Virgin Service Cheat

Well, we all know that there is a lot of publicity regarding the ridiculous
claims from certain ISP's as to the service they are providing, such as
Virgin.

So, it appears that Virgin have now adapted their service so that for the
first XYZ seconds the download speeds are good, but then it drops down
again. A tactic to ensure speed tests are OK?

Anyone know of a speed test that takes into consideration download speeds
over a longer period of time?

"Ali" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%5%3j.98$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Well, we all know that there is a lot of publicity regarding the
> ridiculous claims from certain ISP's as to the service they are providing,
> such as Virgin.
>
> So, it appears that Virgin have now adapted their service so that for the
> first XYZ seconds the download speeds are good, but then it drops down
> again. A tactic to ensure speed tests are OK?

Its always done that.
Its the way the speeds are capped.
The first few packets arrive at the 25M channel speed and then the cap kicks
in and limit the number of packets per second to give your subscribed speed.
It makes web surfing fast if you stick with low graphics.

>
> Anyone know of a speed test that takes into consideration download speeds
> over a longer period of time?

FTP a large file or two.

"dennis@home" wrote:

> "Ali" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> > Well, we all know that there is a lot of publicity regarding the
> > ridiculous claims from certain ISP's as to the service they are providing,
> > such as Virgin.
> >
> > So, it appears that Virgin have now adapted their service so that for the
> > first XYZ seconds the download speeds are good, but then it drops down
> > again. A tactic to ensure speed tests are OK?
>
> Its always done that.
> Its the way the speeds are capped.
> The first few packets arrive at the 25M channel speed and then the cap kicks
> in and limit the number of packets per second to give your subscribed speed.
> It makes web surfing fast if you stick with low graphics.
>
>
> > Anyone know of a speed test that takes into consideration download speeds
> > over a longer period of time?
>
> FTP a large file or two.

I just downloaded a 695 MB Linux distro in about 14 mins.

That's a sustained 6620 kbps. Another tick for IDNet.

Graham

"Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> "dennis@home" wrote:
>
>> "Ali" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>
>>> Well, we all know that there is a lot of publicity regarding the
>>> ridiculous claims from certain ISP's as to the service they are
>>> providing, such as Virgin.
>>>
>>> So, it appears that Virgin have now adapted their service so that
>>> for the first XYZ seconds the download speeds are good, but then it
>>> drops down again. A tactic to ensure speed tests are OK?
>>
>> Its always done that.
>> Its the way the speeds are capped.
>> The first few packets arrive at the 25M channel speed and then the
>> cap kicks in and limit the number of packets per second to give your
>> subscribed speed. It makes web surfing fast if you stick with low
>> graphics.
>>
>>
>>> Anyone know of a speed test that takes into consideration download
>>> speeds over a longer period of time?
>>
>> FTP a large file or two.
>
> I just downloaded a 695 MB Linux distro in about 14 mins.
>
> That's a sustained 6620 kbps. Another tick for IDNet.
>
> Graham

Slow really compared to my VM connection!

>> I just downloaded a 695 MB Linux distro in about 14 mins.
>>
>> That's a sustained 6620 kbps. Another tick for IDNet.
>>
>> Graham
>
> Slow really compared to my VM connection!

Very slow....I just d/loaded a 700MB avi in under 6 minutes....and i didn't
use up any d/load allowance either.

Muttley wrote:
>>> I just downloaded a 695 MB Linux distro in about 14 mins.
>>>
>>> That's a sustained 6620 kbps. Another tick for IDNet.
>>>
>>> Graham
>> Slow really compared to my VM connection!
>
> Very slow....I just d/loaded a 700MB avi in under 6 minutes....and i didn't
> use up any d/load allowance either.

So what, I just downloaded a 700MB Linux distro on Sky in a little over
that, with no DL allowance either. But it cost me less than a third than
you.

--
Abo

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:19:10 +0000, Abo wrote:

> Muttley wrote:
>>>> I just downloaded a 695 MB Linux distro in about 14 mins.
>>>>
>>>> That's a sustained 6620 kbps. Another tick for IDNet.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>> Slow really compared to my VM connection!
>>
>> Very slow....I just d/loaded a 700MB avi in under 6 minutes....and i didn't
>> use up any d/load allowance either.
>
> So what, I just downloaded a 700MB Linux distro on Sky in a little over
> that, with no DL allowance either. But it cost me less than a third than
> you.

Nice...if i left VM they're ones,along with Be,i would consider
instead....but as i have no problems with any of my services i see no
reason to switch.

Ali wrote:
> Well, we all know that there is a lot of publicity regarding the
> ridiculous claims from certain ISP's as to the service they are
> providing, such as Virgin.
>
> So, it appears that Virgin have now adapted their service so that for
> the first XYZ seconds the download speeds are good, but then it drops
> down again. A tactic to ensure speed tests are OK?
>
> Anyone know of a speed test that takes into consideration download
> speeds over a longer period of time?


Its got nothing to do with Virgin, or indeed any other ISP. When you
download something, a background thread carrys on the download while you
are presented with the "run/save/cancel" dialog. The stoopid Windows
system then measures d/l time from when you click "ok"....

This distorts the stats for the first 30 seconds or so.

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "Ali" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%5%3j.98$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Well, we all know that there is a lot of publicity regarding the
>> ridiculous claims from certain ISP's as to the service they are
>> providing, such as Virgin.
>>
>> So, it appears that Virgin have now adapted their service so that for
>> the first XYZ seconds the download speeds are good, but then it drops
>> down again. A tactic to ensure speed tests are OK?
>
> Its always done that.
> Its the way the speeds are capped.

Its got nothing to do with caps. Its all to do with internet exploder's
broken method of reporting download speed.

I was using the Windows dialogue box today and it showed 7KB/sec after a few
minutes. I was getting that on ISDN!

Anyway, not important. When I posted my original post, I wasn't using the
Windows download dialogue box, but was watching the slider on Youtube?
Whereby it started quickly, but after approx. 30 seconds, it slowed down big
time.




"Mark McIntyre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>> Well, we all know that there is a lot of publicity regarding the
>> ridiculous claims from certain ISP's as to the service they are
>> providing, such as Virgin.
>>
>> So, it appears that Virgin have now adapted their service so that for the
>> first XYZ seconds the download speeds are good, but then it drops down
>> again. A tactic to ensure speed tests are OK?
>>
>> Anyone know of a speed test that takes into consideration download speeds
>> over a longer period of time?


> Its got nothing to do with Virgin, or indeed any other ISP. When you
> download something, a background thread carrys on the download while you
> are presented with the "run/save/cancel" dialog. The stoopid Windows
> system then measures d/l time from when you click "ok"....
>
> This distorts the stats for the first 30 seconds or so.