SSE UltraFast Fibre from Daisy

Hi, I had a slower fibre service from Plusnet a few years ago and I got used to consistently good file download speeds. I am yards away from my BT cabinet, use a fast PC with AV and firewall turned off for testing. It's been a while since I felt the need to do speed tests, so please bear with my ignorance.

In the first few days I was connected to SSE Daisy I felt something was wrong or bad, whichever way you look at it. I downloaded fixed 100Mb Winzip files from here and was seeing file download speed of 130kbps taking over 10 minutes to finish. I didn't think that was fair for the SSE UltraFast broadband service.

Next stop before I came here was to try the BT (BTW) tests. It came back with around 30Mbps when in the past I know I can run to over 70 Mbps and the BT test website says I can get a guaranteed minimum speed of 65Mbps. On the second BTW test screen I saw a range of speeds to my phone number fixed at 32Mbps. Now that seemed strange, because the figure as far as I know is a BTW contract figure with the ISP and not a line test derived result.

I complained then after a couple of days trying to work out what the ISP were up to I re-visited the BTW diagnostics line test and was pleased to see my maximum speed was now over 70Mbps but horrified to see the acceptable speed range was now 40-70 Mbps with my actual speed sitting at under or just over 40.

Then I started doing TBB tests and for the first time was able to reach some conclusions (Thanks TBB). I had already been to several of the 'other' speed test sites and saw 75Mbps. What's up with this ISP?

Now I think I know. The TBB test comes back with results like this:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14673...

The Avg TBB download rate is what I get in practice for file downloads using Windoze 'Save As' therefore my Winows and anti virus updates could take forever. The X6 result agrees with the maximum figure I get from other speed comparison sites, so they must be using optimistic speed test algorithms. I can prove it is not my system by using a multi thread downloader on the TBB test file.

I need help here. Does anybody think peak speeds performance based on multi threaded downloads is an Ultrafast Broadband service? I am now regretting my switch and I have to consider my next step unless those with more knowledge here can tell me service providers can fall back on peak speeds in their service promise? Using the TBB tests with my limited knowledge has been an eye opener. Are all ISP's claiming to offer competitive products, based on peak speed values unrepresentative of real world file downloading from a fast server with short pings? Do they agree wide acceptable speed windows to limit average speed downloading in order to hide behind peak burst speeds? If anybody is on the Infinity super package or equivalent Plusnet, what acceptable speed range do you see in the BTW further diagnostics screen?

Thanks

Edited by deleted (Fri 01-Jul-16 17:09:20)

In reply to a post by voxmagna1:

If anybody is on the Infinity super package or equivalent Plusnet, what acceptable speed range do you see in the BTW further diagnostics screen?

Download speedachieved during the test was - 60.02 Mbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds is 40 Mbps-62.38 Mbps .
Additional Information:
IP Profile for your line is - 62.38 Mbps

The 40Mbps minimum is pretty normal. FWIW I considered switching to SSE but read too many negative accounts of it and Plusnet offered me a deal that nearly matched their price, so I stayed put.

Edited by kasg (Fri 01-Jul-16 17:31:11)

Firstly ultrafast is generally taken to mean 100 Mbps and faster, Ofcom defines it even higher as 300 Mbps and faster so the marketing people are already playing tricks there.

On the speeds we know some providers do have more variation and our dual testing does show this up more, but getting providers to accept this rather than just say 'tbb is wrong' is an uphill struggle.

In short we are seeing more people moan about the SSE service, and while not always true it is often the case that a smaller provider and a very low price can mean more variability in speeds, the key to the puzzle is how the speeds vary across a 24 hour period, i.e. are they good in off peak times.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Firstly ultrafast is generally taken to mean 100 Mbps and faster, Ofcom defines it even higher as 300 Mbps and faster so the marketing people are already playing tricks there.

On the speeds we know some providers do have more variation and our dual testing does show this up more, but getting providers to accept this rather than just say 'tbb is wrong' is an uphill struggle.

In short we are seeing more people moan about the SSE service, and while not always true it is often the case that a smaller provider and a very low price can mean more variability in speeds, the key to the puzzle is how the speeds vary across a 24 hour period, i.e. are they good in off peak times.

Thanks, I'm adding regular tests to my profile now and I understand about variation due to congestion. What I can't yet understand is why single thread downloads to port 80 are so way down in my results. Is everybody else getting similar from other providers? Does this mean if I want to stream HD from a live video broadcast service, this is the test result that matters most or are online video services using multiple IP ports to get error free live video? Is this a clever way ISP's can reduce demand for use of streaming services?

