BT Infinity - speed much lower than expected

Morning all,
I will be raising a call with BT this morning but thought I would post here too. Eventually got BT infinity installed on the 16th of March after BT messed up the order - I am less than 90 metres to the cabinet.
My speed fluctuates between 17MB and 36MB - I was told by BT that I should expect at least 70MB - I have checked speeds in the AM, mid afternoon, evening and night and have done so for the last week - numerous speed test sites used : speedtest.net / the BT speed test and others provided by other ISPs - all show the same speeds or thereabouts.
Have to say, not massively impressed with Infinity or the service provided by BT.

Hi Guys,
See below and these are the highest speeds I have had yet..
FAQ
1. Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Download Speed
40.71 Mbps
0 Mbps
77.44 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed
Download speedachieved during the test was - 40.71 Mbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speedsis 16 Mbps-77.44 Mbps .
Additional Information:
IP Profile for your line is - 77.44 Mbps
2. Upstream Test: -provides background information.
Upload Speed
9.16 Mbps
0 Mbps
20 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed
Upload speed achieved during the test was - 9.16Mbps
Additional Information:
Upstream Rate IP profile on your line is - 20 Mbps
We were unable to identify any performance problem with your service at this time.

Similar Messages

When I have headphones plugged into my iphone it says warning'' high volume'' and becomes first a red and then plop a number of red pops but it will not be so for someone else I know. My sound will be much lower than anyone else in the music, and when I t

When I have headphones plugged into my iphone it says warning'' high volume'' and becomes first a red and then plop a number of red pops but it will not be so for someone else I know. My sound will be much lower than anyone else in the music, and when I talk by phone headset

Hi! I have the same problem when I use my headphones .
iPhone 4s England, iOS 6.1.2

Schema version is lower than expected value

While configuring the database at Step 3 of 9, it threw me an exception: INST-6177 OIM Schema version is lower than expected value.
Create OIM 11g schema using repository creation utility and proceed with configuration.
Now, Please help me...

For the exception, the trace says that:
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.511+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
[OIM_CONFIG_INTERVIEW] MDS Schema Version is correct
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Exiting method executeHandler
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
[OIM_CONFIG_INTERVIEW] Database is not encryped. This is not an upgrade flow.
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Could not fetch the schema version from the database
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
ERROR ====>>>>:INST-6177
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
Cause:OIM Schema version is lower than the expected value
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
Action:Create OIM 11g schema using Repository Creation Utility and proceed with configuration.
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] [[
[OIM_CONFIG_INTERVIEW] Retrieving default locale set in the machine.
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation.handler.oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Exiting method executeHandler
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Handler launch end: oimQueriesHandler.checkForUpgrade
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Handler returned status: FAILED
[2011-05-19T14:29:10.527+01:00] [as] [NOTIFICATION] [] [oracle.as.install.engine.modules.validation] [tid: 11] [ecid: 0000J08SN_J6UOYFLrvH8A1DpHfc000002,0] Error in validating schema details

Lower than expected battery life? (pic warning)

I have the x61s w/ the UltraLight screen and 4-cell cylindrical battery. According to the specs I should be getting up to 4.5h.From what I've heard, lenovo's estimations are actually normally quite accurate.
Well here's the thing - I probably top out at about 3hrs. This is QUITE a bit lower than expected. Could it be a faulty battery? I'm expecting more out of this baby!
Message Edited by Kaitlyn2004 on 05-01-2009 07:13 PM
Message Edited by JaneL on 05-01-2009 10:59 PM

The 4.5 hours estimate is when you don't use your laptop for anything other than word processing, and dim out your LCD. In addition it would also require you not use any wireless connection or lot of background processes.
You can check your battery condition, by going into power manager and look at what is the design capacity and actual capacity?
Message Edited by JaneL on 05-01-2009 10:59 PM
Regards,
Jin Li
May this year, be the year of 'DO'!
I am a volunteer, and not a paid staff of Lenovo or Microsoft

Why is volume of Spotify so much lower than all other apps?

