1mb going slower.

[DeadKenny]

Originally Posted by markmarkymark

do I really need to pay £37. To be honest the novelty is wearing a bit thin now ....

That's what I've found.

Apart from the occasional download where by some miracle I get full speed, having looked at my statistics I'm not using anywhere near the 1Mbps capacity for 99% of the time (because I don't download 24/7, most of the time I'm just browsing). The difference between 600 and 1Mbps for browsing is not noticeable. Even playing games, it's nowhere near to the capacity.

Upstream is another matter. Although I don't saturate 256kbps by any means and most of the time it's next to nothing, but because I run a web server, when items are pulled off the server there's a short blip to the 256kbps max and those items download much quicker with 256kbps compared to 128kbps, the latter of which seems to make the web server painfully slow downloading images for some reason.


P.S. If you want a reliable download test, try the RedHat Fedora Core ISOs, either through their FTP/HTTP download mirrors or through their Bittorrent links. I pretty much get them downloading at full speed every time (although Bittorrent starts slow and then quickly builds up to full speed, but can be more reliable than the FTP servers due to the very high availability of sources, plus you're stressing downloads with a high upload bandwidth too).


I suggest using something like PRTG if your Cable Modem supports SNMP, and then you can monitor usage over time and really see just how much you're using and what rate your downloads, browsing and P2P habits come in at. Also handy for spotting downtime 'blibs', such as this strange occurance around midnight ...



This was a bittorrent download I think and it ran flat out most of the time, but a little before midnight it started slowing down and then died completely (upstream too), then recovered (though not back to previous levels). Note that 'out' is from the modem to PC (downstream) and 'in' is from PC to modem (upstream). The real download levels never peaked much above 900kbps.

This was one of the rare occasions where I'd done a download maxing out the connection, but I don't think it will make a big difference if I dropped to 750k when it's out (even between 750 and 1.5). As these downloads are still lengthy and generally done overnight, it makes no odds to me whether it takes 1 hour or 2, especially if I can save £12 a month in the process.

[Florence]

tonights test and looking better again..

Wed, 12 May 2004 19:04:19 GMT
1st 128K took 1172 ms = 111836 Bytes/sec = approx 930 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1061 ms = 123536 Bytes/sec = approx 1028 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1112 ms = 117871 Bytes/sec = approx 981 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1061 ms = 123536 Bytes/sec = approx 1028 kbits/sec

[rockabillybass]

The service in Newport, South Wales, has been particularly terrible for several weeks and poor for a few months before that. I find that web browsing is the biggest problem. Loading of pages such as the ebay home page is awful. Can take upwards of 30 seconds and often stalls.


I've had broadband for about 3 years. I started on the 600 (was 512 when I had it) but updated to the 1 meg about 18 months ago. A couple of years ago the same pages loaded in 1 or 2 seconds if not quicker. There has been a gradual deterioration in service and speed. This has happened as NTL have signed up more broadband users. They just can't cope with the demand.

I think the network is completely overloaded both locally and nationally. I don't believe that you get an accurate reflection of how quick a connection feels by just measuring the speed of a download. Most of my delays are either DNS server problems or what I think are transparent cache issues.

That's my .02 pence worth.... Rant over,

Cheers,

Martin

[Ramrod]

For what it's worth, here's my 2 pence worth (SE London):
Wed, 12 May 2004 19:55:06 UTC
1st 128K took 1082 ms = 121139 Bytes/sec = approx 1008 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1061 ms = 123536 Bytes/sec = approx 1028 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1052 ms = 124593 Bytes/sec = approx 1037 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1112 ms = 117871 Bytes/sec = approx 981 kbits/sec

and again:
Wed, 12 May 2004 19:58:30 UTC
1st 128K took 1052 ms = 124593 Bytes/sec = approx 1037 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1081 ms = 121251 Bytes/sec = approx 1009 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1072 ms = 122269 Bytes/sec = approx 1017 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1051 ms = 124712 Bytes/sec = approx 1038 kbits/sec

[John S]

I upgraded from 150k to 600k when CS phoned me saying the first month would be free but they still charged me.
My homepage took 2 and a half minutes to load tonight.
I have been told on here that there are no problems with the Cwmbwrla UBR well that is hard to believe when my connection runs fast in the morning and takes 2 and a half minutes to load the homepage tonight.
I think the only way I am going to be convinced that its not NTL and my UBR is to go back to BT and let them have the £600+ a year of my hard earned cash instead.
BTW a friend in work has already dumped NTL on principle for direct debiting him an extra £20 for the free upgrade but I didnt hoping it would be worthwhile but the reverse is the case as its now slower than ever.
Im furious at NTL's treatment of its long term customers Ive been here for over 5 years hoping it would improve continually giving NTL the benefit of the doubt like a fool.


