Diagnosing the cause of prolonged speed decreases.

Hi All,

First of all, let me say I have little or no knowledge of how ADSL
works so please be patient if my questions seem a little naive.

I'm on MaxDSL with Nildram.

I often get huge decreases in download throughput speeds, from about 5
Mbps to under 500 kbps, usually weekday afternoons & evenings, and the
slow speeds sometimes last for over 12 hours. The speeds are measured
on at least 4 different speed testers, including the BT's (though the
BT test always shows a smaller drop than than the others, i.e. from
just under 6 Mbps to just under 1 Mbps).

However, appear to have a reasonable line -

Attainable line rate : 9752 kbit/sec
Attainable Atm rate : 8672 kbit/sec
Used line rate : 8600 kbit/sec
Fast used Atm rate : 0 kbit/sec
Interleaved used Atm rate : 7616 kbits/sec
Rel. capacity occupation : 88
Noise Margin : 10 dB
Line attenuation : 22 dB
Output Power : 19 dBm

The above values remain pretty consistent from day to day and when I do
a BT speed test it says:
IP profile for your line is - 6500 kbps
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 7616 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)

These periods of decreased speeds have been going on for some months
and of course I've taken this up with my ISP. After many email
interchanges they say that it is due to congestion at my exchange and
there is nothing they can do. However, on their own website it says my
exchange is 'green' (not congested) and BT have no plans to upgrade my
exchange.

I've done a google search of uk.telecom.broadband to see if there is
any way I can tell if the fault is at my exchange or with Nildram.
That led me to look at
<http://www.prodigynet.co.uk/menu.php?page=support/adsllinecheck>

Unfortunately, I can't interpret the resulting information i.e.

QUOTE
Rate adaptive (250k and 500k) : Green
Fixed Rate (1000k and 2000k) : Green
MAX speed (upto 8000k) : Green (7000 kbps)

250k, 500k, 1000k, 2000k and 7000k are all available on this line.

Line status
This line has ADSL fully installed on it. There are no open orders
currently on this line.

Exchange status
This exchange is fully enabled for rate adaptive (500k) ADSL, fully
enabled for fixed rate (1000k and 2000k) ADSL, and fully enabled for
Max ADSL (upto 8000k).

There are 6 DSLAMS in the NORTH SHIELDS exchange
UNQUOTE

Below that there is a table of information regarding each of the 6
named DSLAMs, but I don't understand most of it... is there anything
particular in that table that I should be looking for?

Finally, am I correct in assuming that if the problem is exchange
congestion then there is nothing I can do, but if it isn't the exchange
then changing my ISP might get rid of the problem?

Thanks!
(and apologies for such a long post!)

Kit

"Kit" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:260320072235580641%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Hi All,
>
> First of all, let me say I have little or no knowledge of how ADSL
> works so please be patient if my questions seem a little naive.
>
> I'm on MaxDSL with Nildram.
<snip sad story of Nildram going slow>

Me too (see post: BT's speedtester)!

I have the same issues that I'm also talking to Nildram/Pipex about. BT
speedtests check out consistently good, but any traffic going through the
rest of the network (Nildram's bit) looks like it's being congested. This
applies to the speedtest on www.kbps.co.uk (http://www.myspeed.co.uk/) too,
which is on the Nildram network! Evening and early hours are ok.

The reply to may last email said "I hope that you find my response provides
all the details you require. I have taken the liberty of making a calendar
note to close your ticket on ??/??/07 if I have not heard from you to the
contrary." This email asked me to perform a ping and tracert; which were
both ok.

Responses to emails have been fast (often the same day), and I can't
otherwise fault the service. But I assume the only way to get my daytime
speed back is a migration; Zen is favourite.

Good luck!