Until I came across TBBs dual test I was under the illusion I was getting the best speed and it was the practical download of a file timed using a stopwatch that woke me up, until I discovered Firefox gives that info on time and rate. Broadband specifications seem a bit like VWs dieselgate. The ISPs can fool Ookla and similar sites but what you get in the real world is a lot different. Has anybody got one of those Ofcom monitoring boxes? My SSE service isn't download capped.

Glad Plusnet offered you a deal. I just spoke to the worst retention agent going who couldn't of cared less that I was leaving.

You are one of many unfortunately. Allegedly, SSE are meeting with Daisy next week about congestion, will anything happen? I also remember this happening on PN for a month or so until they increased capacity.

I accepted with the cost that there would be a slowdown, but some nights the TBB tester doesn't even load and I got one result of 0.1Mbps!!

Mark

Do you get similar results all time of day? Perhaps the same issue as being reported by Zen customers

Interested to see the outcome as I'm debating a move away from Plusnet to try and save some money at the moment.

Firstly ultrafast is generally taken to mean 100 Mbps and faster, Ofcom defines it even higher as 300 Mbps and faster so the marketing people are already playing tricks there.

I checked and you are correct so I will now start another parallel approach. I have already asked them what results I should expect for my line (reply not received) which should differentiate whether they really are providing an Ultrafast service or something else I didn't sign up for.

I have now managed to submit a formal complaint through the SSE online webform. But I should warn others that SSE are applying a short timeout and by the time you have filled out all the details and over 1 complaint line, you get a time out! You can use tricks too. Prepare your complaint offline in Notepad and paste it into their details box to save time! I think that kind of practice from SSE isa despicable attempt to reduce logged complaints which Ofcom have access to.

The case continues.

UPDATE

I repeated the TBB measurements which showed a small improvement in the single thread average download time:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14674...

However, when I now repeat the BTW tests they now show my download speeds at 73Mbps!! Either BTW have changed their test file delivery to multithread, the ISP is catching the BTW URL and adapting their bandwidth to artifically improve tests to the BTW URL, or TBB are not representative anymore.

Sorry I had to throw in the last option but you can guess what I really believe. Now I need to test my theory using a fast VPN connection.

BTWholesale test has been multithread for some time I believe

In reply to a post by brandscill:

Interested to see the outcome as I'm debating a move away from Plusnet to try and save some money at the moment.

I suggest you try retentions one more time, I know you had no joy before, but in my experience it's worth a go.

Tried 4 times in total. Best they would do was £15 a month for 40/2 which would change to 55/10 for 24 months

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

BTWholesale test has been multithread for some time I believe

Thanks. When I am taking downloads from sites for software and even Windows updates, what I see in Kbps is pretty similar to the TBB Winzip file download corresponding to single thread which I've assumed to be more common than sites who get you installing their downloaders, but now I can see why they do it. I tend to avoid those, because I can never be sure what their exe files contain and always try to get a download from the authors site.

Are we saying ISP download speed claims are based on average single thread downloads, multi thread downloads, or is it a free for all for them to choose what they say to market services? It smells of the old days when audio amplifer and speaker manufacturers quoted 'peak music power' instead of RMS and so it was people went out going for the big Watts number, but were not comparing apples with apples. Only here we also add in a time of day/congestion dependent variable.

Amusingly, there's no such thing as Watts RMS, which seems to be a typical situation in marketing that affects us today.

Is that without the phone line? They usually do much better deals with phone.

There was when I designed high power PA amps. Power into a resistive water cooled load measured with a True RMS meter. It's RMS power that burns out speech coils in loudspeakers and matters when you want 'headroom'. It's why todays newbies push through super bass (getting closer to d.c in signal terms) or their amplifier source squares off and they burn out speakers in their cars. Music power is just a term used to rate products according to 'average' frequency response and the intermittent nature of music. Push recorded organ through a system rated like this or get low frequency howl round feedback and you soon discover its limitations. The power demands on amplifer and speaker design are in the low frequencies. Interesting observation, but off topic.

I thought that too but following a conversation with a very clever guy I know who is an inventor with several patents in electronics, I checked Wikipedia which backs it up as being nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power#Continuous...

The point is that marketing says that you are getting full speed although your actual experience is a lot less.

