MTN Speed Test Results

[kingrob]

Maybe Cape Town is a 'low priority' (let's face it, it's just a tourist spot) and the powerhouse of South Africa, Gauteng, gets preference?

 

[SUPERMAN89]

Thats a real LOL moment, anyone read the Sunday Times?

27 jan- "Ladies and Gents,Fasten your seatBELTS!" vODAcOM

3 fEB- "Merry Christmas South Africa" and the data card got on hats,either mtn is still hung-up still dec,or they upgraded the wrong towers

Good work to you Guys on top,more REAL speeds test should be done, did my own on HSDPA+ and 3G-and if anything Vodacom showing some reason for seatbelts,MTN still having fun

 

[vodacom3g]

Not so. I have a screen shot in the Vodacom speedtest thread of me downloading a file at 310kB/s and others have reported similar findings. http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php?photo=2411

Don't have a screenshot to back it up but I got 3.5Mb/s today running a test to speedtest.net in Jhb (i.e. off the Vodacom network). At the same time speed.vodacom.co.za only showed 2.5Mb/s, so we're checking it out.

Saw rpm sneaking around with a 3.6/7.2 modem today (and a glint in his eye). I'm sure he's up to something, lets see.....

BTW, I'm busy 'testing' a news server (giganews) in the US and are getting around 450KB/s! And it's not on a copper.....

 

[CeeBee]

hi get same thing... different results with speedtest.net and the MTN dashboard software, like one test showing about 1.8mbps on speedtest.net, while the E220's dashboard only showing a max speed of about 1260kbps.
All I can account that to, is that maybe there was a split second 1.8mbps speed, while the dashboard software only records sustained speeds of a bit longer???
It does somehow seem that the speeds are better that before the "3.6mpbs" upgrade, but still nowhere near 3.6mbps, perhaps now we'll at last be getting close(r) to the 1.8mbps thats been 'advertised' on the 1.8Mbps connection. Its fine with me to pay for the 3.6mbps connection, but then u should at least get faster than 1.8!
But the upload still seems to be limited to <64kbps, I've tried several towers with full signal, still only manage 50-55kbps, while on Vodacom sim, easily reach 256+ everytime.
So MTN 3.6mbps capability and "MTN ... upgrading its full 3G network to HSUPA" is still just a rumour, in my experience....

 

[vodacom3g]

hi get same thing... different results with speedtest.net and the MTN dashboard software, like one test showing about 1.8mbps on speedtest.net, while the E220's dashboard only showing a max speed of about 1260kbps.
All I can account that to, is that maybe there was a split second 1.8mbps speed, while the dashboard software only records sustained speeds of a bit longer???
It does somehow seem that the speeds are better that before the "3.6mpbs" upgrade, but still nowhere near 3.6mbps, perhaps now we'll at last be getting close(r) to the 1.8mbps thats been 'advertised' on the 1.8Mbps connection. Its fine with me to pay for the 3.6mbps connection, but then u should at least get faster than 1.8!
But the upload still seems to be limited to <64kbps, I've tried several towers with full signal, still only manage 50-55kbps, while on Vodacom sim, easily reach 256+ everytime.
So MTN 3.6mbps capability and "MTN ... upgrading its full 3G network to HSUPA" is still just a rumour, in my experience....

Remember, a speed test is always calculated as the delta between two points in time, i.e. you download for a certain period of time (1s to minutes) then you divide the data downloaded into that time, you get the AVERAGE throughput for that period.

If the time delta is small, it'll be closer to peak but if it is say 15 minutes you won't see peaks.

Because each product that performs a test will use different deltas and especially because each measurement won't start at the same time (even if the delta is the same), you find that two measuring tools can both be correct, yet provide different results.

The longer the test period, the more the effect will disappear. But over short periods, it can be significant. Especially in reporting peak speed.

 

[fismail]

421 kb/s download
52 kb/s upload
639 ms ping
Server - Cape Town - distance is under 50 miles
Connection is 3G only

Testing done at 08H57 on 08/02/08

E620 datacard.
Ginggs E620 tool -109dbm

Area is Cravenby , nearto Beaconvale Industria (very near to Parow)

 

[1nsane!]

Date 08/02/2008
Time: 1:19 PM
Loacation: MTN innovation centre JHB
Server: JHB
Download: 872kb/s
Upload: 57kb/s
Ping: 269ms

Date 08/02/2008
Time: 1:22 PM
Loacation: MTN innovation centre JHB
Server: CPT
Download: 702kb/s
Upload: 56kb/s
Ping: 309ms

Date 08/02/2008
Time: 1:24 PM
Loacation: MTN innovation centre JHB
Server: NY
Download: 1125kb/s
Upload: 56kb/s
Ping: 392

 

[vodacom3g]

Would it be reasonable to assume that any MTN base-stations that have not been un-fiddled to allow for upload speeds of up to 384kbits/s, would also not have been upgraded for 3.6 or 7.2? - ginggs' test results also show that the base-station giving higher upload speeds [i.e. >64kbits/s] also provided [on average] marginally higher download speeds, but more significantly that latency was lower...

