View Full Version : What's your broadband speed?
I just received an email about the new BT Speedtester site that will allow you to test the connection between your broadband provider and your modem (okay the telephone box on the wall) and provide you with some stats that you can use to monitor line speed and see if your broadband provider is up to scratch!
You need a Java enabled browser, and although it claims to have been tested with Firefox I could only get it to work with IE. Maybe it was just me as I had to install Java for it and it might not have hooked into Firefox properly. Anyway.
I have a 1Mb connection and my line speed came in at 936kb which is 93.6% of maximum ... which is pretty good!
I'm interested to know what everybody else's line speed is to see if you can top that (no cheating, verification required, terms and conditions apply, winner get's a free post in this forum .... :))
Anyway, try the Speedtester (http://www.whatsthepigfor.info/broadband) link on my site.
i cant get broadband :~(:mad:
I have 1.7Mb file at a speed of
1805 kilo bits per second (Kbps), :confused: [lol]
j4bberw0ck
05-Oct-06, 15:12
Interesting. That's the first time I've succeeded in connecting to the BT speedtester. Anyway, it reported 258 kbps (my service speed is 512).
Speakeasy's (http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/) test gave 511 downstream and 230 upstream.
There's a free downloadable utility >>>here<<< (http://www.broadbandspeedtest.net/download/) which you can run anytime; if you feel inclined to register (£10 to you, squire :lol: ) you can get it to do some clever stuff like scheduled tests, file export, email results etc etc.
Anyway, try the Speedtester (http://www.whatsthepigfor.info/broadband) on my site.
Surely the speedtester is on BTs site? http://speedtester.bt.com/
Anyway, mine is 1885 Kbps, do I win anything?
j4bberw0ck
05-Oct-06, 15:25
Results in text format of the downloadable utility:
Dan Elwell's Broadband Speed Test (unregistered)
Speed Test Report 06/10/05 15:22 - Full test
Test conducted at: 05/10/2006 15:22:05
Test sequence: Full test
Please note that these results are a snapshot of this particular moment. Run the test a few times to ensure maximum accuracy. Although the test has been constructed to be highly accurate, no guarantees can be made to the level of accuracy experienced in everyday use.
Test 1: Ping times to UK servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 30 ms (lower is better)
clara.net: 46.5 ms
linx.co.uk: 62.8 ms
plig.net: 45.3 ms
worcester.ac.uk: 51 ms
This result is much poorer than expected and should be investigated.
Test 2: Ping times to European servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 50 ms (lower is better)
univie.ac.at: 76.5 ms
sunsite.cnlab-switch.ch: 73 ms
free.fr: 51.5 ms
sunsite.cnlab-switch.ch: 72.3 ms
This result is much poorer than expected and should be investigated.
Test 3: Ping times to east-coast USA servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 120 ms (lower is better)
mirror.nocservices.com: 128 ms
mirror.nocservices.com: 132.5 ms
club.cc.cmu.edu: 141.3 ms
dulug.duke.edu: 133.8 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 4: Ping times to west-coast USA servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 160 ms (lower is better)
ucla.edu: 192.3 ms
oregonstate.edu: 140.8 ms
ucla.edu: 190.8 ms
stanford.edu: 196.5 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 5: Ping times to east Asia servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 300 ms (lower is better)
apache.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw: 368.7 ms
stu.edu.tw: 340.3 ms
apache.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw: 368.3 ms
zentek-international.com: 393.5 ms
Your ping times are slightly poorer than expected.
Test 6: Ping times to Australian servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 350 ms (lower is better)
mirror.pacific.net.au: 335 ms
apache.planetmirror.com.au: 345.7 ms
apache.inspire.net.nz: 355 ms
mirror.pacific.net.au: 337.7 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 7: Ping times to central Asian servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 300 ms (lower is better)
apache.dnepr.net: 140.8 ms
apache.rinet.ru: 102.5 ms
apache.fresh.co.il: 184.5 ms
apache.officepark.ru: This test failed due to a server timeout or other error.
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 8: Download speeds from UK servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 512 Kb/s (higher is better)
mirrorservice.org: This test failed due to a server timeout or other error.
Too many server errors occurred therefore this test is inconclusive.
Test 9: Download speeds from European servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 512 Kb/s (higher is better)
apache.crihan.fr: 448 Kb/s
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 10: Download speeds from east-coast USA servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 512 Kb/s (higher is better)
apache.reverse.net: This test failed due to a server timeout or other error.
Too many server errors occurred therefore this test is inconclusive.
Test 11: Upload speeds to the Speed Test Server
Ideally, you should get a result of around 256 Kb/s (higher is better)
Not conducted: You must register this software in order to perform this test.
Please click 'What's This?' for information on registering this software to enable this test.
Test 12: Packet loss en route to a UK server
Ideally, you should get a result of around 0 % (lower is better)
meto.gov.uk: 0 %
gold.ac.uk: 0 %
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 13: Packet loss en route to a European server
Ideally, you should get a result of around 0 % (lower is better)
univie.ac.at: 0 %
lycos.es: 0 %
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 14: Packet loss en route to an east-coast USA server
Ideally, you should get a result of around 0 % (lower is better)
cs.columbia.edu: 0 %
dulug.duke.edu: 0 %
The results of this test indicate no problems.
End of testing.
This report was collated using Dan Elwell's Broadband Speed Test. For more information or to download, please visit www.broadbandspeedtest.net.
Generated 05/10/2006 15:22:10 using test version 3.0.316 - unregistered COPY
Surely the speedtester is on BTs site? http://speedtester.bt.com/
Anyway, mine is 1885 Kbps, do I win anything?
It is ... and I edited my original message just for you!
Winner get's a free post in here (which you've just had).
Your line speed:
4080 Kbps
500 K bytes/sec
Not bad considering i have 2 other computers sharing this line.
Interesting. That's the first time I've succeeded in connecting to the BT speedtester. Anyway, it reported 258 kbps (my service speed is 512).
Speakeasy's (http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/) test gave 511 downstream and 230 upstream.
There's a free downloadable utility >>>here<<< (http://www.broadbandspeedtest.net/download/) which you can run anytime; if you feel inclined to register (£10 to you, squire :lol: ) you can get it to do some clever stuff like scheduled tests, file export, email results etc etc.
I'd say 258 is pretty dreadful. As it keeps warning us it depends on a LOT of factors, but still ... 258?
j4bberw0ck
05-Oct-06, 16:46
That was a slow reading, true enough. Usually I'm getting between 470 and 500.
I had a conversation with one of BT's finest in a call centre a long, long way away when I was trying to resolve the early broadband speed issues. He told me he'd test my line...... so I waited, and waited.......
......until he came back and told me that he'd checked my line and it was delivering the full 2Mbps bandwidth, and he couldn't understand why I thought I was having a problem. I explained the exchange only supported 512kbps and was told that oh, no, Mr J, you're quite wrong. He explained that his "very sophisticated monitoring equipment" was telling him the exact line speed and with his own eyes, he'd seen 2Mbps, and anyway, BT didn't have a 512kbps service. Oh no. Not them.
So I mentioned the words "Exchange Activated" and he looked it up on his system there......"Oh, you have one of those exchanges......." came the response. There was no satisfactory answer when I asked him how he'd managed to see 2 Mbps..... :lol:
It is ... and I edited my original message just for you!
Winner get's a free post in here (which you've just had).
OK, now that we've patronised each other I'll be straight with you.
I think this thread (and your posts in the other dsl thread) are thinly-veiled attempts to pimp your website. I don't know if it breaks any rules but it's bad form, imo.
OK, now that we've patronised each other I'll be straight with you.
I think this thread (and your posts in the other dsl thread) are thinly-veiled attempts to pimp your website. I don't know if it breaks any rules but it's bad form, imo.
That's a bit unfair. He's doling out free advice all the time in the technical forum - very useful.
Back to the thread - my line speed (supposed to be broadband) has just dropped to 48 Mbps - oops no, gone back up to 54. Can't make up its mind. Up and down like a yo-yo.
OK, now that we've patronised each other I'll be straight with you.
