I am getting 250K download and 110K upload with my 150K NTL broadband.

Is this normal?

Can I also presume than their 600K should give around 1MB and their 1MB
should give about 1.5MB?

thanks

John

"John Flame" <johnflame10@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfdmd4$dikl1$1@ID-195427.news.uni-berlin.de...
I doubt it. I always got <600 when I used to have 600 from ntl.

Maybe it's an individual program lying to you. Try running several different
speed tests while nothing else is using the connection, for a clearer
picture:

http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_I...ndwidth_Tests/
http://www.speedguide.net/links.php?category=60

"Robin Guest" <nospam_robinguest@bushinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bfdn05$deunq$1@ID-179064.news.uni-berlin.de...
Of course I meant several tests consecutively (to get an average), not at
the same time

Another possibility is that they haven't given you the service you
ordered/are paying for.

"Robin Guest" <nospam_robinguest@bushinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bfdn5g$dhuf1$1@ID-179064.news.uni-berlin.de...


I have tried several test and have reconfirmed with NTL that I am getting
theit 150K service.

Possibly. IIRC, some exCWC areas have 256kbps download. You can confirm
this (if on cable modem) by using DocsDiag. Someone will post the link
(I've forgotten it). Otherwise if on set-top-box, try the menu system,
it'll probably tell you..... somewhere.

Hi Peter

A friend of mine has just had NTL150 installed and since then he cannot
access his analogue internal modem which is connected to COM3

The programs that require the modem report that a non-TAPI application is
using the line. This is his BT line that is connected to the modem _not_ the
NTL connection.

Can you offer any guidance to this problem. NTL are no help at all despite
the fact that this problem only surfaced when the NTL supplied cable modem
(USB?) was installed by them.

The 150 connection works very well for him though.

Unfortunately he lives 200 miles away so I can't 'pop' round to have a look
and he has very little technical knowledge (read none!)

Thanks

Barry.

Look for VNC - you can see how his system is set up from your own
machine.

On 20-Jul-2003, Colin Wilson <btiruseless@btinternet.com> wrote:

Hi Colin

VNC????

I must explain that I don't have the benefit of Broadband and we have no
chance of getting it in any form (other than satellite) in the forseeable
future. So you'll have to explain a little more fully, if you don't mind.

Thanks

Barry

"Barry Higginbottom" <barryh@kentra.co.uk> wrote:

Hi,
VNC is a piece of software that allows you to get acces to a remote PC
over the internet. Basically, you get a window showing the remote desktop,
and have full control via the mouse and keyboard. However, VNC is extremely
slow on a 64K ISDN link, so is probably of little use over a modem
connection. Take a look at tightvnc instead (http://www.tightvnc.com/)
which has much better compression. It will still be slow over a modem, but
will be significantly faster than the standard VNC software.

--

Martin

"Peter G Sheppard" <usenet@petersheppard.com> wrote in message
news:bfdogc$deeqg$1@ID-109819.news.uni-berlin.de...
Yes, but that wouldn't mean Peter's getting 256k down from a 150k service,
it would mean he's getting a different but better service than he is being
billed for. Which if true is obviously great while it lasts ...but his
presumption doesn't necessarily hold for the higher rates.

"CB" <see@reply.to.field> wrote in message
news:MPG.1984e34fe082cf6b989879@news.clara.net...
existing ntl cable tv customers get 3 months free

I don't think it's rubbish

"CB" <see@reply.to.field> wrote in message
news:MPG.1985caf9df03d06c98987c@news.clara.net...
Am I only one who fails to see the need for such language? Whether or not
you are right - using such language (at all, let alone unprovoked) is doing
nothing for your cause at all.

Please remember - we don't just have adults reading this. And even then -
some adults (myself included) do not appreciate reading such words
(especially 5 times in 2 posts (without including the repeated quotes)).

