NTL newbie

Hi,

just got my new NTL able link up and running.

I subscribed to the '3 for £30' offer.

I have 1Mb Broadband.
So far, so good.

Adslguide speedtest shows:

Direction Actual Speed True Speed (estimated)

Downstream 956 Kbps (119.5 KB/sec) 1032 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Upstream 86 Kbps (10.8 KB/sec) 92 Kbps (inc. overheads)

err.....

Downstream looks fine, but 92 Kbps upstream??????

Am I having a bad day or is this common for NTL broadband?

TIA
Dave R

On 05 Sep 2005 22:11, "David W.E. Roberts" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Downstream 956 Kbps (119.5 KB/sec) 1032 Kbps (inc. overheads)
>Upstream 86 Kbps (10.8 KB/sec) 92 Kbps (inc. overheads)

>Downstream looks fine, but 92 Kbps upstream??????
>
>Am I having a bad day or is this common for NTL broadband?

Probably common... I believe the service is meant to be fine for d/l
but anyway, you only need to send the odd mail and web page request,
or short newsgroup posting, so it won't matter if u/l is a bit slow.

--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!!

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:11:09 +0100, "David W.E. Roberts"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Downstream looks fine, but 92 Kbps upstream??????

sounds about right, is the service 1M down / 128k up ?

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali

AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:55:33 +0100, Phil Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:11:09 +0100, "David W.E. Roberts"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>Downstream looks fine, but 92 Kbps upstream??????
>
>sounds about right, is the service 1M down / 128k up ?
>
>Phil

That's my understanding of the service. NTL Broadband is bit useless really
for those into sharing pictures or maintaining a web sites.

David Bradley

On 06 Sep 2005 11:57, David Bradley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 06 Sep 2005 08:55, Phil Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>sounds about right, is the service 1M down / 128k up ?

>That's my understanding of the service. NTL Broadband is bit useless really
>for those into sharing pictures or maintaining a web sites.

It might be "useless" (or just sluggish!) for those sharing several GB or just
hundreds of MB of material, but not for maintaining web sites or similar uses!
What the heck do you think we did when 64k on an ISDN connection was widely in
use (and 128k was an expensive option, which only came cheaper in the past 2-3
years when many had switched to ADSL/cable services) ? We weren't using peer-
to-peer to share DVDs or whole CDs or other copyright material, for sure, such
traffic was way down in priorities and I doubt many would have HH just for it.

One website I put up had over 40,000 pages, and uploading was done with just a
few ZIP files, then unpacked on the server... easy when one uses a connection
(even a slow one) a lot more efficiently than today :-) Peter M.

--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!!

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 11:57:12 +0100, David Bradley
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>That's my understanding of the service. NTL Broadband is bit useless really
>for those into sharing pictures or maintaining a web sites.

doesn't seem to inhibit the output of certain tossers though, perhaps
they should reduce it to 64k.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster
No more cable clowns :-))

On 05 Sep 2005 22:50, I quoted an NTL user who wrote:

>>Downstream 956 Kbps (119.5 KB/sec) 1032 Kbps (inc. overheads)
>>Upstream 86 Kbps (10.8 KB/sec) 92 Kbps (inc. overheads)

I should have added... what's the cost of this service ? I'm on the
Plus.Net Broadband Plus account (at 14.99 but can get cheaper :-))

<http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedchart.asp?id=9842e4bc1061ba7b6ad97119c9d>

Downstream 1790 Kbps (223.8 KB/sec) 1933 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Upstream 240 Kbps (30.0 KB/sec) 259 Kbps (inc. overheads)

(not the fastest downstream figure I've seen - probably another PC was using
a bit of the bandwidth for a real audio stream off WRN or BBC)... Peter.

--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!!

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:21:48 +0100, poster wrote:

> On 06 Sep 2005 11:57, David Bradley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On 06 Sep 2005 08:55, Phil Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>sounds about right, is the service 1M down / 128k up ?
>
>>That's my understanding of the service. NTL Broadband is bit useless really
>>for those into sharing pictures or maintaining a web sites.
>
> It might be "useless" (or just sluggish!) for those sharing several GB or just
> hundreds of MB of material, but not for maintaining web sites or similar uses!
<snip>>
> One website I put up had over 40,000 pages, and uploading was done with just a
> few ZIP files, then unpacked on the server... easy when one uses a connection
> (even a slow one) a lot more efficiently than today :-) Peter M.

I think the previous poster was referring to the ability to run a website
on your own PC and have others access it over Broadband.

ADSL is usually 256k upstream, which seems pretty reasonable for a small
website.

128k (well, 96k according to the tests) may be a little slow if you have
pretty pictures on your site.

So it isn't sending file to a web server that concerns me, but acting as a
web server.

I was also hoping to VPN to another location; this could be a little slow.

Cheers
Dave R

On 06 Sep 2005 13:23, "David W.E. Roberts" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>So it isn't sending file to a web server that concerns me, but acting as a
>web server.

Well, the speed is probably deliberately capped for cable (where it could be
higher, I assume, compared with the restrictions on copper and therefore BTs
service), to reduce the likelihood of running a web server from home. It is
relatively cheap to have hosting elsewhere, (eg $30 a year can give 1 GB web
space and 10 GB/month traffic with "unlimited" domain hosting, so trying the
same from home (without the extras that a hosting firm offers, eg easy setup
scripts, multiple MySQL databases, and above all, only needing to upload the
site if their end gets hacked, rather than letting down your guard for users
of your site to attempt to hack a home/office PC... all seems a "no brainer"
to me to use a hosting firm, for speed and security. Peter M.

--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!!

"David W.E. Roberts" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:21:48 +0100, poster wrote:
> ADSL is usually 256k upstream, which seems pretty reasonable for a small
> website.
>
> 128k (well, 96k according to the tests) may be a little slow if you have
> pretty pictures on your site.
>
> So it isn't sending file to a web server that concerns me, but acting as a
> web server.
>
> I was also hoping to VPN to another location; this could be a little slow.

You are in fact incorrect with regards to NTL's speeds.....

1mb has 1mb down, 100k up.

2mb service has 2mb down, 200 up, and 3mb has 3mb down, 300k up.