I think this thread (and your posts in the other dsl thread) are thinly-veiled attempts to pimp your website. I don't know if it breaks any rules but it's bad form, imo.
blueivy is pretty good at giving his advice on technical problems i will give him that , but i do tend to agree with what you are saying. Blueivy, i to believe that you are advertising your business which i thought was against forum rules.
how can a business advertisment be a signature anyway :confused
http://www.speedtester.bt.com:50302/images/results.gif
The speed test has completed on test server test.speedtester.bt.com for user <name removed> and you have downloaded a 1.7Mb file at a speed of 29787 kilo bits per second (Kbps), your service bandwidth will have been quoted to you in kilo bits per second.
Nae bad. :cool:
blueivy is pretty good at giving his advice on technical problems i will give him that , but i do tend to agree with what you are saying. Blueivy, i to believe that you are advertising your business which i thought was against forum rules.
how can a business advertisment be a signature anyway :confused
Guys, I'm not quite sure how I'm breaking forum rules by advertising my business other than putting a link in my signature (which has now been amended).
I assume it's okay for me to post a link to another companies website and advertise their business but it becomes an issue with me posting a link to my own companies website even when it contains a useful link? Where exactly am I supposed to put it?
MGB1979, I'm unsure exactly what I said in the 'other DSL post' that constitutes 'pimping my website' and what is 'bad form'. I used the Utility Warehouse for broadband, their customer service is excellent, people were asking and recommending broadband suppliers and were 'pimping' those websites so why is it a problem with me posting a link to a site I recommend because I am involved with that company? If I 'pimp' plusnet (which another member/Caithness.org is affiliated with hence the banner) it's okay but if that other member/Caithness.org 'pimps' it, it's wrong?
I know there is a rule of business advertising, as far as I understood it that's not what I was doing. But that works two ways - if I start telling you how wonderful AOL is, I'm advertising their business.
Very confusing.
i am only stating what i read in the forum rules
Business Advertising
Caithness.org sells various types of advertising, we allow free classified adverts but no comercial advertising is allowed. If you are interested in advertising your business the rates can be found here (http://www.caithness-business.co.uk/advertising.php)
i am only stating what i read in the forum rules
Business Advertising
Caithness.org sells various types of advertising, we allow free classified adverts but no comercial advertising is allowed. If you are interested in advertising your business the rates can be found here (http://www.caithness-business.co.uk/advertising.php)
Hi Sam,
Please don't think I was getting at you, I wasn't. I did read the forum rules and as far as I was concerned I wasn't breaking the spirit of them.
thats ok lol, maybe i missunderstood :confused
thats ok lol, maybe i missunderstood :confused
Could have been my 'tone' - understandable maybe, but not acceptable. Apologies.
i thought your business was commercial i.e. looking to make a profit out of advertisement:confused
i thought your business was commercial i.e. looking to make a profit out of advertisement:confused
As is AOL's, PlusNet's, Tiscali's, Wanadoo's, Microsoft, Pipex ... all of them (and many more) mentioned in the few threads that we're talking about.
Guys, I'm not quite sure how I'm breaking forum rules by advertising my business other than putting a link in my signature (which has now been amended).
I assume it's okay for me to post a link to another companies website and advertise their business but it becomes an issue with me posting a link to my own companies website even when it contains a useful link? Where exactly am I supposed to put it?
MGB1979, I'm unsure exactly what I said in the 'other DSL post' that constitutes 'pimping my website' and what is 'bad form'. I used the Utility Warehouse for broadband, their customer service is excellent, people were asking and recommending broadband suppliers and were 'pimping' those websites so why is it a problem with me posting a link to a site I recommend because I am involved with that company? If I 'pimp' plusnet (which another member/Caithness.org is affiliated with hence the banner) it's okay but if that other member/Caithness.org 'pimps' it, it's wrong?
I know there is a rule of business advertising, as far as I understood it that's not what I was doing. But that works two ways - if I start telling you how wonderful AOL is, I'm advertising their business.
Very confusing.
Twice you've linked to your own website when a direct link to the BT page would make more sense. Why do that when it leaves your intentions open to question?
yeah lol. but, the point i was trying to make is they arent coming on here advertising their own business's personally, unlike what you were doing.which is supposed to be against forum rules.
changilass
05-Oct-06, 18:02
As the signature has now been changed, I think it complies with .Org Rules.
Links to Other Websites
We have no problem with users posting links to other web sites, however, everyone should be aware that posts containing links to other web sites will be treated in the same manner as a normal post. If the content of the site breaches our terms and conditions the poster will be subject to the same moderation as if the content was posted on our site. i.e. site contains swearing or sexual content, poster receives suitable amount of Infraction points.
Users should also be aware that although the page they link to may seem innocent enough on first glance, it may be linked to adult content. Websites should at least be checked for an "acceptable use policy" outlining a policy on adult content or that any adult content on the website is more than 2 links away from the url posted.
Content From Other Web Sites
We have no problem with users pasting in passages from other web sites. We would prefer that anything posted in this manner comes with a link to the original or at the very least, gives credit where it is due.
Twice you've linked to your own website when a direct link to the BT page would make more sense. Why do that when it leaves your intentions open to question?
Hi MGB1979,
If you're on Whatsthepigfor broadband page then your interested in broadband services and perhaps switching broadband suppliers (if you already have it) or you got there by accident (in which case you immediately go elsewhere). A link to a site about speed testing and monitoring is of use to a customer interested in the above, that's why it's on the site.
In the other thread you're referring to we were all talking about the best broadband provider, who offers what, how much, downloads, uploads, bandwidth monitoring and people were referring AOL, Tiscali, Sky, Pipex, Plusnet etc. etc. I posted a link to The Utility Warehouse as I have used them for well over a year for broadband (and about 4 years for phone services) and it's why Blue Ivy became a distributor. Somebody mentioned that customer service was bad at one particular ISP so I mentioned The Utility Warehouse customer service has always been good (if you've seen other threads I've been involved in (particularly the Argos thread) you'll know I have a bugbear about bad customer service). I then posted a link to the site so that people could find it (the company doesn't use mas media advertising so it's not well known) and see for themselves about the services. On the site is some useful information about the services, the link to BT Speedtester and when more and more information, links, utilities etc. come my way I will add them too. There is no advertising on that site, no popups, no false claims, no Google ads etc. I don't try and trick you into clicking on anything and I don't con you.
So, I hope you can see why I posted the links.
The problem seems to be that I posted a link to my site which has the BT Speedtester link on it rather than posting the link directly? I had a link on my site and I posted it so that people could use it. Nothing more. If you use the BT Speedtester link and nothing else, what exactly do I gain?
I know there is a rule of business advertising, as far as I understood it that's not what I was doing. But that works two ways - if I start telling you how wonderful AOL is, I'm advertising their business.
Very confusing.
The difference in internet etiquette terms is, one is a recommendation based on being a customer with no personal interest in the company, the other is a conflict of interests as you are recommending something that you might benefit from, for example if you get a commision from people joining UW through your site.
You could get chepaer broadband and calls elsewhere by the way.
yeah lol. but, the point i was trying to make is they arent coming on here advertising their own business's personally, unlike what you were doing.which is supposed to be against forum rules.
Hi Sam,
I thought you said ...
i thought your business was commercial i.e. looking to make a profit out of advertisement
... and that's what you had an issue with? Why does it therefore matter if I post the link, you post it, Joe bloggs posts it? Why is against the rules if I post a link to Blue Ivy but not against the rules if you do it?
Hi MGB1979,
That's lovely but it's quite clear you posted the link to your site because it's littered with referral links, which would benefit you should anyone follow them and make a purchase. I still can't see how you can justify linking to your affiliate site when a link to the BT site would be more useful.
How do we know you didn't lead us all to your site so you could grab the IPs of everyone who followed the link? I'm not saying you did, but, as I said, disguising a link to a private website leaves you open to quesion.
The difference in internet etiquette terms is, one is a recommendation based on being a customer with no personal interest in the company, the other is a conflict of interests as you are recommending something that you might benefit from, for example if you get a commision from people joining UW through your site.
You could get chepaer broadband and calls elsewhere by the way.
Hi Geo,
I thought we were talking forum rules? Where did internet etiquette come from?
