A work colleague wants to start using voip over her cable broadband and
eventualy cancel her BT line rental.
I use voip.co.uk myself but as they are not currently taking residential
customers we are looking for other recommendations. Sipgate is not an
option as she will need to be able to port her BT number over once the
account is up and running.
Thoughts and recommendations would be most welcome.
"BC" <bacillus.cereus@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RGOIj.899$yD2.205@text.news.virginmedia.com
: A work colleague wants to start using voip over her cable
: broadband and eventualy cancel her BT line rental.
:
: I use voip.co.uk myself but as they are not currently
: taking residential customers we are looking for other
: recommendations. Sipgate is not an option as she will
: need to be able to port her BT number over once the
: account is up and running.
:
: Thoughts and recommendations would be most welcome.
Is it absolutely necessary to port the BT number..? I've changed numbers a
few times over the years and yes, it can be a pain, but people eventually
get used to the new one.
Gradwell accept ported numbers, but their residential single line service
is £4.00+VAT per month though (£8.50 per month for the unlimited package),
whereas Sipgate is free. They are very reliable though and MD Peter
Gradwell posts here on occasion.
BC wrote:
> A work colleague wants to start using voip over her cable broadband and
> eventualy cancel her BT line rental.
>
> I use voip.co.uk myself but as they are not currently taking residential
> customers we are looking for other recommendations. Sipgate is not an
> option as she will need to be able to port her BT number over once the
> account is up and running.
>
> Thoughts and recommendations would be most welcome.
speaking from personal experience, if she is planning on using virgin
cable connection I would advise against canceling BT line as it will
cost £100 to get it re-connected when she finds Virgin next to useless.
Others have used and I'm sure still use cable for voip without problem,
I ended up scrapping cable completely in favour of ADSL/BT as cable is
still on the slippery slope to oblivion where only the customer gets
completely shafted.
Sipgate for free incoming number and one of the betamax companies for
outgoing.
I only get around 1.5Mbps on adsl at home and even that is better for
voip than the rubbish virgin were claiming as a 10Mbps cable connection.
Cable is dead in the UK.
Long-Live ADSL and 21CN (or whatever it's called)
As others have said, changing numbers is no problem at all, I changed
the business phone number to an 0845 number provided by voipfone.co.uk
Keeping the BT line means anyone that takes a while to get the new
number can be dumped to an answerphone with a message giving the new
voip number.
"Pet - www.GymRatZ.co.uk" <0845-86-86-888@Cheapest-Prices.ever> wrote in
message news:ft0t2e$ge9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> BC wrote:
>> A work colleague wants to start using voip over her cable broadband
>> and eventualy cancel her BT line rental.
>>
>> I use voip.co.uk myself but as they are not currently taking
>> residential customers we are looking for other recommendations.
>> Sipgate is not an option as she will need to be able to port her BT
>> number over once the account is up and running.
>>
>> Thoughts and recommendations would be most welcome.
>
> speaking from personal experience, if she is planning on using virgin
> cable connection I would advise against canceling BT line as it will
> cost £100 to get it re-connected when she finds Virgin next to
> useless.
>
> Others have used and I'm sure still use cable for voip without
> problem, I ended up scrapping cable completely in favour of ADSL/BT as
> cable is still on the slippery slope to oblivion where only the
> customer gets completely shafted.
>
> Sipgate for free incoming number and one of the betamax companies for
> outgoing.
>
> I only get around 1.5Mbps on adsl at home and even that is better for
> voip than the rubbish virgin were claiming as a 10Mbps cable
> connection.
>
> Cable is dead in the UK.
> Long-Live ADSL and 21CN (or whatever it's called)
>
> As others have said, changing numbers is no problem at all, I changed
> the business phone number to an 0845 number provided by voipfone.co.uk
> Keeping the BT line means anyone that takes a while to get the new
> number can be dumped to an answerphone with a message giving the new
> voip number.
>
> Other opinions may vary of course.
>
> Cheers
> Pete
Speak for yourself sunshine, but don't castigate cable across the
country.
Virgin - as was largely NTL - got to where it is by taking over other
cable companies, and not all cable structures were as good as others.
Here I pay for 4Mb and get 4Mb (varies between 3967Kb and 4136Kb) and
rarely have an outage - perhaps three or four in over 6 years.