Thanks

David

"John Flame" <johnflame10@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bffurt$dumt6$1@ID-195427.news.uni-berlin.de...
|
| "CB" <see@reply.to.field> wrote in message
| news:MPG.19853e9f4e6a3c2398987a@news.clara.net...
| > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:27:33 +0100 and in article <bff8ks$dkht7$1@ID-
| > 195427.news.uni-berlin.de>, John Flame said...
| > > > > Must say though, the 250K feels better than most adsl 512K,
| > > >
| > > > Erm, what is this rubbish you talk?
| > >
| > > I don't think it's rubbish
| > >
| > Well let me tell you it is perfect fucking rubbish!
| >
| > How can 250k with 128k upstream 'feel better' than DSL @ 512/256,
| > _exactly_?
| >
| > Either you've experienced someone else's very shitty ADSL connection or
| > you're a complete and utter blithering fucking idiot.
| > --
| > CB
|
|
| I see from your language that you are probably uneducated, so no point in
me
| replying further.
|
|

Ok, don't reply to him, reply to me... How can a slower connection feel
better than a faster one? That's like saying my mates 56k connection feels
better than your 250k connection. When it clearly doesn't. That's what
everyone's now trying to get at.

Care to enlighten us as to what makes it so much better than 512k DSL?

"CB" <see@reply.to.field> wrote in message
news:MPG.1985d166765a398898987d@news.clara.net...
No

"CB" <see@reply.to.field> wrote in message
news:MPG.19865db263c5bb70989880@news.clara.net...

Send your complains to abuse@clara.net

"Paul Noga" <p.noga@ucl.sp.am.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bfggo9$mdm$1@uns-a.ucl.ac.uk...
Hmm. It depends on DSL though, doesn't it?

My Virgin.NET 512/256 ADSL gives me the real speed, 477/246, as per
http://www.adslguide.org.uk . No way a 256-kbit capped connection can beat
this anyway.

But if we have a DSL from bloody budget ISP (in theory, haven't *yet*
seen/heard about such crap among British DSL ISP's), who are too greedy to
buy decent peerings it can be worse than 256. In theory. In fact such a
disaster of ISP would go bankrupt faster than you say "256".

--
_______________________
Maximilian!

"Maximilian K." <RemoteThisToWriteMe_mail@eastexpert.me.uk> wrote:

<snip>

This sounds like a perfect description of BTO, but their not bankrupt.

--

Martin

"Martin Cooper" <usenet@martinc.me.uk> wrote in message
news:gemini.3f1c6414003b2403%usenet@martinc.me.uk. ..
Martin, are things really that bad with them?
http://www.adslguide.org.uk is my primary measurement tool for UK ISPs.

I just yesterday helped my neighbour with her broadband installation.
Company paid for her BT OpenWorld (lucky b*** ). I measured access speed.
It was 463/226. (At Virgin.net I've got 470/240 before optimisation and
477/246 after I tweaked MTU and RWIN.)

The point being, it was not THAT bad IMHO. It was Sunday evening, presumably
lots of people were out in the Net.
--
_______________________
Maximillian!

"Maximilian K." <RemoteThisToWriteMe_mail@eastexpert.me.uk> wrote:


To be honest, I don't know anymore. I left BTO in January, when my average
download speed was peaking at a massive 12 KB/sec at peak times. Which was
just one of the problems I had with their service. However, it seemed to
make little difference to the number of people signing up with them.

Changing to A&A immediately resolved all of the problems I had with my
connection, so personally, I'll never go near BTO again. YMMV.

--

Martin

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:53:45 +0100, "Paul Noga"
<p.noga@ucl.sp.am.ac.uk> wrote:

Use some imagination. One obvious way would be if the 512K line kept
dropping, or had frequent go slows, or if contention at either the
exchange or the ISP slowed traffic. I've a 34Mb link at work, and
oftentimes that "feels slower" than my home 600K link because at
lunchtime I'm sharing it with 3000 other users reading the news.

Then they're not thinking hard enough. Clearly the generic 512K ADSL
ought to be better than 56K dialup, but specific cases might differ.

The ability to reason with our brains? :-)