Speed Increases 1st June - 2meg to 4meg - Page 110

Retrovertigo · 26-06-2006, 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by sp3ctre

Oops, sorry... I didn't mean you mate, meant the other guy... meant to go back and edit that as it didn't read correctly. Sorry!

Well if you meant me then I can only go by my own experiences. I know 3 other people on NTL. along with me they all get fed up with outages etc.

I know plenty of people on ADSL, none of whom have ever complained of having problems with the service.

And the folks on NTL seem to have problems far more than should ever really be occuring. That's not a great statistic.

sp3ctre · 26-06-2006, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retrovertigo

Well if you meant me then I can only go by my own experiences. I know 3 other people on NTL. along with me they all get fed up with outages etc.

I know plenty of people on ADSL, none of whom have ever complained of having problems with the service.

And the folks on NTL seem to have problems far more than should ever really be occuring. That's not a great statistic.

Yes I did mean you, but nothing personal

The point I wanted to make is ADSL is just as bad... look at the ADSL forums and you get no end of complaints... and ADSL has the added obstacle that it has to deal with substandard BT lines as well.

I would agree that NTL has many (too many, even) outages, but I just disagreed with the rose tinted spectacle view of ADSL, that's all.

Not looking for a war, just a balanced view

... and for the record, I can't stand NTL at the minute either!

Retrovertigo · 26-06-2006, 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by sp3ctre

Yes I did mean you, but nothing personal

The point I wanted to make is ADSL is just as bad... look at the ADSL forums and you get no end of complaints... and ADSL has the added obstacle that it has to deal with substandard BT lines as well.

I would agree that NTL has many (too many, even) outages, but I just disagreed with the rose tinted spectacle view of ADSL, that's all.

Not looking for a war, just a balanced view

... and for the record, I can't stand NTL at the minute either!

LOL, no need for the winkies, I wasn't offended. Just making sure you meant me and therefore trying to explain my own personal experience.

Michael36 · 27-06-2006, 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retrovertigo

Well if you meant me then I can only go by my own experiences. I know 3 other people on NTL. along with me they all get fed up with outages etc.

I know plenty of people on ADSL, none of whom have ever complained of having problems with the service.

And the folks on NTL seem to have problems far more than should ever really be occuring. That's not a great statistic.

Well yeah, it's not a great statistic.

OTOH, what exactly is your anecdote saying? Are you saying you know lots of people, who live in the same area as you, that have a nigh on perfect ADSL connection which presumably you could go and get? If so, why do you put up with not having it too?

My NTL connection has been good for years. I'm talking a few hours downtime a year and I don't have problems sustaining 2mb downloads.

If it wasn't I'd switch to something else. At the time I got NTL "something else" didn't exist and so I suffered. But today I'd have to be a complete buffoon to accept a poor internet connection given a choice.

Moreso with NTL, because until they sort out CS and change their name [they've got 2 relatively untarnished ones to pick from now] it's not worth persuing issues with them. If it works, great, if it doesn't I wouldn't waste my time sitting on the phone.

Agent47 · 27-06-2006, 00:19

I uninstalled Zonealarm as I read on the ntl newsgroup that this was interfering with download speeds. Now I get this since I uninstalled it.

Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:19:16 UTC
1st 128K took 266 ms = 492752 Bytes/sec = approx 4100 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 265 ms = 494611 Bytes/sec = approx 4115 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 266 ms = 492752 Bytes/sec = approx 4100 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 266 ms = 492752 Bytes/sec = approx 4100 kbits/sec

twinkle · 27-06-2006, 00:55

your speed increase is my decrease ,thank goodness only paying 17.49 for 10 meg

<mod edit: Chris W> Do not try and bypass the swear filter. it is there for a reason.

apologies

Chrysalis · 27-06-2006, 01:24

as a victim I am a witness that BT appears to not give a **** if you have a crap phoneline.

In terms of ping stability and speed and http performance I got no complaints since I left ntl, but the line stability is very poor I have loads of noise interference.

bliss · 27-06-2006, 02:52

Woohoo! 4mb in Stoke!

Maximum Downstream Data Rate : 4096000 bps
Maximum Upstream Data Rate : 400000 bps

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:51:35 GMT

1st 512K took 1110 ms = 461.3 KB/sec, approx 3801 Kbps, 3.71 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
4th 512K took 1093 ms = 468.4 KB/sec, approx 3860 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3831 Kbps, 3.74 Mbps

blackthorn · 27-06-2006, 05:15

4mb in Ellesmere Port now.
Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:15:29 GMT

1st 512K took 1109 ms = 461.7 KB/sec, approx 3804 Kbps, 3.71 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
4th 512K took 1469 ms = 348.5 KB/sec, approx 2872 Kbps, 2.8 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3612 Kbps, 3.52 Mbps

popper · 27-06-2006, 05:20

it would seem that the tuesday work has now given wythenshawe ntl250 cm users the upgrade, a little lower than the average 3.8 ATM but not to bad.

id assume that the network balancing later will improve that no. in time.

spr33 · 27-06-2006, 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by bliss

Woohoo! 4mb in Stoke!

Maximum Downstream Data Rate : 4096000 bps
Maximum Upstream Data Rate : 400000 bps

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:51:35 GMT

1st 512K took 1110 ms = 461.3 KB/sec, approx 3801 Kbps, 3.71 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
4th 512K took 1093 ms = 468.4 KB/sec, approx 3860 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3831 Kbps, 3.74 Mbps

4mbit in Stoke indeed.

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:35:24 GMT

1st 512K took 1109 ms = 461.7 KB/sec, approx 3804 Kbps, 3.71 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
4th 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3858 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps

Last Result:
Download Speed: 3817 kbps (477.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 371 kbps (46.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Link to result: http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/res...83832&v=175897

Ragunboneman · 27-06-2006, 06:44

Yes indeed, after a reboot this morning Cheadle also has 4Mb and thats on a 120 modem.

grubbymitts · 27-06-2006, 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by bliss

Woohoo! 4mb in Stoke!

WOO! I is speeding along too!

BenRyder · 27-06-2006, 07:09

WOO HOO! 4mb in Whiteley off Cosham/Portsmouth!

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:08:52 UTC

1st 512K took 1156 ms = 442.9 KB/sec, approx 3649 Kbps, 3.56 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1125 ms = 455.1 KB/sec, approx 3750 Kbps, 3.66 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
4th 512K took 1203 ms = 425.6 KB/sec, approx 3507 Kbps, 3.42 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3705 Kbps, 3.62 Mbps

sp3ctre · 27-06-2006, 07:12

Would ya believe it, got upgraded in Harrogate, too!! I need to think of something else to whinge about now!

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:11:31 GMT

1st 512K took 1110 ms = 461.3 KB/sec, approx 3801 Kbps, 3.71 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1062 ms = 482.1 KB/sec, approx 3973 Kbps, 3.88 Mbps
4th 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3886 Kbps, 3.8 Mbps