You don't, incidently, have to have TV and/or phone to have broadband on
cable - it is available stand-alone, as I have here.
>A work colleague wants to start using voip over her cable broadband and
>eventualy cancel her BT line rental.
>
> I use voip.co.uk myself but as they are not currently taking residential
> customers we are looking for other recommendations. Sipgate is not an
> option as she will need to be able to port her BT number over once the
> account is up and running.
>
> Thoughts and recommendations would be most welcome.
I am not going to comment about BT line or not... althought I still believe
that basic safety reckon you should keep at least 1 phone line with a corded
phone per house... as this is probably the only working communication device
you will have if you need emergency during a local power cut... or is that
me not trusting VoIP enough to make the jump....
Anyway, I have tried the following:
- voipfone.co.uk (but they intend to cut the line if they detect no activity
for 2 minutes)
- voiptalk.co.uk (DTMF/keytone not always correctly detected by remote
system...)
They both give you a 056 number for free.... local number are charged...
- voipcheap.com: you get charged for a call-in number (never tried this
yet). dunno either about call quality.
I still believe voip.co.uk is the best one out there.... for these who got
in early enough... not sure what will happen with them in the near future...
it is all very quiet at their end... voipfone is good line quality, probebly
even better that voip.co.uk, but them cutting the line after 2 minutes of
silence is not acceptable for me.
Woody wrote:
> "Pet - www.GymRatZ.co.uk" <0845-86-86-888@Cheapest-Prices.ever> wrote in
> message news:ft0t2e$ge9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> BC wrote:
>>> A work colleague wants to start using voip over her cable broadband
>>> and eventualy cancel her BT line rental.
>>>
>>> I use voip.co.uk myself but as they are not currently taking
>>> residential customers we are looking for other recommendations.
>>> Sipgate is not an option as she will need to be able to port her BT
>>> number over once the account is up and running.
>>>
>>> Thoughts and recommendations would be most welcome.
>> speaking from personal experience, if she is planning on using virgin
>> cable connection I would advise against canceling BT line as it will
>> cost £100 to get it re-connected when she finds Virgin next to
>> useless.
>>
>> Others have used and I'm sure still use cable for voip without
>> problem, I ended up scrapping cable completely in favour of ADSL/BT as
>> cable is still on the slippery slope to oblivion where only the
>> customer gets completely shafted.
>>
>> Sipgate for free incoming number and one of the betamax companies for
>> outgoing.
>>
>> I only get around 1.5Mbps on adsl at home and even that is better for
>> voip than the rubbish virgin were claiming as a 10Mbps cable
>> connection.
>>
>> Cable is dead in the UK.
>> Long-Live ADSL and 21CN (or whatever it's called)
>>
>> As others have said, changing numbers is no problem at all, I changed
>> the business phone number to an 0845 number provided by voipfone.co.uk
>> Keeping the BT line means anyone that takes a while to get the new
>> number can be dumped to an answerphone with a message giving the new
>> voip number.
>>
>> Other opinions may vary of course.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Pete
>
>
>
> Speak for yourself sunshine, but don't castigate cable across the
> country.
>
> Virgin - as was largely NTL - got to where it is by taking over other
> cable companies, and not all cable structures were as good as others.
> Here I pay for 4Mb and get 4Mb (varies between 3967Kb and 4136Kb) and
> rarely have an outage - perhaps three or four in over 6 years.
>
> You don't, incidently, have to have TV and/or phone to have broadband on
> cable - it is available stand-alone, as I have here.
>
>
I tried VM cable the 20 Mb product. In the evening and weekends the per
connection speed was nearly always slower than my 4 Mb adsl account.
Often it would run at about 1 Mb per connection.
The Voip quality was always worse than ADSL and even when the line was
working at 20 Mb it still couldn't stream some US video sites that my
ADSL line could handle without trouble.
If you want to do a lot of large multithread/multiconnection downloads
VM was good.
> I tried VM cable the 20 Mb product. In the evening and weekends the per
> connection speed was nearly always slower than my 4 Mb adsl account.
> Often it would run at about 1 Mb per connection.
I was forever getting network drop-out initially presented its self as
occasional browser failure, but voip was un-usable and kept getting worse.
> The Voip quality was always worse than ADSL and even when the line was
> working at 20 Mb it still couldn't stream some US video sites that my
> ADSL line could handle without trouble.
