Speed Issues Bournemouth

phil_w · 16-10-2006, 23:07

Firstly before I start I would like to personally thank KevAmiga, I spoke to him on the broadband helpline tonight, and he gave me some throughly informative answers, and actually knew what he was on about. Even arranged for an engineer to come and visit He even told me about this site. So once again many thanks Kevin

Ok soo.....spent a month on 1MB even though I was supposed to be on 2MB. Was experiencing some packet loss, but not to bad.
Switched to 4MB after NTL realised that had mis sold me my package, and gave me a deal on the 4MB.

I swear on the 1MB package we actually had a better connection. Constant 120kB's download, and fast loading, all be it a little packet loss, which Kevin said he could see.

Switched modem to 4MB and im getting about 70k AVERAGE on downloads from HTTP/FTP sites. Speeds tonight are terrible, here are some speed tests

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:57:16 GMT

1st 512K took 8454 ms = 60.6 KB/sec, approx 499 Kbps, 0.49 Mbps
2nd 512K took 7390 ms = 69.3 KB/sec, approx 571 Kbps, 0.56 Mbps
3rd 512K took 5313 ms = 96.4 KB/sec, approx 794 Kbps, 0.78 Mbps
4th 512K took 2750 ms = 186.2 KB/sec, approx 1534 Kbps, 1.5 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 850 Kbps, 0.83 Mbps

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:55:11 GMT

1st 512K took 3922 ms = 130.5 KB/sec, approx 1075 Kbps, 1.05 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4156 ms = 123.2 KB/sec, approx 1015 Kbps, 0.99 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4031 ms = 127 KB/sec, approx 1046 Kbps, 1.02 Mbps
4th 512K took 2235 ms = 229.1 KB/sec, approx 1888 Kbps, 1.84 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1256 Kbps, 1.23 Mbps

and some ping tests to bbc.co.uk, these were a lot worse earlier and I wish I had kept that info.

Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=245
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=245
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=245
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=245
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=245

Ping statistics for 212.58.228.155:
Packets: Sent = 52, Received = 49, Lost = 3 (5% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 80ms, Average = 31ms
Control-C
^C

and before you say it, NO packet loss even this small is not an acceptable service!

My network is, Cable Modem to Linksys router (ethernet) then ethernet cable to my PC. I have changed the router over once to check it wasnt that, which of course it wasnt.

Surely NTL realise there is a major problem on most of their network, I mean its annoying for me as a 4MB user but you 10MB users with rubbish downloads speeds must be very unhappy.

I can see a massive complaint going to ofcom soon about this, as soo many people seem to have the same problem.

Have an engineer coming wednesday so I wonder what the outcome is.

I WANT MY CSS LAG FREE GAMING BACK.

Anyone else in bournemouth having the same issues?

phil_w · 17-10-2006, 11:21

Well surprise surprise

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:20:01 GMT

1st 512K took 344 ms = 1488.4 KB/sec, approx 12264 Kbps, 11.98 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1093 ms = 468.4 KB/sec, approx 3860 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
4th 512K took 1047 ms = 489 KB/sec, approx 4029 Kbps, 3.93 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 6017 Kbps, 5.88 Mbps

Seems fine in the morning so far......which isnt great because thats when the engineer is coming

Got to be this traffic shaping thats screwing everyone. Surprised NTL are doing it, why offer a 10MB service, if u can't provide 10MB?

phil_w · 17-10-2006, 17:51

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:50:52 GMT

1st 512K took 1188 ms = 431 KB/sec, approx 3551 Kbps, 3.47 Mbps
2nd 512K took 5656 ms = 90.5 KB/sec, approx 746 Kbps, 0.73 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3219 ms = 159.1 KB/sec, approx 1311 Kbps, 1.28 Mbps
4th 512K took 9781 ms = 52.3 KB/sec, approx 431 Kbps, 0.42 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1510 Kbps, 1.48 Mbps

and pings to ntlworld.com

Pinging ntlworld.com [212.250.162.12] with 32 bytes of data

Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=121
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=121
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=121
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=121
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.250.162.12: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 212.250.162.12:
Packets: Sent = 49, Received = 44, Lost = 5 (10% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 57ms, Average = 27ms
Control-C
^C

sstainer · 17-10-2006, 18:18

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:18:16 GMT

1st 512K took 2423 ms = 211.3 KB/sec, approx 1741 Kbps, 1.7 Mbps
2nd 512K took 832 ms = 615.4 KB/sec, approx 5071 Kbps, 4.95 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1171 ms = 437.2 KB/sec, approx 3603 Kbps, 3.52 Mbps
4th 512K took 1152 ms = 444.4 KB/sec, approx 3662 Kbps, 3.58 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3519 Kbps, 3.44 Mbps

yer nice one · 17-10-2006, 20:25

Hi im in pokesdown bournemouth on the 10mb - heres my speedtest results

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:23:11 UTC

1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 469 ms = 1091.7 KB/sec, approx 8996 Kbps, 8.79 Mbps
3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 9490 Kbps, 9.27 Mbps

