site says i get this
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/09/8.png
This forum says i get this
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:43:10 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 1197 ms = 855.5 KB/sec, approx 7049 Kbps, 6.88 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 2406 ms = 425.6 KB/sec, approx 3507 Kbps, 3.42 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 1305 ms = 784.7 KB/sec, approx 6466 Kbps, 6.31 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 3795 ms = 539.7 KB/sec, approx 4447 Kbps, 4.34 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 5367 Kbps, 5.24 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
My newsgroup reader show's me getting 18.01 meg
Which do you think is correct if i can download a dvd 4.2 gig in 30 mins ??????????
In other words which one of the above would you trust ???????
Let us know how good Sky and BT are when you get there ? :wavey:
---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------
BTW what has snails got to do with your broadband. Would "My broadband goes at a snail pace" have been a better subject. I nearly started looking for "information on getting rid of snails from a garden" book
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 13:07
Dude. I'm perfectly capable of running a speed test accurately, I am not sure if you are trying to boast with your 18 Meg.
As you can see anyway, VIRGIN SUCKS!
:dozey:
How many times does it take to tell people that HTTP speed test sites are crap and dont work.
Here here: +1
No matter how s**t my speeds have been the various download tests i`ve used have usually always given 30-50% faster results than any of the speedtests out there.
The one on here will usually provide better results than the likes of speedtest.net of course but checking download speeds from VM etc(no newgroup dl`ing here) will give still better results 99.99% of the time.
The one exception to this rule.....for us, was the two week period after the new VM255 modem arrived.Our actual speeds went from the 4-12Mb we had been getting with the NTL120 down to 1-4Mb most of the time.:erm:
It was like that for about 2 weeks before the 20Mb suddenly decided to make it`s appearance.3 months 2 weeks after being upgraded.(edit)The speedtests then were quite often showing faster than the DL`s.
I had been ready to call up....again,and have the 120 fired back up:rolleyes:
At the moment though i`m getting 5Mb-ish on the London speedtest.net server,7Mb-ish on this speedtest here but downloading from VM at about 11MB.
Nowhere near the 20Mb of course but still:)
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:10:52 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 2016 ms = 507.9 KB/sec, approx 4185 Kbps, 4.09 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 156 ms = 6564.1 KB/sec, approx 54088 Kbps, 52.82 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 156 ms = 6564.1 KB/sec, approx 54088 Kbps, 52.82 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 8875 ms = 230.8 KB/sec, approx 1902 Kbps, 1.86 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 28566 Kbps, 27.9 Mbps
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:13:43 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 2016 ms = 507.9 KB/sec, approx 4185 Kbps, 4.09 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 156 ms = 6564.1 KB/sec, approx 54088 Kbps, 52.82 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 156 ms = 6564.1 KB/sec, approx 54088 Kbps, 52.82 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 8000 ms = 256 KB/sec, approx 2109 Kbps, 2.06 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 28618 Kbps, 27.95 Mbps
Yep these speeds test are so accurate i think Not btw 20 meg here and quite happy with it
Cerberus
23-09-2007, 13:13
20mb in Glasgow and this is the rubbish I am putting up with!
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:11:26 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 2868 ms = 357 KB/sec, approx 2942 Kbps, 2.87 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 2691 ms = 380.5 KB/sec, approx 3135 Kbps, 3.06 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 2808 ms = 364.7 KB/sec, approx 3005 Kbps, 2.93 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 5773 ms = 354.8 KB/sec, approx 2924 Kbps, 2.86 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3002 Kbps, 2.93 Mbps
Absolute joke.
Dude. I'm perfectly capable of running a speed test accurately, I am not sure if you are trying to boast with your 18 Meg.
As you can see anyway, VIRGIN SUCKS!
:dozey:
Indeed they do.
I have no need to brag to the likes of you.
If you think you would be better with Sky-BT then go to them but please don't bore us with a long drawn out explanation of how bad you think Vm are. Just have the guts to do what you say you will do and go and do it.:)
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 13:21
Grrr. I am not boring you i am stating they are slow, there is a difference. Isn't that the whole point of running a speed test and the point of the internet services section? You can always opt not to read it of course :)
With the name this thread has it should be in the Gardening section :LOL:
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 13:28
I didn't know there was a Gardening section, I shal go there and make a post about my Broadband :)
I didn't know there was a Gardening section, I shal go there and make a post about my Broadband :)
Yep it would be under this section
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/22/
Dude. I'm perfectly capable of running a speed test accurately, I am not sure if you are trying to boast with your 18 Meg.
As you can see anyway, VIRGIN SUCKS!