So I've just installed the Spotify app on my Sony z3 and the volume is so much lower than all the other audio out puts.. I have no issue listening to audio normally via the normal music player but with Spotify I have to put volume on max and muck about with equaliser... I'm pretty disappointed about this and if there is no solution I doubt I'll continue beyond the trial as is not fit for purpose as it is.. And help is appreciated.

Yeah it also gives the illusion of crappy sound because you can't hear everything. People think it's muffled because it can't play as loud. I even analyzed the audio to see how it compared to other services by normalizing the audio. Everything sounded the same but at the regular volume it sounds muffled. I really wish they would raise the default volume.

Database much larger than expected when using secondary databases

Hi Guys,
When I load data into my database it is much larger than I expect it to be when I turn on secondary indexes. I am using the Base API.
I am persisting (using TupleBindings) the following data type:
A Key of size ~ *80 Bytes*
A Value consisting of 4 longs ~ 4*8= *32 Bytes*
I am persisting ~ *280k* of such records
I therefore expect ballpark 280k * (80+32) Bytes ~ *31M* of data to be persisted. I actually see ~ *40M* - which is fine.
Now, when I add 4 secondary database indexes - on the 4 long values - I would expect to see approximately an additional 4 * 32 * 280k Bytes -> ~ *35M*
This would bring the total amount of data to (40M + 35M) ~ *75M*
(although I would expect less given that many of the secondary keys are duplicates)
What I am seeing however is *153M*
Given that no other data is persisted that could account for this, is this what you would expect to see?
Is there any way to account for the extra unexpected 75M of data?
Thanks,
Joel
Edited by: JoelH on 10-Feb-2010 10:59
Edited by: JoelH on 10-Feb-2010 10:59

Hi Joel,
Now, when I add 4 secondary database indexes - on the 4 long values - I would expect to see approximately an additional 4 * 32 * 280k Bytes -> ~ 35MA secondary index consists of a regular JE database containing key-value pairs, where the key of the pair is the secondary key and the value of the pair is the primary key. Your primary key is 80 bytes, so this would be 4 * (4 + 80) * 280k Bytes -> ~ 91M.
The remaining space is taken by per-record overhead for every primary and secondary record, plus the index of keys itself. There are (280k * 5) records total. Duplicates do not take less space.
I assume this is an insert-only test, and therefore the log should contain little obsolete data. To be sure, please run the DbSpace utility.
Does this answer your question?
--mark

How to stop process chain, if it is taking too much time than expected.

Some times if a process chain takes to much time to finish than expected, how I can stop the process chain and execute it again.
Thanks in Advance.
Harman

how I can stop the process chain ??
If the job is running for a long time ,
1)GOTO RSMO and SM37 and check the long running job over there.
2)There you can see the status of the job.
3)If the job is still running you can kill that job
4)delete the failed request from data target.
for more details go to this below link
how to stop process chain if it yellow for long time
how I can execute it again ?
GOto Function module RSPC_API_CHAIN_START
and give u r process chain name there.and execute.

Import volume much lower than the (clean) CD playback

I had a quick search, and apologise if this has been bashed before...
I'm importing a CD (St Germain - Tourist, in case you were interested). When playing back the CD version, and then the ACC ripped track, the volume is far far lower, its infuriating! Changing the bit rate makes no difference.
The CD signal is clean and crisp, there is no reason for itunes to crank it down... is there any way to fix this on the import? Changing the levels in 'get info' afterwards doesn't make much difference, its still far lower than the original.
thanks,
tom

The first things I would do are;
1. Go to iTunes > Preferences > Playback, and disable both Sound Enhancer and Sound Check.
2. Turn off the EQ (accessed by clicking the Equalizer button in the lower right corner of the iTunes window).

Number of Records Loaded for 2LIS_02_HDR much higher than expected

Hi, I just did a setup for 2LIS_02_HDR and in table EKKO has 1.2 million and in bw it looks like it is loading well over 6 million right now. Is this because the HDR collects up detail information for header aggregation? Even with that I don't expect 6 million records.
Any ideas? I'm fairly certain I put in all the right parameters in my setup load! Any way to check?
thanks!