I allways get simillar results - never experenced less than 5mb on my 10mb line

Synergy28 · 02-11-2006, 16:00

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:58:44 GMT

1st 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
4th 512K took 1062 ms = 482.1 KB/sec, approx 3973 Kbps, 3.88 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3900 Kbps, 3.81 Mbps

To repeat this test from the source server click here.

Bournemouth 10 MB on a cable modem

Graham M · 02-11-2006, 16:03

Goto http://194.168.100.1 - or it could be http://194.168.1.100 (I think that's it anyway) the username and password is root, what speed does it say you are on there.

Druchii · 02-11-2006, 18:05

Ithought it was http://192.168.100.1 ?

Chris W · 02-11-2006, 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Druchii

Ithought it was http://192.168.100.1 ?

it is

mr_bo · 02-11-2006, 18:54

Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:53:50 UTC

1st 512K took 406 ms = 1261.1 KB/sec, approx 10391 Kbps, 10.15 Mbps
2nd 512K took 421 ms = 1216.2 KB/sec, approx 10021 Kbps, 9.79 Mbps
3rd 512K took 406 ms = 1261.1 KB/sec, approx 10391 Kbps, 10.15 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 10200 Kbps, 9.96 Mbps

BH11 here

Graham M · 02-11-2006, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Druchii

Ithought it was http://192.168.100.1 ?

I knew somebody would come along and correct me, I get my Net through my Set Top Box so wasn't sure

phil_w · 14-11-2006, 19:35

Well I thought I'd post an update

So everyone who is having problems fear not..

It turns out (surprise surprise) that NTL actually do know about this nationwide problem, and secondly are aware that its their network and not the home customers PC's/Routers.

I had a couple of engineers out, first one put signal attentuators on the modem to drop the signal (said too much signal was killing the modem.) which if we are honest is "I cant be bothered to explain the problem to you"

Second engineer came through the door, i showed him logs of my speed at various times, ping results, tracert's etc and as soon as he saw those he confessed. When asked why CS were deciding not to tell their existing customers this he replied with "bad publicity aint it" <--he has a point

So phone up customer services explained eveything that had happened (got dropped off by some arogant **** though on the first call)

outcome of my phone call with them

got a date of 5th Decemeber which is apparently when they are going to "rebalance" my area.
FREE internet untill this is resolved (i think i got this because I had proof that the connection is crap)

Ok my tips for dealing with indian technical support. Firstly let them run their test, if they say "oh its fine", get them to run it again, and again, and again untill they see the problem. They cannot hang up on you remeber!

When on the phone with customer services use the following phrases.

"Breach of contract"
"Willingly downgrading existing customers to sign up new ones"
"I have been MISLEAD" <- always get them going because they can be sued for false advertising.

and if like me you have or are gaining qualifications in this area of work, bloody say so! Ask them to explain the technical reasons, and listen to some of the laughable answers you get.

Play them at their own game.

NTL dont get me wrong, I have been with you in different areas for a couple of years now, and up untill I came here its been absolutly perfect.

I have a phone call on the 7th decemeber booked with them, and will let you know the outcome.

BTW someone asked for me to post what my operational configuration of my modem is.

Network Access : Allowed
Maximum Downstream Data Rate : 4096000
Maximum Upstream Data Rate : 400000
Maximum Upstream Channel Burst : 1600
Maximum Number of CPEs : 1
Modem Capability : Concatenation Enabled, Fragametation Enabled, PHS Disabled

and my current speed now.....

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:34:32 GMT
1st 128K took 1485 ms = 88264 Bytes/sec = approx 734 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1031 ms = 127131 Bytes/sec = approx 1058 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 2500 ms = 52429 Bytes/sec = approx 436 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 4437 ms = 29541 Bytes/sec = approx 246 kbits/sec

LAUGHABLE!!!

byron_hinson · 14-11-2006, 20:52

Anyone getting similar problems in the Cambridge/St Ives area - can't connect to Messenger most of the time (comes up with a connection error when it connects too) and sites are slow as is mail.