Yeah with a phonline.

Always has been in the world of electronics I have been involved in!
RMS stands for Root Mean Square and will give an 'average' value, as opposed to a peak value. it will be the dc heating power for a sine wave. This works out to be 0.707 of the peak value for a sine wave.

RMS is 'Average long term power' - Never was continuous and certainly not short term peak.

I was shocked too when I read that power rms is a meaningless number.

Most ISPs do not really quote download speeds, they quote sync speeds. I have always thought it a grey area that Ofcom/ASA have never fully cleared up. SSE are providing you with a good sync speeds but are running their network very hot.

Given the fact they are generally very cheap then something has to give and the easiest thing to reduce is the backhaul meaning that the service runs slower and slower as congestion builds. Unfortunately most people are just going for the cheapest package and then aren't happy when the service suffers from congestion.

Sorry to say but if you want the cheapest package then this is the sort of service you are likely to get.

The isssue is not about cheapness but lack of standards enabling consumers to compare one offer with another in a marketplace where ISPs and consumers can compete on fair terms. A new entrant ISP may offer a cheaper deal to allow them to compete. But if their deal bundle is not easy to compare, then the consumer hasn't a clue what they will get because there are too many grey intangibles. When they do get it they can't easily cancel without penalities. If a consumer buys goods or services in a shop they are protected by Sales of Goods or Credit Acts and can return it within a time period.

The process of selling broadaband needs to be run along similar lines to energy contracts. Switching needs to be easier and faster without the long contract lock in penalties and the service needs to be better defined so consumers know what they can expect. Price to the consumer shouldn't define quality of broadband service as you suggest. If consumers signed up with an ISP and paid more, there is no guarantee the ISP won't be altering their service parameters during your contract.

The present situation of contractual lock in for a year or 18 months is bad for consumers and bad for new entrant ISPs who may want to offer a comparable service at a lower price and build their business.

Price almost always defines quality. SSE are selling so cheap that they can't make a profit unless they provide a much lower rate service.

It has taken years for the energy markets to get where they are and even now I would say they are nowhere near perfect - and the energy market is much simply because it is very easy to count the "units" supplied and the cost of those units.

Broadband is not so simple. Price of a unit can depend on how many other people are consuming units at that exact moment in time. So, rather than charge per unit they try and guess how many units in total will be used simultaneously. If they buy to much capacity then they lose a lot of money. If they buy too little then people see contention and speeds suffer. But, the threshold between the two is quite small and it takes time to get more capacity so whilst they may be fine for a while unless they plan very well they could soon be struggling with contention with months before they can buy more capacity.

Ofcom should be setting clear rules on advertising. But, what you really want is them to guarantee peak speeds - but how to measure it? What do you measure speed to? There are many other things that could slow things down (wifi, badly configured router, duff filter, local extension wiring, congestion at the destination server, congestion on destination server links, congestion on intermediate links, etc). So, without a standard test that rules all these things out Ofcom can't easily enforce throughput requirements - so they only really base on sync speed as that is relatively easily measured (although still impacted by some of my previous list)..

In reply to a post by professor973:

Always has been in the world of electronics I have been involved in!
RMS stands for Root Mean Square and will give an 'average' value, as opposed to a peak value. it will be the dc heating power for a sine wave. This works out to be 0.707 of the peak value for a sine wave.

No.

YES! My reply was to the idiot that said there was NO such thing as RMS - Totally wrong and a world away from what RMS actually actuallay is!

Edited by professor973 (Mon 04-Jul-16 21:11:13)

What you wrote about power is all wrong and is why the point about "RMS power" is made in the first place.

Please do elaborate on why RMS power is "all wrong"?

In reply to a post by mrvanx:

Please do elaborate on why RMS power is "all wrong"?

Erm, I never said "RMS power is all wrong" and such a statement wouldn't make any sense, so I can't elaborate sorry.

OK then, please elaborate on why the following statement is not correct??

Always has been in the world of electronics I have been involved in!
RMS stands for Root Mean Square and will give an 'average' value, as opposed to a peak value. it will be the dc heating power for a sine wave. This works out to be 0.707 of the peak value for a sine wave.

I provided the link to Wikipedia here http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4491201-sse...

The Wikipedia link is referring to RMS power in the context of audio amplifiers which relates to the physical output power of a sound system (the output a transducer can emit into the surrounding air)

RMS power in the context of electrical transmission and signalling is very much the correct term to be using. For example the power usage of a 100W light bulb is in terms of the RMS value not the instantaneous or peak power.

