Disparity in available speeds

Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards changing
ISP.

Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC, where
available, gives 3Mb/s.
As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as if the
PC route is nearer the truth.

Has anybody else noticed this?
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:22:08 +0100, Plusnet Support Team wrote:

> PeterC wrote:
>> Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards changing
>> ISP.
>>
>> Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC, where
>> available, gives 3Mb/s.
>> As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as if the
>> PC route is nearer the truth.
>>
>> Has anybody else noticed this?
>
> Yes, my phone number tells me 5Mbps whereas my postal code tells me 4Mbps.
>
> From here - http://users.plus.net/QL:4CDD6313

That's a better checker Bob, thank you. It gives both figures - first one
that I've seen.
>
> "Please note that the postcode checker is less accurate than the
> telephone number checker because it uses a best guess of where you live
> based on the centre point of the postcode area entered. BT's ability to
> provide Broadband to your address will depend on the availability of
> Broadband ADSL at your serving exchange and other factors including the
> length of the line connecting you to that exchange.
>
> Several postcode areas extend over more than one telephone exchange
> area, therefore the checker data will only be correct if it has
> correctly assumed which telephone exchange provides service to your address.
>
> In addition, the postcode checker may not give an accurate estimate of
> the routing of the telephone cable that is connected to your address,
> therefore the result given by the postcode checker must be treated with
> caution.
>
> The postcode checker will provide a result that is between 80% and 90%
> accurate."
>
> Incidentally it's the post code checker that gives me the closest
> reading to what I'm actually receiving.

Same here, although I suspect that Tiscali/TT limit it. Out here there's
only the 1 exchange for the area as density of premises is low so several
villages are covered.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

"Plusnet Support Team" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
>
> PeterC wrote:
>> Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards changing
>> ISP.
>>
>> Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC, where
>> available, gives 3Mb/s.
>> As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as if
>> the
>> PC route is nearer the truth.
>>
>> Has anybody else noticed this?
>
> Yes, my phone number tells me 5Mbps whereas my postal code tells me 4Mbps.

Ah! PC = Postcode I confess I didn't understand the question at first sight.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:34:06 +0100, Graham. wrote:

> "Plusnet Support Team" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
>>
>> PeterC wrote:
>>> Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards changing
>>> ISP.
>>>
>>> Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC, where
>>> available, gives 3Mb/s.
>>> As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as if
>>> the
>>> PC route is nearer the truth.
>>>
>>> Has anybody else noticed this?
>>
>> Yes, my phone number tells me 5Mbps whereas my postal code tells me 4Mbps.
>
> Ah! PC = Postcode I confess I didn't understand the question at first sight.

Sorry - it is ambiguous in any computer-related group.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterC
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards changing
>ISP.
>
>Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC, where
>available, gives 3Mb/s.
>As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as if the
>PC route is nearer the truth.
>
>Has anybody else noticed this?

No matter whether I check by phone number, postcode or address, it
always tells me I should be able to get up to 512k, but may need an
engineer visit. Yet, I already get between 1.5 - 1.8mb.

So, I'm not really sure if it's worth the hassle of trying to change, if
there's not going to be any noticeable improvement, I may as well leave
it as it is.
--
Sean Black

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 12:19:01 +0100, Sean Black wrote:

> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterC
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards changing
>>ISP.
>>
>>Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC, where
>>available, gives 3Mb/s.
>>As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as if the
>>PC route is nearer the truth.
>>
>>Has anybody else noticed this?
>
> No matter whether I check by phone number, postcode or address, it
> always tells me I should be able to get up to 512k, but may need an
> engineer visit. Yet, I already get between 1.5 - 1.8mb.
>
> So, I'm not really sure if it's worth the hassle of trying to change, if
> there's not going to be any noticeable improvement, I may as well leave
> it as it is.

More worryingly, if you do change you might find that the new ISP's checker
was accurate!
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

"Sean Black" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:YF$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterC
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards changing
>>ISP.
>>
>>Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC, where
>>available, gives 3Mb/s.
>>As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as if
>>the
>>PC route is nearer the truth.
>>
>>Has anybody else noticed this?
>
> No matter whether I check by phone number, postcode or address, it always
> tells me I should be able to get up to 512k, but may need an engineer
> visit. Yet, I already get between 1.5 - 1.8mb.
>
> So, I'm not really sure if it's worth the hassle of trying to change, if
> there's not going to be any noticeable improvement, I may as well leave it
> as it is.

Have a check with this tool:
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/max_speed_calc.php
You'll first need to check your router stats to see what your downstream
attenuation is, as you need to enter that in the first box.
Then just press the "calculate" button.
It will at least point you to roughly what you should be getting.
If you're getting appreciably less than the indicated max speed, you may
well have a dodgy BT line. From experience, I can advise that this may take
a long time to resolve, as your ISP will have to call out BT Openreach.
This is apparently a very difficult thing for them to do without your having
an obvious fault on the line, such as crackling, faint voice transmission,
etc.