Could just have been the network segment or UBR or whatever the
technical name is, but my dad who is about 12 miles away found his cable
connection was suffering the same problems.
He also dumped virgin and took up a 2Mbps ADSL with uk-online (with whom
I have 2 ADSL accounts)and has been very pleased. Not got him on voip as
he took up a £7 for unlimited free calls offer from BT.
Either way he's saving a fortune each month.
> If you want to do a lot of large multithread/multiconnection downloads
> VM was good.
Yes, the binary news server was good ;¬)
But the abuse by VM of the term "up to 20Mb" was criminal.
Still I'm glad to be shot, and my 3 x ADSL connections have been as
stable as my cable was when it was Telewest.
> Yes, the binary news server was good ;¬)
> But the abuse by VM of the term "up to 20Mb" was criminal.
>
Mine genuinely would work at 20Mb for much of the day especially 9am to
11am. However in the evening 4.00pm to 12pm it slowed down.
So I'm pretty certain this slowdown was due to congestion on VM's network.
I did ask VM support about it but didn't get any kind of a rational
response.
It is a shame really because even at £37.00 it wouldn't have been more
expensive than my BT line rental + ISP cost. The upstream speed was much
better than adsl.
If VM were willing to introduce some kind of QoS guarantee or introduced
sensible download limits so they could achieve a good QoS I would
consider trying them again.
To get back to your original question, I have recently moved from a separate
BT line to a VOIP using a PAP2T and my VM 2Meg cable sevice (no TV, just a
cable modem) Porting my BT number was a big consideration for me, so I
opted for Voipfone who charged £20+vat to port then £2 monthly. They're not
the cheapest voip provider out there, but the service has been A1 for me as
yet. Any VOIP is cheap compared to BT - my advice is tell her to go for it!
Chris.
Connections from UK cable providers should *not* be used for VoIP at
present because of:
1. High contention ratios
2. Use of traffic shaping
4. Restrictions in some cases on the use of ports
5. Commercial restrictions (terms & conditions and fair use policies
preventing use of VoIP).
You may find it works, however calls at peak internet times might be a
bit hopeless....
You are much better of getting a DSL line with some form of guarantee
and SLA attached.
"mattpark" <admin@ukvoiptalk.com> wrote in message
news:mattpark.37gdi2@no-mx.ukvoiptalk.com...
>
> Connections from UK cable providers should *not* be used for VoIP at
> present because of:
>
> 1. High contention ratios
> 2. Use of traffic shaping
> 4. Restrictions in some cases on the use of ports
> 5. Commercial restrictions (terms & conditions and fair use policies
> preventing use of VoIP).
>
> You may find it works, however calls at peak internet times might be a
> bit hopeless....
>
> You are much better of getting a DSL line with some form of guarantee
> and SLA attached.
>
>
> --
>
As I said on here a week or so ago, Virgin (as was NTL) got big by
taking over other cable companies, and the install standard and system
structure varied a lot between them.
Get a good area in Virgin - as it is round here - and VOIP works
perfectly well, but in other areas it is not so.
So don't condemn outright - it may be your experience but not that of
others.
mattpark wrote:
> Connections from UK cable providers should *not* be used for VoIP at
> present because of:
There's only VM now so that should be 'cable provider'. Singular.
> 2. Use of traffic shaping
None that I've heard about.
> 4. Restrictions in some cases on the use of ports
None relevant.
> 5. Commercial restrictions (terms & conditions and fair use policies
> preventing use of VoIP).
None for residential use.
> You may find it works, however calls at peak internet times might be a
> bit hopeless....
Maybe. I've prioritised outgoing VoIP traffic on my router and find it
still works fine even when the buggers are STMing me as long as I don't
have any torrents going at the same time.
STM is a stupid idea. VM are just shooting themselves in the foot. I
only know of it's existence from reading VM's support newsgroups. Most
of their customers are probably unaware of the practice and so have the
impression that their VM broadband connection sucks much more than it
actually does. They then complain about this to everyone and bad news
spreads better than good
TheMgt wrote:
> mattpark wrote:
>> Connections from UK cable providers should *not* be used for VoIP at
>> present because of:
>
> There's only VM now so that should be 'cable provider'. Singular.
>
>> 2. Use of traffic shaping
>
> None that I've heard about.
>
>> 4. Restrictions in some cases on the use of ports
>
> None relevant.