Of course you can get cheaper broadband and calls elsewhere. As I always say though you can provide cheap prices and champage service - you get what you pay for. I guarantee that whoever you find providing cheaper calls there will be a cheaper one.
Hi Sam,
I thought you said ...
... and that's what you had an issue with? Why does it therefore matter if I post the link, you post it, Joe bloggs posts it? Why is against the rules if I post a link to Blue Ivy but not against the rules if you do it?
Can you really not see the difference between advertising your own business and someone elses? Really?
j4bberw0ck
05-Oct-06, 18:46
Twice you've linked to your own website when a direct link to the BT page would make more sense. Why do that when it leaves your intentions open to question?
yeah lol. but, the point i was trying to make is they arent coming on here advertising their own business's personally, unlike what you were doing.which is supposed to be against forum rules.
i thought your business was commercial i.e. looking to make a profit out of advertisement:confused
:roll: .
You'll see if you look back at requests for help that blueivy has given advice freely to people asking for it. Not once have I seen him say the advice costs money.
I would have said that that alone should allow the snipers to cut him a bit of slack. Since I'm of the view that his advice is good and he clearly knows a helluva sight more than anyone else who tries to help when it comes to pcs, problems and applications, perhaps I'll just post a "Recommendation" - then I'll be advertising his business.
That's lovely but it's quite clear you posted the link to your site because it's littered with referral links,
As you seem to be getting a little over the top now, let me just clarify your 'littered with referral links' phrase as it's just a tad misleading in my eyes.
There are in fact 5 different links to The Utility Warehouse site in that page. All of them, bar two, go to the same domain (utilitywarehouse.co.uk), the other two go to another domain (utilitywarehouse.biz). So 'littered with referral links' in actual fact are links to different pages in the same company.
which would benefit you should anyone follow them and make a purchase.
As would the recommendations for AOL, Tiscali, Plusnet, Pipex etc. etc.
I still can't see how you can justify linking to your affiliate site when a link to the BT site would be more useful.
How is it any less useful on my site? It still works exactly the same.
How do we know you didn't lead us all to your site so you could grab the IPs of everyone who followed the link? I'm not saying you did, but, as I said, disguising a link to a private website leaves you open to quesion.
I'm not even going to justify that with answer. Somebody needs to lie down and not be so paranoid.
For the less paranoid, Caithness.org has your IP as does anybody other site you go to. Take a look at the source for my site.
I agree with j4bberw0ck.
I think it's a shame to criticise someone for something minor, when he has helped so many people on this messageboard, without ever asking for anything in return.
He is a nice guy, and I know him, so I can say that he is a genuine guy. He always steps in to give free technical advice, when he could be charging people. Give him a break.
By the way, getting back to the original point of the thread - my result was that I downloaded a 1.7Mb file at a speed of 1857 kilo bits per second.
Not sure if that's good or not, but there we go!
Can you really not see the difference between advertising your own business and someone elses? Really?
But if you're against commercial advertising then what is the difference who posts the link?
I did notice that Niall posted a referral link to PlusNet in this thread (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=15409) (third one down, hover over the PlusNet link - see myreferrals in the link) which that referrer will make money from (not sure if it's Niall/Caithness.org/Joe Public) if the service is purchased. Can you tell me what the difference is?
j4bberw0ck
05-Oct-06, 19:02
How do we know you didn't lead us all to your site so you could grab the IPs of everyone who followed the link? I'm not saying you did, but, as I said, disguising a link to a private website leaves you open to quesion.
D'ohhhhhhh. What could he hope to do with it? Your IP address can be grabbed anytime by almost anyone with the right piece of software. Better yet, ever heard of a port sniffer?
As you seem to be getting a little over the top now, let me just clarify your 'littered with referral links' phrase as it's just a tad misleading in my eyes.
There are in fact 5 different links to The Utility Warehouse site in that page. All of them, bar two, go to the same domain (utilitywarehouse.co.uk), the other two go to another domain (utilitywarehouse.biz). So 'littered with referral links' in actual fact are links to different pages in the same company.
As would the recommendations for AOL, Tiscali, Plusnet, Pipex etc. etc.
How is it any less useful on my site? It still works exactly the same.
I'm not even going to justify that with answer. Somebody needs to lie down and not be so paranoid.
For the less paranoid, Caithness.org has your IP as does anybody other site you go to. Take a look at the source for my site.
I assume you're being obtuse to avoid the issue. Your comparison to recommendations for other adsl suppliers is irrelevant and teeth-clenchingly stupid.
But if you're against commercial advertising then what is the difference who posts the link?
I did notice that Niall posted a referral link to PlusNet in this thread (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=15409) (third one down, hover over the PlusNet link - see myreferrals in the link) which that referrer will make money from (not sure if it's Niall/Caithness.org/Joe Public) if the service is purchased. Can you tell me what the difference is?
I'm not against commercial advertising, in fact, I'm all for it. I disagree with disguising links for your own business as something else.
j4bberw0ck
05-Oct-06, 19:07
teeth-clenchingly stupid.
:roll:
Quite so.
And I still recommend BlueIvy even if someone zapped my sig!
I assume you're being obtuse to avoid the issue. Your comparison to recommendations for other adsl suppliers is irrelevant and teeth-clenchingly stupid.
You know what assume makes. Okay, I'll bite. What issue am I avoiding?
You didn't respond the way I was expecting as I thought we were all adults here discussing this. I don't tend to respond to abuse (teeth-clenchingly stupid) and insults (Your comparison to recommendations for other adsl suppliers is irrelevant), it's childish and get's us nowhere.
D'ohhhhhhh. What could he hope to do with it? Your IP address can be grabbed anytime by almost anyone with the right piece of software. Better yet, ever heard of a port sniffer?
I've never heard of a port sniffer, it sounds like something to do with wine tasting so I'm not sure of it's relevance.
j4bberw0ck
05-Oct-06, 19:12
I've never heard of a port sniffer, it sounds like something to do with wine tasting so I'm not sure of it's relevance.
Then you're even more of an innocent abroad than I am. And you're worried about Paul grabbing your IP address?
When did you last sweep your pc for tracking cookies and malware?
Then you're even more of an innocent abroad than I am. And you're worried about Paul grabbing your IP address?
When did you last sweep your pc for tracking cookies and malware?
I wasn't being serious there.
I'm letting this go now because there are enough moderators here without us policing each other as well.
I'm not against commercial advertising, in fact, I'm all for it. I disagree with disguising links for your own business as something else.
You've lost me. You really have. Are you going out of your way for an argument?
You said this:
I think this thread (and your posts in the other dsl thread) are thinly-veiled attempts to pimp your website. I don't know if it breaks any rules but it's bad form, imo.
Which suggests you're against me 'pimping' my website, which I assume is your term for advertising.
That's lovely but it's quite clear you posted the link to your site because it's littered with referral links, which would benefit you should anyone follow them and make a purchase.
Which sounds a lot like you're annoyed because anybody following my links would 'benefit' me which I assume you would also consider commercial advertising. You also said this:
Can you really not see the difference between advertising your own business and someone elses? Really?
Which again 'suggests' that you are against advertising.
NOW all of a sudden your're NOT against commercial advertising you're actually FOR it?
I can't keep up MGB1979. You're obviously out for nothing more than an argument. If you had a serious argument or issue then I'd take it up but come on - I'm stealing your IP address for some 'other' means?!?! You're attacking me as you think I'm advertising commercially and when I counter that argument and also show you what others are doing you suddenly change your entire stance and attack me for something else. This is ridiculous!
The Moderators have agreed they are happy as I've now curtailed my signature size, which to be fair, was just a little on the large side. You accuse and disapprove of something that one of the Moderators also did but I didn't see anybody attacking him. Can you see what I'm just a little annoyed? I still haven't resorted to abuse though. I really think I should stick to the Technical Support forum.
I promise you that if you visited the site then both I and Google have yours and everybody elses IP addresses and I'm off to sell them to a foreign power so they can ... add them up I suppose. What else do you do with four numbers .... maybe we could get the thread back on track with that ...
By the way, for those without a sense of humour, that last statement was a joke. I don't know any foreign powers. Honest.
I agree with j4bberw0ck.