Best of luck,

George

In message <14oua2syu836f.ywkbuwhbr083$.(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterC
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 12:19:01 +0100, Sean Black wrote:
>
>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterC
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards changing
>>>ISP.
>>>
>>>Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC, where
>>>available, gives 3Mb/s.
>>>As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as if the
>>>PC route is nearer the truth.
>>>
>>>Has anybody else noticed this?
>>
>> No matter whether I check by phone number, postcode or address, it
>> always tells me I should be able to get up to 512k, but may need an
>> engineer visit. Yet, I already get between 1.5 - 1.8mb.
>>
>> So, I'm not really sure if it's worth the hassle of trying to change, if
>> there's not going to be any noticeable improvement, I may as well leave
>> it as it is.
>
>More worryingly, if you do change you might find that the new ISP's checker
>was accurate!

Yes, that thought did cross my mind too, although what I've got isn't
blindingly fast it's certainly better than 512k

I think I'll leave well alone, unless Pipex (or whatever they call
themselves lately) go downhill. I know a lot of people complain about
them, but to be honest, I've not had any problems with them and for
£3.91 per month, up to 30gb download (after telling them I wanted to
change to Sky), it's not too bad.
--
Sean Black

Sean Black wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterC
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards changing
>> ISP.
>>
>> Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC, where
>> available, gives 3Mb/s.
>> As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as
>> if the
>> PC route is nearer the truth.
>>
>> Has anybody else noticed this?
>
> No matter whether I check by phone number, postcode or address, it
> always tells me I should be able to get up to 512k, but may need an
> engineer visit. Yet, I already get between 1.5 - 1.8mb.
>
> So, I'm not really sure if it's worth the hassle of trying to change, if
> there's not going to be any noticeable improvement, I may as well leave
> it as it is.

Its hardly likely the speed will change in reality depending on how you
guesstimate what it will actually be..

I cant see what you hope to achieve here. Since the line and the router
and the DSLAM together determine the speed, nothing will change if you
change ISP, unless they LLU with a better DSLAM, or your existing ISP
has smashed your bandwidth to save them money.

Plusnet Support Team wrote:
>
> George Weston wrote:
>> "Sean Black" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:YF$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterC
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>> Just looking through ISPs' sites as I'm twitching a bit towards
>>>> changing
>>>> ISP.
>>>>
>>>> Checking via tel. no. always seems to give 1Mb/s; checking via PC,
>>>> where
>>>> available, gives 3Mb/s.
>>>> As the current connection is 2.1Mb/s and I have has 3.1, it looks as if
>>>> the
>>>> PC route is nearer the truth.
>>>>
>>>> Has anybody else noticed this?
>>> No matter whether I check by phone number, postcode or address, it
>>> always
>>> tells me I should be able to get up to 512k, but may need an engineer
>>> visit. Yet, I already get between 1.5 - 1.8mb.
>>>
>>> So, I'm not really sure if it's worth the hassle of trying to change, if
>>> there's not going to be any noticeable improvement, I may as well
>>> leave it
>>> as it is.
>>
>> Have a check with this tool:
>> http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/max_speed_calc.php
>> You'll first need to check your router stats to see what your downstream
>> attenuation is, as you need to enter that in the first box.
>> Then just press the "calculate" button.
>> It will at least point you to roughly what you should be getting.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> As I think I've mentioned before George, this tool doesn't take into
> account your target SNR.
>

which it clearly states.

"Rate adaptive DSL also makes use of any spare SNR Margin therefore the
higher your SNR Margin, then the better your speeds will be.
The calculator is based on a default Target SNR of 6dB. Each 3dB of SNR
is worth anywhere between 400 to 1200kbps of speed depending upon your
bit loading. Therefore if you have a higher/lower target SNR set on the
DSLAM then this will affect your maximum speed."

> After entering my downstream attenuation, I am told:
>
> DSL Max: 7424kbps
> IP Profile: 6500kbps
>
> That's a far cry from reality (my target SNR is 15db):
>

Correcting by the factor of 9dB, (between 1200 and 3600 bps)
gives the estimate of between 3824 and 6204, with a mean of 5014

which is VERY consistent with

> DSL Max 4448kbps
> IP Profile: 3500kbps
>


>> If you're getting appreciably less than the indicated max speed, you may
>> well have a dodgy BT line. From experience, I can advise that this may
>> take
>> a long time to resolve, as your ISP will have to call out BT Openreach.
>> This is apparently a very difficult thing for them to do without your
>> having
>> an obvious fault on the line, such as crackling, faint voice
>> transmission,
>> etc.
>
> I'll take a look at your open ticket now for you.
>
>> Best of luck,
>>
>> George
>