|
 EJunky
join:2002-09-28
Hoboken, NJ
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY Ultra was installed today in my apartment in Hoboken, NJ. Install took around 45 minutes, mostly waiting on dispatch to confirm settings. Tech's were friendly (1 installer, 1 guy getting trained). Supposedly I was the first install in their district.
Tech had the Cisco modem connected directly to his laptop, and it reached 98/14 right off the bat.
I've got it plugged into a router (Netgear WNR3500 - gig), so my speed is a little reduced now.
Overall, I'm very happy with the service and it meets my expectations.
Here's my results through the router.
 | |
|
shadowgod
join:2001-12-08
Torrington, CT
 ·Optimum Online
1 edit | Just finished Ultra install here in northwest Connecticut. Took about an hour, he just installed the new Cisco modem and left the old one for OV.
Windows 7, D-Link DIR-655 Router.
Speed tests are orgasmic:
Wow. | |
|
 | 
JDolan
@optonline.net | Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY shadow
did they run a new line from the pole or just split at the voice modem? Your the first that i saw that has ov and ultra | |
|
| | shadowgod
join:2001-12-08
Torrington, CT
·Optimum Online
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY No new line from the pole, no. Most of his time was taken up by talking on the phone to someone trying to get the Ultra speed to "lock in".
He did replace a splitter in the basement so the line into my house was split into two, with one going to the modem and the other to another splitter to three TVs. It wasn't like that when I had Boost, it was just one line in and then split four ways. | |
|
| EJunky
join:2002-09-28
Hoboken, NJ | I just put in an order with Newegg for the D-Link DIR-655 (it's on sale!) to see if I can match your speed with the same router.
Windows 7 here too. | |
|
| EJunky
join:2002-09-28
Hoboken, NJ | I setup the D-Link DIR-655 tonight, and there is a consistent higher speed through it vs. my Linksys WRN3500.
 | |
|
shadowgod
join:2001-12-08
Torrington, CT | Not bad, I'll do more around peak time and also around 3am or so to see how steady the speed is.
 | |
|
shadowgod
join:2001-12-08
Torrington, CT | Did about 20 speed tests right in a row, download speed always between 95-100, upload rock steady at 15. Highest result I got so far:
 | |
|
|
brywalker
@optonline.net | Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY Don't get used to it, shadowgod. As soon as I can stomach throwing $300 into the wind I am in and then Torrington is all done. LOL | |
|
dan2003
@iona.edu
| 
Bronx, NY results |
I
'm using a D-Link DGL-4300 Gaming Router. | |
|
|
EJunky
join:2002-09-28
Hoboken, NJ | Speed test without my router... and it's 7:00 pm, so I should try this again late at night.
 | |
|
|
shadowgod
join:2001-12-08
Torrington, CT | At 8:30pm, speeds still excellent, averaging about 98-99, every once in awhile I'll hit 100:
 | |
|
EJunky
join:2002-09-28
Hoboken, NJ | Speed test again WITH my router.
 | |
|
shadowgod
join:2001-12-08
Torrington, CT | 3am Ultra speed test, looking good!
 | |
|
Ultra
join:2009-05-18
New York, NY
1 edit | Just had my install few minutes ago, everything took about 1 hour and these are my results:
 | |
|
JDolan
@optonline.net | they should change ads to "Speeds up to 105" | |
|
| 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY said by JDolan :
they should change ads to "Speeds up to 105"
No they should not. "Up To" implies two things.
First that they are not going to be able to deliver that speed 100% of the time due to there not being enough capacity to deliver it to everyone 24/7. This covers there a$$ when there are a lot of users competing for the bandwidth. Think of it like using a highway during "Rush Hour". Once you have more cars the speed of the cars goes down due to the lack of room on the highway to allow them to go faster.
