PlusNet's Speed Check Site

[#1]

I wouldn't say that it is the single justification of keeping it up. I do think it may be a factor.
I do see where you're coming from, my suggestion would be to put some investment into the site itself.
Matty

[#2]

@ Townman:  +1
2-1/2 years ago: http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,103382.0.html
Maybe a spurious one but from May 2008: http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,64919.0.html
Though it was working OK in 2007... http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,31770.0.html

[#3]

Quote from: w23

@ Mook, have you tried http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html with your bonded setup?

w23, no I had not, well not until you mentioned it and here are the results.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=141406342042641463790

[#4]

To be fair
When someone searches out a speedchecker etc.
Surely one would expect  to have a decent level of accuracy, with as minimal a tolerance as possible ?
Can CRT please find out
Is the workings of the Speedchecker owned / maintained by PlusNET or outsourced to the likes of Ookla ?

[#5]

It's Plusnet owned.
Whilst it's a really old post, Bob gave a good summary of it here
Matty

[#6]

My thoughts, to help this along since this has been an ongoing issue for a few years
1. Keep the initial page, for the rankings / traffic etc
2. Remove the Speedchecker from the page
3. Replace the Speedchecker with a brief message to say that it has been pulled / moved to the BTWholesale test & link to the BTWholesale test
When PN then has a team available to fix the broken one, then it can be put back on site
Out of more curiosity
Back in March 2012 Bob mentions

Quote from: Bob

<snip> Since then the boxes are no longer under load but there is definitely congestion upstream and we recognise that the speedtester is returning unreliable and misleading results. As far as I've been able to tell, the problem stems from the fact that the platform needs scaling. In its current form it's not capable of handling the traffic. We probably need more boxes and the service needs switching to a higher capacity area of our network. I suspect the bulk of the problem is due to ta bottle neck further upstream rather than an issue with the boxes themselves. <snip>

Is this still thought / suspected to be the same ?

[#7]

I believe so, TORPC.
It's a good suggestion by the way.

[#8]

Just a quick update on this.
I have spoken with the process owner and we actually do have plans for the website.
It's likely to be sitting back whilst we work on other issues first, so my official standpoint would be to refer to TBB in the meantime. No idea of a timescale yet.
Matty

[#9]

Cheers MattyC
lets hope it won't be too much longer