Sentech beats the Burst

very strange what some of you guys are saying about latency... i play a local fps game and a new player that says he is on iburst gets ave 50 and the frames are about 40-80 pings.. IMO thats just dam fine for gaming (concerning wireless of course :) :)
 
Razer0, I have also noticed that some (oddly enough mostly gamers, which I am not) are reporting way better latency than I have been experiencing, e.g. Online Gaming with a I-Burst.

When you compare the latency results posted in Current IBurst Speeds - 15 Dec 2004, it is clear that not everyone is bedazzled with amazingly low latency, in fact quite the opposite (and latency has been all over the place for 2..3 weeks now, in my case that is).

In the interests of trying to understand what I have been experiencing, I was interested in obtaining the Base station locations that my UTD could be communicating with. It is not exactly easy to figure out what's happening when your traffic could be randomly handed-off to other basestations. I would like to understand whether latency is more affected by the actual bursting nature of iBurst- it does not clearly explain why some have good latency, and others have bad latency.

I am interested in the latency issue as I would like to do some of my own hosting via dyndns. It would be unfortunate if this works out to be slower than if I had simply hosted internationally. A snappy, responsive site is one of the impressions I want visitors to be left with. Luckily, hosting via iBurst is not essential, so I'm not obsessing over it (too much)...

Basically a case of :eek: :confused:
 
Last edited:
I haven't looked at ping times lately, but I have just finished downlaoding an upgrade from itunes. 21.3 MB at and average rate of 14.4KB/sec on a single thread. I am on the 128 package.

Either I have everything to myself or Sentech have given back our speeds as a christmas present.

If thats the case, should I say thankyou, or its about time.
 
I'm still capped at 5k/sec international on Sentech 128kbit :(

Maybe your download was cached?
 
i guess the usage on MW dropped down a little while everyone went away for holidays. That would explain the slightly increased speeds (up to 12Kb/s on 256 - compared to the usual 8K)
 
I think my previous download must have been from a local site.

Tried a few tests today and anything local is averaging above 12KB/sec whereas int. is 5KB/sec.

But anything less than 500KB downloads at fantastic speeds. In excess of 50KB/sec
 
Last edited:
Further to my previous reply, I am now downloading from Apple the ipod mini updater at a speed of 14.5 KB/sec. Wierd. This is not cached on any local site or sentech, as far as I can see. File size is 36.4MB

So why do some sites get good download speeds and others not?
 
Further to my previous reply, I am now downloading from Apple the ipod mini updater at a speed of 14.5 KB/sec. Wierd. This is not cached on any local site or sentech, as far as I can see. File size is 36.4MB

So why do some sites get good download speeds and others not?
Click to expand...

Robone, Can you explain to me how you determine that it is not cached?
 
if you notice sentech have not capped certain sites. I didnt know about apple, but anything you download from Microsft flies down at 14Kb... Macromedia is the same...
It seems to make sense to make Microsoft and major manufacturing sites downloads quicker. Face it the average joe who uses the internet rarely explores outside certain parameters.

Sentech are very good at lying and thats all part of their ploy with their new system... but its fine... if they want to call 6.4Kb broadband thats fine. I just wont let them know how badly their billing system has stuffed up and so far given me free sentech for three months... weird... but perfectly right according to their automated system so I am not complaining.
 
I can't speak for Macromedia, but Microsoft's got a local mirror. When you access microsoft.com it goes to the local site.

Sentech's to stupid to be able to do that ;)
 
ah... that makes more sense... and yes Sentech are stupid...
Then maybe thats what's happening with some of these sites.

ah well... one day there will be an uncapped broadband solution in this country.

until then I never fail in telling people just how farked up sentech really are.
 
I want to get wireless and want 2 know if I should go for myWireles or IBurst
 
Firstly, do you get signal for both sentech and iburst in your area? If yes, read up on the comments in the MyWireless and Iburst forums for both the pros and cons about each connection. If you're a light internet user, check out the 3G options as well

MyWireless General
http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=90

MyWireless Technical
http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=95


iBurst
http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=97

Most of your questions will be answered already, so just search a bit
 
Thanks.
But I am still stuck on the question. Do I want a fast Iburst connection for the first 3gig or a slow sentch unlimited connection?
:confused:
 
iBurst fast? Ask noone to give his views on iburst speeds ;) as for sentech, Im happy with my ave 20K - 28K/sec. Dont forget that once the iburst cap is in place, nearly all traffic will be shaped and capped after the 3GB. A flat 64kbps is a lot slower than my sentech connection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X