View Full Version : varing speeds on 20mg in dy 10 area
This morning i had decent speeds bettween 14 mg and 19 mg which my average. but since 13.00 my speeds are all over the place any bettween
10 meg down to just above dial up at 650 kbs. this has being happing a lot
just lately ,support newsgroup said today it was due to high TX loads on my ubr
Yep, the UBR that covers DY10 (kidderminster) has got capacity issues. This is due to be resolved when the UBR is upgraded on the 19th April 2008 (subject to change).
The Virgin Media internal ticket reference # is 616365, for the UBR upgrade. That's if you want to complain and get compensation ;)
Yep, the UBR that covers DY10 (kidderminster) has got capacity issues. This is due to be resolved when the UBR is upgraded on the 19th April 2008 (subject to change).
The Virgin Media internal ticket reference # is 616365, for the UBR upgrade. That's if you want to complain and get compensation ;)
Thanks for the info , do not know why support could not have told me
of this . did you complain ? did you get any thing out of them ? . do
you live in the dy10 area yourself .
Jonathan90
25-03-2008, 16:45
noggo did u find that out through newsgroups would't mind takin a look at mine see if its there
Yep, the UBR that covers DY10 (kidderminster) has got capacity issues. This is due to be resolved when the UBR is upgraded on the 19th April 2008 (subject to change).
The Virgin Media internal ticket reference # is 616365, for the UBR upgrade. That's if you want to complain and get compensation ;)
just asked in support newsgroup they told me the ticket is now closed.does
that mean the job is done before time ? . what is the best department to
ring to complain to ?
ufitm
ufitm,
Yes I do live in Kidderminster (Broadwaters area) and to the best of my knowledge the UBR has not been upgraded, as I can still replicate the same problems on three different connection points in my local area.
I first found out about the UBR upgrade in Mid January in response to one of my posts complaining, but last time I asked about it on newsgroup support in February this is the answer I got:
_____________________________________________
Subject: "Has there been a date set for internal ticket ref 616365, Yet??"
> Hi
>
> Has there been a date set in April set for internal ticket ref 616365,
> yet??
> There is network maintenance planned for April to upgrade this UBR.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Noggo
Hi Noggo
The latest info I have is 19/04/08 but this is subject to change.
--
Kind Regards
Mark W******
blueyonder Technical Support
_________________________________________________
Yes I did complain on the CS telephone number and I have been compensated for to cover capacity problems on the UBR I'm connected to.
I first reported the problem vie e-contact back in October last year. Since then my connection has gone downhill to the point where it's hardly worth switching the PC on between 3 pm to 9/10pm weekdays and all weekend. I did keep in contact with tech support and keep records of the poor connection, which has helped (I think). Like I'm still keeping a records, just in case come mid April the problems don't go away.
Laters
If you've both still got problems with your connections, I wouldn't wait until April 19th.
Maybe the work scheduled on that ticket has been done early but wasn't the cause of your hassles?
Suspect you'll get the problem reinstated if you do all the tests and re-report it to TS again.
Good luck!
ufitm,
Yes I do live in Kidderminster (Broadwaters area) and to the best of my knowledge the UBR has not been upgraded, as I can still replicate the same problems on three different connection points in my local area.
I first found out about the UBR upgrade in Mid January in response to one of my posts complaining, but last time I asked about it on newsgroup support in February this is the answer I got:
_____________________________________________
Subject: "Has there been a date set for internal ticket ref 616365, Yet??"
> Hi
>
> Has there been a date set in April set for internal ticket ref 616365,
> yet??
> There is network maintenance planned for April to upgrade this UBR.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Noggo
Hi Noggo
The latest info I have is 19/04/08 but this is subject to change.
--
Kind Regards
Mark W******
blueyonder Technical Support
_________________________________________________
Yes I did complain on the CS telephone number and I have been compensated for to cover capacity problems on the UBR I'm connected to.