John S.

[LenMackin]

Well I tried again tonight, following on from posts earlier in this thread i visited the Imperial College SUNSITE servers and downloaded a 12mb file from THEIR server - best i got was 65kb and it averaged 55kb. Something is wrong somewhere.

I am going to take a look at downgrading to the 600 service, save myself £120 per year then review my ISP - ADSL seems to be providing cheaper (and faster) options.

[rockabillybass]

Originally Posted by John S

I have been told on here that there are no problems with the Cwmbwrla UBR well that is hard to believe when my connection runs fast in the morning and takes 2 and a half minutes to load the homepage tonight.

Same in Newport. 5pm to 10pm Monday to Friday, the service is unusable. Same at weekends. Great at 6.00 am though..

[Ian-Highlander]

Thu, 13 May 2004 07:20:54 UTC
1st 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1063 ms = 123304 Bytes/sec = approx 1026 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1078 ms = 121588 Bytes/sec = approx 1012 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec

Taken at 8.30 in the morning. Spot on, I've never had any problems with mine at all other than the normal web cache problem which changing to another one almost always resolves instantly. Downloads are always a constant 125 - 130kbps

[John S]

Hi Rockabillybass,
Your problems mirror mine almost exactly as I also mainly browse and use Ebay etc. Its OK this morning but from 630pm until 1130pm its all over the place with interminable slowdowns. I agree entirely with you that the problem is oversubscription and overloaded servers and UBR's. Ntl have doubled ther user base but have they doubled their servers and UBR capacity not likely so long term customers can see the results on their screens.

John S.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by John S

Hi Rockabillybass,
Your problems mirror mine almost exactly as I also mainly browse and use Ebay etc. Its OK this morning but from 630pm until 1130pm its all over the place with interminable slowdowns. I agree entirely with you that the problem is oversubscription and overloaded servers and UBR's. Ntl have doubled ther user base but have they doubled their servers and UBR capacity not likely so long term customers can see the results on their screens.

John S.

Pretty much sums it up.

[Stuart]

Just a little, thing, but has anyone who has reported problems in this thread (slow browsing etc.) actually *talked* to NTL about it? Oversubscribed UBRs are *one* possible reason for slow networking, badly configured proxies are another but there can be many reasons for the slow network.

If the problem is local to certain users, it is entirely possible that NTL may be unaware of it. If they are aware of the problem, they may or may not fix it. If they are not aware of the problem they will almost certainly not fix it.

[Chris W]

Originally Posted by John S

Hi Rockabillybass,
Your problems mirror mine almost exactly as I also mainly browse and use Ebay etc. Its OK this morning but from 630pm until 1130pm its all over the place with interminable slowdowns. I agree entirely with you that the problem is oversubscription and overloaded servers and UBR's. Ntl have doubled ther user base but have they doubled their servers and UBR capacity not likely so long term customers can see the results on their screens.

John S.

PM me the mac address of your modem and i will have a look at this for you.

There are no problems with the cwmbrula UBR and i am on it as well and browsing and d/ling fine. It is most likely to be the proxy server that you are using or something on your pc using the bandwidth, but if you send me your mac address i will have a look at everything on the network side of things for you.

MB

[John S]

Hi Monkey breath I already posted my modem address last month but was sent a letter to phone which I did during the storm on Monday when the Net and TV wend down and it seemed like a good time.
The problem is not now its between 6pm and midnight when most users are online.
I am almost certainly on the Swanet proxy as I changed to the Belfast proxy last year but is was OK for a day then back to square one.
I tried the settings as suggested last month OK until the following day then back to square one.
An engineer came out last year and checked my modem and said it was OK when it took over a minute to load the NTL homepage, last night it took 2mins 45seconds, an hour later it was OK. I was on 150k now Im on 600k.
Its not my computer either as Ive got a notebook alongside and the performance is identical.
Ive got no complaints with CS or TS as recently Ive got through in less than 5 minutes and staff have been very helpful.
Im grateful to you for trying but at 7 tonight when it slows down and is all over the place again Ill try to believe its not NTL nor the Cwmbwrla UBR.

John S.

[BBKing]

monkeybreath, remember that you can be on the same UBR and have considerably different browsing experiences depending on which downstream/upstream channels you're on. Is John S on the same upstream you are?

[rockabillybass]

Originally Posted by monkeybreath

It is most likely to be the proxy server that you are using

I changed from "Cardiff 1" proxy to "Bristol 1" about 10.00pm last night. There is a noticeable improvement so far.

Martin