SE London very slow [Archive]

Ramrod

18-01-2006, 22:58

Anyone here know of why I am getting 1mb or less in SE London (Bexley area)
I'm on a samsung stb and my 3 meg connection was rock steady. My 5-7meg connection (since the 10 meg upgrade) was also pretty good till the last week when I have dropped to 1meg or less (according to Dan Elwells and Robin Walkers tests)
Tech support re-provisioned (if thats the correct term) my stb and she said the next step was to check my machine in 'safe mode with networking' :rolleyes:
Should I try a proxy? Anyone have any idea why Bromley should be so slow? Looking at the rest of the threads in this section it seems that a lot of people are having slow 10meg browsing all over the country--is this a general problem atm? :(

---------- Post added at 22:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:58:22 GMT
1st 128K took 1985 ms = 66031 Bytes/sec = approx 549 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 2015 ms = 65048 Bytes/sec = approx 541 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 2000 ms = 65536 Bytes/sec = approx 545 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 235 ms = 557753 Bytes/sec = approx 4641 kbits/sec

:(

patrickp

18-01-2006, 23:37

I'm in SE London, Ramrod, Woolwich. Tried the CF speed test and got

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:33:53 GMT

1st 512K took 1531 ms = 334.4 KB/sec, approx 2541 Kbps, 2.5 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1438 ms = 356 KB/sec, approx 2706 Kbps, 2.6 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1297 ms = 394.8 KB/sec, approx 3000 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
4th 512K took 1328 ms = 385.5 KB/sec, approx 2930 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 2794 Kbps, 2.73 Mbps

Not as bad as you, but...

Then it ocurred to me that I'm specifying a proxy ATM and haven't tried without it for a while, so

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:36:03 GMT

1st 512K took 688 ms = 744.2 KB/sec, approx 5656 Kbps, 5.5 Mbps
2nd 512K took 626 ms = 817.9 KB/sec, approx 6216 Kbps, 6.1 Mbps
3rd 512K took 688 ms = 744.2 KB/sec, approx 5656 Kbps, 5.5 Mbps
4th 512K took 594 ms = 862 KB/sec, approx 6551 Kbps, 6.4 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 6020 Kbps, 5.88 Mbps

Hmmm. Tried a different proxy and

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:36:47 GMT

1st 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8297 Kbps, 8.1 Mbps
2nd 512K took 390 ms = 1312.8 KB/sec, approx 9977 Kbps, 9.7 Mbps
3rd 512K took 391 ms = 1309.5 KB/sec, approx 9952 Kbps, 9.7 Mbps
4th 512K took 343 ms = 1492.7 KB/sec, approx 11345 Kbps, 11.1 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 9893 Kbps, 9.65 Mbps

Seems it's the old proxy game...

Edit: incidentally, the SwitchProxy (http://www.roundtwo.com/product/switchproxy) extension in Firefox is great for games like this!

bopdude

19-01-2006, 00:46

Looking at the amount of problems / posts, that are springing up in different areas of the U.K I would hazzard a guess that its a bigger issue than just you and I mate :(
Time and a statement will tell :shrug: but IMHO, I think a laggy bands broken somewhere :erm: ;)

Ramrod

19-01-2006, 08:19

I'm in SE London, Ramrod, Woolwich. Tried the CF speed test and got
Seems it's the old proxy game...

Edit: incidentally, the SwitchProxy (http://www.roundtwo.com/product/switchproxy) extension in Firefox is great for games like this!Tnx for that m8 :)

---------- Post added at 08:19 ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 ----------

Looking at the amount of problems / posts, that are springing up in different areas of the U.K I would hazzard a guess that its a bigger issue than just you and I mate :(
I think you are right there ;)