I first reported the problem vie e-contact back in October last year. Since then my connection has gone downhill to the point where it's hardly worth switching the PC on between 3 pm to 9/10pm weekdays and all weekend. I did keep in contact with tech support and keep records of the poor connection, which has helped (I think). Like I'm still keeping a records, just in case come mid April the problems don't go away.
Laters
thanks for the info will give customer service a ring see what they will do for me. the same person that answer you was the one that told me that the tickect was closed. you are just down the road from me then I live in the area of kidderminster just off the A456
ufitm
---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------
ufitm,
Yes I do live in Kidderminster (Broadwaters area) and to the best of my knowledge the UBR has not been upgraded, as I can still replicate the same problems on three different connection points in my local area.
I first found out about the UBR upgrade in Mid January in response to one of my posts complaining, but last time I asked about it on newsgroup support in February this is the answer I got:
_____________________________________________
Subject: "Has there been a date set for internal ticket ref 616365, Yet??"
> Hi
>
> Has there been a date set in April set for internal ticket ref 616365,
> yet??
> There is network maintenance planned for April to upgrade this UBR.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Noggo
Hi Noggo
The latest info I have is 19/04/08 but this is subject to change.
--
Kind Regards
Mark W******
blueyonder Technical Support
_________________________________________________
Yes I did complain on the CS telephone number and I have been compensated for to cover capacity problems on the UBR I'm connected to.
I first reported the problem vie e-contact back in October last year. Since then my connection has gone downhill to the point where it's hardly worth switching the PC on between 3 pm to 9/10pm weekdays and all weekend. I did keep in contact with tech support and keep records of the poor connection, which has helped (I think). Like I'm still keeping a records, just in case come mid April the problems don't go away.
Laters
Just been in touch with customers service they say that i cant be compansated till after the ubr is fixed .first they told me to ring
techincal support to see if the fault was on there side or mine,think i might try billing department in the morning
Just been in touch with customers service they say that i cant be compansated till after the ubr is fixed .first they told me to ring
techincal support to see if the fault was on there side or mine,think i might try billing department in the morning
I suspect you'll find that, like with insurance claims, VM won't want to agree compensation until the full extent of the "loss" is known.
However, as soon as TS accept that you're still not getting a decent connection, you might be able to agree a reduction in what you're currently paying...
Noggo's UBR was over-stretched so he's been moved to another.
The big question is: has the connection speed improved?
/waits with baited breath...
Noggo's UBR was over-stretched so he's been moved to another.
The big question is: has the connection speed improved?
/waits with baited breath...
Do know which ubr for the area noggo's was on, but i am on UBR1/brom
which is not far away i spoke to tech support there was a fault on this ubr
was reported only on the 24th of this month . and it had been fix by 9am
today which is only 2 days. I asked about the upgrade that noggos spoke
about they said there was no upgrade listed for my ubr ,so noggo's must
have been on one of they other ubrs from bromsgrove,
Do know which ubr for the area noggo's was on, but i am on UBR1/brom which is not far away i spoke to tech support there was a fault on this ubr was reported only on the 24th of this month . and it had been fix by 9am today which is only 2 days. I asked about the upgrade that noggos spoke about they said there was no upgrade listed for my ubr ,so noggo's must have been on one of they other ubrs from bromsgrove,
Noggo specifically mentioned ubr 'cable.ubr01.brom.blueyonder.co.uk'.
And the full response from TS was:
That ticket was closed following changes made to one of the routers in your
area, There are currently no reported issues on your UBR, however, the
upstreams are not balanced and the one you were on was hitting maximum
during the day. You've now been moved to a different one, please retest
If you're still getting poor speeds, it might be worth getting back into the newsgroup to request that they check your connection.
Noggo specifically mentioned ubr 'cable.ubr01.brom.blueyonder.co.uk'.
And the full response from TS was:
If you're still getting poor speeds, it might be worth getting back into the newsgroup to request that they check your connection.
