Broadband speed tests are crap

I just tried the thinkbroadband speedtest, and it said I was getting
1.1 Mbps, which is a lot lower than the 14 - 15 Mbps I've usually been
getting, so I tried a few others one after the other, and here's the
results:

14.2 Mbps - http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/
1.1 Mbps - http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
13.5 Mbps - http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/
15.2 Mbps - http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
1.8 Mbps - http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/speedtest/
9.9 Mbps - http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/speedtest/
11.4 Mbps - http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/broadband/speed-test/

I've thought for some time that they're dodgy, and this cofirms it
IMO - and so much for thinkbroadband's speedtest, whcih they claimed
in a recent news article was up to the job of testing the speed of
Virgin's new 50 Mbps service - this isn't the first time their
speedtester has produced far lower speedtest results than other sites.

One interesting thing is that the higher speedtest results in the 11 -
15 Mbps range were all using that Flash-driven (or whatever) speedtest
with the speedometer graphics, so maybe they're all from the same
servers somewhere else rather than being on the websites which hosts
the speedtest pages?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I just tried the thinkbroadband speedtest, and it said I was getting 1.1
> Mbps, which is a lot lower than the 14 - 15 Mbps I've usually been
> getting, so I tried a few others one after the other, and here's the
> results:
>
> 14.2 Mbps - http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/
> 1.1 Mbps - http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
> 13.5 Mbps - http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/
> 15.2 Mbps - http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
> 1.8 Mbps - http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/speedtest/
> 9.9 Mbps - http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/speedtest/
> 11.4 Mbps - http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/broadband/speed-test/
>
> I've thought for some time that they're dodgy, and this cofirms it IMO -
> and so much for thinkbroadband's speedtest, whcih they claimed in a recent
> news article was up to the job of testing the speed of Virgin's new 50
> Mbps service - this isn't the first time their speedtester has produced
> far lower speedtest results than other sites.
>
> One interesting thing is that the higher speedtest results in the 11 - 15
> Mbps range were all using that Flash-driven (or whatever) speedtest with
> the speedometer graphics, so maybe they're all from the same servers
> somewhere else rather than being on the websites which hosts the speedtest
> pages?
>
>

I find with the Think Broadband one it does often give a low speed, so I
straight away run it a second time and it gives me my usual speed.

The real dodgy one is the one on Be home page it gives me about a third of
what other testers give, then it asks you would you like to know what they
would give you. Well in my case I get 6Mbps from my present ISP, Be say I
get just over 2Mbps and if I go with them I will get 14Mbps.
Think they out to get new customers?

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

> I just tried the thinkbroadband speedtest, and it said I was getting
> 1.1 Mbps, which is a lot lower than the 14 - 15 Mbps I've usually been
> getting, so I tried a few others one after the other, and here's the
> results:

Here are mine


> 5895 kbps - http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/
> 5896 kbps - http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
> 6637 kbps - http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/
> 6818 kbps - http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
> 6920 kbps - http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/speedtest/
> 6050 kbps - http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/speedtest/
> 3720 kbps - http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/broadband/speed-test/
>
> I've thought for some time that they're dodgy, and this cofirms it
> IMO -

No it only confirms your ISP has crap peering IMHO. IDNet here.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
> > I just tried the thinkbroadband speedtest, and it said I was getting
> > 1.1 Mbps, which is a lot lower than the 14 - 15 Mbps I've usually been
> > getting, so I tried a few others one after the other, and here's the
> > results:
>
> Here are mine
>
> > 5895 kbps - http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/
> > 5896 kbps - http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
> > 6637 kbps - http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/
> > 6818 kbps - http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
> > 6920 kbps - http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/speedtest/
> > 6050 kbps - http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/speedtest/
> > 3720 kbps - http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/broadband/speed-test/

5380 kbps on a 2nd attempt in the Opera browser instead of IE for
moneysupermarket.


> > I've thought for some time that they're dodgy, and this cofirms it
> > IMO -
>
> No it only confirms your ISP has crap peering IMHO. IDNet here.
>
> Graham