:dozey:
we have been through this before, and what speeds do you see downloading for instance
ftp://gentoo.virginmedia.com/mirrors/gentoo/experimental/x86/freebsd/stages/stage3-x86-freebsd-6.2-r1.tar.bz2
or any of the other larger files here on the internal VM network
ftp://gentoo.virginmedia.com/mirrors/gentoo/
saying that though, i think wilmslow is well served with xADSL so your options for other ISPs seem good, doesnt wilmslow also have a wireless ISP option today.
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 13:41
@Popper
1) 998 KB/Sec Download
2) 1.2 MB/Sec Download
your connection isnt so bad after all then, for a sunday afternoon when everyones online (your uBR), faster than mine infact for this time of day, and i have noted before that the VM internal servers are not the fastest.
Mr Angry
23-09-2007, 13:57
1) 29.3kb
2) Timed out / gave up!
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:50:34 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 5031 ms = 203.5 KB/sec, approx 1677 Kbps, 1.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 3281 ms = 312.1 KB/sec, approx 2572 Kbps, 2.51 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 2094 ms = 489 KB/sec, approx 4029 Kbps, 3.93 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 6078 ms = 337 KB/sec, approx 2777 Kbps, 2.71 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2764 Kbps, 2.7 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1190551852109).
Stonking 20mb from VM!!
1) 29.3kb
2) Timed out / gave up!
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:50:34 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 5031 ms = 203.5 KB/sec, approx 1677 Kbps, 1.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 3281 ms = 312.1 KB/sec, approx 2572 Kbps, 2.51 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 2094 ms = 489 KB/sec, approx 4029 Kbps, 3.93 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 6078 ms = 337 KB/sec, approx 2777 Kbps, 2.71 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2764 Kbps, 2.7 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1190551852109).
Stonking 20mb from VM!!
Mr A has you decided who you are moving to yet. ?
wow Mr A, 29.3kb on those internal VM ftp servers, NOW thats crep....
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 14:02
Well I think its slow, I tried sending a picture in an e mail and it took ages so I tied it to a carrier pigeon instead
Mr Angry
23-09-2007, 14:07
Mr A has you decided who you are moving to yet. ?
Orange are looking half decent.
I've two BT lines in the house but the aesthetic of a dish adorning Angry Towers has not yet begun to appeal to me.
That said, I might well go with ebay ;):angel: as I'm led to believe their cable TV and Broadband services are the cheapest by far.Download Failed (1)
Well I think its slow, I tried sending a picture in an e mail and it took ages so I tied it to a carrier pigeon instead
slow ,hardly, Mr A's 29.3kbit is super slow, your 998 KByte and 1.2 MByte are close to top speeds.
as already said, VM still need to look at the internal ftp/web server configurations as they should be supplying and are capable of topping out their internal VM users download rates.
but still, you seem to have by far the better speed atm, and your speedtst.net report also showed that you were getting 717kbit upload rates and that is about right for the 20Mbit/768kbit,so again, if you want better upload rates your options are Be* with their ADSL2+ anexM 1.3Mbit or 2.5.Mbit upload rates.
i was getting 170KByte on that file above for instance.
Well i am pleased to say i am on the 4mb package and i am getting :-
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:18:07 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 2219 ms = 461.5 KB/sec, approx 3803 Kbps, 3.71 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 2250 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 2156 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 4406 ms = 464.8 KB/sec, approx 3830 Kbps, 3.74 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 3824 Kbps, 3.73 Mbps
That said, I might well go with ebay as I'm led to believe their cable TV and Broadband services are the cheapest by far.
If you cant beat em........;)
Orange are looking half decent.
I've two BT lines in the house but the aesthetic of a dish adorning Angry Towers has not yet begun to appeal to me.
That said, I might well go with ebay ;):angel: as I'm led to believe their cable TV and Broadband services are the cheapest by far.http://home.mindspring.com/%7Ekevin_elder/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/whistle.gif
Yep and all for a 1 off fee as well :D
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 14:38
@ Popper - It might be downloading the file pretty good, but thats only from 1 server. If I try to go to facebook, or if i try to download a movie clip from ebaumsworld, you can bet your life it will take ages. The ammount of *Page cannot be found* I get recently is enough to drive anyone crazy.
@ Popper - It might be downloading the file pretty good, but thats only from 1 server. If I try to go to facebook, or if i try to download a movie clip from ebaumsworld, you can bet your life it will take ages. The ammount of *Page cannot be found* I get recently is enough to drive anyone crazy.
yeah, sure, but you just proved that the connection from your modem to your ubr to the internal ftp servers are giving you good speeds.
the fact it goes crumby after that is another problem all together.
are the VM DNS servers playing up, 194.168.4.100 and 194.168.8.100 ?, or are the (virtual)web servers your trying to get to outside the VM network got problems today?.