They changed my upstream channel , and also told me that the Tx load
issuse was fixed now and to check my speed during the day for today.
Earlier i was getting more or less a steady speed of between 1900kbs to
1800kbs. just tried again , getting between 1900kbs to 1100 kbs , which
for the time of day ,i happy with and will be if they keep around this it
will me ok for me . my best every download speed was 19898kbs and my best upload was 735 kbs .
regards ufitm
ufitm
Just been in touch with customers service they say that i cant be compansated till after the ubr is fixed.
They have just admitted the UBR hasn't been done, by saying you can't get compensation until the problem is fixed. Ceedee is right tho, the compenstaion is in the form of a reduction in the price + a good will payment / credit on my account for the trouble. In total, I think it works out about 4/5 months free by the end of it.
Re: speed - I have not seen any changes in performance in my connection and two other neighbours haven't either, so I'm assuming the work has not been carried out to resolve the local issues. Newsgroup support have said `changes made to one of the routers in your area' and they have changed my upstream channel, which has improved my speed for this time in the afternoon:-
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:55:46 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 734 ms = 1395.1 KB/sec, approx 11496 Kbps, 11.23 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 625 ms = 1638.4 KB/sec, approx 13500 Kbps, 13.18 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 547 ms = 1872 KB/sec, approx 15425 Kbps, 15.06 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 1562 ms = 1311.1 KB/sec, approx 10803 Kbps, 10.55 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 12806 Kbps, 12.51 Mbps
The overall connection is still unstable for gaming. Which is my main complaint to VM, spikes in latency and intermittent packetloss from the VM network. The secondary was download speed, as I believe that you should get what you pay for. 20 Meg is what I pay for, so therefore nearly 20Meg is what I want not anything between 500 Kbps and 20 Mbps. Looks like another round of posts, phone calls and letters to VM.
Just thought I'll restest my download speed after posting above. Strange how it's going down after everyone gets home from work.
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:36:53 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 750 ms = 1365.3 KB/sec, approx 11250 Kbps, 10.99 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 547 ms = 1872 KB/sec, approx 15425 Kbps, 15.06 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 3094 ms = 331 KB/sec, approx 2727 Kbps, 2.66 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 1531 ms = 1337.7 KB/sec, approx 11023 Kbps, 10.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 10106 Kbps, 9.87 Mbps
---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:00:03 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 2265 ms = 452.1 KB/sec, approx 3725 Kbps, 3.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 1391 ms = 736.2 KB/sec, approx 6066 Kbps, 5.92 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 859 ms = 1192.1 KB/sec, approx 9823 Kbps, 9.59 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 1985 ms = 1031.7 KB/sec, approx 8501 Kbps, 8.3 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 7029 Kbps, 6.86 Mbps
wow, further reduction in speed. No problems with over subscription here. NOT
just run at test myself and got these results
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:14:35 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 609 ms = 1681.4 KB/sec, approx 13855 Kbps, 13.53 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 514 ms = 1992.2 KB/sec, approx 16416 Kbps, 16.03 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 578 ms = 1771.6 KB/sec, approx 14598 Kbps, 14.26 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 1014 ms = 2019.7 KB/sec, approx 16642 Kbps, 16.25 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 15378 Kbps, 15.02 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1206558878816).
---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------
just done another on and had shock at the result
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:20:57 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 1560 ms = 656.4 KB/sec, approx 5409 Kbps, 5.28 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 6115 ms = 167.5 KB/sec, approx 1380 Kbps, 1.35 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 78 ms = 13128.2 KB/sec, approx 108176 Kbps, 105.64 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 3854 ms = 531.4 KB/sec, approx 4379 Kbps, 4.28 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 29836 Kbps, 29.14 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1206559269106).
