20MB Hell

[projectxy]

Hi...

This is my first post and my apologies for another thread on the 20mb issue...

Well my issue is that I have just returned to VM from BT and I have signed up to the XL package.

I get on average 1.4-2.5mbps and an upsteam of 734kbps. Now this is clearly not what I'm paying £37 a month for!! :mad:

I have following the optimisation page on VM and no luck, I have also purchased a new router which def can handle the 20mb connection... No improvement!

Have checked the router config and appears correct as per someones post outlining what I should see...?!

Can anyone help or suggest a fix... I have and do not want to call India again to follow thier annoying "script"!

Ta! :)

[jrhnewark]

I've got exactly the same problem -the upstream is fantastic, but the downstream is hopeless. Has been since we got it in May - at one point I used to ring (India), but I've given up.

[projectxy]

Im starting to wonder why I came back......! :confused:
Last time I called India she proceeded to get me to turn off my firewall through cmd: net stop..... when i explained that i wasnt running any software firewalls or builtin one.. she just carried on spelling cmd!?

[Hugh]

You state you have a router - what is the speed without the router (downloading from blueyonder games or Microsoft)?

[Hom3r]

I recently downloaded a file on my dads PC (wired) at 2500 KBs, I tried the same file on my laptop wirelessly I got 1100KBs.

I checked my router (Netgear WGT624v3) and checked my wireless settings,
I looked at thes

108Mbps Settings (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:loadhelp('WLG_adv','superg'))
. Disable Advanced 108Mbps Features
x Enable eXtended Range(XR) Feature

and changed them to

108Mbps Settings (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:loadhelp('WLG_adv','superg'))
x Disable Advanced 108Mbps Features
. Enable eXtended Range(XR) Feature

I also made sure that my router was running the latest firmware.

My speed went up to around 2000KBs

108Mbps Settings

Disable Advanced 108Mbps Features
If Disabled, the Wireless Router will disable data compression, packet bursting and large frame support.

Enable eXtended Range
Enable eXtended Range - eXtended Range (XR) Technology provides significantly longer range than basic 802.11 by maintaining connectivity when signals are made faint when passing through dense walls, floors, or other barriers. XR products require no additional configuration by end-users and are fully interoperable with standard 802.11 technologies.

Also try changing the channel the wireless is broadcasting on

[projectxy]

Hi when plugged directy into modem I get:

Downloading from MS 1.12mb/s then drops quickly to 150ish...

Something clearly isnt right.... My router is a Buffalo WHR-HP-G54. Lastest firmware installed... Can anyone assist in someway!

Many thanks

[hanzo]

vm can go to hell!

[Hugh]

vm can go to hell!
Your last two posts appear to be a way of letting off steam, rather than helping the OP.

Your other post Link (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/no... its just vm, they are ******* useless twots ) - your wit is only exceeded by your brevity.

I hope you feel better now.

[projectxy]

As much as I agree with Hanzo..., this problem is clearly not confined to certain areas.... is there anyone else in the North Hants/Andover area who is actually getting 20mb???? When I had NTL 10MB (started with 256kb back in 02..and ended my association with them 6 mths after the rollout of the 10mb service in 05) I had no issues and it was fast (1.2mb d/l)..(er than this anyway!))...:confused:

Edit 5.15pm
Just did this on SG..( i know its not the best idea but its a good indication of cack speed)

1683 kbps down (~1.68 Mbps, 205 KB/s) ↓
718 kbps up (~0.72 Mbps, 88 KB/s) ↑
Details:

3072 KB downloaded in 14.953 seconds
500 KB uploaded in 5.703 seconds
Speed @ 55% of the average for sotn.cable.ntl.com
32 times faster than 56k dialup
Tested on: 2007.10.06 12:14 EDT
Tested from: host-easy.co.uk
Test ID: Z7W4JI6PJIIY
Browser/OS: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
IP Address: 86.7.127.41
Provider: sotn.cable.ntl.com
Location: Peterborough, UK

[Hugh]

You appear to have a problem in your area - I did a tracert to the IP address above (if it's yours, you may wish to edit it out)

Tracing route to xxx-lotsofstuff.ntl.com [xx.x.xxx.xx]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms xxxxxx.xxxxx[nnn.nnn.nnn.nn]
2 8 ms 8 ms 11 ms xx.xxxx.xxx.xxx
3 27 ms 8 ms 7 ms leed-t2cam1-b-ge911.inet.ntl.com [80.0.55.25]
4 12 ms 9 ms 9 ms host80-0-50-146.no-dns-yet.ntli.net [80.0.50.146]
5 8 ms 7 ms 9 ms lee-bb-b-so-020-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.175.69]
6 14 ms 10 ms 10 ms man-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.193]
7 18 ms 16 ms 19 ms gfd-bb-b-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com [62.252.192.94]
8 17 ms 18 ms 34 ms sot3-t2core-b-pos31.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.54]
9 18 ms 17 ms 19 ms sot3-t2cam1-b-ge-wan32.inet.ntl.com [195.182.176.254]
10 30 ms 20 ms 21 ms sot3-ando-ubr-3-ge02.inet.ntl.com [80.4.226.182]
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 etc.

Just tried it again - same outcome.

[projectxy]

hmmm might explain things.... what do you reckon is the best course of action!?

[darkrage]

hi i had this problem when they first upgraded me to 20mg - india are no help what so ever - what i did find out was the local server for which i was connected - namely bagley was under going the upgrade at this time after they had finished my speeds increased and are stable on 18mg down and 700kB up only problem i have now is packet loss.

maybe the routing you show above is showing an ntl hub where they are upgrading but to have timed out hops is a massive problem would be easier if it showed high ping times atleast you would know what server was slowing you down.

probably didnt help you lol but that was my problem any way./

[ferretuk]

You appear to have a problem in your area - I did a tracert to the IP address above (if it's yours, you may wish to edit it out)

You've helpfully removed the IP address but left the hostname you've tried to trace the route to :) A quick DNS lookup reveals the IP address so can you edit your post to remove the hostname as well?

[darkrage]

listen to the ferret =)

[projectxy]

Thanks guys... is there anyway of finding out if they are upgrading in my area...? Does the status page show this info??... (Thanks again for all info...im slowly going mad over this!)

[danechip]

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 16:44:09 UTC
1st 128K took 401 ms = 326863 Bytes/sec = approx 2720 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 581 ms = 225597 Bytes/sec = approx 1877 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 420 ms = 312076 Bytes/sec = approx 2596 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 511 ms = 256501 Bytes/sec = approx 2134 kbits/sec


No better for me either, did anyone spot the decimal inbetween 20 meg and 2.0 meg ?

Wellingborough (Northampton UBR)

[Mick Fisher]

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 19:34:11 UTC

Test 1: 1024K took 1375 ms = 744.7 KB/sec, approx 6136 Kbps, 5.99 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 2297 ms = 445.8 KB/sec, approx 3673 Kbps, 3.59 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 937 ms = 1092.8 KB/sec, approx 9005 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 1828 ms = 1120.4 KB/sec, approx 9232 Kbps, 9.02 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 7012 Kbps, 6.85 Mbps

This from Rushden, Northants.

However on a test download from a news server in the USA using a variety of servers and a total of 27 connections overall, I was able to peak momentarily at 15 Mbps. Now not saying your connection is not dire and no you should not have to configure the hell outa your software to get a reasonable speed. Just to point out the deficiencies of speed tests. They are all inaccurate.

[Hugh]

Especially on 20Mb links - a proper test is downloading from blueyonder games or Microsoft.

[Mrcon]

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:49:03 GMT

Test 1: 1024K took 1890 ms = 541.8 KB/sec, approx 4464 Kbps, 4.36 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 1688 ms = 606.6 KB/sec, approx 4998 Kbps, 4.88 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 1781 ms = 575 KB/sec, approx 4738 Kbps, 4.63 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 3500 ms = 585.1 KB/sec, approx 4821 Kbps, 4.71 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 4755 Kbps, 4.65 Mbps

Being shaped!

[projectxy]

This "traffic" managament sucks.. if they cannot handle the traffic with the current infrastructure... dont sell a package that is supposed to be 20mbps!

[jrhnewark]

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:02:54 UTC
1st 128K took 1584 ms = 82747 Bytes/sec = approx 688 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 2248 ms = 58306 Bytes/sec = approx 485 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 3196 ms = 41011 Bytes/sec = approx 341 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 2792 ms = 46946 Bytes/sec = approx 391 kbits/sec

Worse than ever. I'll be calling them tomorrow.

[invisibleboy]

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:02:54 UTC
1st 128K took 1584 ms = 82747 Bytes/sec = approx 688 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 2248 ms = 58306 Bytes/sec = approx 485 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 3196 ms = 41011 Bytes/sec = approx 341 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 2792 ms = 46946 Bytes/sec = approx 391 kbits/sec

Worse than ever. I'll be calling them tomorrow.

getting similar speeds myself paying for 20mb barely getting 1mb and i have to say phoning india is waste of time

Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:08:37 GMT

Test 1: 1024K took 32206 ms = 31.8 KB/sec, approx 262 Kbps, 0.26 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 12254 ms = 83.6 KB/sec, approx 689 Kbps, 0.67 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 30324 ms = 33.8 KB/sec, approx 279 Kbps, 0.27 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 45779 ms = 44.7 KB/sec, approx 368 Kbps, 0.36 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 400 Kbps, 0.39 Mbps

[Barewolf]

10pm Test – October 9th

Test – Desktop PC

Test 1: 1024K took 8282 ms = 123.6 KB/sec, approx 1018 Kbps, 0.99 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 8609 ms = 118.9 KB/sec, approx 980 Kbps, 0.96 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 8453 ms = 121.1 KB/sec, approx 998 Kbps, 0.97 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 18891 ms = 108.4 KB/sec, approx 893 Kbps, 0.87 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps

Speednet Test -

Download - 779 kb/s
Upload -724 kb/s


Tested – Laptop Via Router Same Broadband

Test 1: 1024K took 12016 ms = 85.2 KB/sec, approx 702 Kbps, 0.69 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 10781 ms = 95 KB/sec, approx 783 Kbps, 0.76 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 15250 ms = 67.1 KB/sec, approx 553 Kbps, 0.54 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 25328 ms = 80.9 KB/sec, approx 667 Kbps, 0.65 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 676 Kbps, 0.66 Mbps

Speednet Test –
Download – 731 kb/s
Upload – 696 kb/s


VM are taking the Billy Mitchel

[blade85]

4 meg connection working as always....no flaws

Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:46:36 GMT

Test 1: 1024K took 2078 ms = 492.79998779296875 KB/sec, approx 4061 Kbps, 3.9700000286102295 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 2141 ms = 478.29998779296875 KB/sec, approx 3941 Kbps, 3.8499999046325684 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 2125 ms = 481.8999938964844 KB/sec, approx 3971 Kbps, 3.880000114440918 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 4281 ms = 478.3999938964844 KB/sec, approx 3942 Kbps, 3.8499999046325684 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3979 Kbps, 3.890000104904175 Mbps


LOL whats with the precision 3.8900000000000....cant they just say 3.89?

[tdadyslexia]

Hi All I am not on 20MB I am on 2MB

My speed test results:
Dat Time Speed Achieved (kbps)
05-11-2007 05:44:34 1967.3
01-11-2007 00:59:57 1964.4
31-10-2007 19:20:55 121.8
27-09-2007 16:30:39 1961.2
02-09-2007 09:05:45 1966
27-08-2007 13:47:00 1412.9
22-08-2007 06:52:44 1967.5
Results from PlusNet (http://www.plus.net/).

[Jonnymeg]

Personally i think that people are unreasonable in their expectations. If the OP is getting 2.4 mps sometimes and 1.4 at other times can't this just be put down to congestion on the net in general?
In my opinion people seem to base their speed on the results of speedtest sites that are far from perfect.
For example i just tested my 20meg connection on speedtest.net and got 8950kbps which is obviously crap. But don't believe it because staright after i downloaded some binaries from usenet via giganews at 2.6mbps.

Users fail to understand that there are so many varibles that dictate the speed of downloads but it doesn't mean VM are to blame. In a way it is like complaing to VM if the BBC schedules are running late.

[Barewolf]

Personally i think that people are unreasonable in their expectations. If the OP is getting 2.4 mps sometimes and 1.4 at other times can't this just be put down to congestion on the net in general?
In my opinion people seem to base their speed on the results of speedtest sites that are far from perfect.
For example i just tested my 20meg connection on speedtest.net and got 8950kbps which is obviously crap. But don't believe it because staright after i downloaded some binaries from usenet via giganews at 2.6mbps.

Users fail to understand that there are so many varibles that dictate the speed of downloads but it doesn't mean VM are to blame. In a way it is like complaing to VM if the BBC schedules are running late.

Eh?

1st of all you're comparing VM with the BBC, if the BBC were running late every day, day in day out you would complain. the Broadband is that slow here that a Youtube video takes 4 minutes to load. when you pay £37 a month for that you do complain. if I only got 10mb I would be happy but usually its down to 400kb.

People accept you dont get full speed in an evening and i can live with that, I wont pay them for a service they dont provide.

They should never have promised their customers 20mb if they couldnt handle it. :td:

[Jonnymeg]

Eh?

1st of all you're comparing VM with the BBC, if the BBC were running late every day, day in day out you would complain. the Broadband is that slow here that a Youtube video takes 4 minutes to load. when you pay £37 a month for that you do complain. if I only got 10mb I would be happy but usually its down to 400kb.

People accept you dont get full speed in an evening and i can live with that, I wont pay them for a service they dont provide.

They should never have promised their customers 20mb if they couldnt handle it. :td:

As posted in another thread:

Do not ever rely on speed test sites. They are often very wrong.

For example look at this screen shot, this was capture only minutes ago. There is about 1 minute between the speedtest result shown and the download from usenet. They are not running at the same time.
The speedtest shows a **** poor speed but look in the top corner of the image and you will see the true download speed i am getting from giganews, 2.6mbps. This is slightly above 20meg.
As you can see there is a massive difference between what these sites report and what is often your true speed.



Download Failed (1)


I am not denying there may be real issues with the service but there are many people that complain when speedtest sites show false speeds.

[Barewolf]

All the sites show different speeds, pinging websites shows its slow. Generally downloading a file will show the real speed, with me i was pinging bbc.co.uk and getting 47ms on average, a 50mb file showed a speed of 100kb.s