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Grumps
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Kit" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:260320072235580641%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > First of all, let me say I have little or no knowledge of how ADSL
> > works so please be patient if my questions seem a little naive.
> >
> > I'm on MaxDSL with Nildram.
> <snip sad story of Nildram going slow>
>
> Me too (see post: BT's speedtester)!
>
> I have the same issues that I'm also talking to Nildram/Pipex about. BT
> speedtests check out consistently good, but any traffic going through the
> rest of the network (Nildram's bit) looks like it's being congested.
<snip>
> Responses to emails have been fast (often the same day), and I can't
> otherwise fault the service. But I assume the only way to get my daytime
> speed back is a migration; Zen is favourite.

I agree with all that. Nildram's responses to my emails have bee rapid.

Last weekend I had great speeds but I'm now on my fourth day of
slowdown. If done all the test, jumped through all the hoops and the
response from Nildram is always that it is exchange congestion so they
can't do anything about it. However, it seems that my exchange, listed
as 'green' has spare capacity.

Anyway, if it was exchange congestion, surely there would be some times
of day/night when it isn't too bad? So far I've had 4 days of
continuous slow speeds at all times of day. Also, I thought weekends
were supposed to be busier and so more congested, yet all last weekend
I had great speeds.

Looks like migration for me too, and Zen is also the favourite for me
at the moment.

Kit

Kit wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Grumps
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Kit" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:260320072235580641%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > First of all, let me say I have little or no knowledge
>> > of how ADSL works so please be patient if my questions
>> > seem a little naive.
>> >
>> > I'm on MaxDSL with Nildram.
>> <snip sad story of Nildram going slow>
>>
>> Me too (see post: BT's speedtester)!
>>
>> I have the same issues that I'm also talking to
>> Nildram/Pipex about. BT speedtests check out
>> consistently good, but any traffic going through the
>> rest of the network (Nildram's bit) looks like it's
>> being congested. <snip> Responses to emails have been
>> fast (often the same day), and I can't otherwise fault
>> the service. But I assume the only way to get my daytime
>> speed back is a migration; Zen is favourite.
>
> I agree with all that. Nildram's responses to my emails
> have bee rapid.
>
> Last weekend I had great speeds but I'm now on my fourth
> day of slowdown. If done all the test, jumped through all
> the hoops and the response from Nildram is always that it
> is exchange congestion so they can't do anything about
> it. However, it seems that my exchange, listed as
> 'green' has spare capacity.
>
> Anyway, if it was exchange congestion, surely there would
> be some times of day/night when it isn't too bad? So far
> I've had 4 days of continuous slow speeds at all times of
> day. Also, I thought weekends were supposed to be busier
> and so more congested, yet all last weekend I had great
> speeds.
>
> Looks like migration for me too, and Zen is also the
> favourite for me at the moment.
>
> Kit

Have you tried running a ping trace to see where the choke points
are, very useful for proving to the ISP it is the problem. You may
have to do it a few times but at least you've proved the problem to
their network.

If there is, unreported, congestion at your local exchange moving ISP
won't solve the problem, but then again you may be part way out of the
door anyway.

In article <eug84s$2uh$(E-Mail Removed)>, kraftee
<Kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

> Have you tried running a ping trace to see where the choke points
> are, very useful for proving to the ISP it is the problem. You may
> have to do it a few times but at least you've proved the problem to
> their network.

Okay, this may seem like a stupid question but where do you suggest I
'ping' and trace to? Nildram suggested 195.112.4.4 (which I think is
one of their servers) and I sent them the results but they didn't
comment on them.... Frankly I don't know how to interpret it.