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:19:22 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 641 ms = 1597.5 KB/sec, approx 13163 Kbps, 12.85 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 500 ms = 2048 KB/sec, approx 16876 Kbps, 16.48 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 453 ms = 2260.5 KB/sec, approx 18627 Kbps, 18.19 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 890 ms = 2301.1 KB/sec, approx 18961 Kbps, 18.52 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 16907 Kbps, 16.51 Mbps
At better figure for a change.
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:19:22 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 641 ms = 1597.5 KB/sec, approx 13163 Kbps, 12.85 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 500 ms = 2048 KB/sec, approx 16876 Kbps, 16.48 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 453 ms = 2260.5 KB/sec, approx 18627 Kbps, 18.19 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 890 ms = 2301.1 KB/sec, approx 18961 Kbps, 18.52 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 16907 Kbps, 16.51 Mbps
At better figure for a change.
take a look at my last post again add another test to it you will be shocked how high it is, i was nearly fell of my chair
You'll have to go to the Land Oak and celebrate your upturn in speed.
:beer:
You'll have to go to the Land Oak and celebrate your upturn in speed.
:beer:
it did not last long droped down to this now did not think it would last long
at that speed
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:12:14 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 2179 ms = 469.9 KB/sec, approx 3872 Kbps, 3.78 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 2500 ms = 409.6 KB/sec, approx 3375 Kbps, 3.3 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 1400 ms = 731.4 KB/sec, approx 6027 Kbps, 5.89 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 4929 ms = 415.5 KB/sec, approx 3424 Kbps, 3.34 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 4175 Kbps, 4.08 MbpsTo repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1206565946044).
they have alter my upstream channel again tried some other speed test which it just seams a bit better will moniter tommorow
just done the cable froum speed test again and i was even more shocked than before how i read it i am getting 32 meg
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:42:04 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 5679 ms = 180.3 KB/sec, approx 1486 Kbps, 1.45 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 78 ms = 13128.2 KB/sec, approx 108176 Kbps, 105.64 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 639 ms = 1602.5 KB/sec, approx 13205 Kbps, 12.9 Mbps
test 4: 2048K took 1482 ms = 1381.9 KB/sec, approx 11387 Kbps, 11.12 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 33564 Kbps, 32.78 MbpsTo repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1206571332879).
it did not last long droped down to this now did not think it would last long
at that speed
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:12:14 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 2179 ms = 469.9 KB/sec, approx 3872 Kbps, 3.78 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 2500 ms = 409.6 KB/sec, approx 3375 Kbps, 3.3 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 1400 ms = 731.4 KB/sec, approx 6027 Kbps, 5.89 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 4929 ms = 415.5 KB/sec, approx 3424 Kbps, 3.34 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 4175 Kbps, 4.08 MbpsTo repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1206565946044).
they have alter my upstream channel again tried some other speed test which it just seams a bit better will moniter tommorow
just done the cable froum speed test again and i was even more shocked than before how i read it i am getting 32 meg
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:42:04 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 5679 ms = 180.3 KB/sec, approx 1486 Kbps, 1.45 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 78 ms = 13128.2 KB/sec, approx 108176 Kbps, 105.64 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 639 ms = 1602.5 KB/sec, approx 13205 Kbps, 12.9 Mbps
test 4: 2048K took 1482 ms = 1381.9 KB/sec, approx 11387 Kbps, 11.12 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 33564 Kbps, 32.78 MbpsTo repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1206571332879).
My speed where fine again today about 7am when i tried them about 8am
they had gone poor again so i email the broadband support group
the had sent me some emails that my conection was fine found that out
when i email them just a few moments ago to tell them my speeds had gone
up again they also said speed test where unreliable. tried to said
that they could show a 20 meg conection as 2 meg and it is working fine
which i find it hard to belive and that the download manager and registery
editor (think that was what they called it) on my pc could becuasing it (which i think they are trying to pass the buck) . feel a phone call to complaints department coming on , as do not think the speed drop at 7am was due to heavy usage . noggo's what you speed like today
As your results demonstrate, many speedtests are not accurate or reliable, particularly for 20Mb connections.