Annoyingly power output is often quoted by peak power (such as in car engine bhp figures) when a graph of power input/output across the range of operation would be a far better explanation of the system.

Edit: Root mean squared note the portion where it explains the difference between RMS for electrical uses and RMS for audio. Cheers

Edited by mrvanx (Mon 04-Jul-16 23:40:07)

In reply to a post by mrvanx:

The Wikipedia link is referring to RMS power in the context of audio amplifiers

Which is why it was on topic in the conversation.

Never suggested it wasn't on topic.

Just pointing out that using RMS within context is correct.

All done!

In reply to a post by mrvanx:

OK then, please elaborate on why the following statement is not correct??

Always has been in the world of electronics I have been involved in!
RMS stands for Root Mean Square and will give an 'average' value, as opposed to a peak value. it will be the dc heating power for a sine wave. This works out to be 0.707 of the peak value for a sine wave.

The short answer is that if this was written about voltage or current, it would in essence be correct but the mistake of simply swapping in power is hopelessly wrong. What is sometimes misleadingly referred to as �RMS power� is neither the RMS of the instantaneous power function nor is it 0.707 of the peak power value. In fact for an AC sine wave the power function isn�t even a sine wave itself and the actual RMS power (a practically useless number) is still not 0.707 of the peak power value. The average power (a practically useful number and equal to the power of the equivalent DC circuit and the same thing as what some people refer to as �RMS power�) is not really the RMS of anything and for an AC sine wave equals 0.5 of the peak power value.

I wonder if your issue is related to the issue some of us on Zen had been having for months - rubbish single threaded, great multi threaded.

The only common factors there are BT Wholesale / Openreach, since Zen won't be using Daisy

In reply to a post by mrvanx:

The Wikipedia link is referring to RMS power in the context of audio amplifiers which relates to the physical output power of a sound system (the output a transducer can emit into the surrounding air)

RMS power in the context of electrical transmission and signalling is very much the correct term to be using. For example the power usage of a 100W light bulb is in terms of the RMS value not the instantaneous or peak power.

Annoyingly power output is often quoted by peak power (such as in car engine bhp figures) when a graph of power input/output across the range of operation would be a far better explanation of the system.

Edit: Root mean squared note the portion where it explains the difference between RMS for electrical uses and RMS for audio. Cheers

No, lol, electrons don't care whether they are connected to a speaker, a light bulb or a dummy load. Whether it be an audio circuit or a light circuit, they are AC electrical circuits like any other and the same principles apply to "RMS power".

In reply to a post by sor:

I wonder if your issue is related to the issue some of us on Zen had been having for months - rubbish single threaded, great multi threaded.

The only common factors there are BT Wholesale / Openreach, since Zen won't be using Daisy

As a Newbie it took me a while to arrive at that conclusion. Sites doing their speed tests multithreading the test download or using short file segments are fooling us and I think ISPs know how to make those look good. TBB does give you the option of seeing the average and multithreaded download speeds. The fixed file size downloads are really useful and the TBB file server Ping is good. The average speeds on the graphs are close to what I get doing a 'Save As' for the 100Mb file - I note the download rate in kbps or Mbps and do the simple arithmetic or time the download with a stopwatch..

I don't think the factor is BTW/openreach alone because I had a year of Plusnet at their lower 32 speed and it wasn't like this. I think the ISP's negoitiate bandwidth prices with BTW, then use their own profile tools to restrict what customers actually get.

Please can you confirm you are also voxmagna1? This could get very confusing if you are not. Both in this thread and in future ones .

I've also just switched from PlusNet to SSE - the deal was too good to miss, and PlusNet wouldn't get anywhere near matching the SSE price especially with a Quidco offer.

I've run a few speed tests at different periods of the day and I'm finding that the connection is fine after midnight and before 9AM when the single and multiple connection tests match and I get over 60/17 consistently. However, after 9AM it appears that the single connection performance drops considerably, and the multiple test drops slightly. During peak evening time, the performance of the single and multiple connection tests drop even more.

Having said that, no-one in the household is complaining (yet) but we don't tend to do much video streaming anyway.

I've switched from Plusnet as well. Couldn't afford the increased prices with the reduced speeds as well so it was a good chance to move.

I know it's you get what you pay for but hopefully it should do.