>
>> 5. Commercial restrictions (terms & conditions and fair use policies
>> preventing use of VoIP).
>
> None for residential use.
>
>> You may find it works, however calls at peak internet times might be a
>> bit hopeless....
>
> Maybe. I've prioritised outgoing VoIP traffic on my router and find it
> still works fine even when the buggers are STMing me as long as I don't
> have any torrents going at the same time.
> STM is a stupid idea. VM are just shooting themselves in the foot. I
> only know of it's existence from reading VM's support newsgroups. Most
> of their customers are probably unaware of the practice and so have the
> impression that their VM broadband connection sucks much more than it
> actually does. They then complain about this to everyone and bad news
> spreads better than good
>
I'm surprised that a VOIP connection works at all while STM is in place.
I was never under STM. My connection sucked because of congestion. It is
easy to spot STM because the upstream speed drops so significantly.
If you don't approve of STM how do you think VirginMedia should manage
congestion?
> I'm surprised that a VOIP connection works at all while STM is in place.
My upstream gets throttled to 128Kb/s, still enough to carry a 64Kb/s
a-law voice stream.
> I was never under STM. My connection sucked because of congestion.
How do you know? VM's support groups are full of people asking if
they're being STMed. They have to ask, otherwise how would they know
it's not congestion or other network problems?
> It is easy to spot STM because the upstream speed drops so significantly.
Congestion can do that too.
> If you don't approve of STM how do you think VirginMedia should manage
> congestion?
How about not rolling out speed upgrades until they have the network
capacity to support them.
TheMgt wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised that a VOIP connection works at all while STM is in place.
>
> My upstream gets throttled to 128Kb/s, still enough to carry a 64Kb/s
> a-law voice stream.
>
>> I was never under STM. My connection sucked because of congestion.
>
I thought STM used a method that dropped packets. I'm not sure this is
the case and would welcome a technical descriptions of how STM works.
> How do you know? VM's support groups are full of people asking if
> they're being STMed. They have to ask, otherwise how would they know
> it's not congestion or other network problems?
>
If you haven't download much and your upstream is 3 times the STM limit.
It seems like a no-brainer.
>> It is easy to spot STM because the upstream speed drops so significantly.
>
> Congestion can do that too.
>
It can but my experience was that the upstream did not drop anywhere
near as much as the downstream. More to the point it means if it doesn't
drop you know you are not being STMed.
>> If you don't approve of STM how do you think VirginMedia should manage
>> congestion?
>
> How about not rolling out speed upgrades until they have the network
> capacity to support them.
>
I think current costs for ADSL 1Mb/s are about £200 per month. I was
looking at the new BT ADSL provison quoting prices less than this but
still in the £100 region. VM has a different cost structure to BT but
the problem is still the same. Say VM can provide 1Mb/s for £50 a month,
If a substantial proportion of users start using that allocation the
network gets congested.
So if a 20Mb/s user pays £37 a month after profit and admin costs are
taken maybe £25 is left which can finance 1/2 Mb/s. Thus you cannot
profitably run at a contention ratio of < 40:1. The more bandwidth
hungry users get the more likely this figure causes congestion.
VM cannot just add network capacity to fix the problem.
> As I said on here a week or so ago, Virgin (as was NTL) got big by
> taking over other cable companies, and the install standard and system
> structure varied a lot between them.
>
> Get a good area in Virgin - as it is round here - and VOIP works
> perfectly well, but in other areas it is not so.
I disagree.
I was with Telewest from the start and had brilliant service for many
years through 1Mb -> 2Mb -> 4Mb -> through Blueyonder 10Mb even
ntl:telewest merger was fine until VM took over and started sharing main
pipes with ADSL trafic. Cutting costs through cutting spending while
trying to reel in more & more customers so they could find a foolish
investor willing to buy a company that was so far down in the sh1t it
was a hopelss investment...
That's when it went tits-up, that's when voip and even broadband became
crippled.
Nothing to do with the installation of local infrastructure as that was
all un-changed.
The deeper they get into debt, the more they will be throttling back
bandwidth and limiting QOS. Just as long as they allow you to hit 20Mbps
for a few minutes each day when everyone is asleep, the service will
keep getting worse.
I will never go back to cable not now not never.