>
Kenneth Murray wrote:
> Hi, I just did a setup for 2LIS_02_HDR and in table EKKO has 1.2 million and in bw it looks like it is loading well over 6 million right now. Is this because the HDR collects up detail information for header aggregation? Even with that I don't expect 6 million records.
>
> Any ideas? I'm fairly certain I put in all the right parameters in my setup load! Any way to check?
>
> thanks!
Hi,
please check following :
1. setup most not be filled repeatdly.... in case if its filled multiple times it wil give u higher no. of records than expected. Kindly check in number of entries in table "MC11VA0HDRSETUP".
2. If records are higher than expected than please delete data for application 02 using tcode LBWG and refill it.
Thanks
Dipika

Lower than expected speeds due to high SNR

Hi, my connection was activated nearly 2 weeks ago.
Current router stats are;
Line state Connected
Connection time 1 day, 14:29:00
Downstream 1,728 Kbps
Upstream 448 Kbps
ADSL settings
VPI/VCI 0/38
Type PPPoA
Modulation ITU-T G.992.1
Latency type Interleaved
Noise margin (Down/Up) 14.9 dB / 19.0 dB
Line attenuation (Down/Up) 52.0 dB / 25.5 dB
Output power (Down/Up) 16.5 dBm / 11.9 dBm
Loss of Framing (Local) 7
Loss of Signal (Local) 75
Loss of Power (Local) 0
FEC Errors (Down/Up) 284970 / 77
CRC Errors (Down/Up) 4093 / N/A
HEC Errors (Down/Up) N/A / 40
Error Seconds (Local) 976
Not really sure what is causing the disconnects although I did one manually to see if sync speed will increase.
I cannot plug into the master socket because the BT line is overhead and comes into the attic which is not easily accessible... don't even know if it has a plug socket!
There are two extensions within the house and I've checked both to see the ring wire was not connected. I had a 2.4Mbs sync last week, could the weather change contribute to the decrease in speed as the bt line runs above ground to the exchange? I'm just grasping whatever straws are available as I don't get why our SNR is so high!

Looks like the system is shifting my SNR automatically, just checked stats
ADSL line status
Connection information
Line state Connected
Connection time 0 days, 0:35:34
Downstream 2,112 Kbps
Upstream 448 Kbps
ADSL settings
VPI/VCI 0/38
Type PPPoA
Modulation ITU-T G.992.1
Latency type Interleaved
Noise margin (Down/Up) 11.4 dB / 20.0 dB
Line attenuation (Down/Up) 52.0 dB / 25.5 dB
Output power (Down/Up) 16.7 dBm / 11.9 dBm
Loss of Framing (Local) 12
Loss of Signal (Local) 78
Loss of Power (Local) 0
FEC Errors (Down/Up) 28849 / 0
CRC Errors (Down/Up) 76 / N/A
HEC Errors (Down/Up) N/A / 0
Error Seconds (Local) 1016
Hope the only way is up now!

Lower than expected speed

Hi
When we signed up to BT a few months ago our estimated speed was 3.5mbps which is what we have been getting, however checking more recently it says we should get 11mbps, however we haven't had any increase in speed.
Modem info:
Modulation: ADSL2 PLUS
Annex Mode: ANNEX_A
Downstream Upstream
SNR Margin: 11.2 5.9 db
Line Attenuation: 51.0 30.2 db
Data Rate: 3755 1062 kbps
Max Rate: 4188 1068 kbps
POWER: 0.0 12.3 dbm
CRC: 4 0
Is there anything we can/should do to try and get a speed closer to the 11.5mbps advertised?
Thanks
Chris

BT BROADBAND AVAILABILITY CHECKER
Telephone Number --- on Exchange BERMONDSEY
Featured ProductsDownstream Line Rate(Mbps)Upstream Line Rate(Mbps)Downstream Range(Mbps)Availability Date
WBC ADSL 2+
Up to 11.5
7 to 16
Available
WBC ADSL 2+ Annex M
Up to 11.5
Up to 1
7 to 16
Available
ADSL Max
Up to 6.5
5.5 to 8
Available
WBC Fixed Rate
2
Available
Fixed Rate
2
Available
Other Offerings
Copper Multicast
Available
Not currently on the test socket, but we have tried it and the speeds were the same.

