"Don't blame us, blame your speed test"

Virgin Media claims many speed testers available online use 'dirty data' and don't accurately record speeds.

They are concerned that when they launch the 50meg service, it will be difficult for users to verify that they are actually getting that speed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7669713.stm

[browney]

I had to phone VM a few months ago as my 10Mb downhill they had me use fuller.zen.co.uk/test to test my speed

Dedicated speed tests are naff, I don't use them anymore, I only believe what speeds I get when downloading from the newsgroups, and I have to say, my speed is always maxed out on them.

[Russ]

Whereas VM seem to have a point, this is the magic cop-out card for some tech support agents. I suspect they have already been prepped on this in India. It'll make a change from blaming the firewall I guess.

[Pierre]

Down load speed are difficult to quantify.

VM have done a lot of research on this. *

There can be any number of problems with the speedtests, and amongst those we’ve researched we’ve found:

Speedtests that only download very small files and hence can’t accurately measure the throughput to give a precise measure of the speed

Tests hosted on servers that are located outside of the UK (remember that the Internet is only as fast as the slowest link)

Speedtests hosted on congested servers or network links that can’t cope – resulting in a slower file download or upload (but this is not accurate of the speed of the broadband connection). This is particularly troublesome for times when speedtests are most popular – such as when the site that runs one of them issues a press release with the latest speedtest results.

Old versions of speedtest software – in some cases many years old.

Problems with the customer’s computer(s) and equipment – Use of USB (much slower than a network card, particularly on higher speeds), Windows not tuned for the higher speeds, wireless equipment not capable of achieving higher speeds and more!

These affect the customer experience of the service, but aren’t an accurate reflection of the speed of the connection.

How can I test that I am downloading at my correct speed? *

There are many speed tests, of varying accuracy, available on the Internet. However, a simple way to test your connection is to download four or more files simultaneously (one file downloaded will not usually use the full bandwidth you have available) from a UK mirror of such sites as: http://gamefiles.virginmedia.com/blueyondergames/demos/, http://www.tucows.com or http://fuller.zen.co.uk/test/ and then adding up the average transfer speed for each individual file. For example, if you are currently connected to the XL service, this equates to up to 20480Kb/s (kilobits per second) or 2560KB/s (kilobytes per second) for downloading, and the upload speed is "up to" 768Kb/s or 96KB/s. On top of this, you should deduct around 10% for overhead data transfer. Internet Explorer normally reports transfer rates in KB (kilobytes per second). Please remember also, that the Internet is only as fast as its slowest link. This means that, if you are on the Virgin Media XL service and you are trying to download a file from the USA, you are then reliant on the ISP's network in the region of the service you have connected with, and that their servers are able to supply you with the full XL speeds.

* Ripped from VM

** ripped from http://broadband-faq.brion.me.uk/

[D.Casey]

The indian call centres usually tell me to use the speedtest at:

http://www.numion.com/

[Nilrem]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Whereas VM seem to have a point, this is the magic cop-out card for some tech support agents. I suspect they have already been prepped on this in India. It'll make a change from blaming the firewall I guess.

To be fair, I have personally experienced a firewall killing download speeds - ZoneAlarm (free) used to limit my downloads to about 3mb when the 10mb package first came out, it took me ages to work out what the problem was (eventually i tracked it down when i noticed that a machine i was reinstalling downloaded much faster, using the same nic type, and a low end cpu).


Back on topic, i've noticed how many speed tests vary tremendously from what i've seen, i've had speeds varying from about <4mb to 19mb from different test sites (or even different servers on the same site) within minutes of each other, so I never pay much attention to them.

[Ignitionnet]

http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk always seems to hit the spot for me.

