On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:36:06 -0000, "Beck"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>"Terry Pinnell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Thanks for that fast reply. Could you help me interpret the results I
>> got from that speed test please:
>> Direction Actual Speed True Speed (estimated)
>> Downstream 445 Kbps (55.6 KB/sec) 480 Kbps (inc. overheads)
>> Upstream 242 Kbps (30.3 KB/sec) 261 Kbps (inc. overheads)
>>
>> That seems to imply I'm getting about 94% of my rated speed (480/512)
>> - is that regarded as satisfactory?
>>
>> BTW, I have just discovered that apparently the speed increase does
>> apply to BT Broadband as well.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4252663.stm
>> But, unlike BT Yahoo, I don't think it is automatic.
>>
>> I note your point re 15GB; is that generally regarded as a fair deal?
>
>Your download speed is only very slightly below top, but nothing to be
>concerned about, your upload is fine. Speed tests may vary alot, tomorrow
>you may get 60KB/sec.
>The speed increase will be automatic for everyone. But not everyone will
>get it now. The upgrade process is taking place over the next 5 months, so
>BT will inform you with an approximate date of upgrade.
>With regards to 15gb being a fair deal, well different people will give you
>different views on whether that is fair or not. For people who download
>alot of stuff then they may run out. The average user uses about 4-5gb per
>month. If you do run over the limit they will not cut you off, they will
>just reduce your speed for the rest of the month. Or you can buy extra gb's
>at £1.95 each. Unless you are a heavy user then you are unlikely to go over
>the limit.
>
I often bring down 8-10Gb/s - so what. If I or any other heavy user
was being unfair (which is marketing speak to get those actually using
a BB service to it's best potential) then those sharing the contended
service would see the speed fall dramativally. In fact, very, very few
see any speed decreases at any time of the day. If that happened we
could not d/l that much could we - eh!
As mentioned, I have never in 2 years seen the contention come into
the equation. This is about getting those heavy users to pay more, and
nothing else. Just like congestion charging - introduce phasing of
lights, one lane instead of 2, extra traffic lights all over the
place, then say we have to pay extra to use a service we already pay
for because it has been screwed on purpose.