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 14:56
C:\Documents and Settings\Carl>ping 194.168.4.100
Pinging 194.168.4.100 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=251
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=251
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=251
Reply from 194.168.4.100: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=251
Ping statistics for 194.168.4.100:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 41ms, Average = 22ms
Pinging 194.168.8.100 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 194.168.8.100: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=118
Reply from 194.168.8.100: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=118
Reply from 194.168.8.100: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=118
Reply from 194.168.8.100: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=118
Ping statistics for 194.168.8.100:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 31ms, Average = 23ms
xspeedyx
23-09-2007, 15:21
those pings seem fine you have to remember not every site an give u a full 20MB connection
Barewolf
23-09-2007, 15:23
True, its faster than it was.
Wild Oscar
23-09-2007, 22:23
Have you tried changing your 'Duplex Mode' settings ...
.. http://www.virginmedia.com/help/20mb-broadband-optimisation.php ...
It worked for me!!
I find Garlic Butter is good for grilled snails :LOL:
xspeedyx
23-09-2007, 22:41
lol @ sirius
Barewolf
24-09-2007, 12:08
7.9Mb Connection Today.
Facebook is never good.
Ping to Facebook from non-VM connection:
Pinging www.facebook.com [204.15.20.26] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 204.15.20.26: bytes=32 time=226ms TTL=234
Reply from 204.15.20.26: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=234
Request timed out.
Reply from 204.15.20.26: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=234
Ping statistics for 204.15.20.26:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 175ms, Maximum = 247ms, Average = 216ms
Ping to a decent server on same non-VM connection:
Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.202] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.251.202: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.251.202: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.251.202: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.251.202: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=247
Ping statistics for 212.58.251.202:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 32ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 32ms
Barewolf
24-09-2007, 13:16
For Sirius.
For Sirius.
I take it that is faster than your connection. BTW did you google for that picture :)
Barewolf
24-09-2007, 17:09
lol it is, No i took it in my garden the other night. Was going through them and remembered the snail thread lol.
lol it is, No i took it in my garden the other night. Was going through them and remembered the snail thread lol.
:)
seen this for a joke , on a 20 meg connection
Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:57:49 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 2360 ms = 433.9 KB/sec, approx 3575 Kbps, 3.49 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 4406 ms = 232.4 KB/sec, approx 1915 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 5453 ms = 187.8 KB/sec, approx 1547 Kbps, 1.51 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 11422 ms = 179.3 KB/sec, approx 1477 Kbps, 1.44 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 2129 Kbps, 2.08 Mbps
:mad:
The Hitman
24-09-2007, 18:16
I always thought thats da French eat those bad boyz
Barewolf
24-09-2007, 19:10
They do but so does Sirius apparently lol
Test 1: 1024K took 1829 ms = 559.9 KB/sec, approx 4614 Kbps, 4.51 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 1437 ms = 712.6 KB/sec, approx 5872 Kbps, 5.73 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 1703 ms = 601.3 KB/sec, approx 4955 Kbps, 4.84 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 4860 ms = 421.4 KB/sec, approx 3472 Kbps, 3.39 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 4728 Kbps, 4.62 Mbps
20MB, meant to be!!!
xspeedyx
24-09-2007, 23:09
lol connections that meant to be 20mb o wait my connection is **** aswell between 6-10mb at the moment but right now I am shaped god dam u virgin
I'm amazed that my speed test (on this site) was absolutely spot on (after people saying speed tests were useless)
Test 1: 1024K took 4719 ms = 217 KB/sec, approx 1788 Kbps, 1.75 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 6031 ms = 169.8 KB/sec, approx 1399 Kbps, 1.37 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 4906 ms = 208.7 KB/sec, approx 1720 Kbps, 1.68 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 8563 ms = 239.2 KB/sec, approx 1971 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1720 Kbps, 1.68 MbpsI'm on 4Mb, but have QoS enabled on the router so browsing the internet uses approx. 60% of available bandwidth.
I'm starting to think I'm better off staying on 4Mb instead of upgrading... I was considering trying the quicker speed last week too... After reading this thread, I don't think I'll bother!