[Horace]

The obsession with speed-tests reminds me of my CB days when everyone was obsessed with signal strength and used to spend more time doing tests than actually using the CB to talk about non-CB related topics. Personally, the two private trackers I use max my 20meg any day or night and usenet gets pretty close too. Those are my two main download sources and if they are working 100% then I couldn't care less what a speed-test says, I mean that's the point, it's not about e-penis waving, it's about actually downloading quick enough to justify the price you're paying.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Horace

The obsession with speed-tests reminds me of my CB days when everyone was obsessed with signal strength and used to spend more time doing tests than actually using the CB to talk about non-CB related topics. Personally, the two private trackers I use max my 20meg any day or night and usenet gets pretty close too. Those are my two main download sources and if they are working 100% then I couldn't care less what a speed-test says, I mean that's the point, it's not about e-penis waving, it's about actually downloading quick enough to justify the price you're paying.

WOW, CB,that takes me back.

The good old SWR meter

[moaningmags]

Totally off topic, but I met my husband through CB radio

Our CB is now in the loft but our Antron 99 is still standing poker straight on the roof.

Still use it when travelling down south with modulator on the car, any trucker who sees it on your car will let you in or out etc etc.

Back on topic, I've yet to have a speed test give me an accurate result, I rely on my download speeds for that.

[Griffin]

Well if i believed speed tests then why bother with faster than 10mb, the speed test site on here reads
Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:02:27 GMT

Test 1: 1024K took 134 ms = 7641.8 KB/sec, approx 62968 Kbps, 61.49 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 192 ms = 5333.3 KB/sec, approx 43946 Kbps, 42.92 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 901 ms = 1136.5 KB/sec, approx 9365 Kbps, 9.15 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 1843 ms = 1111.2 KB/sec, approx 9156 Kbps, 8.94 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 31359 Kbps, 30.63 Mbps
Speedtest.net reads as follows

Originally Posted by Horace

The obsession with speed-tests reminds me of my CB days when everyone was obsessed with signal strength and used to spend more time doing tests than actually using the CB to talk about non-CB related topics. Personally, the two private trackers I use max my 20meg any day or night and usenet gets pretty close too. Those are my two main download sources and if they are working 100% then I couldn't care less what a speed-test says, I mean that's the point, it's not about e-penis waving, it's about actually downloading quick enough to justify the price you're paying.

lol... one nine a rig check!

[Ignitionnet]

Bump with a new bit of info:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/3760.html

Thinkbroadband appear to disagree with Virgin Media's assertion.

I also note that other speed testers appear more than capable of handling 50Mbit as well.

http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk - confirmed, measured via 100Mbit result ~90Mbit, uses a customised Ookla tester.

I do partly agree with VM, however speed testers that perform badly are bad speed tests, nothing more. Good ones such as the above happily cope with 100Mbit+

http://members.chello.nl/m.bhola77/120.jpg

Even much maligned speedtest.net is ok, so long as you use the right servers:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/337150440.png

A very poor speed tester that consistently gives bad results on anything apart from low bandwidth links and should be avoided is, amusingly, this one:

http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/speed-test.asp

For all their metrics, etc, I have never been able to break around 6Mbit on their tester across two ISPs, while others give a good result. The reason for this is simple. Thinkbroadband and BBMax live off n x GigE kit in Docklands, while this tester lives in a host-it.co.uk datacentre in either Milton Keynes or Northampton and appears to have 100Mbit maximum. Their off the shelf unmetered bandwidth goes up to 50Mbit/s which costs £1050 a month.

Seems a bit strange that various other places in the world that have had 50+Mbit for a while haven't suddenly gone up in arms over speed tests, while the UK, home to the 2nd largest by volume Internet Exchange in the world, suddenly is going to have issues with 50Mbit.

[rossdagley]

http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/res...1835&v=5411395

Both of those are "acceptable" sites as far as I can see. Tested via my Windows 2003 box co-located in interXion, London.

Tested at home, on my VM 20mbit connection:

http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/res...2090&v=5411423 (10mbit)



Gee - I'm sure pleased I'm paying £36 for this 10mbit quality service. :|