Unlike with a Tx line, your bandwidth is shared not dedicated. The available bandwidth that is provided is enough to support X full speed users (or equivalent) at a time. When you have more, the speeds go down (and thus the "Up To" caveat). You provision for the expected average/maximum usage and slow down when this expectation is exceeded. The idea is to be able to handle the load Y% of the time and for the rest of the time to still be able to deliver a set minimum average speed. In the highway example, the normal speed is 55mph and the Rush Hour speed is 25mph.
Second is that the system can provide the stated speed and more (so that when there is a slowdown there is room for lessened speed before it drops below the stated speed). With Standard and Boost the "Up To" is 15Mbs and 30Mbs respectively. What is actually provisioned (ie: The Modem is told it can ask for if it needs it and the network can currently supply) is 16.5Mbs and Uncapped (ie: more than 30Mbs - There is a question of how much more since the theoretical max is 38Mbs but speed tests seem to top off in the 32-34 range). The 103Mbs being reported since only 3 Channels are being Bonded (not the 4 that the Modem and DOCSIS3 can support) means that that you are getting the aforementioned 34Mbs per channel or at least more than 34Mbs on the non-shared 2 Ultra Frequencies and the rest from what is being shared with whatever Boost Users who are on your node and using bandwidth while you are doing your test.
That "unshared frequency" is important since all the measures on Boost right now are Shared Frequency since there is no way of knowing how many Boost users are there and are using the bandwidth. In fact, just having Boost Users on your node even when they are not doing anything uses up bandwidth since each modem is constantly being polled thus reducing the available usable bandwidth. Thus there is a fudge factor in all the Boost Speed Tests since it shows how much of the available bandwidth you are getting out of the available Bandwidth left over by all the other idle Boost User's Modems not out of the theoretical 38Mbs on that frequency. With the Ultra Frequencies, you are, at least for now, the only user and thus can get everything that the frequency is able to deliver.
The 3 vs 4 Channel Bonding issue has to do with the difference between just barely being able to deliver the claimed speed and having much more speed available to be delivered before you drop below the promised speed.
I have yet to see ANY EXPLANATION from CV as to why they are not banding 4 channels instead of copping out with only 3. With 4 channels (even though 1 is the Boost Channel) there is lots of bandwidth to support the 101Mbs since the Ultra user will have minimal need to use the Boost Frequency to make up what the Ultra Frequencies are not delivering. | |
|
| | shadowgod
join:2001-12-08
Torrington, CT
·Optimum Online
1 edit | Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY RARPSL thanks for trying to explain this stuff but I really don't think anyone cares. I have my Ultra and it works fine and I get the speeds advertised, whether they bond together 3 or 4 channels is irrelevant to me. If they are only bonding together 3 channels and it works fine then what's the problem? I'm not expecting to get 101 all the time, so far even during peak times I still get 90+ and that's fine for me.
 | |
|
| | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY said by shadowgod  :RARPSL thanks for trying to explain this stuff but I really don't think anyone cares. I have my Ultra and it works fine and I get the speeds advertised, whether they bond together 3 or 4 channels is irrelevant to me. If they are only bonding together 3 channels and it works fine then what's the problem? I'm not expecting to get 101 all the time, so far even during peak times I still get 90+ and that's fine for me. If you are happy with it, great. All I am trying to do is point out that while you are CURRENTLY able to get near 101 speeds at times, with only 3 Channels there is no extra bandwidth to deliver that speed once there is more than 2 or 3 Ultra users on your node.
All I get is attempts to claim I am wrong without attempting to show how my facts are incorrect or my analysis is in error. I state my reasoning and my assumptions and have not been refuted yet.
I am willing to accept that my per channel speed limit (which I state is based on the shared bandwidth Boost Speeds which have been reported) may be low since there is probably more speed available on the currently non-shared two Ultra Frequencies. If the claimed theoretical 38Mbs speeds are actually being delivered on these two frequencies (for a combined 76Mbs) that means that you need 24Mbs (ie: about 66% of the available bandwidth) to get the 100Mbs that the tier is supposed to be able to deliver. Thus my harping on the 3 vs 4 channel bonding issue since a 3th Ultra Channel (in addition to the Boost Channel) would offer an extra 30-38Mbs buffer of bandwidth. | |
|
| | | |
runyourown
@optonline.net
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY It's become another cv bashing VS cv fanboy thread crap-a-thon...