Ramrod

19-01-2006, 11:26

Tried the proxy dance....no joy :(

---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

Just had a chat with my neighbour who says that he was getting disconnections on his stb bb till ntl came out and fiddled inside the box across the road from us......round about the time my bb connection went wonky.....coincidence? I think not! :dozey:

sicknote

19-01-2006, 21:34

this issue is ongoing..the lax service provided by a rollout that they could not handle clearly..all for marketing purpose of saying we were the first la la and they were also the first to make themselves look ***** cause they still cant provide anywhere near a 10mg stable service in a lot of the country its unbeliveable how lucky they are that all these users with all these problems dont go elsewhere lets just hope they get there fingers outta there asses and sort it all as quick as they said WE are the first with 10mg service:)

Ramrod

19-01-2006, 21:48

I have an engineer booked to come tomorrow....lets see what he makes of all this....

sicknote

19-01-2006, 21:57

had the 10mg service here for two whole weeks and had techs out 3 times and still never sorted still high pings loss of service and 50k download speeds :( i dropped to the two meg now and gettin 240k ish so wth would i want to pay 37:99 for that and i quote upto ->>>10mg crap but more like 1-2mg at best well not til they have sorted it out if ever they do

Ramrod

19-01-2006, 22:50

I'll see what they can do to fix this before I downgrade to 2 meg...

rjsmyth

19-01-2006, 22:58

I have lost service twice this evening and have had to re-boot the modem to get service back. I was getting 10meg with 8 connections to my usenet provider but this was swinging about all over the place this evening between 2 and 5 megs. Web browsing has been a complete pain since the 10meg "upgrade" with long delays between new pages loading.

Do you think I have been capped? Tried to ring customer services this evening and there were 161 people waiting :Yikes:

Ramrod

20-01-2006, 10:27

Welcome to the forum rjsmyth :)

Engineer has just left (well done ntl for such a quick service! ) but couldn't resolve my slow speed problem. He has passed this to the 'network' people as there seems to be a problem with my 'return path'....they should be round later today....

bopdude

20-01-2006, 10:29

Engineer has just left (well done ntl for such a quick service! ) but couldn't resolve my slow speed problem. He has passed this to the 'network' people as there seems to be a problem with my 'return path'....they should be round later today....

Good luck mate :tu:

Bill C

20-01-2006, 11:57

Good luck mate :tu:

Seconded

Ramrod

20-01-2006, 12:28

Cheers guys :)

Right.....'network' chap turned up......checked levels, tweaked stuff sorted out a few problems he found at the street furniture .....still no joy:(
He's going to ring around and see if he can find anything out from the chaps further upstream and ring back next week.
On the plus side ntl are doing themselves proud with their speed of response to my problem and on a personal note both engineers said that my diy cable from the wedge to stb is working perfectly :D
So yaaboosucks to all here that say it can't be done! :p:

bopdude

20-01-2006, 14:16

So yaaboosucks to all here that say it can't be done! :p:
Pleased it works mate but yaaboosucks ????? I think you might be working to hard, go lay your head down for a bit ;)

Ramrod

20-01-2006, 14:18

bopdude

20-01-2006, 15:06

Pleased it works mate but yaaboosucks ????? I think you might be working to hard, go lay your head down for a bit ;)The road is long, the forest deep and I have miles to go before I sleep.....or at least till after FNG tonight :D

:bigcry::bigcry::bigcry: It's Liz's birthday, we're going out for the night but if I know FNG, you'll still be on when I get home, slightly worse for wear, see ya later :tu:

punky

29-01-2006, 19:33

Rammy... seems like i'm having the same probs as you :(

Can you lemme know how it goes please mate?

Paul - you had this problem too? Seems to be a London-wide thing.

I'm on 10 meg, via Samsung STB. 3meg was rock solid, now its averaging between 0.5mbps & 2mbps. Transfer rate occaisonally spikes at 500k/s+ but always with an average transfer rate less than 2mbps...

Ramrod

09-02-2006, 18:55

Rammy... seems like i'm having the same probs as you :(

Can you lemme know how it goes please mate? I did a full reformat and installed xp pro 64bit. Connection is definitely faster but still not really what I should be getting......
Modem install is tomorrow-I persuaded them to do this for free :) . I do hope I have a working connection/router afterwards.
Anything I should watch out for/make sure the engineers do?