Im also having trouble with SSE/Daisy, in the day im getting around 55mpbs, come early afternoon around 4pm it drops to around 9mpbs, then evening around 2mpbs or lower

Funny thing is BT Wholesale speed test usually comes back ok, but other tests are usually coming back around similar speeds, and if i try and download any files they takes ages, a 1gb file on my sky box will take over an hour

BT speedtest doesn't necessarily follow the same route as other data. The congestion is somewhere beyond (or to the side of) the speedtest route.

BT speedtester is multi threaded. I believe it uses 9 threads but could be wrong.
Let me use a basic analogy to explain this to you. Lets say I have 10Mbps bandwidth between 2 houses.

House 1 downloads a file. House 2 downloads a file. Both houses get 5Mbps each.

Now, instead, house 1 downloads a file with 9 threads. House 2 downloads a file with 1 thread.

House 1 now gets 9Mbps, House 2 gets 1Mbps.

See how multi-threaded downloads mask congestion...

A good speedtest to use is the one here: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html
At the end you see average TBB download and Avg HTTP *6 download.
If you see the *6 is significantly faster than the avg TBB download, and the graph has a big gap between it indicates congestion.

E.g. take a look at mine, the avg TBB download and avg *6 are basically the same, indicating multi threaded and non multi threaded are performing relatively the same:
As you see yellow and green lines basically the same
No congestion:
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...

vs congestion on another SSE customer (see green line is so much lower than *6 line)
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14673...

Edited by ukhardy07 (Tue 05-Jul-16 17:15:19)

thanks for the explination

Here are a few of mine

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14672...

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14677...

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14675...

Before i can leave i have to have an engineer visit, at no cost to myself i might add, they said i can leave if its confirmed its not my equipment

SSE have informed me Daisy are not throttling my connection, but now i understand from your explanation it must be congestion that's causing it

I was with BT before SSE and had no problems at all with there fiber , all that's changed is the router

Edited by deleted (Tue 05-Jul-16 17:33:38)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Please can you confirm you are also voxmagna1? This could get very confusing if you are not. Both in this thread and in future ones .

Apologies I seem to have 2 registrations when i thought the first one hadn't registered.

SSE Daisy is awful tonight:
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14677...

Your results are pretty much identical to mine.
Off-peak, performance is great, but it's obviously being limited during the day time and drastically during the evening.

Right now, I'm doing a file download and it's going at 390 KB/sec while a minute before the BT wholesale speed test recorded 64 MB/sec, but the TBBx1 test reported 3.4 Mbps - which corresponds to the actual download speed I'm seeing.

My advice is to use several speed sites and log as many results as you can , use the one on here as well as these below, they will automatically log your results, you need as much evidence to take to SSE as you can

http://testmy.net/
http://speedof.me/

That's fine by me re the nicks, but best to stick to one or the other. Else someone may ask again in the future.

For instance there is a Roberto1 nothing to do with me, but fairly clear that it's a different person, but there was a Roberto5 that I see has been removed that was almost certainly created in order to confuse .

Anyone know what happens once you sign up? I got order confirmation Sunday, should I expect further emails or a letter?

In reply to a post by deanos:

thanks for the explination

Here are a few of mine

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14672...

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14677...

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14675...

See how your green in the first one is only 1.8Mbps. That is basically the speed of say a youtube video loading or a file being downloaded.

The x6 yellow line is basically downloading 6 streams at once.

It looks like clear congestion. The issue is SSE have severely underestimated the usage on the service and as such have not purchased adequate backhaul from SSE. That said, given just how much the speeds slowdown, it feels they almost intentionally went in with the attitude of sell cheap and provide slow speeds.

Yep, BT is unlikely to have these slowdowns, any major FTTC ISP, TalkTalk, Sky and BT - do not have these issues very often.

Still to late to back out?

If you are looking to cost save, there are plenty of other deals out there, perhaps not 80Mbps but given the complaints here it seems wise to consider your options.

Not sure, probably not too late.

Just need a good deal that gives me minimum 40/10 as I shift a lot of data backup wise often over night. At the moment I'm paying plus net £34 ish, can't remember exact figure and I begrudge it because the service is [censored]. Whenever I call to report an issue I don't get the amazing support everyone talks about, I get some disinterested person telling me to turn my router off and on again and that they can't see a fault. Wouldn't mind that if I paid £21, but not for £34 a month.