I think it's a shame to criticise someone for something minor, when he has helped so many people on this messageboard, without ever asking for anything in return.
He is a nice guy, and I know him, so I can say that he is a genuine guy. He always steps in to give free technical advice, when he could be charging people. Give him a break.
By the way, getting back to the original point of the thread - my result was that I downloaded a 1.7Mb file at a speed of 1857 kilo bits per second.
Not sure if that's good or not, but there we go!
Thanks for the support KCI. Felt like I was getting it from all sides there!
Anyway, what is your line speed? 2Mbps?
NOW all of a sudden your're NOT against commercial advertising you're actually FOR it?
My stance has been the same from the start. I disagreed with you driving traffic to your affiliate site through unnecessary links. That's it. Nothing more. I've not accused you of doing anything with IPs, that was clearly an illustrative example of what some nefarious types do with links to their sites. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just used to this sort of thing being frowned upon.
edit: Are you ignoring the bit where I make a clear distinction between advertising your own company and that of someone else? Because my whole argument hinges on that bit.
No problem Paul. You've helped me out a few times, and I can't sit by and watch someone I know being treated unfairly.
Yes, my line speed is 2Mbps.
Colin Manson
05-Oct-06, 19:38
But if you're against commercial advertising then what is the difference who posts the link?
I did notice that Niall posted a referral link to PlusNet in this thread (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=15409) (third one down, hover over the PlusNet link - see myreferrals in the link) which that referrer will make money from (not sure if it's Niall/Caithness.org/Joe Public) if the service is purchased. Can you tell me what the difference is?
Commercial Advertising - A user advertising his/her own business via link, is against the rules because businesses pay to advertise on Caithness.org; it isn't fair to them if we allow people to come on the forum and freely advertise their business.
Recommendation - Any user is free to advertise a business which they think will be of benefit to other members. There is a limit to the frequency of this type of advertising and spamming will not be tolerated.
The difference between Nialls link and other users is that he is part of Caithness.org, it can hardly be counted as a separate business interest.
If anyone wants to post something but is unsure if it is acceptable or not, send me a PM.
Will you guys please stop squabbling amongst yourselves?
May I suggest that you go back and be impressed by my connection speed (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=142832&postcount=14) instead. :)
jinglejangle
05-Oct-06, 19:53
Blue Ivy - my speed is 3906 kilo bits per second (Kbps) - is that good?:eek:
jinglejangle
05-Oct-06, 20:01
and another thing ..... all this squabbling has actually made me look at the Blue ivy link which I never did before!
My stance has been the same from the start.
It's not. That's what my last post clearly showed. First you were against commercial advertising then suddenly you were for it. That's a change in stance.
I disagreed with you driving traffic to your affiliate site through unnecessary links. That's it. Nothing more.
No. You frowned upon what I was doing as it was commercial advertising in your eyes. If you disagree with what you thought I was doing you must also have disagreed with what Niall did in the post I mentioned, however I havem't yet seen you attack him.
I've not accused you of doing anything with IPs,
You're right. You didn't accuse me. You suggested and then said you were suggesting which always works. It is entirely different of course, but when mud is thrown you can't unthrow it.
that was clearly an illustrative example of what some nefarious types do with links to their sites.
Which you linked me to by mentioning in the same sentence as discussing what I do with IP addresses.
I'm not looking for an argument,
Then why change your stance to keep it going? Surely if your argument is shown to be incorrect/not hold any water/whatever words you want to use, you drop it.
I'm just used to this sort of thing being frowned upon.
What sort of thing? Commercial advertising? I thought you were in favour of that?
edit: Are you ignoring the bit where I make a clear distinction between advertising your own company and that of someone else? Because my whole argument hinges on that bit.
You'll need to repost that. I didn't see any clear distinction. I did see you mention it earlier where I disagreed with you.
ADDED: The thread seems to be getting back to normal so this is my last post in here on this - if you want an answer to your edit then PM me.
No problem Paul. You've helped me out a few times, and I can't sit by and watch someone I know being treated unfairly.
Yes, my line speed is 2Mbps.
92.85% of maximum ... that's pretty good although I'm still the winner .... :)
Commercial Advertising - A user advertising his/her own business via link, is against the rules because businesses pay to advertise on Caithness.org; it isn't fair to them if we allow people to come on the forum and freely advertise their business.
Recommendation - Any user is free to advertise a business which they think will be of benefit to other members. There is a limit to the frequency of this type of advertising and spamming will not be tolerated.
The difference between Nialls link and other users is that he is part of Caithness.org, it can hardly be counted as a separate business interest.
If anyone wants to post something but is unsure if it is acceptable or not, send me a PM.
But Caithness.org makes money out of that and it's therefore commercial advertising (I think somebody said 'making a profit') under what is being discussed so it should fall under the same rules. You can't say one rule for us and others for you guys - that's not fair!
I'd rather we all just used a bit of common sense and see Niall's link for what it was - a one off. I haven't got a problem with the link Niall posted at all. I do have a problem with being treated differently which is what was happening.
What I did notice is that since I mentioned Niall's link, the 'attacks' (for wwant of a better word) have stopped - funny that?
The speed test has completed on test server test.speedtester.bt.com for user <name removed> and you have downloaded a 1.7Mb file at a speed of 29787 kilo bits per second (Kbps), your service bandwidth will have been quoted to you in kilo bits per second.
Nae bad. :cool:
What exactly are you connecting to the internet with? :)
Blue Ivy - my speed is 3906 kilo bits per second (Kbps) - is that good?:eek:
Is it a 4Mbps broadband connection? If so that's 97.65% .... and you're leading .... <sweary words removed> :~(
No. You frowned upon what I was doing as it was commercial advertising in your eyes.
Aha, this is where you've gone wrong. You've assumed that's why I pulled you up on it.
edit: the thread has moved on since I opened this reply, I'll leave it at that.
There are plenty of sites which offer speedtests -
www.adslguide.org or www.speedtest.net are just two - the second allows you to save your results for referring to or sending as links to others.
I just tested mine -
Download - 2357 kb/s
Upload - 362 kb/s
Latency - 271 ms
Nearest server - London
Best I have had -
D/L - 3261 kb/s
U/L - 358 kb/s
Latency - 218 ms
Server - Wormerveer
Using this Bt test I got :
IP profile for your line is - 3000 kbps
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 4416 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 587 kbps
Not very good at all....
jinglejangle
05-Oct-06, 20:32
Is it a 4Mbps broadband connection? If so that's 97.65% .... and you're leading .... <sweary words removed> :~(
I know nothing about computers etc etc - how do I find out if it is a 4 mbps connection?
Colin Manson
05-Oct-06, 20:34
But Caithness.org makes money out of that and it's therefore commercial advertising (I think somebody said 'making a profit') under what is being discussed so it should fall under the same rules. You can't say one rule for us and others for you guys - that's not fair!
I'd rather we all just used a bit of common sense and see Niall's link for what it was - a one off. I haven't got a problem with the link Niall posted at all. I do have a problem with being treated differently which is what was happening.
What I did notice is that since I mentioned Niall's link, the 'attacks' (for wwant of a better word) have stopped - funny that?
Of course it's fair, Caithness.org pays for the server so all of the advertising that it displays is part of the business. If you want to pay for the adverts then it becomes fair.
Anyway I get 95% of my BB connection and I use a Vigor 2600 plus. :D
There are plenty of sites which offer speedtests -
www.adslguide.org (http://www.adslguide.org) or www.speedtest.net (http://www.speedtest.net) are just two - the second allows you to save your results for referring to or sending as links to others.
There are loads. I think j4bberwock posted a few too. The reason I posted the BT one was it was simpy from BT -
The tester has been developed to provide a more accurate indication of the higher throughput levels experienced by many IPstream Max and IPstream Max Premium end users. It is also capable of testing all existing BT IPstream products and, based on the telephone number, will automatically determine the end user product and the test to be performed
I don't know too much about all the testers as I've only used a few when I've had problems. If this is as good as it says it sounds like the definitive tester.
I just tested mine -
Download - 2357 kb/s
Upload - 362 kb/s
Is it a 45Mbps line you've got? That's pretty poor!
