do ntl have a min standard

Chrysalis · 23-02-2006, 19:47

Ok I downgraded in january after been consistently at sub 2meg speeds during daylight hours and evenings. The truth was when the CS agent downgraded me my modem didnt get the signal and was on 10meg up until earlier today. The reason I dont know but I would guess the ubr caused it to be delayed or some other fault.

During this free time on 10mbit I was getting speeds of around 1-3mbit in the evening and 8-10mbit probably for around 5 hours from 3-8am. Rest of day probably hovering 3-5 mbit. Upload speed was always at least 450kbit so it didnt appear from that aspect that upload is saturated at the ubr. I wonder if the downstream was maxed or cpu saturation which can apperently happen.

Well after the downgrade I wasnt too fussed since it is what I am supposed to be on and I assumed I would be seeing close to max speeds most of the day and probably drop to 1mbit in the evenings. But instead it appears I am getting the same proportion of speed in relation to the limit.

I am now seeing around 20-50kB downstream during the evening but with 24kB upstream which I think is max. (not at same time) the modem config confirms I am on a 2meg config and I have seen little bursts to 2meg, I expect early morning I will have no problems reaching 2mbit which will confirm it isnt a pc issue.

this was taken at 11am today

Downstream 1435 Kbps (179.4 KB/sec) 1549 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Upstream 178 Kbps (22.3 KB/sec) 192 Kbps (inc. overheads)

and 5 mins ago slight upstream slowdown

Downstream 223 Kbps (27.9 KB/sec) 240 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Upstream 165 Kbps (20.6 KB/sec) 178 Kbps (inc. overheads)

other speedtest's vary but none are faster then half a mbit.

some pings from 11am to my gateway

Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=255

and few mins ago

Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=255

I dont know of anyone else who has a service as poor as this I am seriously considering asking for a discount until it is resolved but do ntl have a minimum performance level they expect to hit or will they just tell me sorry its contended you have to live with it.

this is combined with the poorer transit routing I have noticed to my ip range, I fail to see why I should pay the same for a much worse service then others on ntl.

Fawkes · 23-02-2006, 21:27

I've been getting inconsistent speeds and packet loss for weeks. Tech support blame my firewall/router/every other piece of kit that’s mine and not theirs.

Code:

2nd 512K took 937 ms = 546.4 KB/sec, approx 4502 Kbps, 4.4 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2203 ms = 232.4 KB/sec, approx 1915 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.131:
    Packets: Sent = 22, Received = 15, Lost = 7 (31% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 21ms

I too have been thinking about downgrading to 2MB but judging by your experience I would be wasting my time.

Chrysalis · 24-02-2006, 01:49

1.45am

Downstream 1922 Kbps (240.3 KB/sec) 2075 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Upstream 178 Kbps (22.3 KB/sec) 192 Kbps (inc. overheads)

Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
Reply from 82.21.24.254: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=255

oooh so close last ping blipped it, but great improvement at twilight hours, was expecting to have to wait until 3am. PC wasnt rebooted either.

Chris W · 24-02-2006, 02:52

Fawkes- you problem (from the litte information that i have seen) appears to be different to Chrysalis's.

Chrysalis- if your broadband is consistently underperforming that imo this is reasonable grounds for ntl to give you a discount.

24-02-2006, 07:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

I've been getting inconsistent speeds and packet loss for weeks. Tech support blame my firewall/router/every other piece of kit thatÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€š Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢s mine and not theirs.

Code:

2nd 512K took 937 ms = 546.4 KB/sec, approx 4502 Kbps, 4.4 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2203 ms = 232.4 KB/sec, approx 1915 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
 
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.131:
    Packets: Sent = 22, Received = 15, Lost = 7 (31% loss),
Approximate round trip times in Milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 21ms

I too have been thinking about downgrading to 2MB but judging by your experience I would be wasting my time.

I changed from 10 meg down to 2 meg simply because i could NOT get the full 10 meg in my area. I have tried everything that tech support suggested and that i would have told a customer to do when i worked at NTL but no joy. As soon as i moved back down to 2 meg i was sorted and i get 2 meg consistently 24 hours a day. When and if NTL fix it i will move back to 10 meg. But at the moment i would sooner pay for what i am getting not for what i could be getting.

Ignition · 24-02-2006, 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

I've been getting inconsistent speeds and packet loss for weeks. Tech support blame my firewall/router/every other piece of kit thatÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€š Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢s mine and not theirs.

Code:

2nd 512K took 937 ms = 546.4 KB/sec, approx 4502 Kbps, 4.4 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2203 ms = 232.4 KB/sec, approx 1915 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.131:
    Packets: Sent = 22, Received = 15, Lost = 7 (31% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 21ms

I too have been thinking about downgrading to 2MB but judging by your experience I would be wasting my time.