Sage013

10-02-2006, 11:47

I did a full reformat and installed xp pro 64bit. Connection is definitely faster but still not really what I should be getting......
Modem install is tomorrow-I persuaded them to do this for free :) . I do hope I have a working connection/router afterwards.
Anything I should watch out for/make sure the engineers do?

I'm having a modem installed today as well. I'll be watching them every second of the way as I don't want them looking in to private info on my PC. In fact, I'm hoping they won't have to touch it apart from plugging in a cable.

As we live relatively close geographically, I half expect to get the same engineers as you do. If they turn up early at your place, please don't delay them :D

homealone

10-02-2006, 11:53

I'm having a modem installed today as well. I'll be watching them every second of the way as I don't want them looking in to private info on my PC. In fact, I'm hoping they won't have to touch it apart from plugging in a cable.
<snip>

They won't touch your PC, they will expect you to sort out that side of it, all they will do is install the modem & check the levels :)

<edit> don't think Watford & South London will share the same installation crew, though ;)

Sage013

10-02-2006, 12:00

They won't touch your PC, they will expect you to sort out that side of it, all they will do is install the modem & check the levels :)

<edit> don't think Watford & South London will share the same installation crew, though ;)

Thanks for the info homealone. Just out of curiosity on location, I'll ask the engineer the question. :)

Ramrod

10-02-2006, 13:56

Well I now have a SACM and these are my speeds:

Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:42:39 GMT
1st 128K took 141 ms = 929589 Bytes/sec = approx 7734 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 125 ms = 1048576 Bytes/sec = approx 8724 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 62 ms = 2114065 Bytes/sec = approx 17589 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 157 ms = 834854 Bytes/sec = approx 6946 kbits/sec
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:44:48 GMT
1st 128K took 79 ms = 1659139 Bytes/sec = approx 13804 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 79 ms = 1659139 Bytes/sec = approx 13804 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 157 ms = 834854 Bytes/sec = approx 6946 kbits/sec:cool: :)

Now to get my router connected :disturbd:

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:44 ----------

Right, router in the loop:

Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:51:32 GMT
1st 128K took 188 ms = 697191 Bytes/sec = approx 5801 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 219 ms = 598502 Bytes/sec = approx 4980 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 156 ms = 840205 Bytes/sec = approx 6991 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 250 ms = 524288 Bytes/sec = approx 4362 kbits/sec
.....has slowed things down......about twice as fast as my stb but slower than a SACM on it's own nevertheless.
I have a netgear wgr614 (http://kbserver.netgear.com/products/wgr614v1.asp) (version 1) ....anyone got any ideas? :confused:

Sage013

10-02-2006, 15:23

Sorry Ramrod, no idea personally. I sure someone will come up with something.

Just got my ntl 250 SACM connected and working fine at present. However, it would of been nice if I had had PIN number generated but it only took 10 mins on the phone to sort out. Seems I've no got double the amount of email addressess and two webspaces :D

Ramrod, you're gonna hate me for this. Here is my current connection speed. Tried 10 times and it only varied by 0.2 at most.

Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:17:20 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 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 9730 Kbps, 9.5 Mbps

You wouldn't beleive the current smile I have on my face :D

Ramrod

10-02-2006, 15:47

Sage013

10-02-2006, 16:41

I'm not unhappy with my speeds either......just got to sort out the router now......are you on a router?

No, straight connection, which is why I'm probably getting the speeds I am. Best of luck with your problem sorry I can't help. :)

patrickp

10-02-2006, 18:07

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:44 ----------

Right, router in the loop:

Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:51:32 GMT
1st 128K took 188 ms = 697191 Bytes/sec = approx 5801 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 219 ms = 598502 Bytes/sec = approx 4980 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 156 ms = 840205 Bytes/sec = approx 6991 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 250 ms = 524288 Bytes/sec = approx 4362 kbits/sec
.....has slowed things down......about twice as fast as my stb but slower than a SACM on it's own nevertheless.
I have a netgear wgr614 (http://kbserver.netgear.com/products/wgr614v1.asp) (version 1) ....anyone got any ideas? :confused:

Ramrod, I don't have any experience with wireless routers, but you won't always get the speed from them you need for a 10Mb connection. There are different wireless standards which have different speeds (some are fast enough; some aren't), if you're connecting the wireless adapters with USB, that may also slow things down, and also interference with the signals may affect matters.