Best I have had -
D/L - 3261 kb/s
U/L - 358 kb/s
That's not too bad.
Of course it's fair, Caithness.org pays for the server so all of the advertising that it displays is part of the business. If you want to pay for the adverts then it becomes fair.
That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. However if what I did is attacked for being commercial advertising then so is what Niall did and that also falls under the same rules. You can't have one set of rules in the forum for us and one set for Caithness.org. That isn't fair regardless of what it's for.
As I said, I'm happy if common sense prevails so I'll leave it at that!
Anyway I get 95% of my BB connection and I use a Vigor 2600 plus. :D
Always use Vigor's at customer sites that need an 'external' VPN (ie. not ISA), good routers. Had a 2600 plus when I connected the two Blue Ivy sites in Glasgow and Wick together. Worked a treat. The new 2800 Vigor (the 2600 replacement) was a pain and very poor (caused me so many problems (and money)).
Anyway, aceofhearts is still in the lead with 97% or DrSzin depending on whether that speed was a typo or not (and assuming he's not the ISP himself)!!
I know nothing about computers etc etc - how do I find out if it is a 4 mbps connection?
You mean you don't know what you're paying for! That's like having a sports car and not knowing the engine size! Shame on you .... what do you brag about at parties? :)
If you go into your modem/router configuration and look at the uplink speed it will say what it is. I assume it's 4Mbps and not faster (can't be less according to the stats).
jinglejangle
05-Oct-06, 21:52
You mean you don't know what you're paying for! That's like having a sports car and not knowing the engine size! Shame on you .... what do you brag about at parties? :)
If you go into your modem/router configuration and look at the uplink speed it will say what it is. I assume it's 4Mbps and not faster (can't be less according to the stats).
modem/router configuration - you have really lost me now! and how did you know i had a sports car but don't know the engine size?
Colin Manson
05-Oct-06, 22:13
That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. However if what I did is attacked for being commercial advertising then so is what Niall did and that also falls under the same rules. You can't have one set of rules in the forum for us and one set for Caithness.org. That isn't fair regardless of what it's for.
As I said, I'm happy if common sense prevails so I'll leave it at that!
You were questioned over your linking practices, it's clear that you have been pushing your business on the forum which is clearly against the rules.
Another Example - here (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=141868&postcount=3)
The link that posted Niall would only benefit Caithness.org, your links etc only benefit your business, that is the difference. There is only one set of rules it's your interpretation of them that is at fault. Leave it to the Moderators to apply the rules.
You were questioned over your linking practices, it's clear that you have been pushing your business on the forum which is clearly against the rules.
Another Example - here (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=141868&postcount=3)
The link that posted Niall would only benefit Caithness.org, your links etc only benefit your business, that is the difference. There is only one set of rules it's your interpretation of them that is at fault. Leave it to the Moderators to apply the rules.
Is the post in this thread contravening (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=14817) the rules?
The link you post shows me offering a monitor to somebody that believed their's was on it's last legs. What that single message link fails to show is the entire thread where my advice in fact saved that poster from buying a new monitor. The entire thread is here (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=15360). Not posting the entire thread is misleading. If I had been so hell bent on pushing my business I wouldn't have tried to help and in fact saved that person money by telling them that their monitor wasn't in fact on the blink but had a dodgy video cable. Also see the thread from porshiepoo where it was suggested she needed a new PC - she has now resolved the problems with her PC thanks to mine (and others) advice and potentially saved herself £499.00 for Lidl's (as it was recommended she buy the special offer PC from Lidl's)
What you're saying is that you guys can do anything you want as it's your site - the rest of us have to stick to the rules though. Niall's post is either commercial and falls under the rules or it's not commercial and doesn't. As my link was the same as Niall's your decision equally must apply to me, assuming that the rules appl to everybody. Niall's link only benefits Caithness.org and mine only benefits me? Why does benefiting Caithness.org exclude it from the rules? How far do you plan to take that ?
As far as I was concerned the Moderators had already applied the rules and said there wasn't a problem. If rules are clearly unfair and biased, which is certainly how I see you interpreting them, then in any other site would you just put up with them? This is supposed to be the largest community site in the Scotland/UK?
As I said I don't have a problem with Niall's link. I do have a problem of both of the links being treated differently.
j4bberw0ck
05-Oct-06, 22:33
So might I ask, then, why in the light of the absolutely breathtakingly appalling breach of rules by blueivy, the moderators (even unto the highest and the most senior) said absolutely zilch, nada, nothing - until a couple of snipers decided to take it on? Then there are mods getting holier-than-thou and crawling out of the woodwork everywhere.
Seems strange to me, but then, what do I know? Just on a peedie island with a peedie broadband connection.....
Consistency might be no bad thing, though.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
05-Oct-06, 22:35
Blue Ivy I thought ye were a porn star before I read the whole thread.Its computers yer into.Sorry!!!!:lol: :lol:
Blue Ivy I thought ye were a porn star before I read the whole thread.Its computers yer into.Sorry!!!!:lol: :lol:
I'm just going to believe you've met me and take that as a compliment ...
Do you know my wife??!?! She thought I sold 'adult videos' when we first met and I told her the business name! I suppose if I decide to pack in the computer services business I can always keep the name ...
pultneytooner
05-Oct-06, 22:44
Is the post in this thread contravening (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=14817) the rules?
Ah didna make any muney oot o' at link, honest guv'ner.[lol]
Seriously though, this thread has got way out of hand so why not just stop hotlinks to sites, ie, hxxp//blahblahblah.co.
Also, blueivy gives free, professional advice in the tech forum so what's the problem with a link to his business?
connieb19
05-Oct-06, 22:49
Blueivy was a great help to me when I had problems with my computer, I would have usually have paid someone to come and sort it out. Blueivy was able to tell me what to do and saved me paying out. people here are being totally unfair. :(
Hi Geo,
I thought we were talking forum rules? Where did internet etiquette come from?
Of course you can get cheaper broadband and calls elsewhere. As I always say though you can provide cheap prices and champage service - you get what you pay for. I guarantee that whoever you find providing cheaper calls there will be a cheaper one.
First off my post was fyi, to explain why some found your post a bit off. It was not intended to have a go.
The forum rules and internet etiquette are linked. The forum is part of the internet so it's good to follow both the forum rules and if possible netiquette guidelines. Either way it seems to have been made clear that self advertising posts are not allowed as per the forum rules.
My current telecom deal is with call1899 (daytime calls at 0p per minute with a 3p connection charge), call18185 (for calling mobiles at 5p per minute) both with no subscription and free evening and weekend calls from Primus Telecom again with no subscription. Service from them all has been great. I can't find cheaper just now but am always on the look out! :)
modem/router configuration - you have really lost me now! and how did you know i had a sports car but don't know the engine size?
I just knew your type :lol:
We could go through the steps of finding out, however I think we could safely say that it's a 4Mbps connection as that seems to be more common than 8Mbps. That does mean your leading still ....... anybody else?
If you really REALLY want to know, PM me and I'll take you through the steps.
First off my post was fyi, to explain why some found your post a bit off. It was not intended to have a go.
My apologies if I came across the wrong way.
The forum rules and internet etiquette are linked. The forum is part of the internet so it's good to follow both the forum rules and if possible netiquette guidelines. Either way it seems to have been made clear that self advertising posts are not allowed as per the forum rules.
If that is the case then why was no fuss made with Niall's post (which was made before mine and therefore could be taken that I was using that as a basis on what was and was not acceptable).
Anyway.
My current telecom deal is with call1899 (daytime calls at 0p per minute with a 3p connection charge), call18185 (for calling mobiles at 5p per minute) both with no subscription and free evening and weekend calls from Primus Telecom again with no subscription. Service from them all has been great. I can't find cheaper just now but am always on the look out! :)
That is a great deal, but if you make a lot of calls then a bundled package (available from many many suppliers) may be a better option. Lot's of 3p's mount up. It would take a LOT of calls to make a package better value but it's still an option.
I thought the way you wrote last time that The UW packages weren't cheap compared to what you had - no call package is particularly cheap compared to what you have so that comparison was just a little unfair!