--- 195.112.4.4 ping statistics ---
50 packets transmitted, 50 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 57.723/59.171/64.936 ms

traceroute to 195.112.4.4 (195.112.4.4), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 4.275 ms 2.031 ms 1.24 ms
2 l1.ar20.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (195.112.5.29) 58.984 ms 58.401 ms
59.32 ms
3 ge-1-0-1-0.cr02.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (84.12.224.29) 58.758 ms 61.192
ms 57.238 ms
4 pc9.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.13) 57.671 ms 58.514 ms
58.055 ms
5 ge-0-2-0-0.cr09.tn7.dsl.pipex.net (62.72.141.38) 56.817 ms 57.346
ms 57.391 ms
6 lon1-1.nildram.net (195.149.20.110) 57.886 ms 58.066 ms 56.798 ms
7 radius.nildram.co.uk (195.112.4.4) 60.88 ms 59.181 ms 59.632 ms


Here is a trace to speedtest.net
Maybe this is more helpful?

traceroute to speedtest.net (69.17.117.207), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 2.208 ms 4.821 ms 15.755 ms
2 l1.ar20.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (195.112.5.29) 60.725 ms 60.731 ms
61.531 ms
3 ge-1-0-3.cr01.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (62.241.161.18) 61.736 ms 58.294
ms 61.811 ms
4 ae0-0.cr02.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (62.241.161.210) 68.494 ms 59.593 ms
56.009 ms
5 pc9.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.13) 59 ms 57.169 ms 56.846
ms
6 902.g9-2.mpr2.lhr1.uk.above.net (209.249.203.137) 102.453 ms
55.972 ms 58.389 ms
7 so-4-0-0.cr1.dca2.us.above.net (64.125.27.57) 134.742 ms 132.09
ms 130.93 ms
8 so-5-1-0.cr2.ord2.us.above.net (64.125.30.226) 154.879 ms 156.096
ms 155.002 ms
9 so-3-0-0.cr2.sea1.us.above.net (64.125.30.221) 206.263 ms 204.367
ms 235.18 ms
10 209.249.11.189.available.above.net (209.249.11.189) 215.594 ms
215.69 ms 215.473 ms
11 151.ge-1-3-0.sr1.sea5.speakeasy.net (69.17.82.50) 206.185 ms
203.911 ms 205.039 ms
12 * * *
13 * * *

> If there is, unreported, congestion at your local exchange moving ISP
> won't solve the problem, but then again you may be part way out of the
> door anyway.

I'm certainly poking my head out of the door and seeing what the
weather is like outside!
:-)

Kit

Kit wrote:
> Here is a trace to speedtest.net
> Maybe this is more helpful?
>
> traceroute to speedtest.net (69.17.117.207), 30 hops max,
> 40 byte packets
> 1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 2.208 ms 4.821 ms 15.755 ms
> 2 l1.ar20.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (195.112.5.29) 60.725 ms
> 60.731 ms
> 61.531 ms
> 3 ge-1-0-3.cr01.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (62.241.161.18)
> 61.736 ms 58.294 ms 61.811 ms
> 4 ae0-0.cr02.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (62.241.161.210) 68.494
> ms 59.593 ms
> 56.009 ms
> 5 pc9.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.13) 59 ms
> 57.169 ms 56.846 ms
> 6 902.g9-2.mpr2.lhr1.uk.above.net (209.249.203.137)
> 102.453 ms
> 55.972 ms 58.389 ms
> 7 so-4-0-0.cr1.dca2.us.above.net (64.125.27.57) 134.742
> ms 132.09 ms 130.93 ms
> 8 so-5-1-0.cr2.ord2.us.above.net (64.125.30.226)
> 154.879 ms 156.096 ms 155.002 ms
> 9 so-3-0-0.cr2.sea1.us.above.net (64.125.30.221)
> 206.263 ms 204.367 ms 235.18 ms
> 10 209.249.11.189.available.above.net (209.249.11.189)
> 215.594 ms 215.69 ms 215.473 ms
> 11 151.ge-1-3-0.sr1.sea5.speakeasy.net (69.17.82.50)
> 206.185 ms 203.911 ms 205.039 ms
> 12 * * *
> 13 * * *
>
>> If there is, unreported, congestion at your local
>> exchange moving ISP won't solve the problem, but then
>> again you may be part way out of the door anyway.
>
> I'm certainly poking my head out of the door and seeing
> what the weather is like outside!
> :-)

To my eye everything appears to be going to pot after it's left Pipex
(59ms responce) i.e from hop 5 onwards. I would interpretate those
readings as a Pipex not having a large enough 'backhaul' pipe & so
causing contention issues not between your exchange & Pipex but from
Pipex onwards.