"David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gh1mov$o99$(E-Mail Removed)
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I just tried the thinkbroadband speedtest, and it said I was
>> getting 1.1
>> Mbps, which is a lot lower than the 14 - 15 Mbps I've usually been
>> getting, so I tried a few others one after the other, and here's
>> the
>> results:
>>
>> 14.2 Mbps - http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/
>> 1.1 Mbps - http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
>> 13.5 Mbps - http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/
>> 15.2 Mbps - http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
>> 1.8 Mbps - http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/speedtest/
>> 9.9 Mbps - http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/speedtest/
>> 11.4 Mbps - http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/broadband/speed-test/
>>
>> I've thought for some time that they're dodgy, and this cofirms it
>> IMO -
>> and so much for thinkbroadband's speedtest, whcih they claimed in a
>> recent news article was up to the job of testing the speed of
>> Virgin's
>> new 50 Mbps service - this isn't the first time their speedtester
>> has
>> produced far lower speedtest results than other sites.
>>
>> One interesting thing is that the higher speedtest results in the
>> 11 - 15
>> Mbps range were all using that Flash-driven (or whatever) speedtest
>> with
>> the speedometer graphics, so maybe they're all from the same
>> servers
>> somewhere else rather than being on the websites which hosts the
>> speedtest pages?
>>
>>
>
> I find with the Think Broadband one it does often give a low speed,
> so I
> straight away run it a second time and it gives me my usual speed.


Just tried it again and it gave me exactly the same speed of 1.1 Mbps.


> The real dodgy one is the one on Be home page it gives me about a
> third of
> what other testers give, then it asks you would you like to know
> what they
> would give you. Well in my case I get 6Mbps from my present ISP,
> Be say
> I get just over 2Mbps and if I go with them I will get 14Mbps.
> Think they out to get new customers?


Just a bit - I've just tried their speedtest and it says 3.3 Mbps, and
I'm on Be!



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>> I just tried the thinkbroadband speedtest, and it said I was
>> getting
>> 1.1 Mbps, which is a lot lower than the 14 - 15 Mbps I've usually
>> been
>> getting, so I tried a few others one after the other, and here's
>> the
>> results:
>
> Here are mine
>
>
>> 5895 kbps - http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/
>> 5896 kbps - http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
>> 6637 kbps - http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/
>> 6818 kbps - http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
>> 6920 kbps - http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/speedtest/
>> 6050 kbps - http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/speedtest/
>> 3720 kbps - http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/broadband/speed-test/
>>
>> I've thought for some time that they're dodgy, and this cofirms it
>> IMO -
>
> No it only confirms your ISP has crap peering IMHO. IDNet here.


Fair enough. But do you not think that it shows that they're not a
very reliable way to measure people's broadband speed? The BBC and The
Gadget Show and others have made a song and dance about broadband
speeds being too low (which I'm not sticking up for, BTW) based on the
results of broadband speedtests, but on my previous ISP and on this
one I've found them to be highly variable, and they often massively
underestimate the speed I can actually download at.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> "David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:gh1mov$o99$(E-Mail Removed)
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I just tried the thinkbroadband speedtest, and it said I was
>>> getting 1.1
>>> Mbps, which is a lot lower than the 14 - 15 Mbps I've usually been
>>> getting, so I tried a few others one after the other, and here's
>>> the
>>> results:
>>>
>>> 14.2 Mbps - http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/
>>> 1.1 Mbps - http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
>>> 13.5 Mbps - http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/
>>> 15.2 Mbps - http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
>>> 1.8 Mbps - http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/speedtest/
>>> 9.9 Mbps - http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/speedtest/
>>> 11.4 Mbps - http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/broadband/speed-test/
>>>
>>> I've thought for some time that they're dodgy, and this cofirms it
>>> IMO -
>>> and so much for thinkbroadband's speedtest, whcih they claimed in a
>>> recent news article was up to the job of testing the speed of
>>> Virgin's
>>> new 50 Mbps service - this isn't the first time their speedtester
>>> has
>>> produced far lower speedtest results than other sites.
>>>
>>> One interesting thing is that the higher speedtest results in the
>>> 11 - 15
>>> Mbps range were all using that Flash-driven (or whatever) speedtest
>>> with
>>> the speedometer graphics, so maybe they're all from the same
>>> servers
>>> somewhere else rather than being on the websites which hosts the
>>> speedtest pages?
>>>
>>>
>> I find with the Think Broadband one it does often give a low speed,
>> so I
>> straight away run it a second time and it gives me my usual speed.
>
>
> Just tried it again and it gave me exactly the same speed of 1.1 Mbps.
>
>
>> The real dodgy one is the one on Be home page it gives me about a
>> third of
>> what other testers give, then it asks you would you like to know
>> what they
>> would give you. Well in my case I get 6Mbps from my present ISP,
>> Be say
>> I get just over 2Mbps and if I go with them I will get 14Mbps.
>> Think they out to get new customers?
>
>
> Just a bit - I've just tried their speedtest and it says 3.3 Mbps, and
> I'm on Be!
>
>
>
For me 5.7 on thingbroadband. 6 - 6.7 on 3 others.