Verizon DSL speed/latency lower than a month ago

A little over a month ago I upgraded to the faster Verizon DSL with "speeds up to 3mbps." I wasn't expecting 3mbps and was content with the speeds I was getting, which were pretty much twice as fast as what I had before. My Westell 7500 modem gateway reported a speed/latency of around 1780/768 kbps, up/down respectfully. Recently however my download speeds have dropped and the gateway page is showing 1501/445 kbps. I have run Verizon's troubleshoot and reset the modem a few times, but it still remains at 1501. I have tried to reach customer support, but they either just ignore my email, waste my times in chats until they escalate it and then ignore it, provide me with useless information like their security/antivirus suite, or just don't answer their phone. I want to know how I can get my speed back up to what it was a week ago. Would this be considered throttling? I have done every diagnostic at various times of day that I can on my end and it seems clear that this is the ISP capping my service to the bare minimum that my plan states. Shouldn't I expect the service I was receiving when I first signed on a month ago? Otherwise, isn't that a bait-and-switch tactic? I read somewhere here that they run some sort of "optimization" at DSLAM that might lower speeds for a stabler connection. I have not had any problems with the connection being dropped or anything of that manner and the speed it was running had no hiccups. Is there a way I can get that optimization removed?

Since we haven't heard back from you or have received a form submission as requested in your private support case, it appears assistance is no longer required. If you need any future help with your Verizon service, please make a post here on the forums so we can assist.
Anthony_VZ
**If someones post has helped you, please acknowledge their assistance by clicking the red thumbs up button to give them Kudos. If you are the original poster and any response gave you your answer, please mark the post that had the answer as the solution**
Notice: Content posted by Verizon employees is meant to be informational and does not supersede or change the Verizon Forums User Guidelines or Terms or Service, or your Customer Agreement Terms and Conditions or plan

Network Utilization Lower Than Expected

We are imaging systems using PXE and have 8 of them going at the same time. We looked on the server and it had like 200 mbps usage. I would expect it to be much higher (we have 2 - 1 gig nics on the server).
Is there something that throttles this? Any thoughts?

Create this in registry on Your PXE WDS Server:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\SMS\DP\RamDiskTFTPBlockSize
Type Reg_Dword
Value: 16384 Dec (Do not use higher value than this!)
((Recommend that you increase this setting in multiples (4096, 8192, 16384, and so on) and that you not set a value higher than 16384.))
Juke Chou
TechNet Community Support

Lower than expected 1310 bridge performance

Hi All,
We have recently installed an wireless WAN link over 7 km (aproximate 4.5 milles) distance. The towers are sufficent for fresnel and earth bulge and obstacles requirements.
We have used Cisco Aironet 1310 bridges (one configured as root bridge, the other as non-root bridge). The antennas are 24 dBi from Hyperlink, connected by RP-TNC to N pigtails, also provided by Hyperlink. According the Cisco utilities, the antennas has more than enough gain for the distance, climatic and topographic conditions.
The alignement of the antennas was made visually (using binoculars) on one side, on the other with precision instruments.
To select the frequency (the automatic selection works awfuly bad, it establish connection one of three times) we use the Carrier Busy Test on the network interface / Radio 802.11G menu, where we are able to pick the frequency with zero percent (0%) utilization most of the time.
The problems we experiment are the following:
- The latency times are very variable. From 1 ms, to 207 ms, to other values. We have used other wireless equipment with more stable performance.
- There are lost packets frequently, even with the slightest network traffic (2 PC's with terminal service sessions). Supousedly, the link is of 54 Mbps speed, but the quality is very low.
- At the moment, we are losing connection every couple of minutes. After that the non-root configured bridge stays down and the only way to reestablish connection is by reseting the 1310.
- I see that the speed changes every time I refresh the IE utility.
I still havent configured any security, because the awful way the link works.
What could be the reason for such bad performance?
Best Regards,
Igor Sotelo.