Hi Rarpsl:
We had this converstation regarding 3 vs 4 channels:
»CV DOCSIS 3 question ... 4 or 8 channel bonding?
Where you stated that with 3 channels it's impossible to achieve 100Mbps. Now seems like you are whistling a different tune. Just maybe the engineer at cv know a little bit more about docsis than you and I put together. You seems to be very knowledgeable regarding ISP operation. As a CCIE/RHCA/CISSP professional; I see what you are trying to convey; however for most user it's just FUD. If I buy something and someone told me it's crap; I would get a offended. It's just human nature.
It's some what uncalled-for for for a Cablevision employee to call you clueless. But we don't know what cv have in the store for us. Maybe it's the guys who build the network and see someone trash his/her work and just couldn't hold back... I am sure they are not in liberty to share alots of the behind the scene voodoos.
This is all speculation on my part:
From my understanding it's pretty easy to enable additional channel for docsis3.0 as long as the frequency are available. As someone who does capacity planning regularly. I will not open the flood gate just because I can. I want to have something in reserve for the what if.
If I see Ultra slow down; I just turn on a new channel.
If VZ started to offer 100Mbps; I can just turn on another channel and sell 120Mbps.
Isn't competition great? | |
|
RARPisCLUELESS
@cablevision.com | THis guy has been spewing his false facts for over a week now. How much more can we take of this phone? He has no facts and speculates on things way behind his ability. It is so frustrating ! | |
|
|
JDolan
@optonline.net
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY said by RARPisCLUELESS :
THis guy has been spewing his false facts for over a week now. How much more can we take of this phone? He has no facts and speculates on things way behind his ability. It is so frustrating !
who even reads Rarps lengthy posts, not me
just ignore him, I do | |
|
| |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY said by JDolan :said by RARPisCLUELESS :
THis guy has been spewing his false facts for over a week now. How much more can we take of this phone? He has no facts and speculates on things way behind his ability. It is so frustrating !
who even reads Rarps lengthy posts, not me just ignore him, I do I post them so that those who want to discuss the issues can see my reasoning. Sometimes it takes more than a 15 second news bite to explain an issue. You seem to feel that actually explaining how a conclusion has been reached is unnecessary and only the conclusion needs to be stated. From your blow off comment, I get the impression that you'd still be attacking or ignoring me if I just posted my conclusions/opinions and did not bother to show how I reached them.
If you feel that only a 4 or 5 line message is needed to show that I am wrong than post such a rebuttal message to attempt to show me how I am wrong. | |
|
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
1 edit | said by RARPisCLUELESS :
THis guy has been spewing his false facts for over a week now. How much more can we take of this phone? He has no facts and speculates on things way behind his ability. It is so frustrating !
How are my facts false?
Are there 3 or 4 Bonded Channels?
Are the DOCUMENTED by Speed Test speed results on Boost topping off at ~32Mbs?
I have already stated that the speeds delivered by the TWO non-shared (for the present since there are probably only one Ultra user on a node) may be able to deliver more bandwidth (even if the claimed ability to deliver 38Mbs is accurate) that is still leaves a 25Mbs gap that needs to be fulfilled by the Boost Channel.
If you want to refute me, do it with some analysis of why I am wrong instead of just attacking me for supposedly being clueless (and calling me a Phone [which I assume is a misspelling of Phoney]).
I also like that you created a special account to hide behind just to attack me and my statements. | |
|
|
EJunky
join:2002-09-28
Hoboken, NJ | Ok, I'm happy now.
 | |
|
| |
| 
Hispanic
join:2000-01-22
Hoboken, NJ
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY EJunky, very impressive. I'm in Hoboken too but I dropped optimum online for FIOS. I couldn't stand the slow speeds during peak hours. But the funny thing is I think virtually everyone in my apartment building jumped ship to FIOS so I probably would have better speeds with optimum online right now.
I'm pretty happy with Fios though. Consistently fast speeds 24/7. I hope they do something to compete with ultra now. Enjoy the ultra. By the way, I have mine setup through a DLINK DGL-4500 Router and it is great. | |
|
| | EJunky
join:2002-09-28
Hoboken, NJ
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY Did you have boost when you were experiencing speed issues with Optimum?
When I first got Optimum 1 year ago when I moved to Hoboken, I had the slow speed issues with their 15/2 standard service. After 1 day of that, I called and upgraded to boost. Never had a slow down after that.
I didn't even realize FIOS had arrived in Hoboken until I received a letter from Verizon the day the installer came for Ultra  | |
|
| | |
| | | mforrest73
Premium
join:2005-12-26
Norwalk, CT | Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY Ludicrous speed...GO! And at 9:30pm too...
 | |
|
jaa
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13 | Let's get back on topic here - please read the original post before posting to this topic. | |
|
| |
| |
ISA2004
@optonline.net | Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY agreed, let'e stick to the topic | |
|
dhjdhj
join:2009-03-10
Mount Kisco, NY
| I'm only seeing about 72Mbs download and about 10Mbs upload. However, it fluctuates widely --- a few minutes ago, I saw 53Mbs download and 4Mbs upload. This is reminiscent of the problems I originally had with Boost where there was sufficient packet lost that phone service was intermittent. I had to cancel Boost which immediately fixed the problem.
Looks like I'm seeing the same kind of problem again with Ultra.
Sigh | |
|
|
jaa
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
2 edits | Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY What did their dedicated Ultra support group say about that - they are supposedly charging the $300 to make sure everything is perfect. From the other posts, I would expect they would have a technician with a supervisor on site getting it resolved.
I suggest you start your own topic on this - many people will be interested to know the issue and outcome. I suggest you start by posting an actual speed test, when you got it installed. and what steps you / CV have taken so far.
And welcome to the dslr forums - I also suggest you register; it only takes a minute and is free. You have come to the right place.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. | |
|
| | dhjdhj
join:2009-03-10
Mount Kisco, NY
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY Huh? I've been a member for ages ---
I didn't really see any point in posting the actual images from speedtest.net, the values I typed in are good enough.
They did give me some numbers to call and I will continue to chase them up...my position is they either make it work at an acceptable speed (e.g. 95% of max, most of the time, that's what I'm paying for, regardless of what Cablevision considers "up to" to mean) or I'll cancel it.
said by jaa :What did their dedicated Ultra support group say about that - they are supposedly charging the $300 to make sure everything is perfect. From the other posts, I would expect they would have a technician with a supervisor on site getting it resolved. I suggest you start your own topic on this - many people will be interested to know the issue and outcome. I suggest you start by posting an actual speed test, when you got it installed. and what steps you / CV have taken so far. And welcome to the dslr forums - I also suggest you register; it only takes a minute and is free. You have come to the right place. | |
|
| | | dhjdhj
join:2009-03-10
Mount Kisco, NY
| Re: Ultra Speed Tests and Installation Reviews ONLY FYI --- one of the special numbers take you to a dedicated Ultra engineering group. They told me that there is already a workorder to replace all the connections at the tap --- apparently the technician yesterday noticed this problem. That's supposed to get addressed today.
At least they're taking it seriously. | |
|
|
| |
| frdrizzt
join:2008-05-03
Farmingville, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by dialsoft :
I consistently get 75/15. Im told im loosing some bandwidth as a result of the static service but I dont know if I believe this. Im curious to see what others think?
Marc
You could always bypass your cisco and connect directly to the modem with a PC via DHCP to the modem to test the speeds just to be sure the connection itself is fine (i.e. that you can't squeeze another 10 mbps out of the connection), but as linked & stated above, the cisco router for static IP will not get you the full speed. I don't know if it caps at around 75 or not though. | |
|
|
|
|
|
·
·
