Virgin media - my 10mbit/sec line is slower these days

Humph. Following a recent problem with my Virgin Media (ex-Telewest/ntl)
broadband connection, I'm noticing that various speed test pages on the
web report pretty poor speeds now.
Here's a typical result:

http://www.kbps.co.uk/SpeedCheck_rep...1175114550_487

I tried these pages before the switch over to Virgin and got reasonable
speeds...

Virgin Support say that I shouldn't trust these speed check pages, and
the best way to check is to download two files simultaneously from one
of their download pages (e.g.
http://gamefiles.virginmedia.com/blu...42/demo/win32/)
and sum the total speed. That does show the correct speed (about 1
megabyte per sec), but this is on their network/infrastructure, so
surely not a good test?

Here's details of the recent problems I had, written up just after it
was fixed, FYI...

----8<----

1) My Scientific Atlanta WebStar DPX100 modem wasn't maintaining a
connection (the 'cable' light was flashing - should be solid) -
technician came out today, looked at modem, said "There's a 10dB
attenuator on the end of the cable there - at one time your signal was
too strong, but it isn't any more, so we'll remove that and it should
work". So he did remove the little plug on the end, reconnected the
cable, and it worked in as much as I got a connection of sorts back.

2) Noticed later on today that the speed of my connection was pants -
about 0.5mb/s. I'm on a 10mb/s deal so that's rubbish. So phoned
support, they asked me what the modem web page said - turns out the
downstream frequency, which should be 331000000 Hz, was something like
331250000. He immediately recognised this as a problem, saying that "For
some reason, each of those makes of modems at one time in its life loses
the correct frequency." To fix, I had to go to the URL
http://192.168.100.1/gscan.htm (not linked to anywhere from in the
regular pages for the modem!) and manually enter the correct frequency
and hit 'restart' button.

Now I have full speed again. The guy recommended testing the speed by
downloading two files simultaneously from the virgin game downloads
(e.g.
http://gamefiles.virginmedia.com/blu...2/demo/win32/),
and summing their speed. Doing this did indeed give me just about 1
megabyte a second, which is what it should be...

----8<----

"Alex Hunsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:460b8a16$0$760$(E-Mail Removed)...


> Virgin Support say that I shouldn't trust these speed check pages, and the
> best way to check is to download two files simultaneously from one of
> their download pages (e.g.
> http://gamefiles.virginmedia.com/blu...42/demo/win32/)
> and sum the total speed. That does show the correct speed (about 1
> megabyte per sec), but this is on their network/infrastructure, so surely
> not a good test?

There is more to being an ISP than having a local network that can support
the speeds you offer.
If they don't have enough bandwidth into the Internet things can get really
slow.
This bandwidth costs money so the less you use the more profit the ISP can
make.

So downloading from their servers is a good test of your local connectivity.
Downloading from other sites tests the speeds you can get from the real
Internet.

FWIW blueyonder had lots of Internet bandwidth per user and it was easy to
max out a link downloading from the USA and others.
Now they are NTL they don't appear to have as much capacity per user
available.

I usually get 1.6 Mbytes/sec downloading from M$ and places like that on
Sky.
I doubt if you will get that on Virgin ATM so its worth kicking up a fuss
and they may fix it if they can afford too.
Its not a technical problem just a finance issue.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:46:23 +0100, "dennis@home"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

get 1.6 Mbytes/sec downloading from M$ and places like that on
>Sky.
>I doubt if you will get that on Virgin ATM so its worth kicking up a fuss
>and they may fix it if they can afford too.
>Its not a technical problem just a finance issue.
>

I have to say, as I always do, I get what I pay for on Virgin. No
complaints whatsoever.

uknewsfan wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:46:23 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> get 1.6 Mbytes/sec downloading from M$ and places like that on
>> Sky.
>> I doubt if you will get that on Virgin ATM so its worth kicking up a fuss
>> and they may fix it if they can afford too.
>> Its not a technical problem just a finance issue.
>>
>
> I have to say, as I always do, I get what I pay for on Virgin. No
> complaints whatsoever.

What do you pay for? 2mb/sec?
lex

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:45:03 +0100, Alex Hunsley
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snip]
>of their download pages (e.g.
>http://gamefiles.virginmedia.com/blu...42/demo/win32/)
>and sum the total speed. That does show the correct speed (about 1
>megabyte per sec), but this is on their network/infrastructure, so
>surely not a good test?
[snip]

Just tried that .

Result was averaging 1270000 bytes/sec received over the download.
Location Chingford, London

Alex Hunsley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Virgin Support say that I shouldn't trust these speed check pages, and
> the best way to check is to download two files simultaneously from one
> of their download pages

If you run BitTorrent it's usually a good way of speed testing. Find
something from a popular tracker (such as a Linux CD from the original
distributor) and leave it to run for a while. The speed gradually creeps up
but often it saturates at your bandwidth limit.

It's a similar principle to downloading several files at once - it works
around bandwidth limits on the servers sending to you, and smoothes out gaps
caused by roundtrips - so it's more a test of local network and NTL's
Internet pipe... but it's rather more useful than pulling random files off
their servers.

Theo

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:45:47 +0100, Alex Hunsley
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>uknewsfan wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:46:23 +0100, "dennis@home"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> get 1.6 Mbytes/sec downloading from M$ and places like that on
>>> Sky.
>>> I doubt if you will get that on Virgin ATM so its worth kicking up a fuss
>>> and they may fix it if they can afford too.
>>> Its not a technical problem just a finance issue.
>>>
>>
>> I have to say, as I always do, I get what I pay for on Virgin. No
>> complaints whatsoever.
>
>What do you pay for? 2mb/sec?
>lex

no full package

heres the performance now

http://www.speedtest.net/result/106427496.png

Alex Hunsley wrote:

> Humph. Following a recent problem with my Virgin Media (ex-Telewest/ntl)
> broadband connection, I'm noticing that various speed test pages on the
> web report pretty poor speeds now.
> Here's a typical result:

Virgins?
Speed? Whats that?



(I'm thinkin of switching to sky.)

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:02:50 GMT, 7
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Alex Hunsley wrote:
>
>> Humph. Following a recent problem with my Virgin Media (ex-Telewest/ntl)
>> broadband connection, I'm noticing that various speed test pages on the
>> web report pretty poor speeds now.
>> Here's a typical result:
>
>Virgins?
> Speed? Whats that?
>
>
>
>(I'm thinkin of switching to sky.)
Out of the fat into the fire springs to mind no I take that back none
can be worse than Virgin Media .

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:02:50 GMT, 7
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Alex Hunsley wrote:
>>
>>> Humph. Following a recent problem with my Virgin Media (ex-Telewest/ntl)
>>> broadband connection, I'm noticing that various speed test pages on the
>>> web report pretty poor speeds now.
>>> Here's a typical result:
>>
>>Virgins?
>> Speed? Whats that?
>>
>>
>>
>>(I'm thinkin of switching to sky.)
> Out of the fat into the fire springs to mind no I take that back none
> can be worse than Virgin Media .


Have been on Virgin since it started, now on their 8MB ADSL package and very
pleased.
BT speed Test as of 22.53 hrs 30/3/2007:


Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 6214 kbps



--
Paul Woodsford
Remove NOSPAM to reply.