Hi All,
I have noticed that when the switches have VLAN configured, the latency is very variable. In this particular case, the switches does not have this configuration. I haven't configured VLAN's on the wireless bridges either.
I will test the link without any switches, it's an good idea. Perhaps there is "something" with the wired network.
Other than that the specifics are:
- I have used Belden RG-6 1530A cable that has even higher grade than the Belden 9077 recommended by the manuals.
- The extension of the cables is around 40 meters (120 foot).
- We have installed another wireless link in the place, that uses the same frequency, but different polarity. Also we try to separate the channels at least 7 frequencies.
- The other system is omnidireccional in nature, and it doesn't have excessive gain.
- On the place where the equipment of both systems coexist, the physical separation between the antennas of the two systems is around 9 foots (3 meters).
The error messages we get are:
- On the root bridge:
Mar 1 00:00:57.238 Information Interface Dot11Radio0, Deauthenticating Station 0017.0ec6.a590 Reason: Previous authentication no longer valid
Mar 1 00:00:57.237 Warning Packet to client 0017.0ec6.a590 reached max retries, removing the client
- On the non-root bridge:
Mar 1 16:19:52.072 Notification Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
Mar 1 16:19:51.072 Error Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
Mar 1 16:19:51.071 Warning Interface Dot11Radio0, Associated To AP Central-2 0017.0ec6.a580 [None]
Mar 1 16:16:00.255 Warning Interface Dot11Radio0, cannot associate: No Response
Mar 1 16:15:50.397 Notification Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to down
Mar 1 16:15:49.398 Error Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to down
Mar 1 16:15:49.397 Warning Interface Dot11Radio0, parent lost: Too many retries
Mar 1 16:14:56.788 Notification Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
Mar 1 16:14:55.788 Error Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
Mar 1 16:14:55.788 Warning Interface Dot11Radio0, Associated To AP Central-2 0017.0ec6.a580 [None]
When we make a reload on any of the bridges the link reestablishes for some time. With this message on the root bridge:
Mar 1 00:00:44.194 Information Interface Dot11Radio0, Station NONROOTNAME 0017.0ec6.a590 Reassociated KEY_MGMT[NONE]
Mar 1 00:00:35.456 Notification Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
I will appreciate any additional help.
Best Regards,
Igor Sotelo.

Solution For Poor/Capped Uploads Lower Than Expect...

I have been trying to find out why my Windows 7 machine performed poorly compared to my Untangle Linux Box and Win2008 Server.
The uploads always seemed capped at 10Mbps or thereabouts. If I fired it through my Untangle Box I could get 18- 20Mbps.
A little more digging around it seemed a OS problem as I tried 2 different routers my ASUS N56U and a Dlink DIR655, and tried 3 different Network Cards.
So if you have a Windows 7 machine I suggest you try this, but of course at your own risk although I doubt whether you will really do much harm.
Anyways try this.
start, run, type REGEDIT and open it, then find this
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\services\AFD\Parameters
create a new dword 32bit string in Parameters and name it "DefaultSendWindow"
Exactly as sated here case sensitive without the quotes
then double click it, choose Decimal and type this number 1640960
exit regedit, reboot pc.
After reboot run speedtest and see the difference.
My speeds are as expected now on all my machines.
BEFORE
AFTER

Why 1640960?
According to this , the formula is (Upload Speed Kbps / 8 ) * 1024 = DefaultSendWindow
which I work out as 2560000 for 20Mbps
If you found this post helpful, please click on the star on the left
If not, I'll try again

BT Infinity - speed much lower than expected

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for