I have to admit I haven't seen Niall's post but going by the explanation Colin gave it sounds ok. A bit like the BBC being able to advertise their programs on their channels but no one else being able to!
Anyway I've said enough! All the best with your business/venture. I hope it works well for you.
Is this like one of those country songs where they end up being lifetime friends at the end? ;)
I have to admit I haven't seen Niall's post but going by the explanation Colin gave it sounds ok. A bit like the BBC being able to advertise their programs on their channels but no one else being able to!
But if the BBC struck a deal with Sky TV to allow ads for Sky, it's be understandable for ITV and CH 4 to get upset. If the BBC started advertising mobile phones from Vodafone then you'd understand when O2, T-Mobile etc. got upset.
I see Caithness.org advertising Caithness.org services (ie. forums, business listings or other services they provide) as fine but they don't provide broadband. There is a difference from promoting the site on the site and promoting other commercial interests on the site. At least that's the way I see it. It should be a level playing field and common sense should play a part.
Anyway I've said enough! All the best with your business/venture. I hope it works well for you.
I've been in business over 5 years now so I hope it continues to work well.
Is this like one of those country songs where they end up being lifetime friends at the end? ;)
We could disappear into the sunset .... I don't have a horse .... or a motorbike ....
webmannie
05-Oct-06, 23:38
IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 6223 kbps
But if the BBC struck a deal with Sky TV to allow ads for Sky, it's be understandable for ITV and CH 4 to get upset. If the BBC started advertising mobile phones from Vodafone, O2, T-Mobile etc. would get upset and again I could understand. I see Caithness.org advertising Caithness.org services (ie. forums, business listings or other services they provide) as fine but when they advertise other companies services (ie.PlusNet) I see that differently. It should be a level playing field and common sense should play a part.
Well I said I'd said enough however.....! :)
Admin don't allow free commercial posts from anyone whether it's Geo's chocolate fireguards Ltd*, Coca Cola, BT, or Plus.net for that matter. They do allow commercial paid for advertising as the site is after all a business. I'm resonably sure they would let you have paid for advertising like Plusnet's unless of course all their advertising space is taken. So I feel the the playing field is level, unlike Wick Academy's!**
We could disappear into the sunset .... I don't have a horse .... or a motorbike ....
I have a self propelled lawnmower if that's any use!
*Not a real company. ;)
**Disclaimer: I haven't seen it for a good few years so it may be level now!
Well I said I'd said enough however.....! :)
Admin don't allow free commercial posts from anyone whether it's Geo's chocolate fireguards Ltd*, Coca Cola, BT, or Plus.net for that matter.
I wasn't clear. If the BBC struck a deal with Sky that they'd get paid commission if somebody joined them as a result of the ad then ITV, CH4 would be justified in getting upset.
That's what happened. Nial posted a link in a thread for Plusnet using a referral code that meant if somebody clicked on it then Caithness.org/he would get paid. If he is allowed to do that then why can't I? That is not a level playing field.
They do allow commercial paid for advertising as the site is after all a business. I'm resonably sure they would let you have paid for advertising like Plusnet's unless of course all their advertising space is taken.
That's my point. If Plusnet had paid for a banner I wouldn't have a problem. In fact Caithess.org have a banner for Plusnet which I don't have a problem with as I can also have a banner (I need to pay for it but the option is there) - that's a level playing field.
I know you don't want to be dragged into it so I'll leave it at that with you.
So I feel the the playing field is level, unlike Wick Academy's!**
Now that I know nothing about!
I have a self propelled lawnmower if that's any use!
I may be interested depending on who gets the sharp end ...
Colin Manson
06-Oct-06, 09:09
I wasn't clear. If the BBC struck a deal with Sky that they'd get paid commission if somebody joined them as a result of the ad then ITV, CH4 would be justified in getting upset.
That's what happened. Nial posted a link in a thread for Plusnet using a referral code that meant if somebody clicked on it then Caithness.org/he would get paid. If he is allowed to do that then why can't I? That is not a level playing field.
He pays for it and you don't.
That's my point. If Plusnet had paid for a banner I wouldn't have a problem. In fact Caithess.org have a banner for Plusnet which I don't have a problem with as I can also have a banner (I need to pay for it but the option is there) - that's a level playing field.
Several companies advertise on this forum, in fact they even have their own sections. Surely those break your rules as well?
Niall Fernie
06-Oct-06, 09:53
The major difference between my link and ANY other link is that if I so choose I can put that link at the top of every single page across all of our web sites. However rather than doing that I choose to post it on the occasional thread that comes up discussing broadband. If you notice there are also banner ads for PlusNet which carry the same link as I posted. If Caithness.Org manages to recoup the odd 50 pence here and there against the cost of running the site then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that. We could of course commit web site suicide and charge a subscription. How much do you think people would be willing to pay to have an advert free version of the forum?
The major difference between my link and ANY other link is that if I so choose I can put that link at the top of every single page across all of our web sites. However rather than doing that I choose to post it on the occasional thread that comes up discussing broadband. If you notice there are also banner ads for PlusNet which carry the same link as I posted. If Caithness.Org manages to recoup the odd 50 pence here and there against the cost of running the site then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that. We could of course commit web site suicide and charge a subscription. How much do you think people would be willing to pay to have an advert free version of the forum?
I don't have a problem with you collecting the odd 50p, £1.00, £1.50 or £10.00 to recoup the costs. I don't even have a problem if you recoup £1000 from your links, I'd say excellent and well done. I hope you make as much money as you ethically can, that's what pays the mortgage after all.
By the same token why should it be an issue if I tell somebody that is looking for a monitor that I have one available and recoup a few pounds from it to cover the hours I've spent providing help and advice to people in the Technical Support forum? I didn't try and con anybody and in fact advised them that the monitor problem that they had didn't warrant a new monitor at all, but if they wanted one the offer was there. It may have been that if I hadn't got involved in that thread the person concerned would have spent £100, £150, £200 on a new monitor when they didn't have to. Would it have been more acceptable if I advised them that the could buy one from PC World, Amazon, eBay or eBuyer but not that I have one - that's a little ridiculous. What about this thread (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=13935) that Ric started about creating animated avatars if you hover over the link in the first thread you'll see that the guide is hosted on one of my sites. Am I not allowed to 'recoup' costs for all of the bandwidth that is being taken up with downloading that guide?
While I don't have a problem with you collecting whatever you want from the site, I do have a problem with you and the other Moderators (I'm assuming it's open to all of the Moderators) posting links to 'recoup' whatever costs you see fit but stop anybody else from doing the same and it then suddenly becomes commercial advertising and is against forum rules. As we both posted the same type of links either both of us posted against the rules or neither of us did. It can't be a case of one rule for you and the other Moderators and one rule for the rest of us.
He pays for it and you don't.
He paid for what? He paid to post the link in this thread (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=15409)? If you're telling me he paid for a banner link then I'll take your word for it, but, as I've already said I don't have a problem with that and already said so here (in my response to Geo):
That's my point. If Plusnet had paid for a banner I wouldn't have a problem. In fact Caithess.org have a banner for Plusnet which I don't have a problem with as I can also have a banner (I need to pay for it but the option is there) - that's a level playing field.
If I wanted a banner then that option is open to me and it's a level playing field. Equally is Niall posts a link and I post a similar one and I'm then attacked for doing so then that's not a level playing field.
I may have misunderstood you, but are you saying that as Niall has a banner he can posts the links to the same destination as the banner (ie. Plusnet) in threads? Does this mean if I purchase a banner then I can do the same? The issue is therefore that I haven't paid for advertising?
Several companies advertise on this forum, in fact they even have their own sections. Surely those break your rules as well?
Colin, you've confused me. What rules do I have? I thought we were discussing your forum rules that Sam (I think) posted way back at the beginning of this thread.
