So is that what you usually get? Because that's the same as the BT one, about 2400kbps, but you were talking about 290kbps in ypour opening post?

If speeds have always been bad, your next step is to get someone in support who doesn't just read from a script to get an SNRM (noise margin) rest on the line.

If speeds used to be OK and this is a recent problem, you need to put up with it for a fortnight and it should automatically improve by several hundred kbps. Than a fortnight later, another few hundred.

But as others have said, there is some other sort of problem on the line, as it should be capable of far more anyway.

No my speeds have all ways been low. So i should call bt to get my lines reset??

Yes. It could be hassle, but it can be done. You need to tell them the target noise margin is set to 12 or 15dB instead of 6dB, and always has been. They can reset it.

By the way, 2400kbps is 300kBps, if that's the figure you are seeing during file downloads. The "B" means bytes, which are eight "b" bits, so kbps 8 times kBps.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

So is that what you usually get? Because that's the same as the BT one, about 2400kbps, but you were talking about 290kbps in your opening post?

OP's has mixed up his Bytes with his bits, as I identified ages ago but y'all ignored: http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/bt/t/4153499-re-con...

Nope - I didn't ignore you. But he didn't reply to that post and I decided getting the underlying data was best. We still can't be sure that he isn't getting 290kbps at times, until he confirms he was mixed up between bytes and bits, but it does seem likely.

What is worrying in a way is the margin shown in those stats. A long way away from both 12 and 15dB in a short time. But my choice was to go for the reset first, and see if it holds, if he can get them to do it. Rather than go through the RouterStats(Lite) route.

Maybe RouterStats would be best. I don't know if Lite runs on the Home Hub, and I could never get the full version running the way I wanted non-listed ones in the full version. So the OP might not find it easy either.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

So is that what you usually get? Because that's the same as the BT one, about 2400kbps, but you were talking about 290kbps in your opening post?

OP's has mixed up his Bytes with his bits, as I identified ages ago but y'all ignored: http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/bt/t/4153499-re-con...

I asked the OP whether his use of "kb" was Kbps or KB/sec and he replied that it was Kbps - like you I also had the suspicion that "kb" was KB/sec since 290KB/sec was very close to his initial BT speed test result of 2.3Mbps.

There's no doubt that OP is not going as fast as he could (at about 75%), but at least he is well faster than what he believes and the reason he posted. It's up to him whether that is sufficient or whether he wants to squeeze the last bps out of his line.

In the OP he said "Slow Speeds are a problem for me as I do download alot of stuff and also like to watch films but cant due to buffering constanly and its really annoying me"

There is obviously a problem which I think is the modem.

OP says: "Slow Speeds are a problem for me as I do download alot of stuff and also like to watch films but cant due to buffering constanly and its really annoying me."

~2900Kbps should be good enough for streaming a standard definition video though...

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In the OP he said "Slow Speeds are a problem for me as I do download alot of stuff and also like to watch films but cant due to buffering constanly and its really annoying me"

There is obviously a problem which I think is the modem.

Sorry BatBoy - I was writing my post when you posted and we have quoted the same thing