I'm sure others will shoot me down, but that's my interpretation
anyway...

Mind you it may be beneficial for you to use a localized speed test
instead of going all the way to Seattle, USA, hitting all the
congestion/network problems along the way

In article <euget7$h18$(E-Mail Removed)>, kraftee
<Kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

> Mind you it may be beneficial for you to use a localized speed test
> instead of going all the way to Seattle, USA, hitting all the
> congestion/network problems along the way

Is thinkbroadband in the UK?

traceroute to www.thinkbroadband.com (80.249.99.130), 30 hops max, 40
byte packets
1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 3.059 ms 1.54 ms 1.238 ms
2 l1.ar20.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (195.112.5.29) 56.669 ms 56.305 ms
58.089 ms
3 ge-1-0-1-0.cr02.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (84.12.224.29) 58.516 ms 55.903
ms 55.777 ms
4 pc9.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.13) 57.719 ms 56.533 ms
57.991 ms
5 v3953.cr05.hx2.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.30) 76.218 ms
v3952.cr05.hx2.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.10) 57.073 ms 62.008 ms
6 lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net (193.203.5.142) 138.049 ms 293.97 ms
284.231 ms
7 gi0-1-20-star2.core-rs2.thdo.ncuk.net (80.249.97.69) 58.231 ms
58.404 ms 57.397 ms
8 * * *
9 * * *

How about www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk?

traceroute to www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk (195.7.224.2), 30 hops max, 40
byte packets
1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 2.777 ms 1.414 ms 1.211 ms
2 l1.ar20.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (195.112.5.29) 76.823 ms 58.575 ms
57.587 ms
3 ge-1-0-1-0.cr02.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (84.12.224.29) 56.661 ms 79.471
ms 55.932 ms
4 pc9.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.13) 57.29 ms 56.917 ms
57.495 ms
5 linx-gw1.plus.net (195.66.224.164) 57.101 ms 56.174 ms 58.356 ms
6 ge1-0-0-23.ptn-gw1.plus.net (212.159.4.17) 58.207 ms 56.583 ms
58.239 ms
7 thn1-gi0-2.namesco.net (212.159.2.10) 59.85 ms 57.616 ms 57.649
ms
8 thm1-gi0-1.namesco.net (195.7.224.245) 60.056 ms 57.136 ms
60.387 ms
9 speedtest.namesco.net (195.7.224.2) 59.044 ms 58.318 ms 58.895 ms

Regardless of whether the above are 'good' or 'bad', I'm still getting
speeds around 1 Mbps on those testers even though my line seems OK.

Operational data report : near end (Downstream)
-----------------------------------------------
Attainable line rate : 8128 kbit/sec
Attainable Atm rate : 7136 kbit/sec
Used line rate : 7476 kbit/sec
Fast used Atm rate : 0 kbit/sec
Interleaved used Atm rate : 6560 kbits/sec
Rel. capacity occupation : 92
Noise Margin : 13 dB
Line attenuation : 22 dB
Output Power : 19 dBm


Kit

Kit wrote:
> In article <euget7$h18$(E-Mail Removed)>, kraftee
> <Kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mind you it may be beneficial for you to use a localized
>> speed test instead of going all the way to Seattle, USA,
>> hitting all the congestion/network problems along the way
>
> Is thinkbroadband in the UK?
>
> traceroute to www.thinkbroadband.com (80.249.99.130), 30
> hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 3.059 ms 1.54 ms 1.238 ms
> 2 l1.ar20.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (195.112.5.29) 56.669 ms
> 56.305 ms
> 58.089 ms
> 3 ge-1-0-1-0.cr02.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (84.12.224.29)
> 58.516 ms 55.903 ms 55.777 ms
> 4 pc9.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.13) 57.719 ms
> 56.533 ms
> 57.991 ms
> 5 v3953.cr05.hx2.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.30) 76.218 ms
> v3952.cr05.hx2.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.10) 57.073 ms
> 62.008 ms 6 lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net (193.203.5.142)
> 138.049 ms 293.97 ms 284.231 ms
> 7 gi0-1-20-star2.core-rs2.thdo.ncuk.net (80.249.97.69)
> 58.231 ms
> 58.404 ms 57.397 ms
> 8 * * *
> 9 * * *
>
> How about www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk?

