Thread: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
View Single Post
Old 10-04-2005, 23:38   #8
ian@huth
Inactive
 
ian@huth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Huthwaite, Nottinghamshire
Services: VM 10Mb, TU, 1xSky HD, 2xSky+ (HD,all packs, sports & movies) 2xDVD PVR's, Freesat Freeview & other
Posts: 4,536
ian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronze
ian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronzeian@huth is cast in bronze
Re: When Are Slower Than Max Speeds A Fault?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHorb
Perhaps the question should be 'what is considered acceptable' rather than 'what is considered a fault'. Logically, on a 20:1 contended service, anything < 5% is a FAULT, but anything < 80% could be regarded as 'unacceptable', particularly in off-peak time.
I would tend to agree broadly with that although a user could get less than 5% of the theoretical maximum and there may be no fault at all on the NTL side. It could be the users fault entirely, how he has got his system configured and how he is using his connection that is the problem.

Many users think that they have a right to the full 100% speed of their connection and that if they can't achieve this then NTL should improve the infrastructure so that they can. Oh, and NTL should at the same time treble the download speed, at least treble the upload speed and half the cost.
ian@huth is offline   Reply With Quote