BT Yahoo - just got 2Mb/s

Line was playing up (stalling for some time) then got disconnected
from BT - this happens several times a month anyway.

Re-booted and re-connected - now 2Mb/s Mill Hill exchange (london)

Ah well, I will enjoy it for a month or two - until the cap comes in.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:24:53 +0000, narcissu <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>Line was playing up (stalling for some time) then got disconnected
>from BT - this happens several times a month anyway.
>
>Re-booted and re-connected - now 2Mb/s Mill Hill exchange (london)
>
>Ah well, I will enjoy it for a month or two - until the cap comes in.

What 'actual' download speed are you getting ?

Try the ADSLguide speed test @
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedtest.asp

I ask as I was upgraded to 2meg last week, and whereas my 512kb and
1meg conenctions were faultless, I'm finding that my 2meg connection
is only giving me 1.5meg speeds - about 150kbs ...

Bah !

Jim

"Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I ask as I was upgraded to 2meg last week, and whereas my 512kb and
> 1meg conenctions were faultless, I'm finding that my 2meg connection
> is only giving me 1.5meg speeds - about 150kbs ...
>
> Bah !

Bah indeed. 150k bps is only 0.15M bps.

Or did you mean 150k Bps? But that would only be around 1.2M bps.

"Alastair" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:42222b5a$0$38040$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> "Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I ask as I was upgraded to 2meg last week, and whereas my 512kb and
> > 1meg conenctions were faultless, I'm finding that my 2meg connection
> > is only giving me 1.5meg speeds - about 150kbs ...
> >
> > Bah !
>
> Bah indeed. 150k bps is only 0.15M bps.
>
> Or did you mean 150k Bps? But that would only be around 1.2M bps.
>
>

You know what he means,

150 KB/sec, No-one cares for your stupid reply.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:30:30 -0000, "Ronny" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>You know what he means,
>
>150 KB/sec, No-one cares for your stupid reply.

It's a damn shame that bits and bytes starts with the same letter.

Jim <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:24:53 +0000, narcissu <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Line was playing up (stalling for some time) then got disconnected
> >from BT - this happens several times a month anyway.
> >
> >Re-booted and re-connected - now 2Mb/s Mill Hill exchange (london)
> >
> >Ah well, I will enjoy it for a month or two - until the cap comes in.
>
> What 'actual' download speed are you getting ?
>
> Try the ADSLguide speed test @
> http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedtest.asp
>
> I ask as I was upgraded to 2meg last week, and whereas my 512kb and
> 1meg conenctions were faultless, I'm finding that my 2meg connection
> is only giving me 1.5meg speeds - about 150kbs ...

I don't find these speed tests reliable. They usually show my 1MB
connection at being around 750k down, whereas the consistent speeds I
get from file downloads indicates it is around 1MB.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

narcissu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Line was playing up (stalling for some time) then got disconnected
> from BT - this happens several times a month anyway.
>
> Re-booted and re-connected - now 2Mb/s Mill Hill exchange (london)
>
> Ah well, I will enjoy it for a month or two - until the cap comes in.

BTW, I'd be interested to hear if anyone in the north west has been
upgraded yet. Is this a pretty random thing geographically?

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:57:48 +0000, Steve <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:30:30 -0000, "Ronny" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>You know what he means,
>>
>>150 KB/sec, No-one cares for your stupid reply.
>
>It's a damn shame that bits and bytes starts with the same letter.

They do, but bits is represented by a small b, while bytes is
represented by a large B.

And kilo, with respect to decimal units, i.e. 1000, or 10^3, is small
k, while Kilo, with respect to binary, i.e. 1024, or 2^10, is large K
(same rule applies to mega, giga, tera. peta etc.).

And rate is measured over units of time, usually seconds. If you miss
that off then you're talking about volume of data.

So the absolute and pedantically correct way to talk about your line
speed is in Kbps or Mbps (or Gbps if you're lucky enough!!), i.e.
Kilobits per second or Megabits per second, not kb, KB, kBps, MB, etc.
etc.! Or, if you really want to, Kb/s or Kbs^-1.

Jake

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:35:04 +0000, Muxton <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:


>
>And kilo, with respect to decimal units, i.e. 1000, or 10^3, is small
>k, while Kilo, with respect to binary, i.e. 1024, or 2^10, is large K
>(same rule applies to mega, giga, tera. peta etc.).
>

Gross error in my own post there.

Take a look at http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html.

Now I'll just crawl off and skulk somewhere, as no-one likes a
smartarse.

Jake

Muxton wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:35:04 +0000, Muxton <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>And kilo, with respect to decimal units, i.e. 1000, or 10^3, is small
>>k, while Kilo, with respect to binary, i.e. 1024, or 2^10, is large K
>>(same rule applies to mega, giga, tera. peta etc.).
>>
>
>
> Gross error in my own post there.
>
> Take a look at http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html.
>
> Now I'll just crawl off and skulk somewhere, as no-one likes a
> smartarse.
>
> Jake
>

quick rule of thumb - to get from kilobits per sec to kilobytes per sec
divide by 8

thus 400 kilobits/s is the same as 50 kilobytes/s

so dont dispair if you are just getting 60k when your neighbour reckons
he's getting 400k - its just terminology