Could be, the sub 1.8 speeds could indicate backhaul constraints.

 

[ginggs]

Would it be reasonable to assume that any MTN base-stations that have not been un-fiddled to allow for upload speeds of up to 384kbits/s, would also not have been upgraded for 3.6 or 7.2? - ginggs' test results also show that the base-station giving higher upload speeds [i.e. >64kbits/s] also provided [on average] marginally higher download speeds, but more significantly that latency was lower...

I think that's a reasonable assumption, something definitely changed in central Cape Town around the middle of December 2007, see this post for details. I think my friend was probably connecting to the Harrington Street tower, but I'll need to confirm this.

Also, there are two numbers I get from the Huawei data cards that the latest E620Tool now displays, which I suspect have something to do with the uplink and downllink capabilities of the towers, and these also seem to have changed lately (on both MTN & Vodacom) see this post for details.

@v3g: You are probably the person to ask, do the towers somehow advertise their capabilities to a connecting device? I don't believe that my E620 knows that changes are afoot. Welcome to the MTN section, BTW!

@CeeBee: The speeds you see in the MTN/E220 Dashboard are averaged over two seconds.

 

[vodacom3g]

I think that's a reasonable assumption, something definitely changed in central Cape Town around the middle of December 2007, see this post for details. I think my friend was probably connecting to the Harrington Street tower, but I'll need to confirm this.

Also, there are two numbers I get from the Huawei data cards that the latest E620Tool now displays, which I suspect have something to do with the uplink and downllink capabilities of the towers, and these also seem to have changed lately (on both MTN & Vodacom) see this post for details.

@v3g: You are probably the person to ask, do the towers somehow advertise their capabilities to a connecting device? I don't believe that my E620 knows that changes are afoot. Welcome to the MTN section, BTW!

@CeeBee: The speeds you see in the MTN/E220 Dashboard are averaged over two seconds.

Tx! Can't stay away from a good discussion!

Remind me on Tuesday, and I'll get the real guru's on the line and they should be able to tell us what those numbers mean. Would make sense to advertise capabilities to the end-device.

 

[Skeptik]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

The only evidence that Vodacom have a 3.6 service was their own speed test. If MTN had a similar test, we could compare apples and apples.

If we had to take averages, I'd declare it a tie.

Looks like you are doing a great job in the testing. Fair and to the point.

Like it!

As I suspected, both networks are deficient in speed. Funny how the reps always find the highest speeds

 

[AirWolf]

Looks like you are doing a great job in the testing. Fair and to the point.

Like it!

As I suspected, both networks are deficient in speed. Funny how the reps always find the highest speeds

But where are the MTN reps?

 

[cmt]

in the lanseria area on sunday evening i got 2115 kb/s download but only 57 kb/s upload using speedtest/

 

[vodacom3g]

But where are the MTN reps?

I suspect it's because 'reps' do the mosts tests.....

 

[CeeBee]

in the lanseria area on sunday evening i got 2115 kb/s download but only 57 kb/s upload using speedtest/

Yeah, in Lanseria, I've seen the fastest connection on MTN anywhere, even before the 'upgrade' to 3.6mbps, used to consistently get >1000kbps downloads
I've been wanting to check speeds now again, to see down and upload.
Guess good speeds are coz the towers at the airport (?) are not so overutilised by the squatters in the area
But clearly still no HSUPA, or even unbanning of >64kbps upload
Damn pity the VC signal is so bad, I could really make use of the faster VC upload speed, as additional internet connection for the company. Been waiting for them to finish the mini VC 'tower/repeater' at our factory roof....
By the way... anybody know if its possible to 'bind' several HSDPA connections, like binding of ADSL connections to get faster speeds??

 

[vodacom3g]

Yeah, in Lanseria, I've seen the fastest connection on MTN anywhere, even before the 'upgrade' to 3.6mbps, used to consistently get >1000kbps downloads
I've been wanting to check speeds now again, to see down and upload.
Guess good speeds are coz the towers at the airport (?) are not so overutilised by the squatters in the area
But clearly still no HSUPA, or even unbanning of >64kbps upload
Damn pity the VC signal is so bad, I could really make use of the faster VC upload speed, as additional internet connection for the company. Been waiting for them to finish the mini VC 'tower/repeater' at our factory roof....
By the way... anybody know if its possible to 'bind' several HSDPA connections, like binding of ADSL connections to get faster speeds??