Not really worried. We can each watch our own teams on P2P at the same
time without freezing. Most speed issues we have are at the other end.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:54:29 -0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

> Fair enough. But do you not think that it shows that they're not a
> very reliable way to measure people's broadband speed? The BBC and The
> Gadget Show and others have made a song and dance about broadband
> speeds being too low (which I'm not sticking up for, BTW) based on the
> results of broadband speedtests, but on my previous ISP and on this
> one I've found them to be highly variable, and they often massively
> underestimate the speed I can actually download at.

Earlier in the year my reported connection went up from ~1.8M to 3M (not
long after Tiscali took over). I didn't really believe it as I'm quite a
way from the exchange and on a USB frog.

The way that i check is to go to Canonical's site, go to the d/l page for
Ubuntu and select Oxford. The [extrapolated] time for the distro was down
from about 80 min. to araound 55 min., so I assumed that 3M was about
correct.
Didn't last though :-(
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

"Invisible Man" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gh1qmq$3oj$(E-Mail Removed)
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> "David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:gh1mov$o99$(E-Mail Removed)
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> I just tried the thinkbroadband speedtest, and it said I was
>>>> getting 1.1
>>>> Mbps, which is a lot lower than the 14 - 15 Mbps I've usually
>>>> been
>>>> getting, so I tried a few others one after the other, and here's
>>>> the
>>>> results:
>>>>
>>>> 14.2 Mbps - http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/
>>>> 1.1 Mbps - http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
>>>> 13.5 Mbps - http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/
>>>> 15.2 Mbps - http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
>>>> 1.8 Mbps - http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/speedtest/
>>>> 9.9 Mbps - http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/speedtest/
>>>> 11.4 Mbps -
>>>> http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/broadband/speed-test/
>>>>
>>>> I've thought for some time that they're dodgy, and this cofirms
>>>> it
>>>> IMO -
>>>> and so much for thinkbroadband's speedtest, whcih they claimed in
>>>> a
>>>> recent news article was up to the job of testing the speed of
>>>> Virgin's
>>>> new 50 Mbps service - this isn't the first time their speedtester
>>>> has
>>>> produced far lower speedtest results than other sites.
>>>>
>>>> One interesting thing is that the higher speedtest results in the
>>>> 11 - 15
>>>> Mbps range were all using that Flash-driven (or whatever)
>>>> speedtest
>>>> with
>>>> the speedometer graphics, so maybe they're all from the same
>>>> servers
>>>> somewhere else rather than being on the websites which hosts the
>>>> speedtest pages?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I find with the Think Broadband one it does often give a low
>>> speed,
>>> so I
>>> straight away run it a second time and it gives me my usual speed.
>>
>>
>> Just tried it again and it gave me exactly the same speed of 1.1
>> Mbps.
>>
>>
>>> The real dodgy one is the one on Be home page it gives me about a
>>> third of
>>> what other testers give, then it asks you would you like to know
>>> what they
>>> would give you. Well in my case I get 6Mbps from my present ISP,
>>> Be say
>>> I get just over 2Mbps and if I go with them I will get 14Mbps.
>>> Think they out to get new customers?
>>
>>
>> Just a bit - I've just tried their speedtest and it says 3.3 Mbps,
>> and
>> I'm on Be!
>>
>>
>>
> For me 5.7 on thingbroadband. 6 - 6.7 on 3 others.
>
> Not really worried. We can each watch our own teams on P2P at the
> same
> time without freezing. Most speed issues we have are at the other
> end.


Do you get your P2P stream links from here or from another website:

http://myp2p.eu/competition.php?comp...pline=football




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"PeterC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:14lbklkm0vs5y.qqgrzl2c6ji7$.(E-Mail Removed)
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:54:29 -0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>> Fair enough. But do you not think that it shows that they're not a
>> very reliable way to measure people's broadband speed? The BBC and
>> The
>> Gadget Show and others have made a song and dance about broadband
>> speeds being too low (which I'm not sticking up for, BTW) based on
>> the
>> results of broadband speedtests, but on my previous ISP and on this
>> one I've found them to be highly variable, and they often massively
>> underestimate the speed I can actually download at.
>
> Earlier in the year my reported connection went up from ~1.8M to 3M
> (not
> long after Tiscali took over). I didn't really believe it as I'm
> quite a
> way from the exchange and on a USB frog.
>
> The way that i check is to go to Canonical's site, go to the d/l
> page for
> Ubuntu and select Oxford. The [extrapolated] time for the distro was
> down
> from about 80 min. to araound 55 min., so I assumed that 3M was
> about
> correct.
> Didn't last though :-(


Yeah, I used to download iTunes, because they always seemed to use
fast servers, but then someone on here told me that because I use
Internet Download Manager, which opens up multiple connections, that
overestimated what I'd get with a single connection like you get on a
browser. So I've gone back to using speedtests again.

Another website with fast servers I noticed recently was Google Video.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm