View Full Version : is it going to get better??
hi everyone
i've been with ntl for a few years now and have to say that things arn't looking good.
i play games online mostly and used to be quite happy with what is now the 600k service but over the last six months or so my speed has gone down and down(i test my speed and bandwidth regularly), my current speed is about 100kbps and has remained at this level for about the last month or so.
it used to be the case that after 9 pm it would perk up a bit but now it seems this is no longer the case.
i would rather not go to bt open wound sorry open world but i have to ask myself what the hell i'm paying for here, i was thinking about the 1mb service but is that going to give me 200kbps instead.
is it worth investing in 1mb? are things going to improve?
is this the most serious post i have ever written? :erm:
thanks
salem
Pffffff , i play cs online everyday and hence check my speed to.You get 100kbps? Best i ever manage is 72kbps !!! What am i doing wrong?
i'm paying for 600kbps trying to play mohaa with 1/6th of that is painfull
in relation to bandwidth 600k stands for 600,000 bits per second.
there are 8 bits in a byte, therefore giving you 75 kilobits per second. as there are 1024 bytes in a kilobyte (notice kilobit/kilobyte) the maximum speed of a 600k line is 73.2kb per second.
anything above that is purely burst transfer.
so don't worry para.. you're getting exactly what you should ;)
thanks s1lv3r thought i was getting ripped off there for a minute!!!
email was being prepared to send to NTL lol
Thanks
I don't know what speed test your using but try this one (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html) and post the result here.
There are plenty of people here willing and able to help you. Welcome the NTHW btw.
I use beeline bandwidth tester pretty good and you can do 30 a day.
Tried the 1 in the link tho thanks results follow:
Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:43:37 UTC
1st 128K took 3064 ms = 42778 Bytes/sec = approx 356 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1813 ms = 72296 Bytes/sec = approx 602 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 2083 ms = 62925 Bytes/sec = approx 524 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1532 ms = 85556 Bytes/sec = approx 712 kbits/sec
hows this look cant say i understand it but hope it helps
Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:45:55 UTC
1st 128K took 1813 ms = 72296 Bytes/sec = approx 602 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1863 ms = 70355 Bytes/sec = approx 585 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1822 ms = 71939 Bytes/sec = approx 599 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1853 ms = 70735 Bytes/sec = approx 589 kbits/sec
BTW thanks for the welcome, Beeline is available here
http://www.beelinebandwidthtest.com/
Please post results so i can compare my 600k service.
Thanks
oh thanks for the welcome btw :)
BTW thanks for the welcome, Beeline is available here
http://www.beelinebandwidthtest.com/
Please post results so i can compare my 600k service.
Thanks
thanks for help para
beeline gave me 576kbps
seems pretty good i'll have to chuck mcafee test engine in the bin i think
still dont know why everything slows down though??
hows this look cant say i understand it but hope it helps
Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:45:55 UTC
1st 128K took 1813 ms = 72296 Bytes/sec = approx 602 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1863 ms = 70355 Bytes/sec = approx 585 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1822 ms = 71939 Bytes/sec = approx 599 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1853 ms = 70735 Bytes/sec = approx 589 kbits/sec
for a 600k service, this looks about right...
actually salem your speeds are pretty stable, where as mine are all over the place,wierd. :shrug:
actually salem your speeds are pretty stable, where as mine are all over the place,wierd. :shrug:
Were you using your connection (apart from the test) at all whilst conducting the test?
No i shut everything down,always do
hi everyone
i've been with ntl for a few years now and have to say that things arn't looking good.
Time to jump ship with the rest of us??
I wonder if an ISP would give us bulk discount! :angel:
No i shut everything down,always do
Don't forget guys that contention ratio is the single biggest factor in your line's performance.
The more subscribers in your area flooding the local exchange with traffic, the less likely your chances of getting maximum bandwidth.
(not sure if the cable infrastucture has an exchange in that sense, but you get my point hopefully)
I suggest para, that you do a bandwidth test at different times of day to get a more accurate picture of performance.
Peak usage is most likely to be between 6-11pm weekdays. So expect lower results at that time.
Then I think you should try and get an ntl tech (shame there is no identifiable CLT here) to look into it for you :)
Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:54:16 UTC
1st 128K took 10 ms = 13107200 Bytes/sec = approx 109052 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 10 ms = 13107200 Bytes/sec = approx 109052 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 10 ms = 13107200 Bytes/sec = approx 109052 kbits/sec
Ok tried a different time of day as suggested, this look better?
downquark1
09-12-2003, 11:57
Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:54:16 UTC
1st 128K took 10 ms = 13107200 Bytes/sec = approx 109052 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 20 ms = 6553600 Bytes/sec = approx 54526 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 10 ms = 13107200 Bytes/sec = approx 109052 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 10 ms = 13107200 Bytes/sec = approx 109052 kbits/sec
Ok tried a different time of day as suggested, this look better?
:LOL: you do know that you should wipe the caches before a test.
errrrrr..actually no i didnt whick cache in particular?
homealone
09-12-2003, 14:31
errrrrr..actually no i didnt whick cache in particular?
CTRL F5 should do it:)
downquark1
09-12-2003, 15:58
errrrrr..actually no i didnt whick cache in particular?
sorry, the test works by timing a download, if it is in the cache it times how long it takes to retreve from the cache - which is waaaaaay faster than any connection. According to those results you were getting about 100mb a second which is about 100 times NTLs top package and 10 times the capable speed of the modem.
Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:28:09 UTC
1st 128K took 1823 ms = 71899 Bytes/sec = approx 598 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1982 ms = 66131 Bytes/sec = approx 550 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1663 ms = 78817 Bytes/sec = approx 656 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1853 ms = 70735 Bytes/sec = approx 589 kbits/sec
the bounce seems to have steadied
why is it that when ever i have a moan about ntl my connection suddenly becomes rock solid.
it makes me look :dunce:
still thanks for all the help, its nice to know that i can get it without waiting on the phone for an hour
:p
salem
I wish ppl would learn the difference between kilobit and kilobyte acronyms.
there are 8 bits in a byte, therefore giving you 75 kilobits per second.
WTF? I think you mean 75 kilobytes per second.
Please use the correct terms, nearly everyone says stuff like, I'm only getting 60kbps, and I pay for 600..
K should be capital.
small b means bits, capital B means bytes.
The speed rating is 600Kbps. (Kilobits per second.) And you will get a maximum of 75KBps. (Kilobytes per second) Actual content download speed will be lower due to TCP packet overhead.
I wish ppl would learn the difference between kilobit and kilobyte acronyms.
WTF? I think you mean 75 kilobytes per second.
Please use the correct terms, nearly everyone says stuff like, I'm only getting 60kbps, and I pay for 600..
K should be capital.
small b means bits, capital B means bytes.
The speed rating is 600Kbps. (Kilobits per second.) And you will get a maximum of 75KBps. (Kilobytes per second) Actual content download speed will be lower due to TCP packet overhead.
.... and here endeth the lesson :D :D
Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:28:09 UTC
1st 128K took 1823 ms = 71899 Bytes/sec = approx 598 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1982 ms = 66131 Bytes/sec = approx 550 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1663 ms = 78817 Bytes/sec = approx 656 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1853 ms = 70735 Bytes/sec = approx 589 kbits/sec
the bounce seems to have steadied
seems so - those figures look ok for a 600Kbps (75KBps ;) ) service.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.