Might be a good idea to try a PC connected to the router via ethernet rather than wireless and see what speed you get then. If you get a good speed, you know the problem is with your wireless connection; if you get a poor speed, it's most likely to be with your router settings or the connection between router and modem.

Ramrod

10-02-2006, 19:28

Ramrod, I don't have any experience with wireless routers, but you won't always get the speed from them you need for a 10Mb connection. There are different wireless standards which have different speeds (some are fast enough; some aren't), if you're connecting the wireless adapters with USB, that may also slow things down, and also interference with the signals may affect matters.

Might be a good idea to try a PC connected to the router via ethernet rather than wireless and see what speed you get then. If you get a good speed, you know the problem is with your wireless connection; if you get a poor speed, it's most likely to be with your router settings or the connection between router and modem.Cheers m8, I'm connected to the router via ethernet (the wireless is for the laptops etc.)
The connection status on xp says 100.0 Mbps so it should be able to connect my pc at a decent speed.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

No, straight connection, which is why I'm probably getting the speeds I am. Best of luck with your problem sorry I can't help. :)It's not that much of a problem....I'm getting twice the speed I was :)

patrickp

10-02-2006, 21:23

I have a netgear wgr614 (http://kbserver.netgear.com/products/wgr614v1.asp) (version 1) ....anyone got any ideas? :confused:

Sorry, Rammie - here's your problem (from the specifications in the netgear wgr614 online manual) -

Interface Specifications
LAN:
10BASE-T or 100BASE-Tx, RJ-45
WAN:
10BASE-T, RJ-45

The WAN port is only 10Mbs. Unfortunately, this isn't fast enough to support a 10Mb internet connection. You need a router with a 10/100 Mb WAN port. So, unfortunately, the speeds you're seeing are about what you should expect with that router. :-(

Ramrod

10-02-2006, 22:05

Sorry, Rammie - here's your problem (from the specifications in the netgear wgr614 online manual) -

Interface Specifications
LAN:
10BASE-T or 100BASE-Tx, RJ-45
WAN:
10BASE-T, RJ-45

The WAN port is only 10Mbs. Unfortunately, this isn't fast enough to support a 10Mb internet connection. You need a router with a 10/100 Mb WAN port. So, unfortunately, the speeds you're seeing are about what you should expect with that router. :-(

Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:03:21 GMT
1st 128K took 141 ms = 929589 Bytes/sec = approx 7734 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 93 ms = 1409376 Bytes/sec = approx 11726 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 125 ms = 1048576 Bytes/sec = approx 8724 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 157 ms = 834854 Bytes/sec = approx 6946 kbits/sec
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:06:20 GMT
1st 128K took 79 ms = 1659139 Bytes/sec = approx 13804 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 125 ms = 1048576 Bytes/sec = approx 8724 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 172 ms = 762047 Bytes/sec = approx 6340 kbits/sec
:cool: :D

Set WAN to 100 (from 10) oops:

homealone

10-02-2006, 22:49

Sorry, Rammie - here's your problem (from the specifications in the netgear wgr614 online manual) -

Interface Specifications
LAN:
10BASE-T or 100BASE-Tx, RJ-45
WAN:
10BASE-T, RJ-45

The WAN port is only 10Mbs. Unfortunately, this isn't fast enough to support a 10Mb internet connection. You need a router with a 10/100 Mb WAN port. So, unfortunately, the speeds you're seeing are about what you should expect with that router. :-(

in my opinion, the way some routers are described is misleading, they often bigup the 10/100 LAN switch, but fail to mention the 10baseT WAN

- at least you know , now, Ramrod ;)

<edit> my linksys befsr41 v2 router gave the following

Interface Specifications
LAN:
10BASE-T or 100BASE-Tx, RJ-45
WAN:
10BASE-T, RJ-45

- and that will not do full speed 10 meg, either :)