I suppose it's a bit optimistic of me to imagine they've offered you an engineer for what looks clearly like a signal / modem fault?

Slow speeds are, as you probably know, being caused by the packet loss.

Dunno how you connect to the net but would be interesting to see your signal levels. Tech support should be able to see this, though whether they a) check and b) have any idea what they're looking at in between blaming your installation of Windows, Spyware, Malware, Viruses, your network card, the network cable, your firewall, your antivirus, your browser, etc is different.

Bet they'd have less trouble if they paid staff 50% more, had 1/3rd less staff but actually properly selected people so that they were hiring technical people for the technical role rather than paying call centre people to play at being technical. I'm sure 18k a year would get competent helpdesk people and treating them like professionals not human conveyor belts would I'm sure massively increase the rate of calls closed first time, the repeated call volume, and in turn the satisfaction rate.

*wonders what % of calls to bb tech support are 2nd+ calls to either chase up or because nothing has been done or problem poorly teched, and what % of calls could be closed within the magical 10 minutes if people knew what they were doing and actually had an interest in it.

Chrysalis · 24-02-2006, 21:06

Ignition is it possible that although I dont get packet loss when pinging just high latency that when I download packet loss occurs on the tcp packets because the larger size is too much for the ubr?

Chrysalis · 25-02-2006, 16:24

1st 512K took 5313 ms = 96.4 KB/sec, approx 794 Kbps, 0.78 Mbps
2nd 512K took 3218 ms = 159.1 KB/sec, approx 1311 Kbps, 1.28 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2297 ms = 222.9 KB/sec, approx 1837 Kbps, 1.79 Mbps
4th 512K took 3235 ms = 158.3 KB/sec, approx 1304 Kbps, 1.27 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1312 Kbps, 1.28 Mbps

things are better now, but clearly substandard when compared to others, I will ring monday see what they say about the situation, I think it wouldnt be unreasonable for them to put me back on 10meg for 24.99 considering that gives me performance on par with 2 to 3mbit.

Ignition · 25-02-2006, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Ignition is it possible that although I dont get packet loss when pinging just high latency that when I download packet loss occurs on the tcp packets because the larger size is too much for the ubr?

No the slowdowns are due to delays in acking the downstream packets. You can to an extent improve this by increasing the TCP receive window on your PCs and enabling SAcks if you haven't already.

Chrysalis · 25-02-2006, 17:27

ok, my rwin is already on 64240, I have tried enabling rfc1323 and using higher values, which helped a little but caused missing images on web pages so went back to 64240. sacks are also on.

I am also going to send an email to the ntl peering guys about leicester and see what say/do I know they dont have to do anything but they have changed routes for me before so they might again. A friend of mine on ntl in liverpool was getting 8mbit in 1 thread over opentransit from .us so their is a clear difference in quality over level3 and cogent.

Ignition · 25-02-2006, 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

ok, my rwin is already on 64240, I have tried enabling rfc1323 and using higher values, which helped a little but caused missing images on web pages so went back to 64240. sacks are also on.

I am also going to send an email to the ntl peering guys about leicester and see what say/do I know they dont have to do anything but they have changed routes for me before so they might again. A friend of mine on ntl in liverpool was getting 8mbit in 1 thread over opentransit from .us so their is a clear difference in quality over level3 and cogent.

64240 is a bit low for 10Mbit to be honest. You cannot get full speeds from the USA with 64240 and a single download stream as you need to be acking every 60ms or so.

jtwn · 25-02-2006, 18:32

HUZZZAH!! Ignition, have my babies!!!

My RWIN was 17520 and could not get over 5000k per stream, changed it to the recommended maximum 251120 on dslreports tweak test and now...well -

Code:

Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:31:54 UTC
1st 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec

These results appear to be rather fast: maybe this page was in the browser cache.

Very big green grin

Ignition · 25-02-2006, 22:42

Chrysalis · 27-02-2006, 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignition

64240 is a bit low for 10Mbit to be honest. You cannot get full speeds from the USA with 64240 and a single download stream as you need to be acking every 60ms or so.

Well I am on 2meg now, and yeah it is low for long distance. But a few things I should mention, (a) I did try a few different values even as high as 256960. (b) I have never expected full speeds from the usa in 1 thread I am a realist. I cant even get 10mbit in 1 thread from ny 100mbit to redbus 100mbit. (c) most of the problems I have are affecting everything including uk servers and ntl speedtests which 64240 should be more then enough, I bet most of the people on here with better performance then me are probably on default rwin which is lower then 64240.

Chrysalis · 01-03-2006, 01:41

please check for update here so I dont double post the same stuff.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...7&postcount=54

I havent got a discount but the issue is been escalated.