Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

I'm getting fed up to... why should i pay for the 10mb when i cant even get over 3mb download?? heres the speed test.... speaks for its self... this is the quickest its been all week!:mad:

at, 11 Mar 2006 11:38:20 GMT

1st 512K took 16484 ms = 31.1 KB/sec, approx 256 Kbps, 0.25 Mbps
2nd 512K took 19672 ms = 26 KB/sec, approx 214 Kbps, 0.21 Mbps
3rd 512K took 13375 ms = 38.3 KB/sec, approx 316 Kbps, 0.31 Mbps
4th 512K took 8375 ms = 61.1 KB/sec, approx 503 Kbps, 0.49 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 322 Kbps, 0.32 Mbps

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

I come under Warrington Not Stockton Heath

Dam

Local loop unbundling presence
Be: RFS date set: 31/08/2006
Bulldog: Enabled
Easynet: Enabled
HomeChoice: Not available
Node4: Not available
Edge Telecom: Not available
Wanadoo: Not available
Zen Internet: Not available

Will have to wait a while for BE. They are the only supplier of ADSL i will trust at the moment. Have seen there kit in the aston exchange :drool:

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

Well i've already changed isp, and the ntl staff did'nt try to push me into staying.
They offered to send out another engineer, but reading on here it seems to something more. :(

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

We should pay 'upto' £24.99 and 'upto' £34.99 depending on how we feel the speed has been throughout the month... that would get them quickly trying to find a resolution.

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

Chrysalis, if quadplay says there is no throttling I don't see why you should doubt him.

From your results, I'd like to know how you diagnose it from local congestion, congestion across to the destination and throttling.

Second result ^ First had a 6xxx and 8xxx result so I discredited it ;)

---------- Post added at 14:23 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------

Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:23:04 UTC

1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 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 9650 Kbps, 9.42 Mbps

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

I discredited the part where he claimed there wasn't the capability, this is untrue.

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

Can you discredit whether they are throttling or not?

I'll have to eat my hat if you do :)

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

on the speed test im still getting 0.5mbps

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

Well maybe Quadplay can shed some light as to why this is happening?
I thought my connection was just bad because it is. NTL can fit modems till the end of time, and send out engineers to look at signal strength, and still its hopeless.
Either they dont know how to fix it, or they cant? Its a shame they never admit there's ever a real problem when its obvious on here, there is. :(

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

Funny, I think i have got someones back up

I have just received a phone call on my mobile from someone who knows me well and works for NTL. Seems the reason my area is so bad is that my UBR is due a reseg and move to a new UBR in the headend ?. He told me that they are NOT traffic shaping in my area or in any other area "the jury is out on that one for reasons i will keep to my self at the moment". He has told me my area will be sorted shortly. So i will give them till the end of March if no improvement by then that's it there will be fireworks :LOL:. I will still be activating the BT line just in case.

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

There is a lot of reseg work going on all the time at the moment and new UBR's been added to area's, but it does take time to do all area's. I think it just depends on how patient you are. (i'm not patient by the way!)

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

Just so you see what a 2 meg is like in my area at this moment in time.


Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:36:36 GMT
1st 128K took 796 ms = 164663 Bytes/sec = approx 1370 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1094 ms = 119810 Bytes/sec = approx 997 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 922 ms = 142161 Bytes/sec = approx 1183 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec


:(

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

Bill your getting speeds than me, but at least you got a reply, or at least an explanation from somebody.
Just coincidence my second contract with ntl finished on the 1st of march. ;)

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

I think it was because of a email i sent the other day to someone who would know if they are shaping ?.

BTW

Hows this now

Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:28:38 GMT
1st 128K took 2797 ms = 46862 Bytes/sec = approx 390 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1656 ms = 79150 Bytes/sec = approx 659 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1985 ms = 66031 Bytes/sec = approx 549 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 7375 ms = 17772 Bytes/sec = approx 148 kbits/sec


To repeat this test from the source server click here.

Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:10:52 GMT
1st 128K took 969 ms = 135265 Bytes/sec = approx 1125 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 984 ms = 133203 Bytes/sec = approx 1108 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 922 ms = 142161 Bytes/sec = approx 1183 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 907 ms = 144512 Bytes/sec = approx 1202 kbits/sec

it will improve come midnight

Re: NTL Speeds and Throttling
 

yeah they dont prove anything, too many factors involved. Also the fact my ubr is poor anyway makes it even harder to diagnose since general contention is causing slow speeds anyway.

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 ----------

I would be patient if one was scheduled but when you get told the ubr isnt warranted an upgrade and its bursting at the seams it changes things.

---------- Post added at 02:10 ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 ----------

some points to give to you.

they lied about the capability been in place, so this to me discredits anything else they say. If I worked for ntl and had to stick to a NDA to the company that puts food on my table I would do the same thing.

their is static routing in place over ntl's network for different area's and it is also clear different ubr's are seeing vastly different performance, so given this I would suggest it is possible on heavily utilised routes and ubr's shaping might be used whilst on clean routes traffic is been allowed to flow freely, it is also clever if they do this since if one guy proves his conenction is great all day long ntl cant be shaping at all right?

Of course its entirely possible there is no shaping.