Slow Speeds

Then it seems good signals are affected.

Well it seems we are too close to our towers then, since it seems if you receive a signal around the 50's your speed has now been adjusted downwards to allocate bandwidth to users further a field.
 
who.is.michael said:
Well it seems we are too close to our towers then, since it seems if you receive a signal around the 50's your speed has now been adjusted downwards to allocate bandwidth to users further a field.
Click to expand...

That in itself is the wrong thing for them to do, what they should do is make sure that the towers can give everyone a good speed.
Or charge less for lower speeds as they do with ADSL
 
If the towers can't handle us all at 1mbps now please tell me how can they say they are going to push it to 2mbps?

This just not make any sense to me so please someone explain how they are going to achieve the 2mbps.
 
MrH said:
If the towers can't handle us all at 1mbps now please tell me how can they say they are going to push it to 2mbps?

This just not make any sense to me so please someone explain how they are going to achieve the 2mbps.
Click to expand...

Simple - By upgrading the base stations to 135mb/s. ;)
 
GreatBigMouth said:
Simple - By upgrading the base stations to 135mb/s. ;)
Click to expand...

I thought thats what they were supposed to have been busy with now with this socalled upgrade, but what they meant was downgrade for some of us.:rolleyes:

EDIT: this makes less and less sense since they should rather boost the base stations as mentioned and keep us at 1mbps to allow bandwidth for new users or we'll all end up getting bad speeds.
 
Last edited:
The upgrade is probably far from being finished. I mean, they've only started in Cape Town and still need to do the rest of the country.
 
GreatBigMouth said:
The upgrade is probably far from being finished. I mean, they've only started in Cape Town and still need to do the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

Sorry you are not understanding what I am saying, they were supposed to have upgraded CT so even if they have not done the rest of the country why have some of us that had good speeds dropped to bad speeds, at worst we should have the same as we had before and not worse.
 
MrH said:
at worst we should have the same as we had before and not worse.
Click to expand...

Why can't they simply explain why the speeds are so slow and be honest about it. Two or three days ago on the blog ed said that the cpt problem has been resolved. Either he didn't know the truth or he blatantly lied on a public forum.
 
GBM, Michael made a thread about it yesterday already, looks like you are not reading many of the threads.:rolleyes: :D
 
theone said:
Why can't they simply explain why the speeds are so slow and be honest about it. Two or three days ago on the blog ed said that the cpt problem has been resolved. Either he didn't know the truth or he blatantly lied on a public forum.
Click to expand...

I can't answer that except I do not believe that Ed did not know about the problems still been here in CT, nobody could be that dumb.

Besides even though he does not post in this forum anymore he does read it for sure.:p
 
MrH said:
GBM, Michael made a thread about it yesterday already, looks like you are not reading many of the threads.:rolleyes: :D
Click to expand...

I have a habit of missing some of them. Usually I just scan through the threads, seem to have skipped that one. :rolleyes: :p
 
who.is.michael said:
Sorry, I never corrected that post. I assumed that I was back on a dynamic IP when I noticed that it has changed and did not bother to check it again, however I am still on the same second static IP in the 69 range.

Will correct it now!
Click to expand...

I'm also still on a static IP but now with 67 in that position.
I managed to get it to change by disconnecting with the router but leaving the the modem connected, 5hrs later when I got home and reconnected it had changed from 70 to 67, from that I gather we have semi static IPs' now.:confused:
 
They are going to loose out in Cape Town...

All Vodacom or MTN needs to do is some aggressive marketing in Cape Town; they will take all of iBurst's clients.

My top speed was 50kbps today, which in practical terms renders the internet useless, can’t receive emails and > 5 minutes to load a page.

It’s not a tower issue: 22 = Gardens
3795.980 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -55 Distance 5 Load 1
3806.275 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -56 Distance 5 Load 1
3816.525 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -55 Distance 6 Load 1
3826.775 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -54 Distance 6 Load 1
3837.020 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -57 Distance 6 Load 1
3847.230 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -53 Distance 6 Load 1
3857.520 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -57 Distance 5 Load 1
3867.770 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -52 Distance 5 Load 1
3878.015 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -55 Distance 5 Load 1
3888.265 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -54 Distance 5 Load 1
3898.515 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -57 Distance 6 Load 1
3908.765 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -56 Distance 6 Load 1
3919.010 rfScanGpp 1 Bscc 22 Cost -55 Distance 5 Load 1

Pinging mybroadband.co.za [196.7.147.186] with 1 byte of data:
When connection is idle:
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=64ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=62ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=59ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=63ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=60ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=43ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=61ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=61ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=59ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=61ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=63ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=58ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=46ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=63ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=61ms TTL=248

When downloading:
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=98ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=120ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=106ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=93ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=169ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=125ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=168ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=141ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=170ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=103ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=107ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=123ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=111ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=136ms TTL=248
Reply from 196.7.147.186: bytes=1 time=127ms TTL=248
 
Last edited:
MrH said:
Now GBM don't you try telling me they have upgraded the towers to make things better for us.
Click to expand...

No lol. All I can say is I really hope that when they reach PTA with these "upgrades", they don't screw it up like they did with CT. ;)
 
Still slow here and this semi static IP is making me mad since I can't try a different IP without waiting for some other sucker to get my old IP after I disconnect.

This is something that should be attended to asap and put back the way it used to be.
Those that need a static IP can keep it but I do not either need nor want it the way it is right now.

GBM, if they mess up every area as they have done with CT iburst will have very few customers left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X