That's why Tech Support recommend you do four simultaneous file downloads from UK servers to test the real speed.
Have a read of "How can I test that I am downloading at my correct speed?" (http://a.myby.co.uk/broadband-faq.html#q02) on Annie's FAQ for guidance?
If that shows your connection is still slow, it's probably worth doing all the tests (q5, q6 and q7) and reposting the results to the newsgroup to help TS identify the problem.
Find ATM.
2.221 MB/s multiple file download from zen test files (see attached picture)
Speedtest.net 2.37MB/s
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/7.png
and
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:31:26 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 422 ms = 2426.5 KB/sec, approx 19994 Kbps, 19.53 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 437 ms = 2343.2 KB/sec, approx 19308 Kbps, 18.86 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 453 ms = 2260.5 KB/sec, approx 18627 Kbps, 18.19 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 844 ms = 2426.5 KB/sec, approx 19994 Kbps, 19.53 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 19481 Kbps, 19.03 Mbps
(which is the same as speedtest.net 2.37MB/s)
I know come later this afternoon it will just drop off to about a quarter of what it should be.
Laters
Find ATM.
2.221 MB/s multiple file download from zen test files (see attached picture)
Speedtest.net 2.37MB/s
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/7.png
and
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:31:26 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 422 ms = 2426.5 KB/sec, approx 19994 Kbps, 19.53 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 437 ms = 2343.2 KB/sec, approx 19308 Kbps, 18.86 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 453 ms = 2260.5 KB/sec, approx 18627 Kbps, 18.19 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 844 ms = 2426.5 KB/sec, approx 19994 Kbps, 19.53 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 19481 Kbps, 19.03 Mbps
(which is the same as speedtest.net 2.37MB/s)
I know come later this afternoon it will just drop off to about a quarter of what it should be.
Laters
just done this one on speedtest.net and cable forum test, which are the best figures i have today how did you get the zen files to open my pc will not open them, they told me to alter my download manger which i do not really want to start messing about with my
pc setting in case they have told me wrong and it mess it up. never had such high upload figures as you
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:02:51 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 554 ms = 1848.4 KB/sec, approx 15231 Kbps, 14.87 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 508 ms = 2015.7 KB/sec, approx 16609 Kbps, 16.22 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 410 ms = 2497.6 KB/sec, approx 20580 Kbps, 20.1 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 946 ms = 2164.9 KB/sec, approx 17839 Kbps, 17.42 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 17565 Kbps, 17.15 Mbps
To repeat this test from the source server click here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.marsden/newspeedtest.html?1206626574317).
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/8.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
I don't use Microsoft IE in use Mozilla Firefox and I think the download manager is part of the standard download package, as it doesn't show up in the add-ons menu (unsure as my Bro put it on the PC).
Link:-
http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/
No problems downloading from zen test file site using IE7 on my PC. Can you bypast your download manager and just use the standard download manager within Internet Explorer (try right click `save as')
I don't use Microsoft IE in use Mozilla Firefox and I think the download manager is part of the standard download package, as it doesn't show up in the add-ons menu (unsure as my Bro put it on the PC).
Link:-
http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/
No problems downloading from zen test file site using IE7 on my PC. Can you bypast your download manager and just use the standard download manager within Internet Explorer (try right click `save as')
done it ok
I don't use Microsoft IE in use Mozilla Firefox and I think the download manager is part of the standard download package, as it doesn't show up in the add-ons menu (unsure as my Bro put it on the PC).