South Manchester at 06.50 in the morning :shocked:
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:51:39 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 481 ms = 2128.9 KB/sec, approx 17542 Kbps, 17.13 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 429 ms = 2386.9 KB/sec, approx 19668 Kbps, 19.21 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 426 ms = 2403.8 KB/sec, approx 19807 Kbps, 19.34 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 948 ms = 2160.3 KB/sec, approx 17801 Kbps, 17.38 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 18705 Kbps, 18.27 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
This is the first time the speed test from this site has given a good result for my area
bjorkiii
25-09-2007, 17:18
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:15:38 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 343 ms = 2985.4 KB/sec, approx 24600 Kbps, 24.02 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 422 ms = 2426.5 KB/sec, approx 19994 Kbps, 19.53 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 375 ms = 2730.7 KB/sec, approx 22501 Kbps, 21.97 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 891 ms = 2298.5 KB/sec, approx 18940 Kbps, 18.5 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 21509 Kbps, 21.01 Mbps
Seems quite fast for this time of day :erm: it is just a speedtest though.
TheBlueRaja
25-09-2007, 17:38
Here is my results from the same site only im on Sky Broadband at a measly 10 quid a month for comparison.
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:29:11 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 1144 ms = 895.1 KB/sec, approx 7376 Kbps, 7.2 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 1157 ms = 885 KB/sec, approx 7292 Kbps, 7.12 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 1176 ms = 870.7 KB/sec, approx 7175 Kbps, 7.01 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 2365 ms = 866 KB/sec, approx 7136 Kbps, 6.97 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7245 Kbps, 7.07 Mbps
OOps, that was with uTorrent going on in the background...
Test 1: 1024K took 967 ms = 1058.9 KB/sec, approx 8725 Kbps, 8.52 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 1030 ms = 994.2 KB/sec, approx 8192 Kbps, 8 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 1110 ms = 922.5 KB/sec, approx 7601 Kbps, 7.42 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 2023 ms = 1012.4 KB/sec, approx 8342 Kbps, 8.15 Mbps
There you go... An done from speedtest.net for comparision:-
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/09/5.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Looks like NTL's network was slowing me down a bit.
I think its getting better in my area
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:36:27 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 572 ms = 1790.2 KB/sec, approx 14751 Kbps, 14.41 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 529 ms = 1935.7 KB/sec, approx 15950 Kbps, 15.58 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 512 ms = 2000 KB/sec, approx 16480 Kbps, 16.09 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 1093 ms = 1873.7 KB/sec, approx 15439 Kbps, 15.08 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 15655 Kbps, 15.29 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/09/4.png
not bad for 5.30 :)
Barewolf
25-09-2007, 18:15
Sirius is off again, I solved my speed issue now, im gonna go live with Sirius instead, and bringing my snails with me.
Sirius is off again, I solved my speed issue now, im gonna go live with Sirius instead, and bringing my snails with me.
My area has been the crappiest crap area that there could be. I sent complaints to the executive office and complaining by letter, Email and any other option i had seems to have paid off :). At one point not more than a month ago i had sub dial up speeds :shocked:
I decided to stick with cable because when it works it works bloody well and i have no intention of giving my money to BT and the devil that is Murdock.
So if you are having bad speeds do something about it and contact VM or Move. Complaining just on this site will get you no where, YOU have to go that extra mile and make you self heard by the right people at VM and if that means them at the top in there ivory tower then SO BE IT.
Barewolf
25-09-2007, 18:31
So if you are having bad speeds do something about it and contact VM or Move. .
I am moving Sirius, i got a nice little corner of your garden with me and the snails.
How do i get to the top? I presume someone here has the address and name.
I am moving Sirius, i got a nice little corner of your garden with me and the snails.
:omg::Sprint:
Its my bloody bandwidth get your hands off
How do i get to the top? I presume someone here has the address and name.
Just look at the companys register for VirginMedia
Barewolf
25-09-2007, 18:50
lol share it you wont miss 5mb drop :D
Ok will check it out and attempt my letter
lol share it you wont miss 5mb drop :D
Ok will check it out and attempt my letter
Note that before i sent a letter i had allowed Vms engineers to come out and check. I had registered faults with faults. What i am saying is if you have not allowed vm the chance to fix it first by the normal route then how can you complain to the top.
Only and only after i had exhausted the normal route did i go to the top. It is to easy just to shout at the top man and not do the right thing first and give them a chance to fix the problem.
Have you had a engineer out yet, Have you spoken to tech support yet. Have the Engineers that came out if you have had a service engineer engaged Network engineers yet, the list goes on.
How do you do a proper speed test without the usual these results appear to be rather fast reappearing?
Thanks
How do you do a proper speed test without the usual these results appear to be rather fast reappearing?
Thanks
For a proper speed test download from the newsgroups and see what speed you get
I already know about the newsgroups i was just wondering how to do a proper speedtest on this site.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.