Slow 10mb in derby

[satcom22222]

Hi i live in derby and have 10mb bb and this is what i am getting

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:51:16 UTC

1st 512K took 1375 ms = 372.4 KB/sec, approx 2830 Kbps, 2.8 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2641 ms = 193.9 KB/sec, approx 1474 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1641 ms = 312 KB/sec, approx 2371 Kbps, 2.3 Mbps
4th 512K took 12047 ms = 42.5 KB/sec, approx 323 Kbps, 0.3 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1750 Kbps, 1.7 Mbps

any one having the same problem

[Rone]

That seems to be about right for 10meg.......................at the moment.
Welcome to the board btw, hopefully NTL are going to be looking at this problem, its affecting a lot of users.

[Bluffdemon]

l am in south manchester and my speed on 10meg is about 3-5mb , i don't know what ntl are doing but this is poor quality i dont expect 10mg but more than 5 would be nice

Anthony

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:44:27 GMT

1st 512K took 1468 ms = 348.8 KB/sec, approx 2651 Kbps, 2.6 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1640 ms = 312.2 KB/sec, approx 2373 Kbps, 2.3 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2297 ms = 222.9 KB/sec, approx 1694 Kbps, 1.7 Mbps
4th 512K took 1296 ms = 395.1 KB/sec, approx 3003 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 2430 Kbps, 2.38 Mbps

NOT VERY GOOD ON 10mb BB come on ntl get it sorted !!!

[geminian68]

I also live in derby, and using this site's speedtest I get:

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:41:07 GMT

1st 512K took 1219 ms = 420 KB/sec, approx 3192 Kbps, 3.1 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1312 ms = 390.2 KB/sec, approx 2966 Kbps, 2.9 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4375 ms = 117 KB/sec, approx 889 Kbps, 0.9 Mbps
4th 512K took 1187 ms = 431.3 KB/sec, approx 3278 Kbps, 3.2 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 2581 Kbps, 2.53 Mbps

However using http://www.irishisptest.com/myspeed/ I get:



Still not brilliant but bearable.

[chrisjones]

.. without wanting to sound rude to anyone on the 10mb service.. could you guys not see this coming from a mile away? Most new services like this always screw up when they are first launched... something like 10mb internet was always gonna be far more popular than NTL accounted for, thus all this stuff going wrong.

[Chrysalis]

it was predictable but I would guess most think positive and hope isp's learn from previous mistakes, unfortenatly they didnt seem to this time. I am just glad they didnt upgrade the entire userbase as it would have been so much worse.

[Rone]

Originally Posted by chrisjones

.. without wanting to sound rude to anyone on the 10mb service.. could you guys not see this coming from a mile away? Most new services like this always screw up when they are first launched... something like 10mb internet was always gonna be far more popular than NTL accounted for, thus all this stuff going wrong.

Most of us did, what i didnt expect was my previous 3meg to become dial-up speed.
If i got much above 5 meg i would be well chuffed [maybe ] but to have it reduced is another thing altogether.

[lima]

Up here in North Yorkshire I'm getting this today:

Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:18:28 GMT

1st 512K took 4317 ms = 118.6 KB/sec, approx 977 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2583 ms = 198.2 KB/sec, approx 1633 Kbps, 1.59 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4326 ms = 118.4 KB/sec, approx 976 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
4th 512K took 4267 ms = 120 KB/sec, approx 989 Kbps, 0.97 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1144 Kbps, 1.12 Mbps

Which is about as bad as its been since the 10Mb 'downgrade' in the middle of December

Normally get 4-7Mbps (yes it varies) off the old Samsung STB through my shiny new WRT54G router (wired or wireless).

Had 3Mbps for a year and got 3Mbps pretty much constantly once NTL replaced the flaky Harrogate UBR.

Reading the board it seems like the whole country is sloooooooow today. Perhaps a dose of 'All-Bran' might work

[tweetiepooh]

On this boards speed tests in one test I'd usually see figs like 0.1, 1.3, 6.9, 2.4 ie fluctuating all over the shop.

The best test is to find a large file on a quiet but fast server (sunfreeware mirror) and try that. I got an average of around 500kB for 116MB file.

[satcom22222]

Hi ntl has just phoned ME " thats a first " to say that they are upgrading the system in certain areas in derby ( Alvaston being one of them ) and this will start on the 23 Feb 06 also was told when i receive my bill to phone cs to claim a reduction on my bill because i am not recieving a full service

Dave
satcom22222

[yorkiex]

All seems fine where i am and im from derby


Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:40:57 UTC
1st 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 100 ms = 1310720 Bytes/sec = approx 10905 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 101 ms = 1297743 Bytes/sec = approx 10797 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 570 ms = 229951 Bytes/sec = approx 1913 kbits/sec

[johnlfitz]

Mine was poor (2-4Mbit) here in Burnley (Manchester UBR??) until recently. You do know that connecting by USB slows it down don't you. 3 days ago I changed to Ethernet and speeds were 4-6Mbit.

Today, I'm getting this constantly:

Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:17:10 UTC
1st 128K took 80 ms = 1638400 Bytes/sec = approx 13631 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 100 ms = 1310720 Bytes/sec = approx 10905 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 120 ms = 1092267 Bytes/sec = approx 9088 kbits/sec

Make sure you're on ethernet.

[Wod]

Lol your getting the same speeds as me and im on a 2Mb conection.Were abouts in Derby do you live?.I thought everyone in derby is connected to a leister server??How can NTL improve there services for you if you have the same coverage as me?(if thats true)

[Wod]

1st 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1805 Kbps, 1.8 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2235 ms = 229.1 KB/sec, approx 1741 Kbps, 1.7 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2312 ms = 221.5 KB/sec, approx 1683 Kbps, 1.6 Mbps
4th 512K took 2219 ms = 230.7 KB/sec, approx 1753 Kbps, 1.7 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1746 Kbps, 1.7 Mbps

[Chrysalis]

I thought everyone in derby is connected to a leister server??

her you all stay away there isnt enough for us alone never mind derby :P