If other businesses advertise here then I'm happy for all of them. It's great news. Maybe they will get some exposure which is always a good idea for small businesses especially now as some of the bigger corporates are moving up here and will no doubt cost them a lot of business. I'd be grateful if you could post a quick link to some (or one) of the advertisements.
newlabeluk
06-Oct-06, 10:48
I think this has gotten way out of hand a signature is a signature. if it tells you what he does and where to find him fine. If you want to employ them you'll look them up and as for the scaremongering re hackers/IP addie stealer there are smart 13 year olds out here that can do that but any business man worth his salt won't be using those practises, I hope you'll remember that Paul and Niall give FREE advice to anyone that asks, so get off the soapboxes before they tell us to call BT callcentrefor half an hour with a person that a)doesn't speak the language or b) insists there's nothing wrong!
so get off the soapboxes before they tell us to call BT callcentrefor half an hour with a person that a)doesn't speak the language or b) insists there's nothing wrong!
Half an hour!!!!!!:eek: your being generous. I spent an hour and a half trying to resolve a computer problem with the internet provider, he was very arrogant and ended up telling me to grab a paper and pen, he rattled off what was to me a language i'd never heard before then hung up.
I have in the past pm'd blueivy with a problem, he offered free advice on how to resolve a problem. Something which he does'nt need to do.
I think this has gotten way out of hand a signature is a signature. if it tells you what he does and where to find him fine. If you want to employ them you'll look them up and as for the scaremongering re hackers/IP addie stealer there are smart 13 year olds out here that can do that but any business man worth his salt won't be using those practises, I hope you'll remember that Paul and Niall give FREE advice to anyone that asks, so get off the soapboxes before they tell us to call BT callcentrefor half an hour with a person that a)doesn't speak the language or b) insists there's nothing wrong!
Hi Jacquie,
You're right. It's gotten out of hand now but I don't like being attacked in public and I have to say my piece when I see something is unfair or unjust. My point is what is good for the goose is good for the gander - the rules are either applied to everybody or nobody, you can't make it up as you go along (which look like is what's happening to me, although to be fair Colin may be suggesting that as Niall had a paid for banner he was allowed to post the link in the thread which is the first time I've heard this and it's also not mentioned in the rules that Sam posted).
If Niall or Colin want to continue this they are more than welcome to take it to email (they both have my email) or PM.
Anyway, I've said way too much and spent waay too much time in here discussing this so I'll leave the unfair rules discussion here.
For the record, aceofhearts is so far the winner .... and j4bberwock's is so far the worst (258?!?)
Half an hour!!!!!!:eek: your being generous. I spent an hour and a half trying to resolve a computer problem with the internet provider, he was very arrogant and ended up telling me to grab a paper and pen, he rattled off what was to me a language i'd never heard before then hung up.
I have in the past pm'd blueivy with a problem, he offered free advice on how to resolve a problem. Something which he does'nt need to do.
... that's nothing. I spent 58 minutes on the phone to Scottish Gas last Friday trying to resolve a problem. It's funny how they jump when you write to EnergyWatch but if you spend four months (middle of June until now) contacting them on your own they completely ignore you!
Thank you also for the support.
7150 kbps
448kbps (up-stream) 8128kbps (down-stream)
1906 kbps
Double-dutch to me.:lol:
IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 6223 kbps
77.78% ... hmmm ... not great. Try the test again it may just have been a busy time for your local exchange. Not quite as bad a j4bberwock's though (50.3%!)
7150 kbps
448kbps (up-stream) 8128kbps (down-stream)
1906 kbps
Double-dutch to me.:lol:
Was the 'Actual IP throughput' 1906kbps? If so that's dreaful for an 8Mbps line. I'd try that again something must be wrong somewhere (or your exchange blew up in the middle of the test!).
Thought I'd edit this post and explain what the results mean:
7150kbps is the profile of your line (ie. what the line is setup for).
448kbps (up-stream) is the maximum speed you can upload at (ie. if you were uploading pictures to Caithness.org for example).
812kbps (down-stream) is the maximum speed you can download at (ie. if you were viewing pictures on Caithness.org)
1906 is the speed that the speedtester measured your line at (ie. send a 1.7Mb file to you and times how long it takes that's how it calculates the speed your line is handling).
Was the 'Actual IP throughput' 1906kbps? If so that's dreaful for an 8Mbps line. I'd try that again something must be wrong somewhere (or your exchange blew up in the middle of the test!).
LOL, it was aye. I'll try again.:D
Was the 'Actual IP throughput' 1906kbps? If so that's dreaful for an 8Mbps line. I'd try that again something must be wrong somewhere (or your exchange blew up in the middle of the test!).
Thought I'd edit this post and explain what the results mean:
7150kbps is the profile of your line (ie. what the line is setup for).
448kbps (up-stream) is the maximum speed you can upload at (ie. if you were uploading pictures to Caithness.org for example).
812kbps (down-stream) is the maximum speed you can download at (ie. if you were viewing pictures on Caithness.org)
1906 is the speed that the speedtester measured your line at (ie. send a 1.7Mb file to you and times how long it takes that's how it calculates the speed your line is handling).
Tried again.
IP profile of your line-7150kbps
448kbps up-stream
8128kbps down-stream
Actual IP- 1923kbps
Tried again.
IP profile of your line-7150kbps
448kbps up-stream
8128kbps down-stream
Actual IP- 1923kbps
If your line is 8Mbps (which is what it's saying at the down-stream section) you need to get onto your broadband provider as that speed is dreadful. You have the speed of a 2Mbps connection! Something is wrong somewhere.
If your line is 8Mbps (which is what it's saying at the down-stream section) you need to get onto your broadband provider as that speed is dreadful. You have the speed of a 2Mbps connection! Something is wrong somewhere.
When i connect to my provider i'm told i'm connected at 8.1mbps. I'll get it checked it out thanks.
When i connect to my provider i'm told i'm connected at 8.1mbps. I'll get it checked it out thanks.
Your modem will be showing you the connected speed rather than the throughput (which is the actual speed). It's like saying the maximum speed on a road is 70mph but because of all the other road users, it's wet and because of debris on the road you'll only drive at say 40mph. The 70mph is your maximum speed, the 40mph is your actual speed because of the conditions.
speed:2.2mbps
Is that your throughput? What's your max line speed?
pultneytooner
06-Oct-06, 13:19
Just out of interest, how does it work when you have a for sale forum, do the people pay to advertise their goods on c.org, does this mean that blueivy can sell his good on the for sale forum?
Also I thought that with pay per click adverts the companies involved pay you so much per referal, not the other way round.:D
changilass
06-Oct-06, 13:30
For sale items are private sales not comercial, so the answer is No, companies cannot sell their items in the for sale section.
Private sales are FREE
The exception to this can be seen in the cars for sale section, where companies have paid to be able to sell their vehicles.
If a company wished to sell on the org, they would have to contact the Admin.
Hope this clears it up.
Changi
Colin Manson
06-Oct-06, 14:04
If other businesses advertise here then I'm happy for all of them. It's great news. Maybe they will get some exposure which is always a good idea for small businesses especially now as some of the bigger corporates are moving up here and will no doubt cost them a lot of business. I'd be grateful if you could post a quick link to some (or one) of the advertisements.
Wm Dunnet & Co Ltd (http://forum.caithness.org/forumdisplay.php?f=48)
Richard's Garage (http://forum.caithness.org/forumdisplay.php?f=51)
J & G Sutherland (http://forum.caithness.org/forumdisplay.php?f=67)
Okay, Blueivy, here's my bits 'n' bobs...
IP profile for your line is - 6000 kbps
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 7104 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3587 kbps
I have no idea if this is good or bad?
Okay, Blueivy, here's my bits 'n' bobs...
IP profile for your line is - 6000 kbps
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 7104 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3587 kbps
I have no idea if this is good or bad?
7Mbps connection ... not see that yet! That's 50.1%. Even if you use 6000 as your line speed it's still only 59.7% which is still quite poor! I'd try it again later and see if makes any difference.
What connection speed do you think you have (ie. what are you paying for)?
What exactly are you connecting to the internet with? :)A Dell pc and an ethernet cable. :cool:
Seriously, I was using my employer's network where speed isn't restricted by ADSL over standard phone lines - so my connection speed wasn't a typo. Indeed, I redid the test later and the speed was about 31Mbs.
467 kbps on a 512 connection, about 5 miles out in the sticks from the exchange. S'pose that's OK.