"www.GymRatZ.co.uk" <discount-fitness-equipment@gym.shop.com> wrote in
message news:ftbg93$nqp$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Woody wrote:
>
>> As I said on here a week or so ago, Virgin (as was NTL) got big by
>> taking over other cable companies, and the install standard and
>> system structure varied a lot between them.
>>
>> Get a good area in Virgin - as it is round here - and VOIP works
>> perfectly well, but in other areas it is not so.
>
> I disagree.
> I was with Telewest from the start and had brilliant service for many
> years through 1Mb -> 2Mb -> 4Mb -> through Blueyonder 10Mb even
> ntl:telewest merger was fine until VM took over and started sharing
> main pipes with ADSL trafic. Cutting costs through cutting spending
> while trying to reel in more & more customers so they could find a
> foolish investor willing to buy a company that was so far down in the
> sh1t it was a hopelss investment...
> That's when it went tits-up, that's when voip and even broadband
> became crippled.
>
> Nothing to do with the installation of local infrastructure as that
> was all un-changed.
>
> The deeper they get into debt, the more they will be throttling back
> bandwidth and limiting QOS. Just as long as they allow you to hit
> 20Mbps for a few minutes each day when everyone is asleep, the service
> will keep getting worse.
> I will never go back to cable not now not never.
>
> Pete
>
Have it your way if you wish, but I have done speed tests regularly over
the last six months at all times of the day and on a 4Mb cable feed I
have never had less than 3.7Mb and often have 4.2Mb - and this is
morning, afternoon, early and late evening, weekends when the weather is
bad, whatever. I can't think that VM either know when I will do a test
or have singled out my line to give special treatment, ergo the
situation must vary according to location.
Any other VM users around the country care to do some speed testing and
comment?
In article <ftbg93$nqp$1@registered.motzarella.org>, www.GymRatZ.co.uk
<discount-fitness-equipment@gym.shop.com> writes
>Woody wrote:
>
>> As I said on here a week or so ago, Virgin (as was NTL) got big by
>> taking over other cable companies, and the install standard and system
>> structure varied a lot between them.
>>
>> Get a good area in Virgin - as it is round here - and VOIP works
>> perfectly well, but in other areas it is not so.
>
>I disagree.
>I was with Telewest from the start and had brilliant service for many
>years through 1Mb -> 2Mb -> 4Mb -> through Blueyonder 10Mb even
>ntl:telewest merger was fine until VM took over and started sharing main
>pipes with ADSL trafic. Cutting costs through cutting spending while
>trying to reel in more & more customers so they could find a foolish
>investor willing to buy a company that was so far down in the sh1t it
>was a hopelss investment...
>That's when it went tits-up, that's when voip and even broadband became
>crippled.
>
>Nothing to do with the installation of local infrastructure as that was
>all un-changed.
>
>The deeper they get into debt, the more they will be throttling back
>bandwidth and limiting QOS. Just as long as they allow you to hit 20Mbps
>for a few minutes each day when everyone is asleep, the service will
>keep getting worse.
>I will never go back to cable not now not never.
>
>Pete
>
Peter that was my experience also, but a month ago external bandwidth
went up to 10Mbps again. VoIP also works nicely all day.
--
Bob Geddes
Woody wrote:
> "www.GymRatZ.co.uk" <discount-fitness-equipment@gym.shop.com> wrote in
> message news:ftbg93$nqp$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Woody wrote:
>>
>>> As I said on here a week or so ago, Virgin (as was NTL) got big by
>>> taking over other cable companies, and the install standard and
>>> system structure varied a lot between them.
>>>
>>> Get a good area in Virgin - as it is round here - and VOIP works
>>> perfectly well, but in other areas it is not so.
>> I disagree.
>> I was with Telewest from the start and had brilliant service for many
>> years through 1Mb -> 2Mb -> 4Mb -> through Blueyonder 10Mb even
>> ntl:telewest merger was fine until VM took over and started sharing
>> main pipes with ADSL trafic. Cutting costs through cutting spending
>> while trying to reel in more & more customers so they could find a
>> foolish investor willing to buy a company that was so far down in the
>> sh1t it was a hopelss investment...
>> That's when it went tits-up, that's when voip and even broadband
>> became crippled.
>>
>> Nothing to do with the installation of local infrastructure as that
>> was all un-changed.
>>
>> The deeper they get into debt, the more they will be throttling back
>> bandwidth and limiting QOS. Just as long as they allow you to hit
>> 20Mbps for a few minutes each day when everyone is asleep, the service
>> will keep getting worse.
