NTL Speeds and Throttling - Page 7

etccarmageddon · 21-03-2006, 18:20

fair enough.

Chrysalis · 22-03-2006, 06:50

I am guessing plusnet style shaping then.

etccarmageddon · 22-03-2006, 08:16

I cant think what else it could be other than traffic shaping.

---------- Post added at 08:16 ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill C

...so i will dump NTL as soon as Be Unlimited are active in the Warrington BT exchange.

I thought you weren't a fan of Indian call centres? https://www.bethere.co.uk/generalFAQ.do

"...our call centre and technical support are based in India."

my eyes rolled when I found that.

I'd done a search and I'm right you're not a fan!
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ghlight=indian

Chrysalis · 22-03-2006, 14:10

Well if he had a choice of ISP A indian call centre ISP B indian call centre ISP C uk call centre but crappy bt wholesale adsl, I would think he go for ISP A or B.

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:07 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I cant think what else it could be other than traffic shaping.

No doubt it will be over done so anything not http is like a 256kbit service. Isp's that shape tend to think they have a choice of no shaping or shaping to the moon and back.

I think shaping should be used to maybe save 10% or so traffic but not used as an excuse to not upgrade infrastructure and wipe out 80% of your traffic like plusnet did.

jtwn · 22-03-2006, 15:24

At a guess, Bill's local network could have just been resegmented or the hermits dling teh isoz 24/7 have gone on holiday or something.

etccarmageddon · 22-03-2006, 16:03

most likely a reseg which will last a while until they upgrade the 2meg users to 10meg and then it'll be back to square one.

Chrysalis · 23-03-2006, 13:04

My net went down at 1am. Rebooted my modem this morning and was on new ip, checked ubr ip to confirm what I suspected and its different.

So I have either had a reseg or been moved to new ubr it seems. A big shock considering one wasnt scheduled.

Performance is the same tho.

Rone · 23-03-2006, 19:15

Still cr@p?

Chrysalis · 23-03-2006, 21:44

Its not a reseg been confirmed to me was for a different reason.

They are trying to rule everything else out first.

Yes still the same.

altis · 29-03-2006, 13:07

1Mbps:

Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:05:27 GMT

1st 512K took 4340 ms = 118 KB/sec, approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
2nd 512K took 4340 ms = 118 KB/sec, approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
3rd 512K took 4340 ms = 118 KB/sec, approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps
4th 512K took 4340 ms = 118 KB/sec, approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 972 Kbps, 0.95 Mbps

Ooh, that's better

29-03-2006, 19:32

Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:26:58 UTC

1st 512K took 3547 ms = 144.3 KB/sec, approx 1189 Kbps, 1.16 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2156 ms = 237.5 KB/sec, approx 1957 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps
4th 512K took 1485 ms = 344.8 KB/sec, approx 2841 Kbps, 2.77 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1986 Kbps, 1.94 Mbps
slow
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:30:09 UTC

1st 512K took 1797 ms = 284.9 KB/sec, approx 2348 Kbps, 2.29 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1562 ms = 327.8 KB/sec, approx 2701 Kbps, 2.64 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3625 ms = 141.2 KB/sec, approx 1163 Kbps, 1.14 Mbps
4th 512K took 1875 ms = 273.1 KB/sec, approx 2250 Kbps, 2.2 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 2116 Kbps, 2.07 Mbps
furkin great this 10meg ****e init
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:30:50 UTC

1st 512K took 3250 ms = 157.5 KB/sec, approx 1298 Kbps, 1.27 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1657 ms = 309 KB/sec, approx 2546 Kbps, 2.49 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2281 ms = 224.5 KB/sec, approx 1850 Kbps, 1.81 Mbps
4th 512K took 1984 ms = 258.1 KB/sec, approx 2127 Kbps, 2.08 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1955 Kbps, 1.91 Mbps

one more
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:32:22 UTC

1st 512K took 2297 ms = 222.9 KB/sec, approx 1837 Kbps, 1.79 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2766 ms = 185.1 KB/sec, approx 1525 Kbps, 1.49 Mbps
3rd 512K took 3328 ms = 153.8 KB/sec, approx 1267 Kbps, 1.24 Mbps
4th 512K took 2672 ms = 191.6 KB/sec, approx 1579 Kbps, 1.54 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1552 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps

Chrysalis · 29-03-2006, 21:03

Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:04:34 GMT

1st 512K took 2719 ms = 188.3 KB/sec, approx 1552 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
2nd 512K took 2547 ms = 201 KB/sec, approx 1656 Kbps, 1.62 Mbps
3rd 512K took 2812 ms = 182.1 KB/sec, approx 1501 Kbps, 1.47 Mbps
4th 512K took 3266 ms = 156.8 KB/sec, approx 1292 Kbps, 1.26 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1500 Kbps, 1.47 Mbps

Paul your server hasnt changed for BST

Also could locations be logged so speedtest stats published for diff regions?

Dogman · 18-04-2006, 12:52

I am also gettting these connection issues but only from one site which is www.easynews.com all downloads from that site were fine for about 1 week then they have drastically dropped of i am on a 10 mbit connection and i can only download from that site at between 10-15 kbs a second i have contacted NTL support and they have said that it is not there problem

Anyone have any ideas or experiencing the same issues

IanUK · 18-04-2006, 14:41

See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=45727 for some things to try for Easynews connections.

I can get 500k from a single thread today using Level 3 on NTL.

Jazz · 19-04-2006, 22:15

Just got 10MB NTL today and during peak hours my speed seemed ok. Tried some newsgroups as well and it was flying at max speed, so far so good for me lets hope it stays this way (touch wood!)

Code:

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:14:34 GMT

1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
3rd 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
4th 512K took 422 ms = 1213.3 KB/sec, approx 9998 Kbps, 9.76 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 9740 Kbps, 9.51 Mbps