Your formating doesn't make for easy reading but never the less look
at the timing at hop 6 on this one...
>
> traceroute to www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk (195.7.224.2), 30
> hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 2.777 ms 1.414 ms 1.211 ms
> 2 l1.ar20.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (195.112.5.29) 76.823 ms
> 58.575 ms
> 57.587 ms
> 3 ge-1-0-1-0.cr02.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (84.12.224.29)
> 56.661 ms 79.471 ms 55.932 ms
> 4 pc9.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.13) 57.29 ms
> 56.917 ms
> 57.495 ms
> 5 linx-gw1.plus.net (195.66.224.164) 57.101 ms 56.174
> ms 58.356 ms 6 ge1-0-0-23.ptn-gw1.plus.net
> (212.159.4.17) 58.207 ms 56.583 ms
> 58.239 ms
> 7 thn1-gi0-2.namesco.net (212.159.2.10) 59.85 ms
> 57.616 ms 57.649 ms
> 8 thm1-gi0-1.namesco.net (195.7.224.245) 60.056 ms
> 57.136 ms
> 60.387 ms
> 9 speedtest.namesco.net (195.7.224.2) 59.044 ms 58.318
> ms 58.895 ms
>
> Regardless of whether the above are 'good' or 'bad', I'm
> still getting speeds around 1 Mbps on those testers even
> though my line seems OK.
>

Now this one doesn't appear to have any problems, even when it hits
the infamous Plusnet network

> Operational data report : near end (Downstream)
> -----------------------------------------------
> Attainable line rate : 8128 kbit/sec
> Attainable Atm rate : 7136 kbit/sec
> Used line rate : 7476 kbit/sec
> Fast used Atm rate : 0 kbit/sec
> Interleaved used Atm rate : 6560 kbits/sec
> Rel. capacity occupation : 92
> Noise Margin : 13 dB
> Line attenuation : 22 dB
> Output Power : 19 dBm

If those figures are accurate (many routers are anything but) there is
no reason for your connection to be as slow as you say. You have done
a complete anti virus & anti malware scan haven't you, to ensure that
you aren't having bandwidth stolen by something on your PC

Thanks for taking the time to go through this with me.

In article <eugle8$3gc$(E-Mail Removed)>, kraftee
<Kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

> Your formating doesn't make for easy reading but never the less look
> at the timing at hop 6 on this one...

Apologies for the format... it looked ok when I copied and pasted it
but the newsreader seems to have wrapped the lines strangely.

Is this the hop 6 you mean?
> > 6 lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net (193.203.5.142)
> > 138.049 ms 293.97 ms 284.231 ms

So it seems to be a problem between the pipex server att hop 5 and
lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net?

> > traceroute to www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk (195.7.224.2), 30
> > hops max, 40 byte packets
> > 1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 2.777 ms 1.414 ms 1.211 ms
> > 2 l1.ar20.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (195.112.5.29) 76.823 ms
> > 58.575 ms
> > 57.587 ms
> > 3 ge-1-0-1-0.cr02.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (84.12.224.29)
> > 56.661 ms 79.471 ms 55.932 ms
> > 4 pc9.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.13) 57.29 ms
> > 56.917 ms
> > 57.495 ms
> > 5 linx-gw1.plus.net (195.66.224.164) 57.101 ms 56.174
> > ms 58.356 ms 6 ge1-0-0-23.ptn-gw1.plus.net
> > (212.159.4.17) 58.207 ms 56.583 ms
> > 58.239 ms
> > 7 thn1-gi0-2.namesco.net (212.159.2.10) 59.85 ms
> > 57.616 ms 57.649 ms
> > 8 thm1-gi0-1.namesco.net (195.7.224.245) 60.056 ms
> > 57.136 ms
> > 60.387 ms
> > 9 speedtest.namesco.net (195.7.224.2) 59.044 ms 58.318
> > ms 58.895 ms