Link:-
http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/
No problems downloading from zen test file site using IE7 on my PC. Can you bypast your download manager and just use the standard download manager within Internet Explorer (try right click `save as')
are you still on ubr1brom what are your channels on your modem on mine are on ch 2 for downstream and ch 1 for upstream
Yep still on `cable.ubr01.brom.blueyonder.co.uk'
Yep still on `cable.ubr01.brom.blueyonder.co.uk'
is your modem a webstar epc2100r2 like mine . and did they alter any of your modem channel because they did on mine a couple of times. it seams
better today have not gone below 9meg and that was in the peak time
been getting bettween 19meg and 12 meg for most of the day
I have the same modem and yes they have changed my upstream channel a couple of times in the last day and it doesn't make any difference
Download speed:
1st attached image: 17:12 tonight download speed: 2477 KB/s for four simultaneous file downloads
2nd image: 18:43 tonight download speed: 835.5 KB/s for four simultaneous file downloads.
and now its even worse about 500 KB/s
I have the same modem and yes they have changed my upstream channel a couple of times in the last day and it doesn't make any difference
Download speed:
1st attached image: 17:12 tonight download speed: 2477 KB/s for four simultaneous file downloads
2nd image: 18:43 tonight download speed: 835.5 KB/s for four simultaneous file downloads.
and now its even worse about 500 KB/s
spent a good part of the day email support group doing various things they
seam did make a change at first they say my connect is fine and i am getting
speeds that are right for my conection. which i maybe like you getting it for part of the day and not for other parts of the day. and i belive there is something wrong in the system covering our area but they will not admit it
Isn't 2477 kB/s about right for a 20mb/s connection? Or am I getting my bs and Bs mixed up?
Isn't 2477 kB/s about right for a 20mb/s connection? Or am I getting my bs and Bs mixed up?
Yes you're right 2477 KB/s is about right for 20Meg XL connection. The point of this thread was varing speeds for the DY10 area. When it's 2500 KB/s first thing in the morning 9am by midday it's half of that, then come 6pm it's a quarter and sometimes lower.
Currently it's 960 KB/s
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33630662-xl-20meg-what-acceptable-level-drop.html
I am finding mine still like that , support told me this morning that it should have been fixed by 26/03/08 but it is overruning could not tel me when the
ubr/tdx fault would be done, mention 19/4/08 they said that must of be for something else. and it is not worth sending out a tech , and the person
who told me it had been fixed on saturday told the some different.
What I think is causing the confusion here is that there could be two problems with your UBR.
First off, you notice a dramatic speed drop and notify Tech Support who look into the connection and spot that the power levels from your particular UBR are abnormal and book a tech visit.
The tech arrives the next morning and adjusts, say, the output from the UBR back within limits and reports the problem fixed.
Later that afternoon, you experience the congestion of having too many people connected simultaneously to your UBR and let TS know that "the problem is back".
TS check the records and say the problem was fixed.
If I'm anywhere near correct, the only real solution is for a fairly massive expansion of UBR capacities. And, again as I understand it, that's what's anticipated from the DOCSIS 3 roll-out next year which can't be done until all the UBRs have been uprated, which is what is happening right now.
I'd appreciate it if any VM tech crew could correct any errors in my deliberately simplistic explanation!
;)
What I think is causing the confusion here is that there could be two problems with your UBR.
First off, you notice a dramatic speed drop and notify Tech Support who look into the connection and spot that the power levels from your particular UBR are abnormal and book a tech visit.
The tech arrives the next morning and adjusts, say, the output from the UBR back within limits and reports the problem fixed.
Later that afternoon, you experience the congestion of having too many people connected simultaneously to your UBR and let TS know that "the problem is back".
TS check the records and say the problem was fixed.
If I'm anywhere near correct, the only real solution is for a fairly massive expansion of UBR capacities. And, again as I understand it, that's what's anticipated from the DOCSIS 3 roll-out next year which can't be done until all the UBRs have been uprated, which is what is happening right now.
I'd appreciate it if any VM tech crew could correct any errors in my deliberately simplistic explanation!
;)
Ii was told problem for the area that was fixed on staturday night not just mine , and they have never sent a tech out as they explaned it was on there side, and i think your are right about the Ubrs , just found out
something . but not puting on here in case the source views this forum
and they could not gave a diffenant date .
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.