Edited by deleted (Wed 06-Jul-16 07:08:08)

Considered BT Infinity? 55Mbps download, 10Mbps upload.

£12.50 + £18.99 line rental = 31.49 a month
Then £80 mastercard for free
£90 quidco for free

Avg monthly cost in the end =
31.49 *12 = 377.88
-90
-80
=207.88
/12 = £17.32 inc benefits

That is one example... There's many other deals to be had like that. It just takes a little looking around.

Regarding cancelling, unless it is being installed today, chances are it can be stopped.

Edited by ukhardy07 (Wed 06-Jul-16 10:31:32)

Good find, I'll investigate when I get home.

It's just a pain you have to go through the whole Quidco, cashback stuff to get a good deal.

Only thing is the £50 activation fee :/. Don't understand this charge?

Edited by deleted (Wed 06-Jul-16 14:25:02)

In reply to a post by brandscill:

Only thing is the £50 activation fee :/. Don't understand this charge?

Check obviously but I am pretty sure that this doesn't apply to migrations.

When an ISP sets up an FTTC line for the first time (or ceases a line), they face a charge from Openreach

Applied for a migration from full LLU to Infinity at least

BT Retail and other providers can charge what they like on top of the Openreach fees, or in the BT Retail case if they undercut them then there are complaints from competitors.

How are speeds looking at the moment (people who have switched)?

I've seen recent reports that things are improving and people on Twitter claiming they're getting the speeds they were advertised.

No difference to the pattern.

After midnight and early morning: Performance is great.
Daytime: TBBx1 starts to drop through the day, though TBBx6 is still good.
Evenings: TBBx1 & TBBx6 are always very low, and a real-world file download matches what the TBBx1 shows.
The BT wholesale test showed good performance each time I've tried it, so I suspect that's being detected

Okay good to know! Thanks

In reply to a post by brandscill:

How are speeds looking at the moment (people who have switched)?

I've seen recent reports that things are improving and people on Twitter claiming they're getting the speeds they were advertised.

Not good. The http://speedtest.btwholesale.com/ speed test they accept as evidence seems to be fixed in some way (whitelisted?), as is speedtest.net. Others, such as speedof.me and testmy.net show what appears to be the real speed, which is a fraction of what http://speedtest.btwholesale.com/ shows.

In reply to a post by docn:

In reply to a post by brandscill:

How are speeds looking at the moment (people who have switched)?

I've seen recent reports that things are improving and people on Twitter claiming they're getting the speeds they were advertised.

Not good. The http://speedtest.btwholesale.com/ speed test they accept as evidence seems to be fixed in some way (whitelisted?), as is speedtest.net. Others, such as speedof.me and testmy.net show what appears to be the real speed, which is a fraction of what http://speedtest.btwholesale.com/ shows.

https://twitter.com/djblu2003/status/715262749895487488

I highlighted this in March, nice to see they have done nothing about it.

It's deceiving to say the least.

In reply to a post by DJblu1980:

I highlighted this in March, nice to see they have done nothing about it.

It's deceiving to say the least.

Deceiving? I think I'd use a rather stronger word to describe what's going on. Just a matter of time before it hits the fan and lands both SSE and Daisy in trouble though.

I am so glad I stuck with Plusnet and didn't give in to the temptation

In reply to a post by kasg:

I am so glad I stuck with Plusnet and didn't give in to the temptation

It's not really a problem. The 'service' that they're providing is so far adrift from the one they promised (I did get some written assurances before switching) that they'll have no option but to agree to accept termination of the contract without penalty. That will enable me to go back to my original ISP as a new customer, with the usual new customer pricing.

In reply to a post by docn:

That will enable me to go back to my original ISP as a new customer, with the usual new customer pricing.

Even as such a recently departed customer? In my case I got a very good retention deal with Plusnet so was happy to stay.

Someone over at Discuss ISP reporting improvements

http://www.discussisp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=...

Not for long though. Look at page 3 of your link.

Yeah just saw.

Looks like work has been done but perhaps some way to go yet!

My speeds were showing less than 0.1Mbps on some of my tests. I used the TBB tester, TestmyNet (every 30 mins) Samknows box and BTW. BTW even showed a slowdown to 12Mbps in tap2/ tap3 tests.

Speeds appear to have stabilised now with no huge loss of speed over the last few nights. Will continue testing though in the hope they have rallied to the customers calls to provide a better service.

Mark

That's me

Look at pages 6 & 7, you will see what they are now.