> Now this one doesn't appear to have any problems, even when it hits
> the infamous Plusnet network

Yet this, 4 of the 5 speedtesters I use has been giving me mostly
about 1 Mbps since Monday morning (BT, the fifth tester, has been
giving me about 4 Mbps. e.g.

BT
29/03/07 16:33
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 4041 kbps

www.kbps.co.uk
29/03/07 16:34
1.37 Mbps (Download)

bbmax
29/03/07 16:35
Download Speed: 1557 kbps (194.6 KB/sec transfer rate)

speedtest.net
29/03/07 16:36
1529 kbps

Thinkbroadband speedtester
29/03/07 16:39:11
Speed Down 985.77 Kbps ( 1 Mbps )


The whole of last weekend, though, I had speeds over 4 Mbps on all, the
BT tester giving almost 6 Mbps. e.g.

BT
26/03/07 08:55
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 5926 kbps

www.kbps.co.uk
26/03/07 08:56
3.54 Mbps (Download)

bbmax
26/03/07 08:57
Download Speed: 5922 kbps (740.3 KB/sec transfer rate)

speedtest.net
26/03/07 08:58
4706 kbps

Thinkbroadband speedtester
26/03/07 08:59:57
Speed Down 5199.25 Kbps ( 5.1 Mbps )

Something seemed to happen between 9 am and 11 am on Monday.

> > Operational data report : near end (Downstream)
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > Attainable line rate : 8128 kbit/sec
> > Attainable Atm rate : 7136 kbit/sec
> > Used line rate : 7476 kbit/sec
> > Fast used Atm rate : 0 kbit/sec
> > Interleaved used Atm rate : 6560 kbits/sec
> > Rel. capacity occupation : 92
> > Noise Margin : 13 dB
> > Line attenuation : 22 dB
> > Output Power : 19 dBm
>
> If those figures are accurate (many routers are anything but) there is
> no reason for your connection to be as slow as you say.

The BT tester also says:-
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 6560 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)

Which seems to agree with what the router says...

> You have done
> a complete anti virus & anti malware scan haven't you, to ensure that
> you aren't having bandwidth stolen by something on your PC

Not wishing to seem smug, but I'm using an Apple Mac with OSX 10.3.9.
AIUI there are no viruses or malware in the 'wild' that can affect my
computer.

