So if squawkbox takes a screenshot of his network details will you back down or go on to claim he's photoshopped it?
Everything must be proven to silly levels and then when you do post evidence beyond doubt you won't see any comment. He'll just be on to the next thread asking for evidence in that:D
No evidence of what network produced those results...... I have never seen anything like that from the 3 network in Glasgow.
My results have been with a Huawei E53 dongle in Renfrewshire within range of the 'Ultrafast' network. Best result over the weekend was just under 4Mbps and worst was 0.8Mbps. Average was probably around 3Mbps which is slower than Vodafone but adequate for the temporary solution I required. Now that the clock is ticking on my 90 day SIM I will make a point of doing a couple of tests in the East End of Glasgow tomorrow and will post the results complete with network identification.
Ok, first of all. No, you do not have an ultrafast device so it doesn't matter if you're in an ultrafast area or not.
Second, why does he have to prove everything. I've never seen you ask for evidence when people post speed test results from O2 or vodafone. There are plenty of other speed test results from MBNL users in other threads which back up the above speed test results.
It seems that all you ever post is anti MBNL posts and just go on about how o2 have the best customer service and thats it. Maybe you need to get a life mate, or at least tell people you work O2 or something.
Also let's not forget that O2 are so blinking good that he's not even with them!!
I found myself agreeing with some of what Wave was saying on a couple of threads a few weeks ago. All undone by this nonsense now. Shame, as I thought he had begun to put all this sort of stuff behind him.
You can even stream BBC iPlayer in HD with the latter, according to what you said a while ago...
I did not say otherwise. I was quite happy with the results for the purpose I was using the service. Just thought it would be good to post a couple of tests from different locations during the day.
BTW: Vodafone using my phone was around 4.5Mpbs at the same time in the 2nd location. Sadly the Android app does not identify the network but I will swap the SIM card in the Hauwei E53 (it's unlocked) and give it a try another day for comparison.
Is anybody else having trouble with the online top-up facility on 3's network? I'm looking just to top up the sim in my ipad, and accessing the 3 site is virtually impossible? It's always slow, but currently it just hangs and won't go through to the payment?
Is anybody else having trouble with the online top-up facility on 3's network? I'm looking just to top up the sim in my ipad, and accessing the 3 site is virtually impossible? It's always slow, but currently it just hangs and won't go through to the payment?
Just out of interest do you really WANT to topup?
I ask because I run my iPad on 3 month/3Gb SIM cards and it is always cheaper to buy a new SIM card at the end of 3 months than to topup (as, being a tablet, I have no difficulty in changing phone number!)
I haven't seen you comment on squarkbox's evidence yet. Or were you just pretending it didn't exist/was photoshopped. :rolleyes:
The speed tests have no evidence of the network provider. The phone status log has. But these two separate pieces of evidence don't prove what was being stated.
My evidence is 100% genuine linked to speedtest's own png with network identification clearly shown as are some others in this thread. When all of the information is clearly visible and the link is to the test site's archive of data there can be no doubt of the validity of the performance claimed. It is possible to view archive results on speedtest and generate an e-mail with the stats which also includes a link to the png with all the relevant data.
The speed tests have no evidence of the network provider. The phone status log has. But these two separate pieces of evidence don't prove what was being stated.
My evidence is 100% genuine linked to speedtest's own png with network identification clearly shown as are some others in this thread. When all of the information is clearly visible and the link is to the test site's archive of data there can be no doubt of the validity of the performance claimed. It is possible to view archive results on speedtest and generate an e-mail with the stats which also includes a link to the png with all the relevant data.
Don't obfuscate your comment, are you claiming that squawkbox has lied and made up his results?
Don't obfuscate your comment, are you claiming that squawkbox has lied and made up his results?
I did not make such a claim. Your post above seems to infer it though by attempting to put words into people's mouths. I have clearly stated that two separate pieces of evidence posted do not provide accurate proof of a result and have suggested a simple solution to validate beyond doubt what was illustrated in the screen captures posted.
I'm sure all who read these threads would be very keen to see conclusive evidence of such performance as they appear to set a new standard for data delivery on a 3G cellular network.
