dhookham
Administrator
Posts: 3270
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2006, 08:49:20 pm » |
|
Short bathroom breaks?
Would that be a short break to go to the bathroom, or a short break from being in the bathroom?  That rather depends what he was downloading  |
It's the PlusNet Way
|
|
|
|
jelv1
Posts: 2130
|
|
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2006, 09:34:58 pm » |
|
Is everybody else finding speeds are absolutely dire again this evening?
|
jelv
|
|
|
|
Oldjim
Posts: 1016
|
|
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2006, 09:45:25 pm » |
|
Earlier this evening they were terrible - about 800 kbps but just done another test and it is now back up to 2800 kbps (3000 kbps stable rate)
|
|
|
|
|
Colin
Usergroup Member
Posts: 6339
|
|
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2006, 10:00:10 pm » |
|
They seemed to be dire about 30 mins ago, but I was in the living room and my wireless wasn't very good so <shrug>
|
Colin Ogilvie
Plusnet Usergroup Member
Using: Plusnet Extra
|
|
|
portmoak
Posts: 214
|
|
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2006, 10:02:55 pm » |
|
My normal rate is about 3000-4000 kbits (sync speed 5400) but today I've averaged around 400 kbits. Just checked it using adslguide and got 420kbits. At this rate PlusNet will soon be able to unload 1 or 2 of their pipes - they can't possibly need all of that bandwidth.  <edit> Tried again and now it's at 1.6Mbits but my own site (on F9's servers) still can't download any of the Flash audio.</edit> |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 28, 2006, 10:11:13 pm by portmoak »
|
|
Accounts theadamsons and portmoak
F9 customer since 1998.
|
|
|
kitz
Posts: 4323
|
|
« Reply #35 on: November 28, 2006, 10:11:40 pm » |
|
Yep reported it to one of the network guys about an hourish ago..
but the person I really need to speak to isnt about.
|
|
|
|
|
The Dude
Posts: 81
|
|
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2006, 10:27:38 pm » |
|
In the same boat here, it's been slow all day but now I am getting around 30kb/s maximum even on http. More page timeouts again and gaming is useless too, I hope we are not in for another week of this. Thanks for reporting it kitz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dgdclynx
Guest
|
|
« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2006, 07:40:11 am » |
|
Jim. All three sets of figures on the graphs look accurate. Sorry I mislead you in thinking that the Premier was too high but I got it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dgdclynx
Guest
|
|
« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2006, 07:44:41 am » |
|
Jim. All three sets of figures on the graphs look accurate. Sorry I mislead you in thinking that the Premier was too high but I got it wrong.
We have figures March to July and also for September to check on. |
|
|
|
|
|
dgdclynx
Guest
|
|
« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2006, 09:11:30 am » |
|
it is the latest figures I have to ask how this affects the justification for dumping the top 1% and also why the usergroup were apparently given duff information
Jim. According to Pareto PN dumping the 1% is like painting the Forth Bridge. A neverending process. |
|
|
|
|
|
bob_cat
|
|
« Reply #40 on: November 29, 2006, 09:13:13 am » |
|
Short bathroom breaks?
Would that be a short break to go to the bathroom, or a short break from being in the bathroom? That rather depends what he was downloading That's a lot of porn! |
--
Don't do the cheese if you can't do the dreams.
|
|
|
dhookham
Administrator
Posts: 3270
|
|
« Reply #41 on: November 29, 2006, 10:59:24 am » |
|
Short bathroom breaks?
Would that be a short break to go to the bathroom, or a short break from being in the bathroom? That rather depends what he was downloading That's a lot of porn! It's a lot of linux ISOs too! |
It's the PlusNet Way
|
|
|
|
dgdclynx
Guest
|
|
« Reply #42 on: November 29, 2006, 08:07:03 pm » |
|
I have been thick which is nothing unusual but Old Jim has prodded at me till I have seen the light. In Bob Pullen's thread http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51330in the Discussion Forums he posts a graph of Average Usage (GB per customer per month) which ties in exactly with the figures given to PUG which have been posted for general readership. The revelation I missed on my first look as that these figures were wrong and are now replaced by Average Usage (GB per customer per month) corrected directly below cos PN had made a miscalculation on the original figures. From that it will be seen that the rosy vision of the Ellacoyas reducing usage drastically was much of a mirage and probably explains the severe actions currently being taken. I suppose many people, including Kitz, will already be aware of this but it has taken some time to penetrate my skull. Take a look at the original and corrected Average Usage in Bob's thread above. |
|
|
|
|
|
dgdclynx
Guest
|
|
« Reply #43 on: November 29, 2006, 09:19:10 pm » |
|
And just to confirm as Jim has been shouting that the figures for October 2005 in Bob Pullen's post bear no relation to those published by PUG after receiving them from PN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
channel
Posts: 94
|
|
« Reply #44 on: November 30, 2006, 01:26:43 am » |
|
it is the latest figures I have to ask how this affects the justification for dumping the top 1% and also why the usergroup were apparently given duff information
According to Pareto PN dumping the 1% is like painting the Forth Bridge. A neverending process. Now, there's the truth. Anyone for being dumped? |
|
|
|
|
|
