[Merged] BB Speed Upgrades

[gooner4life]

as far as the headend tech knows Luton has not been done, although areas served by the Luton DHCP may have been done.

[Reddevil63]

Originally Posted by cobbler

Hi

I'm a nooby

I am in swindon and the postcode checker says i am upgraded but i am still only on 1mb.
could this be my problem

about 1 week after i setup my broadband i decided that i didnt like my email address so i created a new one and deleted my old one which was my setting up email address. i know it said i couldnt delete that one but i did anyway and seeing as my newly created one worked i didnt see the problem with, however, when i click on tthe upgrade my spped section of ntls website, it tells me that my email address isnt the one associated with my modem, and when i put my original setup email address in it says it cannot find it. so, i thought i would just recreate it but ntl says the email address is already in use.
Could this be why my modem hasnt increased in speed.

Cobbler

Hi Cobbler

I am in Swindon also and still waiting for the upgrade. According to postcode checker for my area it says September! I think and hope its wrong!

[cobbler]

For my postcode it says, congratulations you have been upgraded but i aint.

Cobbler

[Ignition]

Oooo speedtests!

Here you go:

Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:20:35 GMT
1st 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec

[Neil]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Oooo speedtests!

Here you go:

Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:20:35 GMT
1st 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 547 ms = 239620 Bytes/sec = approx 1994 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 531 ms = 246840 Bytes/sec = approx 2054 kbits/sec

Ooooo

Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:25:22 UTC
1st 128K took 170 ms = 771012 Bytes/sec = approx 6415 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 140 ms = 936229 Bytes/sec = approx 7789 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 170 ms = 771012 Bytes/sec = approx 6415 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 201 ms = 652100 Bytes/sec = approx 5425 kbits/sec

[Ignition]

From work is just cheating tbh...

[Nemesis]

This is getting a tad silly now ....

[paul211]

Originally Posted by cobbler

For my postcode it says, congratulations you have been upgraded but i aint.

Cobbler

same here aswell

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Neil

Ooooo

Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:25:22 UTC
1st 128K took 170 ms = 771012 Bytes/sec = approx 6415 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 140 ms = 936229 Bytes/sec = approx 7789 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 170 ms = 771012 Bytes/sec = approx 6415 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 201 ms = 652100 Bytes/sec = approx 5425 kbits/sec

Oooo... So you want cheats from work?
Don't make me try...

Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:24:50 +0000
1st 128K took 18 ms = 7281778 Bytes/sec = approx 60584 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 22 ms = 5957818 Bytes/sec = approx 49569 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 17 ms = 7710118 Bytes/sec = approx 64148 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 13 ms = 10082462 Bytes/sec = approx 83886 kbits/sec

Seems a tad slower than last time, maybe are actually people working today... (uh-oh...maybe i should start one day)

PING www.bbc.net.uk (212.58.224.121) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www21.thdo.bbc.co.uk (212.58.224.121): icmp_seq=1 ttl=246 time=3.99 ms
64 bytes from www21.thdo.bbc.co.uk (212.58.224.121): icmp_seq=2 ttl=246 time=4.06 ms
64 bytes from www21.thdo.bbc.co.uk (212.58.224.121): icmp_seq=3 ttl=246 time=3.93 ms
64 bytes from www21.thdo.bbc.co.uk (212.58.224.121): icmp_seq=4 ttl=246 time=3.96 ms

--- www.bbc.net.uk ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 603ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 3.930/3.988/4.065/0.092 ms, ipg/ewma 201.175/3.993 ms


oh, the LAAAG...

[jtwn]

meh how many people is that connection shared by?

Anyway, for whoever thinks that getting the same results on robin walkers speed test is very rare, ive got the same results 3 times over yesterday + today.

Every time it was always 1534...

Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:37:42 UTC
1st 128K took 711 ms = 184349 Bytes/sec = approx 1534 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 711 ms = 184349 Bytes/sec = approx 1534 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 711 ms = 184349 Bytes/sec = approx 1534 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 711 ms = 184349 Bytes/sec = approx 1534 kbits/sec

[qasdfdsaq]

Then it seems that you are very rare!

Actually I find it quite suprising that the NTL webserver(s) in fact have enough bandwidth to host a speedtest...

P.S. Robin Walker (the guy who made the speedtest) uses this same connection to read his emails

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

From work is just cheating tbh...

Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:37:48 UTC
1st 128K took 234 ms = 560137 Bytes/sec = approx 4660 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 359 ms = 365103 Bytes/sec = approx 3038 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 844 ms = 155299 Bytes/sec = approx 1292 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 203 ms = 645675 Bytes/sec = approx 5372 kbits/sec

I find the test from work comes up with very inconsistent speeds, guess thats the result of many sharing the pipe.

[dubaloo]

Well my speeds are still like a yo-yo, dropping out of video streams at 250kbit and downloads still no better than 22k per sec.. Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:36:28 UTC
1st 128K took 3680 ms = 35617 Bytes/sec = approx 296 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 4950 ms = 26479 Bytes/sec = approx 220 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 6370 ms = 20576 Bytes/sec = approx 171 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 6700 ms = 19563 Bytes/sec = approx 163 kbits/sec
Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:37:01 UTC
1st 128K took 6310 ms = 20772 Bytes/sec = approx 173 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 9010 ms = 14547 Bytes/sec = approx 121 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 6320 ms = 20739 Bytes/sec = approx 173 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 6700 ms = 19563 Bytes/sec = approx 163 kbits/sec
Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:39:41 UTC
1st 128K took 3630 ms = 36108 Bytes/sec = approx 300 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 3680 ms = 35617 Bytes/sec = approx 296 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 6370 ms = 20576 Bytes/sec = approx 171 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 6260 ms = 20938 Bytes/sec = approx 174 kbits/sec

300kBB STB

[dubaloo]

Hmmm, someone must be pushing the right buttons somewhere , lets see how long it will last
Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:07:58 UTC
1st 128K took 3630 ms = 36108 Bytes/sec = approx 300 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 3680 ms = 35617 Bytes/sec = approx 296 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 3620 ms = 36208 Bytes/sec = approx 301 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 3630 ms = 36108 Bytes/sec = approx 300 kbits/sec

[dubaloo]

I spoke too soon

Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:14:31 UTC
1st 128K took 3680 ms = 35617 Bytes/sec = approx 296 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 6980 ms = 18778 Bytes/sec = approx 156 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 6370 ms = 20576 Bytes/sec = approx 171 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 6310 ms = 20772 Bytes/sec = approx 173 kbits/sec

Looks like a call to ntl later.