Comments
Everything must be proven to silly levels and then when you do post evidence beyond doubt you won't see any comment. He'll just be on to the next thread asking for evidence in that:D
Ok, first of all. No, you do not have an ultrafast device so it doesn't matter if you're in an ultrafast area or not.
Second, why does he have to prove everything. I've never seen you ask for evidence when people post speed test results from O2 or vodafone. There are plenty of other speed test results from MBNL users in other threads which back up the above speed test results.
It seems that all you ever post is anti MBNL posts and just go on about how o2 have the best customer service and thats it. Maybe you need to get a life mate, or at least tell people you work O2 or something.
I found myself agreeing with some of what Wave was saying on a couple of threads a few weeks ago. All undone by this nonsense now. Shame, as I thought he had begun to put all this sort of stuff behind him.
Of course, I've removed phone number / IMSI / IMEI / IP address.
I've just kept the signal strength and local cell IDs just in case you've got the ability to tri-angulate my location.
http://speedtest.net/result/2568104166.png
http://speedtest.net/result/2568438683.png
You can even stream BBC iPlayer in HD with the latter, according to what you said a while ago...
I did not say otherwise. I was quite happy with the results for the purpose I was using the service. Just thought it would be good to post a couple of tests from different locations during the day.
BTW: Vodafone using my phone was around 4.5Mpbs at the same time in the 2nd location. Sadly the Android app does not identify the network but I will swap the SIM card in the Hauwei E53 (it's unlocked) and give it a try another day for comparison.
http://www.speedtest.net/android/393775648.png
I did a speed test in my area with o2 today. 0.03mbps......
3 however I pulled down over 5mb indoors with a poor signal. I know which prefer!
I ask because I run my iPad on 3 month/3Gb SIM cards and it is always cheaper to buy a new SIM card at the end of 3 months than to topup (as, being a tablet, I have no difficulty in changing phone number!)
My work. 3 gives me a 2 bar 3G signal (not measured speed yet) while b***dy Vodafone give me a 5bar phone signal but NO 3G data at all!
I know which I prefer!
Predictable result and comment with no evidence posted to confirm the test performance.
I haven't seen you comment on squarkbox's evidence yet. Or were you just pretending it didn't exist/was photoshopped. :rolleyes:
Near PC:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2569504216.png
Furthest away point.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2569507195.png
The speed tests have no evidence of the network provider. The phone status log has. But these two separate pieces of evidence don't prove what was being stated.
My evidence is 100% genuine linked to speedtest's own png with network identification clearly shown as are some others in this thread. When all of the information is clearly visible and the link is to the test site's archive of data there can be no doubt of the validity of the performance claimed. It is possible to view archive results on speedtest and generate an e-mail with the stats which also includes a link to the png with all the relevant data.
I did not make such a claim. Your post above seems to infer it though by attempting to put words into people's mouths. I have clearly stated that two separate pieces of evidence posted do not provide accurate proof of a result and have suggested a simple solution to validate beyond doubt what was illustrated in the screen captures posted.
I'm sure all who read these threads would be very keen to see conclusive evidence of such performance as they appear to set a new standard for data delivery on a 3G cellular network.
Of course its predictable since they are the worst performing network in the UK....
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6082/screenshot2013031300220.png
http://www.speedtest.net/android/394034696.png
You will of course attempt to rubbish this in your own odd way though. You just won't see past them will you?
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2569835507.png
Test Date: Mar 14, 2013 7:44:28 AM
Connection Type: Cell
Server: London
Download: 21.03 Mbps
Upload: 3.60 Mbps
Ping: 67 ms
External IP: 92.40.X.X
Internal IP: 10.153.X.X
Latitude: 55.86624
Longitude: -4.22966
A detailed image for this result can be found here:
http://www.speedtest.net/android/395194714.png
Sadly the Android app doesn't do a reverse lookup, but a query on the above IP shows:
inetnum: 92.40.0.0 - 92.40.255.255
netname: H3GUK
descr: Mobile Broadband Service
country: gb
admin-c: HTGK
tech-c: HURa1-RIPE
Remember that my Nexus 4 is a DC - HSDPA handset, so it is really only valid to do comparisons with like for like.
I get the same on any server simply as j only get GPRS or edge here. 3g is non existent.