Applied for the 497 plan even thought mtnl didnt have it in their system. Had left a written application with them and was told it would happen sometime. But by when, even they didnt know. I was hoping mtnl wouldnt be prudent enough to manually reset speeds once download limit was breached. 2-3 days back my down-up link was bumped upto 2048/1024. Enjoyed about 240KBps through the night. Next day speeds would not go above 25KBps. Speedtest constanly confirmed 0.3Mbps even though downlink was still at 2048. Got a call from mtnl later during the day about my plan change request. The said it would be active from 1st Apr. Speeds were horrible yesterday as well. But post midnight(1st Apr) dowloads resumed to 200+KBps. So I guess their new system is in place where they will modulate speeds without having to change the downlink speeds. Have another friend who had been enjoyin 2Mbps speeds for over a year even though he had applied for a 320 unlimited plan. His speed is capped at 0.3mbps now while downlinks continue to be 2048.And a new 599 connection at my office constantly confirms 0.54 mbps on speedtest even though downlink is 2048.I guess now that mtnl has upgraded its technology more FUP plans could well be on their way. While we cheered mtnl for having a FUP-free attitude, I guess it was because they were unable to implement it till now.
MTNL bill cap plan speed regulation
- Thread starter emptymt
- Start date
- Replies 8
- Views 2,002
I still dont think that FUP is on the way. I think, this was just to make sure that noone gets speed more than what is given in plan. Mere shift is speed control process, which will also allow them to have BILLCAP based plan.
---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------
i do not think downlink has anything to do with speeds you are allotted. of course the number has to be higher.
on my connection the downlink is set to 6mbps. simply because i have an iptv connection on it.
in case of MTNL, it was the case. Earlier MTNL had different method of speed control now they have different one.
Earlier it was DSL port based speed control, so if they forget to downgrade ur sync speed (if u have lower plan) then u can enjoy high speeds by getting a low plan!
but now speed is controlled by session instead of sync rate (similar to airtel)
---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------
i do not think downlink has anything to do with speeds you are allotted. of course the number has to be higher.
on my connection the downlink is set to 6mbps. simply because i have an iptv connection on it.
in case of MTNL, it was the case. Earlier MTNL had different method of speed control now they have different one.
Earlier it was DSL port based speed control, so if they forget to downgrade ur sync speed (if u have lower plan) then u can enjoy high speeds by getting a low plan!
but now speed is controlled by session instead of sync rate (similar to airtel)
...The 599 (unlimited) plan is 512kbit/s. You're getting that much, so what are you worried about?
I know my speeds are fine and am not worried about that aspect.
The point I was trying to make is that mtnl speeds are no longer co-related to the downlink speeds set. They are now session based as amish pointed out above. And this allows them to easily implement FUP's across the board (something which was next to impossible with their earlier method). And that is what is worrying me.
I know my speeds are fine and am not worried about that aspect.
The point I was trying to make is that mtnl speeds are no longer co-related to the downlink speeds set. They are now session based as amish pointed out above. And this allows them to easily implement FUP's across the board (something which was next to impossible with their earlier method). And that is what is worrying me.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
I know my speeds are fine and am not worried about that aspect.
The point I was trying to make is that mtnl speeds are no longer co-related to the downlink speeds set. They are now session based as amish pointed out above. And this allows them to easily implement FUP's across the board (something which was next to impossible with their earlier method). And that is what is worrying me.
They're not supposed to be associated, since you're on a speed-based plan. This would be important only if they were selling data and didn't restrict their speeds (like in NZ and Australia). My line in NZ is currently synched at 17286/1043 kbit/s (16.88mbit/s) - my typical speedtest result to Auckland is about 15-15.5mbit/s, which seems about right, but if I was only getting 0.54mbit/s or 2mbit/s or something, then I'd be worried because my speed is not supposed to be restricted.
Although on some ISPs you can opt for plans which drop the speed to 64kbit/s after you've hit the FUP... see, you guys in India don't have it so bad with 256kbit/s!!
The point I was trying to make is that mtnl speeds are no longer co-related to the downlink speeds set. They are now session based as amish pointed out above. And this allows them to easily implement FUP's across the board (something which was next to impossible with their earlier method). And that is what is worrying me.
They're not supposed to be associated, since you're on a speed-based plan. This would be important only if they were selling data and didn't restrict their speeds (like in NZ and Australia). My line in NZ is currently synched at 17286/1043 kbit/s (16.88mbit/s) - my typical speedtest result to Auckland is about 15-15.5mbit/s, which seems about right, but if I was only getting 0.54mbit/s or 2mbit/s or something, then I'd be worried because my speed is not supposed to be restricted.
Although on some ISPs you can opt for plans which drop the speed to 64kbit/s after you've hit the FUP... see, you guys in India don't have it so bad with 256kbit/s!!
...The 599 (unlimited) plan is 512kbit/s. You're getting that much, so what are you worried about?
I think he was just making a statement of fact based on observation. The way I read it, he wasn't complaining.
Edit: Oh sorry. Seems like OP already clarified that.
I think he was just making a statement of fact based on observation. The way I read it, he wasn't complaining.
Edit: Oh sorry. Seems like OP already clarified that.