>> I will never go back to cable not now not never.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>
>
> Have it your way if you wish, but I have done speed tests regularly over
> the last six months at all times of the day and on a 4Mb cable feed I
> have never had less than 3.7Mb and often have 4.2Mb - and this is
> morning, afternoon, early and late evening, weekends when the weather is
> bad, whatever. I can't think that VM either know when I will do a test
> or have singled out my line to give special treatment, ergo the
> situation must vary according to location.
>
> Any other VM users around the country care to do some speed testing and
> comment?
>
>
When I was with VM they had their own private support newsgroups which
were full of people complaining about the speed.
They also recommended speed tests which were based upon the total
download speed of a number of connections, they claimed this was because
the remote sites were too slow to keep up with VM. However my
observation was that congestion was affecting each connection at the
VirginMedia end, I independently tested this against another ISP. It is
no good being able to have four 1 Mb/s connections if you need a
connection to stream video at 2.5 Mb/s. I did ask VM about this but they
were not open or honest about the problem.
My own personal observation was that a 20Mb/s line would drop down as
low as 1Mb/s every evening.
>> The deeper they get into debt, the more they will be throttling back
>> bandwidth and limiting QOS. Just as long as they allow you to hit 20Mbps
>> for a few minutes each day when everyone is asleep, the service will
>> keep getting worse.
>> I will never go back to cable not now not never.
>>
>> Pete
>>
> Peter that was my experience also, but a month ago external bandwidth
> went up to 10Mbps again. VoIP also works nicely all day.
That is good to here. But when they tie you into a 1 year contract,
given the way it has been in the past, I would want some kind of
guarantee of QoS.
> Peter that was my experience also, but a month ago external bandwidth
> went up to 10Mbps again. VoIP also works nicely all day.
:¬)
Might be to do with the amount of people that have fled once their 12
month contracts expired. There seems to be another wave of advertising
going on round these parts, but I would think if it gets too bad then
they would cut costs once more.
Can't have folks getting what they paid. ;¬)
"Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65u33dF2hhj8aU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> My own personal observation was that a 20Mb/s line would drop down as low
> as 1Mb/s every evening.
Can't say i've ever had any real problems here (West London) in 4 years,
occasional DNS problems and the odd go slow but very rarely......
Only slightly below 20Mbps at 6pm
Date 07/04/08 18:03:57
Speed Down 18407.70 Kbps ( 18 Mbps )
Speed Up 719.77 Kbps ( 0.7 Mbps )
Port 8095
Server speedtest1.adslguide.org.uk
"Paul G" <zdg18@ukgateway.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:OxsKj.3901$yD2.2823@text.news.virginmedia.com ...
> Only slightly below 20Mbps at 6pm
>
> Date 07/04/08 18:03:57
> Speed Down 18407.70 Kbps ( 18 Mbps )
> Speed Up 719.77 Kbps ( 0.7 Mbps )
> Port 8095
> Server speedtest1.adslguide.org.uk
Sorry I forgot to add, voip works flawlesly here unless i'm downloading
torrents....
Paul G wrote:
>
> "Paul G" <zdg18@ukgateway.net.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OxsKj.3901$yD2.2823@text.news.virginmedia.com ...
>> Only slightly below 20Mbps at 6pm
>>
>> Date 07/04/08 18:03:57
>> Speed Down 18407.70 Kbps ( 18 Mbps )
>> Speed Up 719.77 Kbps ( 0.7 Mbps )
>> Port 8095
>> Server speedtest1.adslguide.org.uk
>
I'm not saying VM is bad for all people, just a lot of people.
At this time of the evening I think my best ever from thinkbroadband was
about 8 Mb/s. Average would be about 3 Mb/s.
>
> Sorry I forgot to add, voip works flawlesly here unless i'm downloading
> torrents....
>
I always assumed that type of behaviour was caused by the router rather
than the ISP.
"Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65v52eF2ht015U1@mid.individual.net...
> I always assumed that type of behaviour was caused by the router rather
> than the ISP.
I'm sure it is my router that can't keep up. I've never actually bothered to
try without it though. Most people call me on my mobile rather than the VOIP
line which is mainly used for outgoing calls so I can just stop or throttle
the torrents before i make the call...
Recommendation for residential use 
Linear Mode
