Speed the worst I have ever seen??????

Hi All

We had a 'brown out' a short while ago so was just checking my systems and sync speed was re established AOK

Well before this I was sync'ed at 3616 and that had been like that for at least 9 days. The forced rboot of the router now sync'ing at 3712 on pte-ag2 which I think is the same Gateway.

Speed test before was giving me approx 2500 to 2600 & was the same on my initial test but a second test now gives me 130 , yes 130 on a repeat test!!!!!!!!!!! It should be oveer 3000 but late evening slow downs seem to be a thing of normality these days.

What has happened to the speed now that it was plummeted to under 100 now actually is now at dial up speed - never had that with Max let alone BB

Agh!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by deleted (Mon 03-Dec-07 00:39:39)

I thought it was odd that my surfing was apparently AOK but the giganews tester was reporting such a low speed.

I have now tried another tester site and I get a more 'normal' 2660 ~ phew OK maybe.

Someone please give me the link to check my BRAS Profile speed because I should be getting over 3000 based on my nice healthy sync of oveer 3500.

TIA

You need to run the BT speedtester at http://speedtester.bt.com

I had the same issue with Giganews on pte-ag2, something ridiculous like 138kbps. Resync on to another gateway, and it's normal.

Hi there,

If you want to PM me your username, I'll be happy to check for any bRAS profiling changes over the weekend.

In reply to:

---

...the giganews tester was reporting such a low speed.

---

Are you aware that Plusnet shape and throttle traffic in various degrees depending on which package you subscribe to?

For example, if you are on Broadband Your Way Option 1, Usenet traffic will not exceed 50Kbps between 6pm-10pm and is throttled at all other times of the day at different speeds.

Find out which package you are on then check here:

http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/quality_broadband/speed.shtml

The Giganews tester will probably use NTTP packets and may explain the low speedtest results, Plusnet's system is not Usenet friendly.

> Plusnet's system is not Usenet friendly.

That's not strictly true - We aren't not friends with some protocols as supposed to others. People have the choice with our products about what they want to pay for, and because Binary Newsgroup use is one thing that can drive high traffic at peak times, the speed you receive varies depending on how much you are willing to pay.

The BBYW Pro product, as per the link above, is designed to give full speed on Usenet at all times.

Ian

In reply to:

---

We aren't not friends with some protocols as supposed to others.

---

It certainly seems preferential when you class and prioritise some protocols over others using traffic shaping, then charge more for decreasing the rate limit on those lower classed protocols.

Giving Platinum status to "Paid for priority services", which I suspect will generate more revenue, top slot in your network, as opposed to the highest status for Usenet which is Gold class, means that Usenet on BBYW Pro is not designed for full speed as Gold packets are dropped regularly.

If Usenet traffic was Platinum then it might be a more acceptable statement, or do 'paid for' Platinum protocols get even more speed than 'full speed'?
Or you mean 'full speed' after packets are shaped and dropped then retransmitted kind of 'full speed'?

Of course, a truly neutral network does not differentiate between 'paid extra for' protocols and other less worthy protocols, and does not design it's network to deliver premium offerings for a premium and then prioritise their delivery over all other offerings.

Which is why I choose ISP's that run neutral networks.

In reply to:

---

Usenet on BBYW Pro is not designed for full speed as Gold packets are dropped regularly.

---

Our acceptable limit for gold packet drops across any time period is <1% and we keep to this - there should not be any noticable slowdowns on any traffic classed as gold.

In reply to:

---

Of course, a truly neutral network does not differentiate between 'paid extra for' protocols and other less worthy protocols, and does not design it's network to deliver premium offerings for a premium and then prioritise their delivery over all other offerings.

---

This is true, but it also doesn't differentiate between voip packets and torrent traffic and unfortunately expanding the network in order that capacity is available for every packet just isn't finacially viable. We realise that not everyone agrees with our method of network management, but there has to be some kind of balance and this is the way we've chosen to go.

Why do people keep asking for a net neutral service when they choose not to pay the net neutral prices?