Speedtest.net changed again

Noreen · May 19, 2009, 17:55:24

It's now showing items tested.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Rik · May 19, 2009, 17:57:41

So it has...

Your line still beats mine though.

Rik · May 19, 2009, 18:00:22

Slightly different using London...

Actually, looking again, I don't think that's what it's testing with, it's just presenting a ready reckoner for different file sizes.

Noreen · May 19, 2009, 18:06:12

I think that you're right, Rik.

Rik · May 19, 2009, 18:06:32

Just out of interest, here's a couple of others for comparison:

[attachment deleted by admin]

Noreen · May 19, 2009, 18:08:16

Aren't those results for you better than they used to be, Rik?

Rik · May 19, 2009, 18:11:13

They are, I'm on a new, physical line.

It went live yesterday, and I started out with a 4M profile, but it's dropped to 3.5M today (though at the high end of the range) and interleaving has been turned on, as it was on my other line.

that it's going to stabilise at this level. WBC here I come...

sobranie · May 19, 2009, 22:19:54

Managed a 7.3 earlier on this evening.
Was on a 2Mb/s stuck profile a day or so back then James @ IDNet intervened and this is the result.

Myst · May 19, 2009, 22:37:01

Mines gone down a fair bit recently. I used to get about 2.0 2-3 as a rule - went up to just under 3 following Sebby's tip with the base plate, which i couldnt keep as it was wireless and screwed gaming up.

All i get now is between 1.2-1.6 max

gizmo71 · May 19, 2009, 22:45:48

See the speed!

Feel the slowness!

At least it's been super reliable over the last few months.

	Downstream	Upstream
Connection Speed	1312 kbps	448 kbps
Line Attenuation	48 db	15.5 db
Noise Margin	16 db	21 db

Sebby · May 20, 2009, 09:08:44

Quote from: Myst on May 19, 2009, 22:37:01
Mines gone down a fair bit recently. I used to get about 2.0 2-3 as a rule - went up to just under 3 following Sebby's tip with the base plate, which i couldnt keep as it was wireless and screwed gaming up.

All i get now is between 1.2-1.6 max

Unfortunately, that's down to the wiring. You'll only improve that speed by improving the sync.

Rik · May 20, 2009, 09:52:41

Quote from: gizmo71 on May 19, 2009, 22:45:48

Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 1312 kbps 448 kbps
Line Attenuation 48 db 15.5 db
Noise Margin 16 db 21 db

Those stats are curious, Giz. For a 48db line, I'd expect a much higher sync. Clearly you've had some stability problems which have pushed your target NM to 15db. Do you have an NTE5 master socket? Could you move the router to that socket to see if it helps? Do you have an alternative router you could try - it looks like you're using a Netgear, so a 2700, for example, might help in your case.

gizmo71 · May 20, 2009, 10:12:09

Quote from: Rik on May 20, 2009, 09:52:41
Those stats are curious, Giz. For a 48db line, I'd expect a much higher sync. Clearly you've had some stability problems which have pushed your target NM to 15db. Do you have an NTE5 master socket? Could you move the router to that socket to see if it helps? Do you have an alternative router you could try - it looks like you're using a Netgear, so a 2700, for example, might help in your case.

I've not only tried it in the master socket, I've had the BT engineer out, who pronounced the line rubbish but not so rubbish they'd replace it free.

My original line was better but one day it died and they 'replaced' it - presumably between the local cabinet thingy and the exchange (they didn't touch the stuff in the house). I had a SpeedTouch 510 before the DG834G and after that line fault was fixed it was next to useless, which is why I bought the Netgear.

TBH I don't really care about the speed, I care much more about the stability. Getting dumped out of an online race is no fun when you've spent 2 hours practising and honing your car's setup! The last thing I want to do now (after my recent firmware 'upgrade' débacle) is to do anything which will compromise that stability again.

Rik · May 20, 2009, 10:15:13

Fair enough, I'm all for stability myself.

Your line is flagged as red for quality, but that doesn't require BT to actually do anything, unfortunately. A 2700 might improve things, but we'd only find out if you tried one. The general experience has been that they do benefit poor lines, but there have been exceptions.

Gary · May 20, 2009, 11:14:31

Quote from: Rik on May 20, 2009, 09:52:41
Those stats are curious, Giz. For a 48db line, I'd expect a much higher sync. Clearly you've had some stability problems which have pushed your target NM to 15db. Do you have an NTE5 master socket? Could you move the router to that socket to see if it helps? Do you have an alternative router you could try - it looks like you're using a Netgear, so a 2700, for example, might help in your case.

I had the same attenuation I believe at my old home, the 2700 gave me a sync of 4Mbps -4.5Mbps a major improvement, so I would try one if you can.

gizmo71 · May 20, 2009, 12:15:14

Thanks guys. As I understand it the 2700 doesn't have any configurable QoS settings? In which case there's no real value in me exploring it.

Rik · May 20, 2009, 12:29:11

Not afaik.

Myst · May 20, 2009, 12:43:04

Quote from: Sebby on May 20, 2009, 09:08:44
Unfortunately, that's down to the wiring. You'll only improve that speed by improving the sync.

Even with the wiring it was until last week or so acheiving 2.2 or so.
nothing changed with set up, but still a 600k drop in speed?

Rik · May 20, 2009, 12:45:14

It could be a degradation of the line, Myst, or changes in local RF noise.

Sebby · May 20, 2009, 14:18:50

Quote from: Rik on May 20, 2009, 10:15:13
Fair enough, I'm all for stability myself. Your line is flagged as red for quality, but that doesn't require BT to actually do anything, unfortunately. A 2700 might improve things, but we'd only find out if you tried one. The general experience has been that they do benefit poor lines, but there have been exceptions.

It's quite unacceptable that BT can acknowledge that the line is poor, yet do nothing about it.

gizmo71 · May 20, 2009, 14:26:05

Quote from: Sebby on May 20, 2009, 14:18:50
It's quite unacceptable that BT can acknowledge that the line is poor, yet do nothing about it.

Well until and unless the gummint dictate that a 2 meg line is required to fulfill our basic human rights (they were talking about it!) I'm sunk. But as I say, it's not speed I need, it's reliability and low latency. I have those right now so I'm mostly happy.

rgt247 · May 20, 2009, 15:02:00

Looks Good as normal !

Sebby · May 20, 2009, 16:30:15

Quote from: gizmo71 on May 20, 2009, 14:26:05
Well until and unless the gummint dictate that a 2 meg line is required to fulfill our basic human rights (they were talking about it!) I'm sunk. But as I say, it's not speed I need, it's reliability and low latency. I have those right now so I'm mostly happy.

But a good quality line isn't all about speed; that also brings stability.

Noreen · May 20, 2009, 17:22:48

Quote from: gizmo71 on May 20, 2009, 14:26:05
Well until and unless the gummint dictate that a 2 meg line is required to fulfill our basic human rights (they were talking about it!) I'm sunk. But as I say, it's not speed I need, it's reliability and low latency. I have those right now so I'm mostly happy.

My nephew works for BT, a job supervisor in the section dealing with the installation of fibre cables and of course his ISP is BT. His home line can only provide 1 meg.

Rik · May 20, 2009, 17:29:37

Oddly enough, the BT engineer who was here on Monday has given up his free ADSL and moved to Be because he could get better speeds. OTOH, what's the betting that the board have fibre to the cabinet?

Lance · May 22, 2009, 22:51:49

More likely FTTP i would have thought, Rik.

Rik · May 23, 2009, 10:02:18

If only.