Thanks again,

Kit

Kit wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to go through this with me.
>
> In article <eugle8$3gc$(E-Mail Removed)>, kraftee
> <Kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Your formating doesn't make for easy reading but never
>> the less look at the timing at hop 6 on this one...
>
> Apologies for the format... it looked ok when I copied
> and pasted it but the newsreader seems to have wrapped
> the lines strangely.
>
> Is this the hop 6 you mean?
>> > 6 lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net (193.203.5.142)
>> > 138.049 ms 293.97 ms 284.231 ms
>
> So it seems to be a problem between the pipex server att
> hop 5 and lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net?
>
>> > traceroute to www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk (195.7.224.2),
>> > 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
>> > 1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 2.777 ms 1.414 ms 1.211
>> > ms 2 l1.ar20.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (195.112.5.29) 76.823
>> > ms
>> > 58.575 ms
>> > 57.587 ms
>> > 3 ge-1-0-1-0.cr02.gs1.dsl.pipex.net (84.12.224.29)
>> > 56.661 ms 79.471 ms 55.932 ms
>> > 4 pc9.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.13) 57.29 ms
>> > 56.917 ms
>> > 57.495 ms
>> > 5 linx-gw1.plus.net (195.66.224.164) 57.101 ms
>> > 56.174 ms 58.356 ms 6 ge1-0-0-23.ptn-gw1.plus.net
>> > (212.159.4.17) 58.207 ms 56.583 ms
>> > 58.239 ms
>> > 7 thn1-gi0-2.namesco.net (212.159.2.10) 59.85 ms
>> > 57.616 ms 57.649 ms
>> > 8 thm1-gi0-1.namesco.net (195.7.224.245) 60.056 ms
>> > 57.136 ms
>> > 60.387 ms
>> > 9 speedtest.namesco.net (195.7.224.2) 59.044 ms
>> > 58.318 ms 58.895 ms
>
>> Now this one doesn't appear to have any problems, even
>> when it hits the infamous Plusnet network
>
> Yet this, 4 of the 5 speedtesters I use has been
> giving me mostly about 1 Mbps since Monday morning (BT,
> the fifth tester, has been giving me about 4 Mbps. e.g.
>
> BT
> 29/03/07 16:33
> Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 4041
> kbps
>
> www.kbps.co.uk
> 29/03/07 16:34
> 1.37 Mbps (Download)
>
> bbmax
> 29/03/07 16:35
> Download Speed: 1557 kbps (194.6 KB/sec transfer rate)
>
> speedtest.net
> 29/03/07 16:36
> 1529 kbps
>
> Thinkbroadband speedtester
> 29/03/07 16:39:11
> Speed Down 985.77 Kbps ( 1 Mbps )
>
>
> The whole of last weekend, though, I had speeds over 4
> Mbps on all, the BT tester giving almost 6 Mbps. e.g.
>
> BT
> 26/03/07 08:55
> Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 5926
> kbps
>
> www.kbps.co.uk
> 26/03/07 08:56
> 3.54 Mbps (Download)
>
> bbmax
> 26/03/07 08:57
> Download Speed: 5922 kbps (740.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
>
> speedtest.net
> 26/03/07 08:58
> 4706 kbps
>
> Thinkbroadband speedtester
> 26/03/07 08:59:57
> Speed Down 5199.25 Kbps ( 5.1 Mbps )
>
> Something seemed to happen between 9 am and 11 am on
> Monday.
>
>> > Operational data report : near end (Downstream)
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> > Attainable line rate : 8128 kbit/sec
>> > Attainable Atm rate : 7136 kbit/sec
>> > Used line rate : 7476 kbit/sec
>> > Fast used Atm rate : 0 kbit/sec
>> > Interleaved used Atm rate : 6560 kbits/sec
>> > Rel. capacity occupation : 92
>> > Noise Margin : 13 dB
>> > Line attenuation : 22 dB
>> > Output Power : 19 dBm
>>
>> If those figures are accurate (many routers are anything
>> but) there is no reason for your connection to be as
>> slow as you say.
>
> The BT tester also says:-
> DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 6560
> kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
>
> Which seems to agree with what the router says...
>
>> You have done
>> a complete anti virus & anti malware scan haven't you,
>> to ensure that you aren't having bandwidth stolen by
>> something on your PC
>
> Not wishing to seem smug, but I'm using an Apple Mac with
> OSX 10.3.9. AIUI there are no viruses or malware in the
> 'wild' that can affect my computer.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Kit

Don't be to sure about that, there are a lot less but there are some
out there. It's always good to do a 'spring clean' anyway.

Right back to the subject at hand, did you have any type of
interruption of your service on Monday, or a series of interruptions
as this would cause a temporary dip in synch (& thru put) speeds
(which could last anything up to a week but should be automatically
sorted within 3 days). Other than that it's the jump on your ISP time
& hopefully they will do something about it, other than sending a DSL
trained Openreach engineer out to you. Which has made me think, your
actual telephone service is ok, isn't it, but then again looking at
the test figures it should be.