The site wouldn't let me play because I don't have a UK telephone number. Oh, well! I can tell you who likely has the worst broadband connection on the org team, but I don't want to be sharing information about other users.
newlabeluk
08-Oct-06, 20:03
910Kbps on a service that Promises 8Mb in my area if available but can only actually manage 5Mb and gives 2Mb.
twice the speed of my sister on same provider in JOG.:roll:
956 Kbps, whatever that means?
I worked for Caithness Voluntary group (C.V.G.) a few years ago in Wick, and I was led to believe that Caithness.org was set up under the auspicies of CVG for the benefit of the community (please correct me if I am wrong). I have always had a bone of contention that this being a "community website" and was probably initialy funded by the CVG or CASE or whatever, so to advertise certain products and services as Bill and Niall have over the years, would seem that they have personally taken over this website for financial gain when it actulally belongs to the community (please correct me if I am wrong)
If Caithness.org is wholly owned and registered by Bill and Naill, I would be greatly interested in when and where it was registered etc.
As regards to moderators I can only from a previous link some time ago regarding an issue that cropped up regarding :
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who moderates the moderator?)
No offence to anyone, but this site seems to have become more dictatorial over the last few years since adverts/banners have crept onto its web pages.
I was led to believe that finances generated from Bill and Nialls sidelines such as Scorrie Services et al, helped to run the community website and I am still in the belief that the website belongs to the community, even though it is run by Bill and Niall for the benefit of the communtiy and not necesarilly for financial gain (please correct me if I am wrong).
So would someone please enlighten me to who actually owns Caithness.org, and should there be adverts placed on the website for business purposes when basically it is a community service for the community?
There is no intention to insult/upset/or annoy Owners (?) or Moderators of this site, but I would be greatfully obliged if someone of the higher echelons could enlighten me.
Hopefully the above posting (not that I'm being paranoid) does not incur a "ban" however, if it does, then hopefully I'll speak to you at a later date (1,2 or possibly 3 months from now (lol)).
George Brims
10-Oct-06, 22:25
I couldn't get that test to work either because of no UK phine number (wonder why they want it?). I found a wee Java thing that tests it at http://www.dslreports.com/stest
Mine says
61791 / 62827 kbps ·or· 7542.9 / 7669.3 kb/sec
Unfortunately I don't get anything like that speed at home. Our campus is where the internet was invented and is one of the major hubs. Gigabit fibre comes out of a hole in the wall into our router.
910Kbps on a service that Promises 8Mb in my area if available but can only actually manage 5Mb and gives 2Mb.
twice the speed of my sister on same provider in JOG.:roll:
That's not right. If you're paying for an 8Mbps connection then you should get an 8Mbps connection (or close to it). Less than 1Mbps is not good for you.
I'd try it again and if it's still awful, get in touch with your ISP!
956 Kbps, whatever that means?
What's your maximum speed (ie. is it a 2Mbps, 4Mbps, 8Mbps line)?
What's your maximum speed (ie. is it a 2Mbps, 4Mbps, 8Mbps line)?
It's 2Mbps
If your line is 8Mbps (which is what it's saying at the down-stream section) you need to get onto your broadband provider as that speed is dreadful. You have the speed of a 2Mbps connection! Something is wrong somewhere.
Something is wrong, i get a different calculation each time..now it's 6080mbps...well that's an improvement.:D
connieb19
12-Oct-06, 10:44
IP profile for your line is - 7000 kbps
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 8096 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 6041 kbps
This is mine..no idea what it all means though. :confused
It's 2Mbps
Hi sweetpea,
That's still pretty low - less than 50%. Give it another try as it may just have been a bad time to do it (broadband speed relies on a number of factors).
Something is wrong, i get a different calculation each time..now it's 6080mbps...well that's an improvement.:D
That's a LOT better for an 8Mbps connection - it's still a little lower than I'd hope but it's well within the parameters set by BT with the speedtester application.
IP profile for your line is - 7000 kbps
DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM) 8096 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 6041 kbps
This is mine..no idea what it all means though. :confused
That's within the threshold set by BT so I suppose it's acceptable. Seems the avergae throughput of an 8Mbps connection is about 6Mbps which is what you're getting.
It still read the same.
It's just under 1Mbps which again is officially within BT's limits but I'd expect to see something a lot faster from experience and from what others in the thread have said. If you contact your ISP they may be able to help you, however they may also said that it's within 'tolerance' levels and do nothing. Bear in mind that if you're paying for a 2Mbps connection it may be worthwhile dropping to a 1Mbps connection as that's all you're getting anyway - on saying that you may get an even slower speed so it's up to you .... contact your ISP in the first instance though.
Hi Blueivy,
Speed Test Report 06/10/10 18:48 - Full test
Test conducted at: 10/10/2006 18:48:43
Test sequence: Full test
Please note that these results are a snapshot of this particular moment. Run the test a few times to ensure maximum accuracy. Although the test has been constructed to be highly accurate, no guarantees can be made to the level of accuracy experienced in everyday use.
Test 1: Ping times to UK servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 30 ms (lower is better)
linx.co.uk: 30 ms
southwark.gov.uk: 32.3 ms
gnu.teleglobe.net: 26 ms
f2s.com: 28.3 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 2: Ping times to European servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 50 ms (lower is better)
tu-berlin.de: 62 ms
tu-berlin.de: 60.8 ms
club-internet.fr: 35.3 ms
uvsq.fr: 37.3 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 3: Ping times to east-coast USA servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 120 ms (lower is better)
rutgers.edu: This test failed due to a server timeout or other error.
mirror.cc.vt.edu: 141.5 ms
mirrors.ptd.net: 134.7 ms
mirror.nocservices.com: 108.3 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 4: Ping times to west-coast USA servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 160 ms (lower is better)
cybertrails.com: 177 ms
uconn.edu: 112.5 ms
limestone.uoregon.edu: 167 ms
redhat.netnitco.net: 175.8 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 5: Ping times to east Asia servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 300 ms (lower is better)
stu.edu.tw: 339.7 ms
apache.netsolutions.com.hk: 265.5 ms
meisei-u.ac.jp: 313.3 ms
apache.oss.eznetsols.org: 361.3 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 6: Ping times to Australian servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 350 ms (lower is better)
bondinet.com: 336 ms
ains.net.au: 358.7 ms
froggy.com.au: 372 ms
apache.inspire.net.nz: 356.7 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 7: Ping times to central Asian servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 300 ms (lower is better)
oynasana.com: 103.5 ms
apache.fresh.co.il: 115.3 ms
opensourcecommunity.ph: 372.7 ms
apache.rinet.ru: 83.3 ms
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 8: Download speeds from UK servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 2048 Kb/s (higher is better)
download.mirror.ac.uk: 1864 Kb/s
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 9: Download speeds from European servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 2048 Kb/s (higher is better)
cvut.cz: 1707 Kb/s
Your download speeds are slightly poorer than expected.
Test 10: Download speeds from east-coast USA servers
Ideally, you should get a result of around 2048 Kb/s (higher is better)
apache.oc1.mirrors.redwire.net: 781 Kb/s
This result shows serious problems with your downloads, and should be investigated.
Test 11: Upload speeds to the Speed Test Server
Ideally, you should get a result of around 256 Kb/s (higher is better)
Not conducted: You must register this software in order to perform this test.
Please click 'What's This?' for information on registering this software to enable this test.
Test 12: Packet loss en route to a UK server
Ideally, you should get a result of around 0 % (lower is better)
southwark.gov.uk: 2 %
clara.net: 0 %
A small amount of packet loss has been detected. This should be investigated.
Test 13: Packet loss en route to a European server
Ideally, you should get a result of around 0 % (lower is better)
sunsite.cnlab-switch.ch: 0 %
uvsq.fr: 0 %
The results of this test indicate no problems.
Test 14: Packet loss en route to an east-coast USA server
Ideally, you should get a result of around 0 % (lower is better)
unet.brandeis.edu: This test failed due to a server timeout or other error.
mirrors.ptd.net: 14 %
An unacceptable level of packet loss has been detected which should be investigated.
End of testing.
Generated 10/10/2006 18:48:44 using test version 3.0.316 - unregistered COPY
Obviously the above is "gobbledy gook" to me, is it good or could it be better?
Tahnks for your help.
Ciao,
David
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.