Binding several modems should be possible but I suspect you'll need some fancy Linux-based system at you end. And it'll probably only work if you have multiple users. But I'm no expert.

If upload is of importance you could look at WiMAX. Got no idea if it will be available in your area soon or how far you'll be from any potential towers, but I'll ask.

As a point of reference, (although way out of distance spec), I get constant 1Mb/s upload, 7Km from the WiMAX tower. Downloads peak at 4Mb/s (international) but that's only because I'm so bloody far from the tower and can't get the really clever coding schemes. If I were any closer (and on a higher speed) I would've downloaded the internet by now.

 

[Skeptik]

Remember, a speed test is always calculated as the delta between two points in time, i.e. you download for a certain period of time (1s to minutes) then you divide the data downloaded into that time, you get the AVERAGE throughput for that period.

If the time delta is small, it'll be closer to peak but if it is say 15 minutes you won't see peaks.

Because each product that performs a test will use different deltas and especially because each measurement won't start at the same time (even if the delta is the same), you find that two measuring tools can both be correct, yet provide different results.

The longer the test period, the more the effect will disappear. But over short periods, it can be significant. Especially in reporting peak speed.

Whilst I agree with your methodology, there are a few flaws in your reasoning.

If I connect to MTN or Vodacom and conduct a test for less than a minute and the result shows speeds of less than 200kb/s say, this is clearly not anything approaching 7.2 is it??

It doesn't matter whether I get an average of 600Mb/s or higher after 25 minutes , the speed was low when we checked - and that's what I see as a customer.

We don't really care whether you picked up 3.59999Mb/s with special equipment and aerial attachment standing on the roof of your 4x4 outside Vodacom's best tower at 4AM! That's just irrelevant trollop.

What really counts is what the customer sees, at the time he logs in, for the whole time he is surfing.
{BTW, Britain's OFCOM feels the same way. It's only a matter of time before their way of thinking comes to this country}

 

[vodacom3g]

Whilst I agree with your methodology, there are a few flaws in your reasoning.

If I connect to MTN or Vodacom and conduct a test for less than a minute and the result shows speeds of less than 200kb/s say, this is clearly not anything approaching 7.2 is it??

It doesn't matter whether I get an average of 600Mb/s or higher after 25 minutes , the speed was low when we checked - and that's what I see as a customer.

We don't really care whether you picked up 3.59999Mb/s with special equipment and aerial attachment standing on the roof of your 4x4 outside Vodacom's best tower at 4AM! That's just irrelevant trollop.

What really counts is what the customer sees, at the time he logs in, for the whole time he is surfing.
{BTW, Britain's OFCOM feels the same way. It's only a matter of time before their way of thinking comes to this country}

To be honest, I don't think you even remotely understood what I posted. I was talking about the mathematics of doing speed measurements as a subject, irrespective of who does the testing and specifically answering CeeBee's question.

That 'whoosh' sound you heard was the answer going straight over your head.....

 

[Skeptik]

To be honest, I don't think you even remotely understood what I posted. I was talking about the mathematics of doing speed measurements as a subject, irrespective of who does the testing and specifically answering CeeBee's question.

That 'whoosh' sound you heard was the answer going straight over your head.....

I understood perfectly, though for what purpose are you testing?
You are trying to see what speeds customers are getting --- not so? Then let the customers tell you .... certainly they NEVER get the speeds advertised by the network(s). That is where we diverge. You will find most of us have no interest in whether we needed to test for 10 minutes and divide the results to get an average.

If you like you can post a test 'how to' after this and ask your customers to do it. However you risk them finding out they're being duped by claims of 3.6.

[I've noticed the strength of rudeness of your replies is directly proportional to the accuracy of my posts. That woosh sound might just be your house going up in flames (joke).]

 

[SFW007]

Whilst I agree with your methodology, there are a few flaws in your reasoning.

If I connect to MTN or Vodacom and conduct a test for less than a minute and the result shows speeds of less than 200kb/s say, this is clearly not anything approaching 7.2 is it??

It doesn't matter whether I get an average of 600Mb/s or higher after 25 minutes , the speed was low when we checked - and that's what I see as a customer.

We don't really care whether you picked up 3.59999Mb/s with special equipment and aerial attachment standing on the roof of your 4x4 outside Vodacom's best tower at 4AM! That's just irrelevant trollop.

What really counts is what the customer sees, at the time he logs in, for the whole time he is surfing.
{BTW, Britain's OFCOM feels the same way. It's only a matter of time before their way of thinking comes to this country}

if their way of thinking reaches S.A we will all have 25meg lines running into our home