[Merged] BB Speed Upgrades

[newbie]

XEviLX - No I'm always this excited when NTL give me something for free!

[XEviLX]

now we have hit the big 50 in this thread ,and most of us now have the upgrade

[Kneebs]

Originally Posted by BBKing

No 1Mb STB customers have been upgraded, as part of the trial or otherwise. As has been said a couple of times, we need to swap the boxes out, apparently.

Ah well...It's just the guy that swapped my box a few weeks ago said they were paying them to do swaps on saturdays & even sundays at £10 & £20 respectively per box they swapped !! I just kinda hoped they'd be done by now....

After the chew on I've had today from rebooting the box, I don't think I'll be trying it tomorrow morning !!

[Rik]

Getting a nice 185kB/s in sunny Hemel Hempstead

Giganews European News Server before you ask and worth every penny
Go on! Treat yourselves!

[wizardman]

waheeey im now on 1.5 meg it flys now
im well happy with the service
well done ntl

[McMav]

Ok the upgrade has taken place *blush*

But yes the postcode checker still showing an upgrade date of november????

Thanks for the speed increase but get the postcode checker sorted.

alot of people not be included could be suffering slower speed than they need to.

I had to manually reboot my modem to get speed increase.

[badnbusy]

Sorry if this has been posted already (thread is massive and would take ages to look for it)

http://www.ntlworld.com/ - top right, has a banner promoting the speed upgrades now!!

[HDFootyMan]

Originally Posted by SoLo MaN

Silly me, forgot to mention I was on a 600 connection, now its 750. Sweet>>>>

That's more or less the same results that I get on my 'former 600K' connection. BTW, has any one here been, erm, 'bragging' to friends at work about the free upgrade? I have, I couldn't resist.

Thanks NTL!

[Stop It]

Right, Im confused, Mine hasnt been upgraded, (Boo) but, to be confusing, My postcode Comes up with September, a frined in Biggleswade gets August for his, which is it? we are on the SAME ubr as far as I know, Its all well and good when an upgrade occurs, But when the only method Of finding out when an upgrade is Gives conflicting results it gets slightly flustrating.

Does ANYONE live in the biggleswade area? if so has your speed gone up?

NB : Im not bashing NTL per se, but the PR seems to be totally bodged (ala the postcode chcker), I now feel in the dark, and throughly confused, as a customer I shouldnt have to feel like this, bah.

[robinder]

here in sunny Romsey, SO51:

1st 128K took 1062 ms = 123420 Bytes/sec = approx 1027 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 719 ms = 182298 Bytes/sec = approx 1517 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 703 ms = 186447 Bytes/sec = approx 1551 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 719 ms = 182298 Bytes/sec = approx 1517 kbits/sec

[XEviLX]

i was downloading at about 180kb this morning now over the past few hours its been 3kb im ****ed off now. phoned ntl waited 30min but had to hang up because them stupid messages burnt my ear

System up time = 0 days 00h 05m 27.00s
Downstream channel ID = 0
Downstream channel frequency = 402750000 Hz
Downstream received signal power = -3.4 dBmV
Upstream channel ID = 2
Upstream channel frequency = 18384000 Hz
QoS max upstream bandwidth = 256000 bps
QoS max downstream bandwidth = 1536000 bps
SigQu: Signal to Noise Ratio = 34.0 dB
Cable modem status = Operational
Upstream transmit signal power = 43.3 dBmV
Date and Time = 2004-08-02,20:08:40.0
Configuration filename = ntlhm200-gold.cm

[Stop It]

Originally Posted by XEviLX

i was downloading at about 180kb this morning now over the past few hours its been 3kb im ****ed off now. phoned ntl waited 30min but had to hang up because them stupid messages burnt my ear

System up time = 0 days 00h 05m 27.00s
Downstream channel ID = 0
Downstream channel frequency = 402750000 Hz
Downstream received signal power = -3.4 dBmV
Upstream channel ID = 2
Upstream channel frequency = 18384000 Hz
QoS max upstream bandwidth = 256000 bps
QoS max downstream bandwidth = 1536000 bps
SigQu: Signal to Noise Ratio = 34.0 dB
Cable modem status = Operational
Upstream transmit signal power = 43.3 dBmV
Date and Time = 2004-08-02,20:08:40.0
Configuration filename = ntlhm200-gold.cm

3Kb from where? and is that everywhere or just one source? maybe you found a crap website :p

[dubaloo]

Hi, I was a member of the old forum, but it seems to have lost my old registration details.. anyways.. My STB rebooted early hours this morning and it seems like ive been upgraded from the 150 service, but the speeds are like a yo-yo. I've no viruses ect (experienced user) I'm in the Burnley area and I've manualy rebooted the box but this hasent helped any. The d/l speeds from ftp start around 36k then fall back to around 21k/s, I was wondering if anybody else has noticed this and should I wait a little longer before I call faults. Cheers..

Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:17:21 UTC
1st 128K took 6530 ms = 20072 Bytes/sec = approx 167 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 6700 ms = 19563 Bytes/sec = approx 163 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 6700 ms = 19563 Bytes/sec = approx 163 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 6810 ms = 19247 Bytes/sec = approx 160 kbits/sec

Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:20:44 UTC
1st 128K took 3620 ms = 36208 Bytes/sec = approx 301 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 3630 ms = 36108 Bytes/sec = approx 300 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 6370 ms = 20576 Bytes/sec = approx 171 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 6320 ms = 20739 Bytes/sec = approx 173 kbits/sec

Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:24:43 UTC
1st 128K took 3510 ms = 37342 Bytes/sec = approx 311 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 3570 ms = 36715 Bytes/sec = approx 305 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 3570 ms = 36715 Bytes/sec = approx 305 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 3570 ms = 36715 Bytes/sec = approx 305 kbits/sec

Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:25:22 UTC
1st 128K took 3630 ms = 36108 Bytes/sec = approx 300 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 8950 ms = 14645 Bytes/sec = approx 122 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 6370 ms = 20576 Bytes/sec = approx 171 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 6370 ms = 20576 Bytes/sec = approx 171 kbits/sec

Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:05:58 UTC
1st 128K took 3630 ms = 36108 Bytes/sec = approx 300 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 6310 ms = 20772 Bytes/sec = approx 173 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 6320 ms = 20739 Bytes/sec = approx 173 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 6320 ms = 20739 Bytes/sec = approx 173 kbits/sec

[2||Para]

Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:42:27 UTC
1st 128K took 703 ms = 186447 Bytes/sec = approx 1551 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 719 ms = 182298 Bytes/sec = approx 1517 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 703 ms = 186447 Bytes/sec = approx 1551 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 719 ms = 182298 Bytes/sec = approx 1517 kbits/sec

Pretty stable dont ya think

[XEviLX]

Originally Posted by Stop It

3Kb from where? and is that everywhere or just one source? maybe you found a crap website :p

from everywhere and web pages take ages to open